Shoe cushioning, body mass and running biomechanics as risk factors for running injury: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Could footwear stiffness reduce the development of proinflammatory markers in long-distance runners?

PURPOSE

Strenuous running triggers the coordination of pro- and anti-inflammatory, as well as immunoregulatory cytokines, which are upregulated in response to inflammatory stimulus and thus considered a precursor to overuse injury. The aim of this study was to correlate injury risk to footwear stiffness normalized against each runner's weight, i.e. the midsole's ability to resist deformation in response to the applied force.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experienced runners participated in a 2h 15 min intensity-controlled run, averaging 85% of their threshold heart rate. Venous blood, collected in the field prior to and immediately after the race, was subjected to multi-parameter flow cytometry, to monitor the plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-2, IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα). Footwear stiffness was determined utilizing an automated drop test, recreating footfall pattern, impact speed and weight of each runner. Plasma level increase was analyzed for each cytokine, using one-way ANOVA and the data associated to footwear stiffness through the calculation of Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Only IL-6 levels exhibited a statistical significant increase pre- to post-race, corresponding to F(1,8)=24.0417 with a critical value of 4.4139. The increase in IL-6 levels was also found to produce a strong correlation to footwear stiffness, expressed in a Pearson coefficient of r(8)=0.79 at ρ=0.0063 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The significant increase in pro-inflammatory markers, such as IL-6 which are associated with injury, would suggest that runners using compliant footwear are at lower risk of overuse injury than the ones running on stiffer midsoles.

Running-Related Injury Incidence: Does It Correlate with Kinematic Sub-groups of Runners? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Historically, kinematic measures have been compared across injured and non-injured groups of runners, failing to take into account variability in kinematic patterns that exist independent of injury, and resulting in false positives. Research led by gait patterns and not pre-defined injury status is called for, to better understand running-related injury (RRI) aetiology and within- and between-group variability.

OBJECTIVES

Synthesise evidence for the existence of distinct kinematic sub-groups across a population of injured and healthy runners and assess between-group variability in kinematics, demographics and injury incidence.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic database search: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Embase, OVID, Scopus.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Original, peer-reviewed, research articles, published from database start to August 2022 and limited to English language were searched for quantitative and mixed-methods full-text studies that clustered injured runners according to kinematic variables.

RESULTS

Five studies (n = 690) were included in the review. All studies detected the presence of distinct kinematic sub-groups of runners through cluster analysis. Sub-groups were defined by multiple differences in hip, knee and foot kinematics. Sex, step rate and running speed also varied significantly between groups. Random injury dispersal across sub-groups suggests no strong evidence for an association between kinematic sub-groups and injury type or location.

CONCLUSION

Sub-groups containing homogeneous gait patterns exist across healthy and injured populations of runners. It is likely that a single injury may be represented by multiple movement patterns, and therefore kinematics may not predict injury risk. Research to better understand the underlying causes of kinematic variability, and their associations with RRI, is warranted.

Gait asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables does not increase running-related injury risk in lower limbs: a secondary analysis of a randomised trial including 800+ recreational runners

Objective

To investigate asymmetry in spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in 800+ recreational runners, identify determinants of asymmetry, investigate if asymmetry is related to greater running injury risk and compare spatiotemporal and kinetic variables between the involved and uninvolved limb at baseline in runners having sustained an injury during follow-up.

Methods

836 healthy recreational runners (38.6% women) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed at baseline and followed up for 6 months. From ground reaction force recordings, spatiotemporal and kinetic variables were derived for each lower limb. The Symmetry Index was computed for each variable. Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants of asymmetry. Cox regression analyses investigated the association between asymmetry and injury risk. Analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to compare the involved and uninvolved limbs in runners who had sustained injuries during follow-up.

Results

107 participants reported at least one running-related injury. Leg length discrepancy and fat mass were the most common determinants of asymmetry, but all correlation coefficients were negligible (0.01-0.13) and explained variance was very low (multivariable-adjusted R2<0.01-0.03). Greater asymmetry for flight time and peak breaking force was associated with lower injury risk (HR (95% CI): 0.80 (0.64 to 0.99) and 0.96 (0.93 to 0.98), respectively). No between-limb differences were observed in runners having sustained an injury.

Conclusion

Gait asymmetry was not associated with higher injury risk for investigated spatiotemporal and kinetic variables.

Trial registration number

NCT03115437.

