Korean Journal of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회지)

Korean Society of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Biomechanical Comparison of Cushioning and Motion Control Shoes During Running

달리기시 쿠션형과 모션컨트롤형 런닝화 착용에 따른 생체역학적 비교

  • Published : 2005.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Excessive pronation and impact force during running are related to various running injuries. To prevent these injuries, three type of running shoes are used, such as cushioning, stability, and motion control. Although there were may studies about the effect of midsole hardness on impact force, no study to investigate biomechanical effect of motion control running shoes. The purpose of this study was to determine biomechanical difference between cushioning and motion control shoes during treadmill running. Specifically, plantar and rearfoot motion, impact force and loading rate, and insole pressure distribution were quantified and compared. Twenty male healthy runners experienced at treadmill running participated in this study. When they ran on treadmill at 3.83 m/s. Kinematic data were collected using a Motion Analysis eight video camera system at 240 Hz. Impact force and pressure distribution data under the heel of right foot were collected with a Pedar pressure insole system with 26 sensors at 360 Hz. Mean value of ten consecutive steps was calculated for kinematics and kinetics. A dependent paired t-test was used to compare the running shoes effect (p=0.05). For most kinematics, motion control running shoes reduced the range of rearfoot motion compared to cushioning shoes. Runners wearing motion control shoe showed less eversion angle during standing less inversion angle at heel strike, and slower eversion velocity. For kinetics, cushioning shoes has the effect to reduce impact on foot obviously. Runners wearing cushioning shoes showed less impact force and loading rate, and less peak insole pressure. For both shoes, there was greater load on the medial part of heel compared to lateral part. For pressure distribution, runners with cushioning shoes showed lower, especially on the medial heel.

Keywords

References

  1. Bates, B. T. (1989) Comment on the influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running, Journal of Biomechanics 22, pp. 963-965. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(89)90081-X
  2. Clement, D. B., Taunton, J. E., Smart, G. W. and McNico, K. L. (1981). A survey of overuse running injury. Physician sports Medicine. 9. pp. 47-58.
  3. Johnston C. A., Taunton J. E., Lloyd-Smith D. R., and McKenzie D. C. (2003). Preventing running injuries. Practical approach for family doctors. Can Fam Physician. 49, pp.1101-1109.
  4. Mann, R. A. & Hagy, J. (1980). Biomechanics of walking, running, and sprinting. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 8, pp. 345-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658000800510
  5. Mayfield, G. (1978). Runner's Knee. In Medicine and sport, 12. 0. Appenzeller and R. Atkinson (Eds.), Karger : Basel, pp. 136-139.
  6. Nigg, B, M. (1986). Biomechanics of running shoes. Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.
  7. Nigg, B. M., Bahlsen, Leuthi, H. M. and Stokes. S. (1987). The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact force in heel-toe running. J. Biomechanics. 20(10). pp. 951-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(87)90324-1
  8. Radin, E. L., Paul, I. L., and Rose, R. M. (1972). Role of mechanical factors in pathogenesis of primary osteoarthritis. The Lancet. 4. pp. 519-521.
  9. Stacoff, A. and Kaelin, Z. (1983). Pronation and sport-shoe design. In: B. M. Nigg & B. A. Kerr(eds), Biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing surfaces. pp. 143- 151. Calgary; University Printing.