LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sinclair, Jonathan Kenneth; Greenhalgh, Andrew; Brooks, Darrell; Edmundson, Christopher James; Hobbs, Sarah Jane (2012)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: musculoskeletal diseases
Barefoot running has experienced a resurgence in footwear biomechanics literature, based on the supposition that it serves to reduce the occurrence of overuse injuries in comparison to conventional shoe models. This consensus has lead footwear manufacturers to develop shoes which aim to mimic the mechanics of barefoot locomotion. \ud This study compared the impact kinetics and 3-D joint angular kinematics observed whilst running: barefoot, in conventional cushioned running shoes and in shoes designed to integrate the perceived benefits of barefoot locomotion. The aim of the current investigation was therefore to determine whether differences in impact kinetics exist between the footwear conditions and whether shoes which aim to simulate barefoot movement patterns can closely mimic the 3-D kinematics of barefoot running.\ud Twelve participants ran at 4.0 m.s-1±5% in each footwear condition. Angular joint kinematics from the hip, knee and ankle in the sagittal, coronal and transverse planes were measured using an eight camera motion analysis system. In addition simultaneous tibial acceleration and ground reaction forces were obtained. Impact parameters and joint kinematics were subsequently compared using repeated measures ANOVAs. \ud The kinematic analysis indicates that in comparison to the conventional and barefoot inspired shoes that running barefoot was associated significantly greater plantar-flexion at footstrike and range of motion to peak dorsiflexion. Furthermore, the kinetic analysis revealed that compared to the conventional footwear impact parameters were significantly greater in the barefoot condition.\ud Therefore this study suggests that barefoot running is associated with impact kinetics linked to an increased risk of overuse injury, when compared to conventional shod running. Furthermore, the mechanics of the shoes which aim to simulate barefoot movement patterns do not appear to closely mimic the kinematics of barefoot locomotion.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 3. De Koning J and Nigg B (1993). Kinematic factors affecting initial peak vertical ground reaction forces in running. In XIVth Congress of the International Symposium of Biomechanics France.
    • 4. De Clerq D, Aerts P and Kunnon M (1994). The mechanical characteristics of the heel pad during foot strike in running: An in vivo cineradiographic study. Journal of Biomechanics, 27, p 1213-1222.
    • 5. De wit B, De Clerq D and Aerts P (2000). Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. Journal of Biomechanics, 33, p 269-279.
    • 6. Dickinson, J.A., Cook, S.D., Leinhardt, T.M. (1985). The measurement of shock waves following heel strike while running. Journal of Biomechanics, 18, p 415-22.
    • 7. Edington CJ, Frederick EC and Cavanagh PR (1990). Rearfoot motion in distance running. In: Cavanagh P.R ed Bimechanics of distance running. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.
    • 8. Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Buchner, A., (1996). G*Power: A general power analysis program. Behaviour Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 28, p 1-11.
    • 9. Griffin JR, Mercer JA and Dufek JS (2007). Kinematic comparison of running barefoot and in the barefoot shoe Free 5.0. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39, S73.
    • 10. Hardin EC, Van Den Bogert AJ and Hamill J (2004). Kinematic adaptations during running: Effects of footwear, surface and duration. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, p 838-844.
    • 11. Hartveld A and Chockalingam N (2003) Shock absorption during jumping barefoot and in shoes. International Journal of Podiatric Biomechanics, 1, p16-20.
    • 12. Lafortune, M. A., Hennig, E. M. 1991. Contribution of angular motion and gravity to tibial acceleration. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, p360-363.
    • 13. Lafortune, M. A., Hennig, E. M. 1992. Cushioning properties of footwear during walking: accelerometer and force platform measurements, Clinical Biomechanics, 7, p181-184.
    • 14. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang'eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature, 463, p531-535.
    • 15. Misevich KW and Cavanagh R (1984). Material aspects of modelling shoe/foot interaction. In: Frederick, E.C. Editor. Sport Shoes and Playing Surfaces. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL, p 1-23.
    • 16. Nigg B (2009). Biomechanical considerations on barefoot movement and barefoot shoe concepts. Footwear Science, 1, 73-79.
    • 17. Robbins SE and Gouw GJ (1991). Athletic footwear: Unsafe due to perceptual illusions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22, p 217-224.
    • 18. Robbins SE, Gouw GJ and Hanna AM (1989). Running related injury prevention through innate impact moderating behaviour, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 21, 130-139.
    • 19. Robbins and Hanna (1987). Running Related Injury Prevention Through barefoot Adaptations, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, p148-156.
    • 20. Shorten MA (2000). Running shoe design: protection and performance pp 159-169 in Marathon Medicine (Ed. D. Tunstall Pedoe) London, Royal Society of Medicine.
    • 21. Sinclair, J., Bottoms, L., Taylor, K. & Greenhalgh, A (2010). Tibial shock measured during the fencing lunge: the influence of footwear. Sports Biomechanics, 9, 65-71.
    • 22. Smith L, Clarke T, Hamill C and Santopierto F (1986). The effect of soft and semi-rigid orthoses upon rearfoot movement in running. Podiatric sports medicine, 76, p 227-233.
    • 23. Squadrone., R, Gallozzi., C (2009). Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 49, p 6-13.
    • 24. Stacoff, A., Kaelin, X., Stussi, E (1991). The effects of shoes on the torsion and rearfoot motion in running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23, p 482-490.
    • 25. Warburton M (2001). Training and performance - barefoot running. Sport science, 5.
    • 26. Willy RW and Davis IMS (2009). Kinematic and Kinetic Comparison of Running in a Neutral Cushioned Shoe and a Minimal Shoe, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41, p 390-391.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article