Reference Values and Determinants of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Recreational Runners

Background

Identifying atypical lower limb biomechanics may help prevent the occurrence or recurrence of running-related injuries. No reference values for spatiotemporal or kinetic variables in healthy recreational runners are available in the scientific literature to support clinical management.

Purpose

To (1) present speed- and sex-stratified reference values for spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in healthy adult recreational runners; (2) identify the determinants of these biomechanical variables; and (3) develop reference regression equations that can be used as a guide in a clinical context.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

This study involved 860 healthy recreational runners (age, 19-65 years [38.5% women]) tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes with either hard or soft cushioning. Twelve common spatiotemporal and kinetic variables-including contact time, flight time, duty factor, vertical oscillation, step cadence, step length, vertical impact peak (VIP), time to VIP, vertical average loading rate, vertical stiffness, peak vertical ground-reaction force (GRF), and peak braking force-were derived from GRF recordings. Reference values for each biomechanical variable were calculated using descriptive statistics and stratified by sex and running speed category (≤7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and ≥15 km/h). Correlations and multiple regression analyses were performed to identify potential determinants independently associated with each biomechanical variable and generate reference equations.

Results

The mean running speed was 10.5 ± 1.3 km/h and 9 ± 1.1 km/h in men and women, respectively. While all potential predictors were significantly correlated with many of the 12 biomechanical variables, only running speed showed high correlations (r > 0.7). The adjusted R2 of the multiple regression equations ranged from 0.19 to 0.88.

Conclusion

This study provides reference values and equations that may guide clinicians and researchers in interpreting spatiotemporal and kinetic variables in recreational runners.

Clinical Relevance

The reference values can be used as targets for clinicians working with recreational runners in cases where there is a clinical suspicion of a causal relationship between atypical biomechanics and running-related injury.

Lower impact forces but greater burden for the musculoskeletal system in running shoes with greater cushioning stiffness

In a recent randomised trial investigating running shoe cushioning, injury risk was greater in recreational runners who trained in the shoe version with greater cushioning stiffness (Stiff) compared to those using the Soft version. However, vertical impact peak force (VIPF) was lower in the Stiff version. To investigate further the mechanisms involved in the protective effect of greater cushioning, the present study used an intra-subject design and analysed the differences in running kinematics and kinetics between the Stiff and Soft shoe versions on a subsample of 41 runners from the previous trial. Data were recorded in the two shoe conditions using an instrumented treadmill at 10 km.h^-1. VIPF was confirmed to be lower in the Stiff version compared to the Soft version (1.39 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.25 BW, respectively; p = 0.009, d = 0.42), but not difference was observed in vertical loading rate (p = 0.255 and 0.897 for vertical average and instantaneous loading rate, respectively). Ankle eversion maximal velocity was not different (p = 0.099), but the Stiff version induced greater ankle negative work (-0.55 ± 0.09 vs. -0.52 ± 0.10 J.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.32), maximal ankle negative power (-7.21 ± 1.90 vs. -6.96 ± 1.92 W.kg^-1; p = 0.037, d = 0.13) and maximal hip extension moment (1.25 ± 0.32 vs.1.18 ± 0.30 N.m.kg^-1; p = 0.009, d = 0.22). Our results suggest that the Stiff shoe version is related to increased mechanical burden for the musculoskeletal system, especially around the ankle joint.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437.

The effect of fatigue on the ankle and knee kinematics and kinetics in moderately and highly trained healthy non-rearfoot runners

The aim of this study was to compare selected ankle and knee kinematic and kinetic parameters before and a fter a prolonged exhaustive treadmill run between two groups of non-rearfoot footstrike pattern (NRFP) runners with different training volumes. Twenty-eight habitual NRFP runners were assigned to two groups based on their weekly training volume (Highly-trained (HT)/Moderately-trained (MT)). Participants underwent the VO2max test, and the exhaustive treadmill ran with biomechanical analysis at the beginning and the end. The two-way RMANOVA was used to assess differences between the groups and the phase of the run. A paired t-test was used for post-hoc analysis in case of significant interaction effect. Kinetic results showed significant group effect for ankle plantarflexion moment and hip external rotation moment (end-phase: both greater in MT group). Kinematic results showed significant group×phase interaction for ankle dorsiflexion angle (end-phase: greater in MT group) at initial contact (IC), peak knee flexion angle (end-phase: greater in MT group), and peak ankle eversion angle during the stance phase (end-phase: greater in HT group). Additionally, a group effect was found for knee flexion angle at IC (end-phase: greater in HT group). This study suggests that HT healthy NRFP runners may have less potential for increased biomechanical risk of AT overload during an exhaustive run.

Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults

BACKGROUND

Lower-limb running injuries are common. Running shoes have been proposed as one means of reducing injury risk. However, there is uncertainty as to how effective running shoes are for the prevention of injury. It is also unclear how the effects of different characteristics of running shoes prevent injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of running shoes for preventing lower-limb running injuries in adult runners.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus plus trial registers WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving runners or military personnel in basic training that either compared a) a running shoe with a non-running shoe; b) different types of running shoes (minimalist, neutral/cushioned, motion control, stability, soft midsole, hard midsole); or c) footwear recommended and selected on foot posture versus footwear not recommended and not selected on foot posture for preventing lower-limb running injuries. Our primary outcomes were number of people sustaining a lower-limb running injury and number of lower-limb running injuries. Our secondary outcomes were number of runners who failed to return to running or their previous level of running, runner satisfaction with footwear, adverse events other than musculoskeletal injuries, and number of runners requiring hospital admission or surgery, or both, for musculoskeletal injury or adverse event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The certainty of the included evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials in the analysis which included a total of 11,240 participants, in trials that lasted from 6 to 26 weeks and were carried out in North America, Europe, Australia and South Africa. Most of the evidence was low or very low certainty as it was not possible to blind runners to their allocated running shoe, there was variation in the definition of an injury and characteristics of footwear, and there were too few studies for most comparisons. We did not find any trials that compared running shoes with non-running shoes. Neutral/cushioned versus minimalist (5 studies, 766 participants) Neutral/cushioned shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with minimalist shoes (low-certainty evidence) (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.01). One trial reported that 67% and 92% of runners were satisfied with their neutral/cushioned or minimalist running shoes, respectively (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.12). Another trial reported mean satisfaction scores ranged from 4.0 to 4.3 in the neutral/ cushioned group and 3.6 to 3.9 in the minimalist running shoe group out of a total of 5. Hence neutral/cushioned running shoes may make little or no difference to runner satisfaction with footwear (low-certainty evidence). Motion control versus neutral / cushioned (2 studies, 421 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral / cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.81). Soft midsole versus hard midsole (2 studies, 1095 participants) Soft midsole shoes may make little or no difference to the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with hard midsole shoes (low-certainty of evidence) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Stability versus neutral / cushioned (1 study, 57 participants) It is uncertain whether or not stability shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with neutral/cushioned shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.31). Motion control versus stability (1 study, 56 participants) It is uncertain whether or not motion control shoes reduce the number of runners sustaining a lower-limb running injuries when compared with stability shoes because the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low certainty (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.43 to 8.40). Running shoes prescribed and selected on foot posture (3 studies, 7203 participants) There was no evidence that running shoes prescribed based on static foot posture reduced the number of injuries compared with those who received a shoe not prescribed based on foot posture in military recruits (Rate Ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13). Subgroup analysis confirmed these findings were consistent between males and females. Therefore, prescribing running shoes and selecting on foot posture probably makes little or no difference to lower-limb running injuries (moderate-certainty evidence). Data were not available for all other review outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most evidence demonstrates no reduction in lower-limb running injuries in adults when comparing different types of running shoes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence determining whether different types of running shoes influence running injury rates was very low to low, and as such we are uncertain as to the true effects of different types of running shoes upon injury rates. There is no evidence that prescribing footwear based on foot type reduces running-related lower-limb injures in adults. The evidence for this comparison was rated as moderate and as such we can have more certainty when interpreting these findings. However, all three trials included in this comparison used military populations and as such the findings may differ in recreational runners.  Future researchers should develop a consensus definition of running shoe design to help standardise classification. The definition of a running injury should also be used consistently and confirmed via health practitioners. More researchers should consider a RCT design to increase the evidence in this area. Lastly, future work should look to explore the influence of different types or running shoes upon injury rates in specific subgroups.

Spatiotemporal and Ground-Reaction Force Characteristics as Risk Factors for Running-Related Injury: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial Including 800+ Recreational Runners

BACKGROUND

Running biomechanics may play a role in running-related injury development, but to date, only a few modifiable factors have been prospectively associated with injury risk.

