No abstract

Shoes with decreased traction could be used in sports to reduce the joint moments in the knee and ankle and potentially reduce injury without a loss in performance.

Prior research has shown that footwear can enhance athletic performance. However, public information is not available on what basketball shoe properties should be selected to maximise movement performance. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of basketball shoe mass, outsole traction, and forefoot bending stiffness on sprinting, jumping, and cutting performance. Each of these three basketball shoe properties was systematically varied by ± 20% to produce three shoe conditions of varying mass, three conditions of varying traction, and three conditions of varying bending stiffness. Each shoe was tested by 20 recreational basketball players completing maximal effort sprints, vertical jumps, and a cutting drill. Outsole traction had the largest influence on performance, as the participants performed significantly worse in all tests when traction was decreased by 20% (p < 0.001), and performed significantly better in the cutting drill when traction was increased by 20% (p = 0.005). Forefoot bending stiffness had a moderate effect on sprint and cutting performance (p = 0.013 and p = 0.016 respectively) and shoe mass was found to have no effect on performance. Therefore, choosing a shoe with relatively high outsole traction and forefoot bending stiffness should be prioritised, and less concern should be focused on selecting the lightest shoe.

Previous research has shown that altering forefoot (FF) bending stiffness can enhance running economy; however, the mechanism behind the changes in running economy remains unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between forefoot bending stiffness, running economy, and lower limb kinematics during overground running. Eighteen aerobically fit recreational male athletes performed overground running using a portable metabolic analysis system to measure oxygen consumption in two footwear conditions with different forefoot bending stiffness. Sagittal plane kinematic data of the metatarsophalangeal, ankle, and knee joints were recorded using a high-speed camera. On average, there was no difference in running economy when running in the Stiff shoe ( _ VO 2 D 38.1 § 5.4 mL/kg/min) compared to the Control shoe ( _ VO 2 D 37.7 § 5.8 mL/kg/min, p D 0.11). On an individual basis, 10 athletes (Responders) improved their running economy with increased FF bending stiffness (Δ _ VO 2 D ¡2.9%), while eight athletes (Non-Responders) worsened or did not improve their running economy in a stiff shoe (Δ _ VO 2 D C1.0%). In stiff footwear, Responders experienced kinematic changes at the ankle joint (decreased angular velocity) that likely resulted in decreased energy requirement for muscular contractions due to a presumed shift on their individual forceÀvelocity relationship. The lack of improvement in running economy by the Non-Responders may be attributed to a presumed lack of a shift in the forceÀvelocity relationship of the calf musculature. Instead, Non-Responders experienced kinematic changes (increased ankle plantarflexion during push phase with stiff footwear) that likely hindered their moment-generating capability potentially due to a shift on their individual forceÀlength relationship. These findings represent important progress towards explaining inter-individual changes in running economy with different footwear bending stiffness.

Authors who report ground reaction force (GRF), free moment (FM), and resultant joint moments usually normalize these variables by division normalization. Normalization parameters include body weight (BW), body weight x height (BWH), and body weight x leg length (BWL). The purpose of this study was to explore the appropriateness of division normalization, power curve normalization, and offset normalization on peak GRF, FM, and resultant joint moments. Kinematic and kinetic data were collected on 98 subjects who walked at 1.2 and 1.8 m/s and ran at 3.4 and 4.0 m/s. Linear curves were best fit to the data, and regression analyses performed to test the significance of the correlations. It was found that the relationship between peak force and BW, as well as joint moments and BW, BWH, and BWL, were not always linear. After division normalization, significant correlations were still found. Power curve and offset normalization, however, were effective at normalizing all variables; therefore, when attempting to normalize GRF and joint moments, perhaps nonlinear or offset methods should be implemented.