China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Running
Published in Paul Grimshaw, Michael Cole, Adrian Burden, Neil Fowler, Instant Notes in Sport and Exercise Biomechanics, 2019
When the foot moves from heel strike to mid-stance the foot normally undergoes a pronation movement. The ankle dorsiflexes, the calcaneus everts and the forefoot abducts, causing the tibia and fibula complex (lower leg) to rotate internally (Figure F2.5). When the foot pronates past the point of mid-stance and, indeed, when the foot pronates too much (usually measured by the amount of eversion of the calcaneus), the lower leg internally rotates excessively and for too long. This pronation continues into the stance phase and past the point of mid-stance. The leg (knee) reaches a point of maximum knee flexion and the quadriceps cause a pull on the patella that attempts to move this bone laterally (away from the body’s mid-line). However, because the lower leg is still internally rotated and the foot is still pronated, this lateral pull causes the patella to track over the lateral femoral condyle. Normally the lower leg would be externally rotating and the foot supinating at this point, which allows the patella to be pulled naturally within the groove between the femoral condyles.
Do maximalist shoes mitigate risk factors for tibial stress fractures better than stability or flexible (marketed as minimalist) shoes?
Published in Footwear Science, 2020
Jenny Tavares, Tyler Jost, Grant Drewelow, Jonathan Rylander
It is possible that a mechanical intervention such as changing shoes or gait retraining could reduce these risk factors for both male and female runners. Of particular interest is the impact that shoes categorised as maximalist and stability shoes could have on altering risk factors for tibial stress fracture in female runners. Stability shoes have been shown to reduce excessive frontal and coronal plane ankle motions, and therefore might be beneficial towards reducing pronation-related risk factors for TSF (Butler, Davis, & Hamill, 2006; Cheung, Wong, & Ng, 2011; Lilley, Stiles, & Dixon, 2013). Specifically, a 2011 review article by Cheung et al. (2011) concluded that stability footwear was able to reduce both peak vertical impact and pronation. Additionally, Butler et al. (2006) found that stability shoes are able to reduce rearfoot eversion and eversion excursion compared to traditional cushioned shoes while cushioned shoes were better at reducing tibial acceleration and tibial shock. Lilley et al. (2013) also found a reduction in peak ankle eversion in the stability shoes compared to neutral.
Foot pronation
Published in Footwear Science, 2019
Benno Nigg, Anja-Verena Behling, Joseph Hamill
While it is appealing to associate ‘over-pronation’ or ‘over-eversion’ with an increased risk of injury, the results of the epidemiological and empirical scientific literature on this topic are inconsistent. Since it has been shown that pronation-variables are not correlated to each other, inconclusive results based on different methodologies (variables) are not surprising. The scientific support for a link between the magnitude of pronation and injury is weak. A major problem in the biomechanical studies of pronation and running injuries is that most studies have a small number of participants. Therefore, it is difficult to make generalizations about the relationship. In the past decade, more studies have refuted the association of ‘over-pronation’ and risk of injury (Lun, Meeuwisse, Stergiou, & Stefanyshyn, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2014; Nilstad, Andersen, Bahr, Holme, & Steffen, 2014). In fact, Hintermann and Nigg (1998) reported that between 40% and 50% of runners who ‘over-pronate’ are not at risk for overuse injuries. Thus, it could be that pronation may has an effect on certain injuries. However, pronation may not be the only factor influencing injury development.