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors among spatiotemporal and ground-reaction force characteristics in recreational runners and to investigate whether shoe cushioning modifies the association between running biomechanics and injury risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Recreational runners (N = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in randomly allocated, standardized running shoes (with either hard or soft cushioning). Typical kinetic and spatiotemporal metrics were derived from ground-reaction force recordings. Participants were subsequently followed up for 6 months regarding running activity and injury. Cox regression models for competing risk were used to investigate the association between biomechanical risk factors and injury risk, including stratified analyses by shoe version.

RESULTS

In the crude analysis, greater injury risk was found for greater step length (subhazard rate ratio [SHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; P = .038), longer flight time (SHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; P = .028), shorter contact time (SHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00; P = .030), and lower duty factor (defined as the ratio between contact time and stride time; SHR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; P = .005). In the stratified analyses by shoe version, adjusted for previous injury and running speed, lower duty factor was associated with greater injury risk in those using the soft shoes (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .042) but not in those using the hard shoes (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.04; P = .348).

CONCLUSION

Lower duty factor is an injury risk factor, especially for softer shoe use. Contrary to widespread beliefs, vertical impact peak, loading rate, and step rate were not injury risk factors in recreational runners.

REGISTRATION

NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Relevance of Frequency-Domain Analyses to Relate Shoe Cushioning, Ground Impact Forces and Running Injury Risk: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial With 800+ Recreational Runners

Cushioning systems in running shoes are used assuming that ground impact forces relate to injury risk and that cushioning materials reduce these impact forces. In our recent trial, the more cushioned shoe version was associated with lower injury risk. However, vertical impact peak force was higher in participants with the Soft shoe version. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the time, magnitude and frequency characteristics of peak forces using frequency-domain analysis by comparing the two study groups from our recent trial (Hard and Soft shoe group, respectively). The secondary objective was to investigate if force characteristics are prospectively associated with the risk of running-related injury. This is a secondary analysis of a double-blinded randomized trial on shoe cushioning with a biomechanical running analysis at baseline and a 6-month follow-up on running exposure and injury. Participants (n = 848) were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed in their randomly allocated shoe condition. The vertical ground reaction force signal for each stance phase was decomposed into the frequency domain using the discrete Fourier transform. Both components were recomposed into the time domain using the inverse Fourier transform. An analysis of variance was used to compare force characteristics between the two study groups. Cox regression analysis was used to investigate the association between force characteristics and injury risk. Participants using the Soft shoes displayed lower impact peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.23), longer time to peak force (p < 0.001, d = 0.25), and lower average loading rate (p < 0.001, d = 0.18) of the high frequency signal compared to those using the Hard shoes. Participants with low average and instantaneous loading rate of the high frequency signal had lower injury risk [Sub hazard rate ratio (SHR) = 0.49 and 0.55; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.25–0.97 and 0.30–0.99, respectively], and those with early occurrence of impact peak force (high frequency signal) had greater injury risk (SHR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.05–2.53). Our findings may explain the protective effect of the Soft shoe version previously observed. The present study also demonstrates that frequency-domain analyses may provide clinically relevant impact force characteristics.

Clinical Trial Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier: 9NCT03115437.

Soft-tissue vibration and damping response to footwear changes across a wide range of anthropometrics in running

Different factors were shown to alter the vibration characteristics of soft-tissue compartments during running. Changing pre-heel strike muscle activation or changing footwear conditions represents two possibilities to influence the vibration response via frequency shift or altered damping. Associated with the study of muscle pre-tuning is the difficulty in quantifying clean experimental data for the acceleration of soft-tissue compartments and muscle activities in heterogeneous populations. The purpose of this study was to determine the vibration and pre-tuning response to footwear across a wide range of participants during running and establish and describe groups formed according to the damping coefficient. 32 subjects were used for further analysis. The subjects ran at a self-selected speed (5 min) on a treadmill in two different shoes (soft & hard), while soft-tissue accelerations and muscle activation at the gastrocnemius medialis were quantified. Damping coefficients, total muscle intensity and dominant vibration frequencies were determined. Anthropometrics and skinfold measurements of the lower limbs were obtained. According to the damping coefficient response to the footwear intervention, three groups were formed, with most runners (n = 20) showing less damping in the hard shoe. Total muscle intensity, anthropometrics, and dominant vibration frequency across footwear were not different for these three groups. Most runners (84.4%) used the strategy of adjusting the damping coefficients significantly when switching footwear. Despite damping being the preferred adjustment to changes in footwear, muscle pre-tuning might not be the only mechanism to influence damping as previously suggested. Future studies should focus on the subject-specific composition of soft-tissue compartments to elucidate their contribution to vibrations.

