Kinematics and muscle activity when running in partial minimalist, traditional, and maximalist shoes
Introduction
Over the last forty years of research on running biomechanics, one area which has received considerable emphasis is the influence of shoe cushioning on running mechanics (Bates et al., 1983, Clarke et al., 1983, De Wit et al., 1995, Hennig et al., 1996, Milani et al., 1997, Nigg et al., 1988, Nigg et al., 1987, Wakeling et al., 2002). These studies all evaluate how cushioning influences running mechanics in traditional running shoes. However, starting in 2009 many shoe manufacturers began producing shoes which lacked historically common features such as rigid heel counters or motion control devices. Studies evaluating the effects of using these minimalist shoes have produced conflicting results regarding how such shoes impact running mechanics.
Some have reported that runners who habitually use traditional shoes demonstrate increased knee flexion and ankle dorsiflexion at initial contact when using minimalist shoes, if they maintain a rearfoot strike pattern (Willy and Davis, 2014). However, if runners switch from a rearfoot to a forefoot strike pattern when using minimalist shoes they still display increased knee flexion, but increased plantar flexion at initial contact instead of dorsiflexion (Fredericks et al., 2015). Additionally, some authors have reported differences in mechanics only occur when running barefoot and that there are no differences in ankle or knee kinematics between traditional and minimalist shoes when the same foot strike pattern is maintained (Bonacci et al., 2013, Goss et al., 2015, Sinclair et al., 2012). These disparate results could partially be explained by the type of minimalist shoe used in the study as it has recently been shown that there is a range of responses depending on just how minimal a shoes’ construction (Squadrone et al., 2015). This range of responses has given rise to the term “partial minimalist shoe” to describe shoes which have some cushioning and structure, just to a lesser extent than traditional running shoes (Davis, 2014).
At the opposite end of the shoe spectrum are maximalist shoes which feature a thick (>30 mm) highly cushioned midsole. First adopted by the ultra-running community, maximalist shoes purportedly provide better protection against the repetitive impacts associated with running. However, relatively little is known regarding the biomechanical effects of maximalist shoes. Several authors have reported no differences in kinematics when running in maximalist compared to traditional shoes (Aminaka et al., 2018, Pollard et al., 2018, Sinclair et al., 2016). Others have reported minor differences at the ankle, with maximalist shoes resulting in decreased foot strike angle at initial contact (Agresta et al., 2018, Hannigan and Pollard, 2019), decreased peak ankle dorsiflexion, less inversion at foot contact and more eversion at toe off, and less eversion range of motion (Hannigan and Pollard, 2019) compared to traditional shoes.
While several studies have evaluated kinematic changes when running in partial minimalist or maximalist shoes, to date it is unknown how such footwear influences muscle activity. Muscle activity can provide insight into the potential effects the impact forces associated with running have on the musculoskeletal system. Muscle activity in the lower extremity is tuned in order to control soft tissue vibrations and thus mitigate the effects of impact loading (Boyer and Nigg, 2006, Boyer and Nigg, 2004, Nigg and Wakeling, 2001). Impact loading is hypothesized to be a contributor to several common overuse injuries (Bredeweg et al., 2013, Davis et al., 2016) and several authors have reported higher impact forces and loading rates (Hannigan and Pollard, 2019, Pollard et al., 2018) or tibial accelerations (Sinclair, 2017) when running in maximalist shoes. These differences could be due to differences in muscle activation in response to different cushioning properties of the shoes. While there is some evidence that altering the cushioning properties of footwear alters muscle activity (Frederick, 1986, Wakeling et al., 2002), to date it is not known whether muscle activity varies when running in partial minimalist, traditional, or maximalist shoes.
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in kinematics and muscle activity when running in three different shoes: a partial-minimalist shoe (PMIN), a traditional running (TRAD), and a maximalist shoe (MAX). Based on previous findings with PMIN and MAX shoes, it was hypothesized there would be small differences in ankle kinematics, but no differences in hip or knee kinematics between the three shoes, but that there would be increased muscle activation in both the PMIN and MAX shoes, compared to the TRAD shoes.
Section snippets
Participants
Based on previously reported kinematic differences (Hannigan and Pollard, 2019, Sinclair et al., 2016) between running in minimalist, traditional, and maximalist shoes, an a priori power analysis revealed that a minimum of eleven participants would be required to adequately power this study (effect size f = 0.436, α = 0.05, β = 0.2, one group with three measurements). We therefore recruited 13 runners (sex: 5 male, 8 female; age: 22.5 ± 2.29 years; height: 1.68 ± 0.19 m.; body mass:
Results
Mean kinematic curves for the hip, knee, and ankle are shown in Fig. 2. All curves demonstrated similar overall movement patterns between shoes and the only statistically significant differences were observed at the ankle. Sagittal plane ankle angles at foot contact (p = .002, η2 = 0.415), peak ankle dorsiflexion during stance (p < .001, η2 = 0.508), and peak rearfoot eversion (p = .012, η2 = 0.308) were all statistically different between shoes. Compared to MAX shoes, the ankle was dorsiflexed
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to compare kinematics and muscle activity when recreational runners ran in partial minimalist, traditional, and maximalist shoes. In support of our hypothesis, there were nominal differences in joint kinematics between shoe conditions. However, contrary to our hypothesis, these kinematic differences occurred with minor differences in muscle activity. Overall, the kinematic and muscle activity profiles were highly similar between shoes, suggesting participants
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
James Becker is an assistant professor in the Department of Health and Human Development at Montana State University. He obtained a doctorate in 2013 from the University of Oregon. His research interests include factors contributing to overuse injuries in runners, evaluating the efficacy of rehabilitation programs, and factors influencing high level performance in athletic events, particularly track and field.
