The effects of cross-fit footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running

Sinclair, Jonathan Kenneth; Sant, Benjamin

doi:10.1080/19424280.2016.1268212

Cited by 10 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all cases running barefoot produced higher TA magnitudes than in conventional footwear [69,70,77,84]. Additionally, TA magnitude was lower in conventional shoes, compared to the barefoot, barefoot inspired [77,84] or minimalist [69,70,77] footwear conditions.…”

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The most commonly reported are peak TA-A magnitude, followed by peak TA-R [38,[45][46][47][48][49]. A smaller number of studies have also reported peak positive TA-ML [38] and TA-AP [38,48], as well as time to peak positive [25,32,38,58,[72][73][74][75], TA-A slope [73,74,76,77], TA-A loading rate [72], duration of peak positive [38], peak negative [38,46], duration of negative acceleration [38], and peak positive to peak negative acceleration [78,79] (Table 1). It should be noted, TA-A magnitude is currently the only parameter linked to running injury [29].…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent studies have shown, that despite some shoes demonstrating significantly reduced cushioning properties when mechanically drop tested [112], no difference in peak TA across various conventional thickness EVA footwear conditions were found [81,112] (Table 2). Tibial acceleration measured in conventional shoes has also been compared to measurements taken running barefoot [70,77], in barefoot-inspired [72,77], and minimalist shoes [69,70,77,103]. In all cases running barefoot produced higher TA magnitudes than in conventional footwear [69,70,77,84].…”

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tibial acceleration measured in conventional shoes has also been compared to measurements taken running barefoot [70,77], in barefoot-inspired [72,77], and minimalist shoes [69,70,77,103]. In all cases running barefoot produced higher TA magnitudes than in conventional footwear [69,70,77,84]. Additionally, TA magnitude was lower in conventional shoes, compared to the barefoot, barefoot inspired [77,84] or minimalist [69,70,77] footwear conditions.…”

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines for its use

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Running Footwearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines for its use

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to sensor location, running speed (Sinclair et al, 2013b ; Boey et al, 2017 ; Sheerin et al, 2018 ) and the footwear worn (Sinclair et al, 2013a , b , 2016 ; Sinclair and Sant, 2017 ) are also known to affect impact-related metrics. Running at greater speeds or in minimalist shoes has been consistently associated with increased PPA when measured at the tibia (Sheerin et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Footwear, Running Speed, and Location on the Validity of Two Commercially Available Inertial Measurement Units During Running

Napier

Willy

Hannigan

et al. 2021

Front. Sports Act. Living

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Most running-related injuries are believed to be caused by abrupt changes in training load, compounded by biomechanical movement patterns. Wearable technology has made it possible for runners to quantify biomechanical loads (e.g., peak positive acceleration; PPA) using commercially available inertial measurement units (IMUs). However, few devices have established criterion validity. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of two commercially available IMUs during running. Secondary aims were to determine the effect of footwear, running speed, and IMU location on PPA.Materials and Methods: Healthy runners underwent a biomechanical running analysis on an instrumented treadmill. Participants ran at their preferred speed in three footwear conditions (neutral, minimalist, and maximalist), and at three speeds (preferred, +10%, −10%) in the neutral running shoes. Four IMUs were affixed at the distal tibia (IMeasureU-Tibia), shoelaces (RunScribe and IMeasureU-Shoe), and insole (Plantiga) of the right shoe. Pearson correlations were calculated for average vertical loading rate (AVLR) and PPA at each IMU location.Results: The AVLR had a high positive association with PPA (IMeasureU-Tibia) in the neutral and maximalist (r = 0.70–0.72; p ≤ 0.001) shoes and in all running speed conditions (r = 0.71–0.83; p ≤ 0.001), but low positive association in the minimalist (r = 0.47; p < 0.05) footwear condition. Conversely, the relationship between AVLR and PPA (Plantiga) was high in the minimalist (r = 0.75; p ≤ 0.001) condition and moderate in the neutral (r = 0.50; p < 0.05) and maximalist (r = 0.57; p < 0.01) footwear. The RunScribe metrics demonstrated low to moderate positive associations (r = 0.40–0.62; p < 0.05) with AVLR across most footwear and speed conditions.Discussion: Our findings indicate that the commercially available Plantiga IMU is comparable to a tibia-mounted IMU when acting as a surrogate for AVLR. However, these results vary between different levels of footwear and running speeds. The shoe-mounted RunScribe IMU exhibited slightly lower positive associations with AVLR. In general, the relationship with AVLR improved for the RunScribe sensor at slower speeds and improved for the Plantiga and tibia-mounted IMeasureU sensors at faster speeds.

show abstract

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Running gait assessment has traditionally been performed using subjective observation or expensive laboratory-based objective technologies, such as three-dimensional motion capture or force plates. However, recent developments in wearable devices allow for continuous monitoring and analysis of running mechanics in any environment. Objective measurement of running gait is an important (clinical) tool for injury assessment and provides measures that can be used to enhance performance. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the available literature investigating how wearable technology is being used for running gait analysis in adults. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following scientific databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Information was extracted from each included article regarding the type of study, participants, protocol, wearable device(s), main outcomes/measures, analysis and key findings. Results A total of 131 articles were reviewed: 56 investigated the validity of wearable technology, 22 examined the reliability and 77 focused on applied use. Most studies used inertial measurement units (n = 62) [i.e. a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers in a single unit] or solely accelerometers (n = 40), with one using gyroscopes alone and 31 using pressure sensors. On average, studies used one wearable device to examine running gait. Wearable locations were distributed among the shank, shoe and waist. The mean number of participants was 26 (± 27), with an average age of 28.3 (± 7.0) years. Most studies took place indoors (n = 93), using a treadmill (n = 62), with the main aims seeking to identify running gait outcomes or investigate the effects of injury, fatigue, intrinsic factors (e.g. age, sex, morphology) or footwear on running gait outcomes. Generally, wearables were found to be valid and reliable tools for assessing running gait compared to reference standards. Conclusions This comprehensive review highlighted that most studies that have examined running gait using wearable sensors have done so with young adult recreational runners, using one inertial measurement unit sensor, with participants running on a treadmill and reporting outcomes of ground contact time, stride length, stride frequency and tibial acceleration. Future studies are required to obtain consensus regarding terminology, protocols for testing validity and the reliability of devices and suitability of gait outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration CRD42021235527.

show abstract

The effects of cross-fit footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines for its use

The measurement of tibial acceleration in runners—A review of the factors that can affect tibial acceleration during running and evidence-based guidelines for its use

The Effect of Footwear, Running Speed, and Location on the Validity of Two Commercially Available Inertial Measurement Units During Running

Wearables for Running Gait Analysis: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About