Can the "Appropriate" Footwear Prevent Injury in Leisure-Time Running? Evidence Versus Beliefs

Leisure-time running is one of the most popular forms of physical activity around the world. It can be practiced almost everywhere and requires mainly a pair of "appropriate" running shoes. However, the term appropriate is ambiguous, and the properties of running footwear have always generated hot debates among clinicians, coaches, and athletes, whatever the level of practice. As the main interface between the runner's foot and the ground, the shoe potentially plays an important role in managing repetitive external mechanical loads applied to the musculoskeletal system and, thus, in injury prevention. Consequently, over the last decades, running shoes have been prescribed based on matching shoe features to foot morphology. This strategy aligns with the popular belief that footwear is one of the main extrinsic factors influencing running-related injury risk. Despite a seemingly sound strategy for shoe prescription and constant progress in running-footwear technology, the injury rate remains high. Therefore, our aim in this narrative literature review is to clarify whether the prescription of appropriate footwear to prevent injury in running is evidence based, the result of logical fallacy, or just a myth. The literature presented in this review is based on a nonsystematic search of the MEDLINE database and focuses on work investigating the effect of shoe features on injury risk in runners. In addition, key elements for a proper understanding of the literature on running footwear and injury risk are addressed. In this literature review, we outline (1) the main risk factors and the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of running-related injury, (2) important methodologic considerations for generating high-level evidence, (3) the evidence regarding the influence of running-shoe features on injury risk, (4) future directions for research, and (5) final general recommendations.

Running-Related Injury From an Engineering, Medical and Sport Science Perspective

Etiologic factors associated to running injuries are reviewed, with an emphasis on the transient shock waves experienced during foot strike. In these terms, impact mechanics are analyzed from both, a biomechanical and medical standpoint and evaluated with respect injury etiology, precursors and morbidity. The complex interaction of runner specific characteristics on the employed footwear system are examined, providing insight into footwear selection that could act as a preventive measure against non-acute trauma incidence. In conclusion, and despite the vast literature on running-related injury-risks, only few records could be identified to consider the effect of shoe cushioning and anthropometric data on injury prevalence. Based on this literature, we would stress the importance of such considerations in future studies aspiring to provide insight into running related injury etiology and prevention.

Predicting cumulative load during running using field-based measures

The main objective was to investigate whether the cumulative load of the lower limbs, defined as the product of external load and step rate, could be predicted using spatiotemporal variables gathered with a commercially available wearable device in running. Therefore, thirty-nine runners performed two running tests at 10 and 12 km/h, respectively. Spatiotemporal variables (step rate, ground contact time, and vertical oscillation) were collected using a commercially available wearable device. Kinetic variables, measured with gold standard equipment (motion capture system and instrumented treadmill) and used for the calculation of a set of variables representing cumulative load, were peak vertical ground reaction force (peak vGRF), vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR), vertical impulse, braking impulse, as well as peak extension moments and angular impulses of the ankle, knee and hip joints. Separate linear mixed-effects models were built to investigate the prediction performance of the spatiotemporal variables for each measure of cumulative load. BMI, speed, and sex were included as covariates. Predictive precision of the models ranged from .11 to .66 (R² _m ) and .22 to .98 (R² _c ), respectively. Greatest predictive performance was obtained for the cumulative peak vGRF (R² _m  = .66, R² _c  = .97), VILR (R² _m  = .43, R² _c  = .97), braking impulse (R² _m  = .52, R² _c  = .98), and peak hip extension moment (R² _m  = .54, R² _c  = .90). In conclusion, certain variables representing cumulative load of the lower limbs in running can be predicted using spatiotemporal variables gathered with a commercially available wearable device.

