Effect of the cushioning running shoes in ground contact time of phases of gait

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorRoca Dols, Andrea
dc.contributor.authorLosa Iglesias, Marta Elena
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Gómez, Rubén
dc.contributor.authorBecerro De Bengoa Vallejo, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorLópez López, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Sanz, David
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Jiménez, Eva María
dc.contributor.authorCalvo Lobo, César
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-31T11:59:02Z
dc.date.available2024-01-31T11:59:02Z
dc.date.issued2018-12
dc.description.abstractThe main objective of this research was to know how five different cushioning shoes may interfere in ground contact times of each gait phase of walking and running in contrast with barefoot condition. Thirty healthy sport recreational male runners participated in this study. They played over a treadmill wearing minimalist, Boost®, Ethyl-vinyl-acetate (EVA), Air® chamber and pronation-control cushioning shoes technologies and under barefoot condition, recording the last 30 s of walking and running at 5.17 km/h and 9 km/h respectively, while ground contact time duration of each phase of gait was recorded with circular standard pressure sensors located on plantar feet. During walking, the heel contact phase was the station that increased significantly ground contact times wearing all sole cushioning shoes (p < 0.001), excepting no sole shoes (minimalist), versus barefoot condition, being Air® chamber the model that showed the highest times of contact floor versus barefoot (0.28 ± 0.08 ms and 0.23 ± 0.12 ms vs 0.12 ± 0.07 ms and 0.18 ± 0.07 ms in heel contact during midstance phases, respectively). During running, propulsion phase was the station that showed the highest spent times on ground contact with the floor under all shoe conditions, even with minimalist, being again Air® chamber the model with higher significant times in two of three phases versus barefoot (0.11 ± 0.04 ms and 0.16 ± 0.11 ms vs 0.09 ± 0.03 ms and 0.10 ± 0.02 ms in midstance and propulsion phases respectively). Air chamber® was the model too with the most switch ratio to forefoot strike pattern (0.07 ± 0.10 ms to 0.16 ± 0.11 from heel contact to propulsion phase, respectively). In conclusion, a ground contact times increase using all cushioning running shoes compared with barefoot condition was shown in both walking and running test.
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Enfermería
dc.description.facultyFac. de Enfermería, Fisioterapia y Podología
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.032
dc.identifier.issn1751-6161
dc.identifier.officialurlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751616118309949
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/97070
dc.journal.titleJournal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final200
dc.page.initial196
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted access
dc.subject.cdu61
dc.subject.cdu616.718.7/.9
dc.subject.keywordCushioning running shoes
dc.subject.keywordGround contact time
dc.subject.keywordPhases of gait
dc.subject.keywordRunning economy
dc.subject.keywordStrike pattern
dc.subject.ucmCiencias Biomédicas
dc.subject.ucmPodología
dc.subject.unesco32 Ciencias Médicas
dc.titleEffect of the cushioning running shoes in ground contact time of phases of gait
dc.typejournal article
dc.type.hasVersionVoR
dc.volume.number88
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationdc143899-0041-4a0f-8dd2-d696077ec375
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationbbd621a9-7baf-481a-83c7-124287192d07
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3d3e5c8a-15a9-4991-97ee-ea886940b1a5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication7a04a197-3d62-4c6d-90f4-d49924b46327
relation.isAuthorOfPublication9420a0f4-5654-4ad9-a920-e9521d454023
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoverydc143899-0041-4a0f-8dd2-d696077ec375
Download
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
cushion fases.pdf
Size:
270.86 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Artículos