Article Text

Download PDFPDF
SportsMedUpdate
  1. Martin P Schwellnus
  1. Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Different shoes (running shoes, racing flats and spikes) alter biomechanical variables in runners – differences between the running shoes were greater in male compared with female athletes.

OpenUrlWeb of Science

Background

Distance runners use a variety of shoes during training and competition – these shoes may affect running biomechanics, and therefore the risk of injury.

Research question/s

In distance runners, are there any differences in biomechanical variables (ground reaction forces) between running shoes, racing flats and distance spikes?

Methodology

Subjects: 20 intercollegiate distance runners (males=10, 21.6±3.0 years; females=10, 20.0±1.5 years).

Experimental procedure: All the subjects were assessed and then ran across a force plate (males at 6.7 m/s and females at 5.7 m/s) in each of the three types of shoes (running shoes – RS, racing flats – RF and distance spikes – DS) in a randomised fashion. Only subjects who exhibited a heel strike were included in the data analysis.

Measures of outcome: Differences between shoe types and between genders for peak vertical impact force (BW), loading rate (BW/s), stance time (s), vertical stiffness (BW/m), peak braking force (BW).

Main finding/s

Stance times were shorter and maximum propulsion forces were greater in racing flats compared to running shoes in females.

Conclusion/s

Different shoes (running shoes, racing flats and spikes) alter biomechanical variables in runners – differences between the running shoes were greater in male compared with female athletes.

Evidence-based rating: 7/10

Clinical interest rating: 7/10

Type of study: Randomised, controlled, clinical …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.