Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Background: Running shoes are designed to accommodate various arch types to reduce the risk of lower extremity injuries sustained during running. Yet little is known about the biomechanical changes of running in the recommended footwear that may allow for a reduction in injuries.
Purpose: To evaluate the effects of motion control and cushion trainer shoes on running mechanics in low- and high-arched runners.
Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.
Methods: Twenty high-arched and 20 low-arched recreational runners (>10 miles per week) were recruited for the study. Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetics were collected as subjects ran at 3.5 ms-1 ± 5% along a 25-m runway. The motion control shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1122, and the cushioning shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1022. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to determine if low- and high-arched runners responded differently to motion control and cushion trainer shoes.
Results: A significant interaction was observed in the instantaneous loading rate such that the low-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the motion control condition, and the high-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the cushion trainer condition. Significant main effects for shoe were observed for peak positive tibial acceleration, peak-to-peak tibial acceleration, mean loading rate, peak eversion, and eversion excursion.
Conclusion: These results suggest that motion control shoes control rearfoot motion better than do cushion trainer shoes. In addition, cushion trainer shoes attenuate shock better than motion control shoes do. However, with the exception of instantaneous loading rate, these benefits do not differ between arch type.
Clinical Relevance: Running footwear recommendations should be based on an individual's running mechanics. If a mechanical analysis is not available, footwear recommendations can be based empirically on the individual's arch type.
Interaction of Arch Type and Footwear on Running Mechanics
Linear Mode
