Effects of running in minimal, maximal and traditional running shoes: a musculoskeletal simulation exploration using statistical parametric mapping and Bayesian analyses

Abstract

The current study aimed to use a musculoskeletal simulation approach to examine running biomechanics in minimal, maximal and traditional running shoes using a concurrent SPM and Bayesian approach. Thirteen male participants ran over a force platform at 4.0 m/s in minimal maximal and traditional running shoes. Lower extremity joint loading and muscle forces were explored using a musculoskeletal simulation approach. Differences between conditions were examined using statistical parametric mapping (SPM) and Bayesian one-way repeated measures ANOVA. Bayesian analyses showed that traditional running shoes increased vastus intermedius (208.8BWÁms), vastus lateralis (320.2BWÁms) vastus medialis (188.7BWÁms), lateral tibiofemoral (495.9BWÁms) and patellofemoral joint stress (1683.4KPa/BWÁs) integrals compared to minimal running shoes (185.0BWÁms, 281.9BWÁms, 167.2BWÁms, 456.5BWÁms & 1524.9KPa/BWÁs). Furthermore, SPM showed that minimal footwear increased glutaeal, medial tibiofemoral and hip forces during the first 10% of the stance phase and Achilles tendon forces from 20 to 40% stance compared to traditional running shoes, whereas Bayesian analysis showed that minimal footwear increased loading rates (366.9BW/s) compared to maximal and traditional running shoes. (186.5BW/s) and traditional running shoes (161.5BW/s). Finally, SPM also showed that maximal footwear enhanced ankle eversion from 10 to 30% of stance compared to both minimal and traditional running shoes. This study therefore shows that minimal footwear may place runners at increased risk from impact related chronic injuries yet attenuate risk from patellofemoral and lateral tibiofemoral pathologies compared to traditional running shoes. In addition, owing to increases in ankle eversion, maximal running shoes may enhance risk to the aetiology of medial tibial stress syndrome compared to minimal and traditional running shoes.

Quantifying demands on the hamstrings during high‐speed running: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Kinetic metrics relevant to the hamstrings were identified in 88 studies, 10 reporting on hamstring muscle‐based kinetics, and 83 on joint‐based kinetics to which the hamstrings may contribute. Run speeds captured ranged from 4.0 m/s in many included studies ( n = 30), 33,36,44–70 up to 10.0 ± 0.3 m/s 71…”

“…Run speeds captured ranged from 4.0 m/s in many included studies (n = 30), 33,36, up to 10.0 ± 0.3 m/s. 71 Muscle kinetics data were extracted for semitendinosus (ST) (n = 5), 12,46,64,65,72 semimembranosus (SM) (n = 4), 12,64,65,72 biceps femoris (BF) (n = 1), 72 biceps femoris short head (BFsh) (n = 3), 12,64,65 biceps femoris long head (BFlh) (n = 4), 12,46,64,65 and the collective hamstring muscle group (HAMS) (n = 5). [73][74][75][76][77] The metrics extracted were muscle force (n = 8), 12,46,64,65,72,73,76,77 muscle power (n = 2), 12,76 muscle work (n = 4), 12,72,73,76 percentage of muscle simulated maximum (n = 1), 46 and contribution to hip extension/knee flexion internal moment (n = 1) 77 (Appendix S4).…”

The Immediate Biomechanical Effects of a Flat, Flexible School Shoe in Adolescents with Patellofemoral Pain

“…Previous research has reported that walking and running in flat, flexible footwear increase the peak ankle plantarflexor moment and power compared with traditional cushioned shoes (41)(42)(43). It is proposed that this increase in ankle joint kinetics may increase the risk of injury to the ankle plantarflexor musculature and Achilles tendon (42).…”

Effects of Running in Minimal, Maximal and Conventional Footwear on Tibial Stress Fracture Probability: An Examination Using Finite Element and Probabilistic Analyses

“…For inclusion in this investigation, participants were required to complete a minimum of 35 km per week of training and be between the ages of 18 and 40. Using data from our previous work [27] with a mean ± SD difference in peak compressive ankle joint contact force of 0.69 ± 0.76 BW between conditions, it was determined that in order to achieve 80% power (β) for a p-value of 0.05 (α), 15 runners would be required for a within-subjects comparison between footwear. All participants were free from pathology at the time of data collection and provided written informed consent in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.…”

“…The footwear used during this study consisted of New Balance, 1260 v2 (New Balance, Boston, Massachusetts, United States; termed conventional running shoes); Vibram Five-Fingers, ELX (Vibram, Albizzate, Italy; termed minimal); and HOKA OneOne Rapa Nui 2 Tarmac Road (HOKA Goleta, California, United States; termed maximal) (Figure 1a-c). The footwear were scored using the minimalist index of Esculier et al [20], and their details are shown in Using data from our previous work [27] with a mean ± SD difference in peak compressive ankle joint contact force of 0.69 ± 0.76 BW between conditions, it was determined that in order to achieve 80% power (β) for a p-value of 0.05 (α), 15 runners would be required for a within-subjects comparison between footwear. All participants were free from pathology at the time of data collection and provided written informed consent in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.…”