Effect of shoe cushioning on landing impact forces and spatiotemporal parameters during running: results from a randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners

AbstractIn a recent randomized trial including 800+ recreational runners, injury risk was lower in those who received the Soft shoe version compared to those using the Hard version (Hazard ratio = 1.52; 95% Confidence Interval = 1.07-2.16). Here, we investigated the effect of shoe cushioning on ground reaction forces (GRF) and spatiotemporal parameters in the same cohort, with a special focus on Vertical Impact Peak Force (VIPF) and Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR). Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received one of two shoe prototypes that differed only in their cushioning properties (Global stiffness: 61 ± 3 and 95 ± 6 N/mm in the Soft and Hard versions, respectively). Participants were tested on an instrumented treadmill at their preferred running speed. GRF data was recorded over 2 min. VIPF was higher in the Soft shoe group compared to the Hard shoe group (1.53 ± 0.21 vs. 1.44 ± 0.23 BW, respectively; p < 0.001). However, the proportion of steps with detectable VIPF was lower in the Soft shoe group (84 vs. 97%, respectively; p < 0.001) and Time to VIPF was longer (46.9 ± 8.5 vs. 43.4 ± 7.4 milliseconds, respectively; p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed for VILR (60.1 ± 13.8 vs. 58.9 ± 15.6 BW/s for Soft and Hard shoe group, respectively; p = 0.070) or any other kinetic variable. These results show that the beneficial effect of greater shoe cushioning on injury risk in the present cohort is not associated with attenuated VIPF and VILR. These GRF metrics may be inappropriate markers of the shoe cushioning-injury risk relationship, while delayed VIPF and the proportion of steps displaying a VIPF could be more relevant.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03115437..

Factors Affecting Training and Physical Performance in Recreational Endurance Runners

Endurance running has become an immensely popular sporting activity, with millions of recreational runners around the world. Despite the great popularity of endurance running as a recreational activity during leisure time, there is no consensus on the best practice for recreational runners to effectively train to reach their individual objectives and improve physical performance in a healthy manner. Moreover, there are lots of anecdotal data without scientific support, while most scientific evidence on endurance running was developed from studies observing both recreational and professional athletes of different levels. Further, the transference of all this information to only recreational runners is difficult due to differences in the genetic predisposition for endurance running, the time available for training, and physical, psychological, and physiological characteristics. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present a selection of scientific evidence regarding endurance running to provide training guidelines to be used by recreational runners and their coaches. The review will focus on some key aspects of the training process, such as periodization, training methods and monitoring, performance prediction, running technique, and prevention and management of injuries associated with endurance running.

Acute responses to barefoot 5 km treadmill running involve changes in landing kinematics and delayed onset muscle soreness

BACKGROUND

Barefoot running has gained popularity among physical activity practitioners, but there is a lack of information regarding the acute adaptations to this running technique without supervision. Information about acute adaptations can help to define the best way to insert barefoot running in the routine of runners willing to, and also provide orientation for those people who want to experience this technique.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What acute adaptations can be observed among recreational runners exposed to barefoot running?

METHODS

Sagittal 2D kinematics, plantar pressure, foot sensitivity and delayed onset muscle soreness were compared between conditions of shod and barefoot running in 13 recreational runners who performed two trials of 5 km treadmill running.

RESULTS

We found an acute effect of barefoot running on foot landing that changes from a rearfoot strike to a forefoot strike pattern. This change most likely contributed to the increase in neuromuscular recruitment of calf muscles (i.e. gastrocnemius and soleus) resulting in higher perception of delayed onset muscle soreness. Barefoot running also elicited higher stride cadence. Plantar pressure before and after running revealed higher pressure in the different foot regions after barefoot running. Foot sensitivity increased after running regardless of the footwear condition.

CONCLUSION

Barefoot running has acute effects on running technique including higher perception of delayed onset muscle soreness in the 48 h following the exercise.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results highlight the importance of following participants for days after a first session of barefoot running in order to properly manage the acute adaptation periods as well provide precise advices for those trying the barefoot technique.

Shoe Cushioning Influences the Running Injury Risk According to Body Mass: A Randomized Controlled Trial Involving 848 Recreational Runners

BACKGROUND

Shoe cushioning is expected to protect runners against repetitive loading of the musculoskeletal system and therefore running-related injuries. Also, it is a common belief that heavier runners should use footwear with increased shock absorption properties to prevent injuries.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine if shoe cushioning influences the injury risk in recreational runners and whether the association depends on the runner's body mass.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Healthy runners (n = 848) randomly received 1 of 2 shoe prototypes that only differed in their cushioning properties. Global stiffness was 61.3 ± 2.7 and 94.9 ± 5.9 N/mm in the soft and hard versions, respectively. Participants were classified as light or heavy according to their body mass using the median as a cut-off (78.2 and 62.8 kg in male and female runners, respectively). They were followed over 6 months regarding running activity and injury (any physical complaint reducing/interrupting running activity for at least 7 days). Data were analyzed through time-to-event models with the subhazard rate ratio (SHR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association. A stratified analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of shoe cushioning on the injury risk in lighter and heavier runners.

