The Influence of Motion Control, Neutral, and Cushioned Running Shoes on Lower Limb Kinematics

in Journal of Applied Biomechanics
View More View Less
  • 1 Edge Hill University
  • 2 University of the West of England
  • 3 University of Brighton
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $88.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $118.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $168.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $224.00

To date there is a paucity of information about how different types of conventional running shoes influence lower limb kinematics. The aim of the study was to determine the influence of motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes upon lower limb kinematics. Twenty-eight active males completed one test session running in standardized motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.9 [0.6] m·s−1). Kinematic data were collected using a VICON motion analysis system with hip, knee, and ankle joint angles calculated. Discrete parameters associated with stance phase kinematics were compared between footwear conditions. Significant (P < .05) differences in knee flexion and internal rotation at toe off, and knee adduction range of motion were reported between footwear conditions. Significant (P < .05) differences in ankle joint dorsiflexion and adduction upon initial contact, peak dorsiflexion, eversion and abduction, and inversion at toe off were reported between footwear conditions. The influence of motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes on joint function dissipates moving proximally, with larger changes reported at the ankle compared with knee and hip joints. Although significant differences were reported between footwear conditions, these changes were of a small magnitude and effect size.

Langley is with Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, United Kingdom. Cramp is with the Centre of Health and Clinical Research, University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom. Morrison is with the School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom.

Langley (Ben.Langley@edgehill.ac.uk) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Nigg BM, Baltich J, Hoerzer S, Enders H. Running shoes and running injuries: mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: ‘preferred movement path’ and ‘comfort filter’. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:12901294. PubMed ID: 26221015 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095054

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    McPoil TG. Athletic footwear: design, performance and selection issues. J Sci Med Sport. 2000;3(3):260267. PubMed ID: 11101265 doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(00)80035-3

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM. Current issues in the design of running and court shoes. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2000;14(3):7281. PubMed ID: 11081243 doi:10.1055/s-2000-7866

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    ASICS. What is pronation, and why does it matter? 2017. http://www.asics.com/gb/en-gb/running-advice/understanding-pronation-find-the-right-shoes-for-you. Accessed November 13 2017.

    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Brooks. Men’s road running shoes. 2017. http://www.brooksrunning.com/en_us/mens-road-running-shoes/. Accessed November 13 2017.

    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Davis IS. The re-emergence of the minimal running shoe. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014;44(10):775784. PubMed ID: 25211531 doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.5521

  • 7.

    Runners World. Choosing a running shoe: the very basics. 2003. https://www.runnersworld.co.uk/gear/shoes/choosing-a-shoe-the-very-basics. Accessed December 18 2018.

    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Nike. What are pronation, overpronation and supination? 2018. https://www.nike.com/help/a/what-is-pronation. Accessed December 18 2018.

    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Asplund CA, Brown DL. The running shoe prescription: fit for performance. Phys Sportsmed. 2005;33(1):1724. PubMed ID: 20086329 doi:10.3810/psm.2005.01.33

  • 10.

    Butler RJ, Hamill J, Davis I. Effect of footwear on high and low arch runners’ mechanics during a prolonged run. Gait Posture. 2007;26(2):219225. PubMed ID: 17055729 doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.09.015

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Cheung RTH, Ng GYF. Efficacy of motion control shoes for reducing excessive rearfoot motion in fatigued runners. Phys Ther Sport. 2007;8(2):7581. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2006.12.002

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Lilley K, Stiles V, Dixon S. The influence of motion control shoes on the running gait of mature and young females. Gait Posture. 2013;37(3):331335. PubMed ID: 23122596 doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.07.026

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Sinclair J, Greenhalgh A, Taylor PJ, Edmundson J, Brooks D, Hobbs SJ. Differences in tibiocalcaneal kinematics measured with skin- and shoe-mounted markers. Hum Mov. 2013;14(1):6469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Stussi E. The movement of the heel within a running shoe. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(6):695701. PubMed ID: 1602942 doi:10.1249/00005768-199206000-00012

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Alcantara RS, Trudeau MB, Rohr ES. Calcaneus range of motion underestimated by markers on running shoe heel. Gait Posture. 2018;63:6872. PubMed ID: 29723650 doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.04.035

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Stacoff A, Reinschmidt C, Nigg BM, et al. Effects of shoe sole construction on skeletal motion during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(2):311319. PubMed ID: 11224823 doi:10.1097/00005768-200102000-00022