References (55)
- et al.
An assessment of subject variability, subject-shoe ineraction, and the evaluation of running shoes using ground reaction force data
J. Biomech.
(1983) - et al.
Reliability of electromyographic normalization methods for evaluating the hip musculature
J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol.
(2007) - et al.
Changes in running kinematics and kinetics in response to a rockered shoe intervention
Clin. Biomech.
(2009) - et al.
Muscle activity in the leg is tuned in response to impact force characteristics
J. Biomech.
(2004) - et al.
Differences in kinetic variables between injured and noninjured novice runners: a prospective cohort stud
J. Sci. Med. Sport
(2013) - et al.
Ground reaction forces in distance running
J. Biomech.
(1980) - et al.
Interactive effects between group and single subject response patterns
Hum. Mov. Sci.
(1995) - et al.
Muscle contributions to propulsion and support during running
J. Biomech.
(2010) - et al.
Perceptual and Biomechanical Variables for Running in Identical Shoe Constructions with Varying Midsole Hardness
Clin. Biomech.
(1997) - et al.
The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running
J. Biomech.
(1987)
The role of selected extrinsic foot muscles during running
Clin. Biomech.
Biomechanics of slow running and walking with a rocker shoe
Gait Posture
ISB Recommendations on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion - part I: ankle, hip, and spine
J. Biomech.
Immediate and short-term adaptations to maximalist and minimalist running shoes
Footwear Sci.
No Immediate Effects of Highly Cushioned Shoes on Basic Running Biomechanics
Kinesiology
Muscular activity in treadmill and overground running
Isokinet. Exerc. Sci.
Influence of shoe drop on running kinematics and kinetics in female runners runners
Eur. J. Sport Sci.
Running in a minimalist and lightweight shoe is not the same as running barefoot: a biomechanical study
Br. J. Sports Med.
Muscle tuning during running: implications of an un-tuned landing
J. Biomech. Eng.
The assessment of mechanical and neuromuscular response strategies during landing
Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc.
Shoe drop has opposite influence on running pattern when running overground or on a treadmill
Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
Effects of shoe cushioning upon ground reaction forces in running
Int. J. Sports Med.
The re-emergence of the minimal running shoe
J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.
Greater vertical impact loading in female runners with medically diagnosed injuries: a prospective investigation
Br. J. Sports Med.
The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot motion during foot contact in running
J. Appl. Biomech.
Individual-specific determinants of successful adaptation to minimal and maximal running shoes
Footwear Sci.
Dynamic performance assessment of selected sport shoes on impact forces
Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc.
Cited by (11)
Systematic reduction of leg muscle activity throughout a standard assessment of running footwear
2022, Journal of Sport and Health ScienceCitation Excerpt :Although the results of this study help us to understand muscle activity adaptations to a fast-paced, sustained run, they cannot differentiate between effects of familiarization and effects of fatigue. Furthermore, most experimental protocols try to avoid fatigue by avoiding prolonged running; instead, they examine muscle activation patterns during separate running bouts for each condition of interest, with intermittent rest periods between them.8,10,12,14,15 Therefore, it is necessary to characterize how leg muscle activity adapts to a standard protocol intended for the comparison of different running (footwear) conditions and to determine whether or when a steady state can be reached.
Effect of sports shoe mileage on running mechanics and lower limb muscular activities in male individuals with and without genu varus
2021, Science and SportsCitation Excerpt :The used shoes also could provoke some biomechanical adaptations. Previous studies have shown that used shoes lead to kinetic, kinematic, and electromyography (EMG) changes [18,22]. Nevertheless, just one study investigated the effect of used shoes in GV malalignment, but this study approached females during walking [18].
Comparing walking biomechanics of older females in maximal, minimal, and traditional shoes
2021, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Only one type of maximal, traditional, and minimal shoe were compared in this study, so results cannot be extrapolated to other models in these categories of footwear. In particular, there is currently a large disagreement between research on maximal shoes for running depending on the type of shoe studied [35,37,43], meaning several biomechanical variables could be affected differently in other models of maximal shoes depending on factors such as midsole hardness or stiffness. It is also possible that other benefits of minimal or maximal shoes, such as improvements in stability [33] or comfort, may counterbalance our findings.
Influence of different midsole foam in advanced footwear technology use on running economy and biomechanics in trained runners
2024, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsRedistribution of knee and ankle joint work with different midsole thicknesses in non-rearfoot strikers during running: a cross-sectional study
2023, Acta of Bioengineering and Biomechanics
James Becker is an assistant professor in the Department of Health and Human Development at Montana State University. He obtained a doctorate in 2013 from the University of Oregon. His research interests include factors contributing to overuse injuries in runners, evaluating the efficacy of rehabilitation programs, and factors influencing high level performance in athletic events, particularly track and field.
Brianne Borgia is a doctoral student in the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She obtained her M.S. from California State University, Long Beach in 2016. Her research interest include effects of footwear on running mechanics, and how running and other forms of physical activity may help reduce negative effects of aging.