RESULTS

The runners who had received the hard shoes had a higher injury risk (SHR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.07-2.16]), while body mass was not associated with the injury risk (SHR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.01]). However, after stratification according to body mass, results showed that lighter runners had a higher injury risk in hard shoes (SHR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.09-2.98]) while heavier runners did not (SHR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.75-2.03]).

CONCLUSION

The injury risk was higher in participants running in the hard shoes compared with those using the soft shoes. However, the relative protective effect of greater shoe cushioning was found only in lighter runners.

REGISTRATION

NCT03115437 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in sports injury research: authors—please report the compliance with the intervention

Background

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aim to prevent sports injuries, the intention-to-treat principle is a recommended analysis method and one emphasised in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement that guides quality reporting of such trials. However, an important element of injury prevention trials—compliance with the intervention—is not always well-reported. The purpose of the present educational review was to describe the compliance during follow-up in eight large-scale sports injury trials and address compliance issues that surfaced. Then, we discuss how readers and researchers might consider interpreting results from intention-to-treat analyses depending on the observed compliance with the intervention.

Methods

Data from seven different randomised trials and one experimental study were included in the present educational review. In the trials that used training programme as an intervention, we defined full compliance as having completed the programme within ±10% of the prescribed running distance (ProjectRun21 (PR21), RUNCLEVER, Start 2 Run) or time-spent-running in minutes (Groningen Novice Running (GRONORUN)) for each planned training session. In the trials using running shoes as the intervention, full compliance was defined as wearing the prescribed running shoe in all running sessions the participants completed during follow-up.

Results

In the trials that used a running programme intervention, the number of participants who had been fully compliant was 0 of 839 (0%) at 24-week follow-up in RUNCLEVER, 0 of 612 (0%) at 14-week follow-up in PR21, 12 of 56 (21%) at 4-week follow-up in Start 2 Run and 8 of 532 (1%) at 8-week follow-up in GRONORUN. In the trials using a shoe-related intervention, the numbers of participants who had been fully compliant at the end of follow-up were 207 of 304 (68%) in the 21 week trial, and 322 of 423 (76%), 521 of 577 (90%), 753 of 874 (86%) after 24-week follow-up in the other three trials, respectively.

Conclusion

The proportion of runners compliant at the end of follow-up ranged from 0% to 21% in the trials using running programme as intervention and from 68% to 90% in the trials using running shoes as intervention. We encourage sports injury researchers to carefully assess and report the compliance with intervention in their articles, use appropriate analytical approaches and take compliance into account when drawing study conclusions. In studies with low compliance, G-estimation may be a useful analytical tool provided certain assumptions are met.

Shoe-Insole Technology for Injury Prevention in Walking

Impaired walking increases injury risk during locomotion, including falls-related acute injuries and overuse damage to lower limb joints. Gait impairments seriously restrict voluntary, habitual engagement in injury prevention activities, such as recreational walking and exercise. There is, therefore, an urgent need for technology-based interventions for gait disorders that are cost effective, willingly taken-up, and provide immediate positive effects on walking. Gait control using shoe-insoles has potential as an effective population-based intervention, and new sensor technologies will enhance the effectiveness of these devices. Shoe-insole modifications include: (i) ankle joint support for falls prevention; (ii) shock absorption by utilising lower-resilience materials at the heel; (iii) improving reaction speed by stimulating cutaneous receptors; and (iv) preserving dynamic balance via foot centre of pressure control. Using sensor technology, such as in-shoe pressure measurement and motion capture systems, gait can be precisely monitored, allowing us to visualise how shoe-insoles change walking patterns. In addition, in-shoe systems, such as pressure monitoring and inertial sensors, can be incorporated into the insole to monitor gait in real-time. Inertial sensors coupled with in-shoe foot pressure sensors and global positioning systems (GPS) could be used to monitor spatiotemporal parameters in real-time. Real-time, online data management will enable &lsquo;big-data&rsquo; applications to everyday gait control characteristics.