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Milani TL, Schnabel G, Hennig EM. Rearfoot motion and pressure distribution patterns during running in shoes with varus and valgus wedges. J Appl Biomech. 1995;11(2):177187. doi:10.1123/jab.11.2.177

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Nigg BM, Morlock M. The influence of lateral heel flare of running shoes on pronation and impact forces. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987;19(3):294302. PubMed ID: 3600244 doi:10.1249/00005768-198706000-00017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Perry SD, Lafortune MA. Influences of inversion/eversion of the foot upon impact loading during locomotion. Clin Biomech. 1995;10(5):253257. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(95)00006-7

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Dierks TA, Manal KT, Hamill J, Davies I. Lower extremity kinematics in runners with patellofemoral pain during a prolonged run. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(4):693700. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181f744f5

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Ferber R, Hreljac A, Kendall KD. Suspected mechanisms in the cause of overuse running injuries: a clinical review. Sports Health. 2009;1:242246. PubMed ID: 23015879 doi:10.1177/1941738109334272

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Noehren B, Davis I, Hamill J. Prospective study of the biomechanical factors associated with iliotibial band syndrome. Clin Biomech. 2007;22(9):951956. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Noehren B, Ohl MB, Sanchez Z, Cunningham T, Lattermann C. Proximal and distal kinematics in female runners with patellofemoral pain. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(4):366371. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.10.005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Rose A, Birch I, Kuisma R. Effect of motion control running shoes compared with neutral shoes on tibial rotation during running. Physiotherapy. 2011;97(3):250255. PubMed ID: 21820544 doi:10.1016/j.physio.2010.08.013

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Hutchison L, Scharfbilig R, Uden H, Bishop C. The effect of footwear and foot orthoses on transverse plane knee motion during running—a pilot study. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(6):748752. PubMed ID: 25543977 doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.007

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Eng J. Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology. 2003;227(2):309313 PubMed ID: 12732691 doi:10.1148/radiol.2272012051

  • 27.

    Lavcanska V, Taylor NF, Schache AG. Familiarization to treadmill running in young unimpaired adults. Hum Mov Sci. 2005;24(4):544557. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2005.08.001

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Riley PO, Dicharry J, Franz J, Croce UD, Wilder RP, Kerrigan DC. A kinematics and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(6):10931100. PubMed ID: 18460996 doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181677530

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Cappozzo A, Catani F, Croce UD, Leardini A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech. 1995;10(4):171178. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(95)91394-T

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Langley B, Cramp M, Morisasu K, Nishiwaki T, Morrison SC. Multi-segmental foot modelling during shod activity: study of running shoe integrity. Footwear Sci. 2015;7:144145. doi:10.1080/19424280.2015.1039074

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Shultz R, Jenkyn TR. Determining the maximum diameter for holes in the shoe without compromising shoe integrity when using a multi-segment foot model. Med Eng Phys. 2012;34(1):118122. PubMed ID: 21890394 doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.06.017

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Fellin RE, Manal K, Davis IS. Comparison of lower extremity kinematic curves during overground and treadmill running. J Appl Biomech. 2010;26(4):407414. PubMed ID: 21245500 doi:10.1123/jab.26.4.407

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Shultz R, Birmingham TB, Jenkyn TR. Differences in neutral foot positions when measured barefoot compared to in shoes with varying stiffnesses. Med Eng Phys. 2011;33(10):13091313. PubMed ID: 21700484 doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.05.009

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Sinclair JK, Greenhalgh A, Brooks D, Edmundson CJ, Hobbs SJ. The influence of barefoot and barefoot-inspired footwear on the kinetics and kinematics of running in comparison to conventional running shoes. Footwear Sci. 2013;5(1):4553. doi:10.1080/19424280.2012.693543

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 4th ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2013.

  • 36.

    Wolf P, List R, Ukelo T, Maiwalk C, Stacoff A. Day-to-day consistency of lower extremity kinematics during walking and running. J Appl Biomech. 2009;25(4):369376. doi:10.1123/jab.25.4.369

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Langley B, Cramp M, Morrison SC. The influence of running shoes on inter-segmental foot kinematics. Footwear Sci. 2018;10(2):8393. doi:10.1080/19424280.2018.1448005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Langley B. The Influence of Running Shoes on the Biomechanics of the Foot and Lower Limb [thesis]. London, UK: University of East London; 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Van Gheluwe B, Tielemans R, Roosen P. The influence of heel counter rigidity on rearfoot motion during running. J Appl Biomech. 1995;11(1):4767. doi:10.1123/jab.11.1.47

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 699 429 19
Full Text Views 92 40 0
PDF Downloads 52 27 0