See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260435478

The effect of shoe drop on running pattern

Conference Paper  in  Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering · July 2013

DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2013.815919

CITATIONS READS

4 1,022

5 authors, including:

Nicolas Chambon Nicolas Delattre

Decathlon, Villeneuve d'Ascq, France Decathlon
21 PUBLICATIONS   288 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   393 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eric Berton Nils Guéguen

Aix-Marseille Université Decathlon Sports Lab
202 PUBLICATIONS   2,227 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Injury risk in runners using standard or motion control shoes: a randomised controlled trial with participant and assessor blinding View project

Plastic-Age View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicolas Chambon on 13 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Aix-Marseille Université]
On: 09 July 2013, At: 05:21
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Footwear Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tfws20

The effect of shoe drop on running pattern

a b c a b a
Nicolas Chambon , Nicolas Delattre , Eric Berton , Nils Gueguen & Guillaume Rao
a
Institute of Movement Sciences: Etienne-Jules Marey, UMR 7287 CNRS, Aix-Marseille
University , 910 av. de Luminy, Marseille , 13288 , France
b
Oxylane Research , 4 Boulevard de Mons BP299, Villeneuve d’Ascq , 59665 , France
c
Oxylane Research , 910 av. de Luminy, Villeneuve d’Ascq , 59665 , France

To cite this article: Nicolas Chambon , Nicolas Delattre , Eric Berton , Nils Gueguen & Guillaume Rao (2013) The effect of
shoe drop on running pattern, Footwear Science, 5:sup1, S106-S107

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2013.799585

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 S106 Abstracts

The effect of shoe drop on running pattern

Nicolas Chambona,b*, Nicolas Delattrec, Eric Bertona, Nils Gueguenb, and Guillaume Raoa
a
Institute of Movement Sciences: Etienne-Jules Marey, UMR 7287 CNRS, Aix-Marseille University, 910 av. de Luminy, Marseille, 13288
France; bOxylane Research, 4 Boulevard de Mons BP299, Villeneuve d’Ascq, 59665 France; cOxylane Research, 910 av. de Luminy,
Villeneuve d’Ascq, 59665 France
(Received 25 February 2013; final version received 16 April 2013)

Introduction tracked participants’ kinematics. Hip, knee, and ankle

During the last couple of years, running barefoot or in
minimalist shoes has become more and more popular. The
study of Lieberman et al. (2010) showed that habitually
barefoot runners do not adopt the same foot strike pattern
as habitually shod runners, impacting the ground with the
fore part of their foot. The potential benefit of this pattern
is the absence of impact transient peak (IP) on vertical
Downloaded by [Aix-Marseille Université] at 05:21 09 July 2013
joint angles were calculated during the task. GRF was
measured by a force platform (KistlerÒ 9281 CA). Data
were recorded at 2000 Hz for forces and 125 Hz for kine-
matics. Repeated measures analyses of variance were
used to test the influence of the drop factor on dependant
variables. All significant effects (p < 0.05) were followed
by Tukey post hoc tests.

ground reaction force (vGRF). At the same time, a lot of

differences between shod and barefoot running for habitu-
ally shod runners were highlighted: barefoot running
causes mid-foot strike, with ankle in plantar flexion at
s1. All results
touch down (TD) and lower IP than shod running (Divert
et al. 2005, Hamill et al. 2011). Several shoe parameters
such as the height of the heel relative to the forefoot
(Drop) or the midsole thickness can be suspected to cause
modification of foot strike pattern between barefoot and
shod running for habitually shod runners. However it has
already been demonstrated that midsole thickness did not
provoke any difference (Hamill et al. 2011).
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of
drop on running pattern.
Results
Mean preferred speed was 3.0  0.6 m
and variables abbreviations are presented in Table 1.
BF condition was different from all others for AA, FG,
and SI. FG was lower in D0 condition than in D8 condi-
tion. There was no effect on IP, but LR was higher in D8
than in BF condition (Figure 1).
Discussion and conclusion
FG showed significant differences between D0 and D8,
demonstrating an effect of drop on foot strike pattern.
Indeed, it can be suggested that a higher drop leads to a
higher FG. Moreover, global results showed that the bare-
foot running pattern is clearly different from the shod run-
ning pattern. Considering these kinematics differences

Methods
Table 1. Mean values (bold), standard deviations (italic) of all
Fifteen healthy male recreational runners tested five dif- variables for each condition.  indicates a significant difference
ferent shoes and barefoot (BF) condition. All shoes had with all other conditions. Condition abbreviation in exponent
similar upper design, material, outsole thickness, and mid- indicates a significant difference with this condition.
sole hardness. Forefoot midsole height was 2 mm for all Variables BF D0 D4 D8
shoes. Heel midsole height was 2 mm (0 mm drop),
6 mm (4 mm drop), and 10 mm (8 mm drop) for D0, D4 Ankle Angle at TD in
(AA) 3.2 8.5 11.1 10.5
7.1 7.9 8.2 7.4
and D8 conditions, respectively. Initially participants’ Foot/Ground angle at TD in
(FG) 9.3 16.1D8 19.6 20.3D0
preferred speed was determined on treadmill with a classi- 6.7 8.3 8.9 8.3
cal running shoe and was used for all the remaining tests. Strike Index in % of foot length (SI) 55.4 32.5 33.2 24.5
For each condition, subjects were asked to run on a tread- 24.9 17.5 19.9 13.9
mill for seven minutes (shoe familiarisation) and then per- Impact transient Peak in BW (IP) 1.58 1.47 1.47 1.42
0.37 0.29 0.25 0.22
formed seven running trials on a track. Running speed Loading Rate in BW s1 (LR) 141D8 121 110 96BF
was verified by photoelectric sensors along the track. 73 44 36 28
Height cameras of a motion capture system (ViconÒ )

*Corresponding author. Email: nicolas.chambon@oxylane.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2013.799585
 Abstracts
Figure 1. Exemplar vGRF for each condition for a single trial
of a participant.
Downloaded by [Aix-Marseille Université] at 05:21 09 July 2013
and results of Hamill et al. (2011), we expected lower LR
and IP in BF and D0 than in the D8 condition.
The efficacy of arch support sports insoles in increasing the cycling performance
and injury prevention
SaiWei Yang*
National Yang-Ming U, Dept. of Biomedical Eng., 115 Sec. 2 LiNung St., Taipei, 112 Taiwan
(Received 25 February 2013; final version received 16 April 2013)
Introduction
Cycling is an increasingly popular recreational and com-
petitive activity, however, the more popular it becomes
the more cycling-related injuries occur. Most cycling inju-
ries are musculoskeletal related such as neck pain, patello-
femoral pain, patellar quadriceps tendinitis, iliotibial band
syndrome, hip pain, low-back strain, medial compartment
pain, tibial stress fracture, calf cramping, Achilles tendini-
tis, numbness of the foot, etc. (Callaghan 2005). Most
injuries are caused by a combination of inadequate prepa-
ration, inappropriate bike fitting, poor technique, and
overuse of prolonged uphill biking (Wilber et al. 1995,
Callaghan 2005).
The cycling researches primarily are either on helmet
wearing effect of head injuries prevention or retro-survey
of injury types as well as mechanisms. Although studies
show the right bike fitting can effectively reduce injuries,
the prevalence rate is still high. Excessive or insufficient
movement of lower extremity joints due to the leg align-
ment and foot types might be an important factor that
mainly causes the muscular injury after an appropriate bike
fitting (Sanner and O’Halloran 2000, Callaghan 2005).
*Corresponding author. Email: swyang@ym.edu.tw
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19424280.2013.799586
View publication stats
S107
Interestingly, results showed an increase of impact sever-
ity in BF compared to the largest drop condition. In this
study, habitually shod runners in the BF condition did not
adopt behaviour sufficiently different from the shod con-
dition, impacting the ground in mid-foot strike and not in
fore-foot strike. Global vGRF patterns were similar
between all conditions and IP were always observed
(Figure 1). From rear to mid-foot strike, impact magnitude
may depend more on shoe cushioning than on kinematic
pattern. This study suggests that if a fore-foot strike pat-
tern is not clearly adopted, runners cannot benefit from
the potential advantages of barefoot or minimalist running
shoes concerning reduction of impact magnitude.
References
Divert, C. et al. (2005). Int J Sports Med 26(7), 593–598.
Hamill, J. et al. (2011). Footwear Sci 3(1), 33–40.
Lieberman, D.E. et al. (2010). Nature 463(7280), 531–535.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of
an arch support orthotics in injury prevention and perfor-
mance improvement during powered cycling.
Methods
Twenty-three male professional cyclists were recruited for
this study. The average age was 28  12 years old, height
175  3.8 cm, weight 65  5.5 kg, and body mass index
21.4  1.9 with excluding criteria of LE musculoskeletal
disorder, neurological disorder, joint replacement, trauma,
or any other surgery which affected the evaluation. Sub-
jects were classified into normal, high or low arch foot
type according to the arch index with straight, genu
varum, or genu valgum leg alignment. Three types of
insoles: off-the-shelf EVA flat insoles, cycling sports
insole without arch support (FootdiscÒ -Passi).
Surface electromyographic (EMG) data were collected
from seven muscles: Gluteus maximum (GM), biceps fem-
oris (BF), vastus medialis (VM), vastus lateralis (VL),
tibialis anterior (TA), medial head of gastrocnemius (GA),