Loading…
Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Background: Although minimalist footwear is increasingly popular among runners, claims that minimalist footwear enhances running biomechanics and efficiency are controversial. Hypothesis: Minimalist and barefoot conditions improve running efficiency when compared with traditional running shoes. Stud...
Saved in:
Published in: | Sports health 2015-05, Vol.7 (3), p.256-260 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c28389203da0f5a93567d69b7b9ffc53d3c865ab75efd614dd7d07fbda76f5a33 |
container_end_page | 260 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 256 |
container_title | Sports health |
container_volume | 7 |
creator | Gillinov, Stephen M. Laux, Sara Kuivila, Thomas Hass, Daniel Joy, Susan M. |
description | Background:
Although minimalist footwear is increasingly popular among runners, claims that minimalist footwear enhances running biomechanics and efficiency are controversial.
Hypothesis:
Minimalist and barefoot conditions improve running efficiency when compared with traditional running shoes.
Study Design:
Randomized crossover trial.
Level of Evidence:
Level 3.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced runners each completed three 90-second running trials on a treadmill, each trial performed in a different type of footwear: traditional running shoes with a heavily cushioned heel, minimalist running shoes with minimal heel cushioning, and barefoot (socked). High-speed photography was used to determine foot strike, ground contact time, knee angle, and stride cadence with each footwear type.
Results:
Runners had more rearfoot strikes in traditional shoes (87%) compared with minimalist shoes (67%) and socked (40%) (P = 0.03). Ground contact time was longest in traditional shoes (265.9 ± 10.9 ms) when compared with minimalist shoes (253.4 ± 11.2 ms) and socked (250.6 ± 16.2 ms) (P = 0.005). There was no difference between groups with respect to knee angle (P = 0.37) or stride cadence (P = 0.20). When comparing running socked to running with minimalist running shoes, there were no differences in measures of running efficiency.
Conclusion:
When compared with running in traditional, cushioned shoes, both barefoot (socked) running and minimalist running shoes produce greater running efficiency in some experienced runners, with a greater tendency toward a midfoot or forefoot strike and a shorter ground contact time. Minimalist shoes closely approximate socked running in the 4 measurements performed.
Clinical Relevance:
With regard to running efficiency and biomechanics, in some runners, barefoot (socked) and minimalist footwear are preferable to traditional running shoes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1941738115571093 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4482302</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1941738115571093</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1693183365</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c28389203da0f5a93567d69b7b9ffc53d3c865ab75efd614dd7d07fbda76f5a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvnmSPXlaTnU2yexGktCpUBNFzyOajpmyTutlV-t-7pbWo4GmGeb95MzyEzgm-IoTza1LmhENBCKWc4BIO0HAzSnGZkcNdv9EH6CTGBcYsZ4Qfo0HGCBDA-RDBxFqj2iTY5NF5t5S1i20yDaH9NLJJgk-eO--dnyc96JQzXq1P0ZGVdTRnuzpCr9PJy_g-nT3dPYxvZ6mCnLapygooygyDlthSWQJlXLOy4lVpraKgQRWMyopTYzUjudZcY24rLTnreYARutn6rrpqabQyvm1kLVZN_2azFkE68Vvx7k3Mw4fI8yIDnPUGlzuDJrx3JrZi6aIydS29CV0UhJVACgBGexRvUdWEGBtj92cIFpusxd-s-5WLn-_tF77D7YF0C0Q5N2IRusb3cf1v-AUdC4az</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1693183365</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency: A Randomized Crossover Trial</title><source>EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus with Full Text</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>SAGE</source><creator>Gillinov, Stephen M. ; Laux, Sara ; Kuivila, Thomas ; Hass, Daniel ; Joy, Susan M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gillinov, Stephen M. ; Laux, Sara ; Kuivila, Thomas ; Hass, Daniel ; Joy, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Although minimalist footwear is increasingly popular among runners, claims that minimalist footwear enhances running biomechanics and efficiency are controversial.
Hypothesis:
Minimalist and barefoot conditions improve running efficiency when compared with traditional running shoes.
Study Design:
Randomized crossover trial.
Level of Evidence:
Level 3.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced runners each completed three 90-second running trials on a treadmill, each trial performed in a different type of footwear: traditional running shoes with a heavily cushioned heel, minimalist running shoes with minimal heel cushioning, and barefoot (socked). High-speed photography was used to determine foot strike, ground contact time, knee angle, and stride cadence with each footwear type.
Results:
Runners had more rearfoot strikes in traditional shoes (87%) compared with minimalist shoes (67%) and socked (40%) (P = 0.03). Ground contact time was longest in traditional shoes (265.9 ± 10.9 ms) when compared with minimalist shoes (253.4 ± 11.2 ms) and socked (250.6 ± 16.2 ms) (P = 0.005). There was no difference between groups with respect to knee angle (P = 0.37) or stride cadence (P = 0.20). When comparing running socked to running with minimalist running shoes, there were no differences in measures of running efficiency.
Conclusion:
When compared with running in traditional, cushioned shoes, both barefoot (socked) running and minimalist running shoes produce greater running efficiency in some experienced runners, with a greater tendency toward a midfoot or forefoot strike and a shorter ground contact time. Minimalist shoes closely approximate socked running in the 4 measurements performed.
Clinical Relevance:
With regard to running efficiency and biomechanics, in some runners, barefoot (socked) and minimalist footwear are preferable to traditional running shoes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1941-7381</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1941-0921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1941738115571093</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26131304</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Current Research</subject><ispartof>Sports health, 2015-05, Vol.7 (3), p.256-260</ispartof><rights>2015 The Author(s)</rights><rights>2015 The Author(s) 2015 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c28389203da0f5a93567d69b7b9ffc53d3c865ab75efd614dd7d07fbda76f5a33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482302/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482302/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793,79236</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26131304$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gillinov, Stephen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laux, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuivila, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hass, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joy, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency: A Randomized Crossover Trial</title><title>Sports health</title><addtitle>Sports Health</addtitle><description>Background:
Although minimalist footwear is increasingly popular among runners, claims that minimalist footwear enhances running biomechanics and efficiency are controversial.
Hypothesis:
Minimalist and barefoot conditions improve running efficiency when compared with traditional running shoes.
Study Design:
Randomized crossover trial.
Level of Evidence:
Level 3.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced runners each completed three 90-second running trials on a treadmill, each trial performed in a different type of footwear: traditional running shoes with a heavily cushioned heel, minimalist running shoes with minimal heel cushioning, and barefoot (socked). High-speed photography was used to determine foot strike, ground contact time, knee angle, and stride cadence with each footwear type.
Results:
Runners had more rearfoot strikes in traditional shoes (87%) compared with minimalist shoes (67%) and socked (40%) (P = 0.03). Ground contact time was longest in traditional shoes (265.9 ± 10.9 ms) when compared with minimalist shoes (253.4 ± 11.2 ms) and socked (250.6 ± 16.2 ms) (P = 0.005). There was no difference between groups with respect to knee angle (P = 0.37) or stride cadence (P = 0.20). When comparing running socked to running with minimalist running shoes, there were no differences in measures of running efficiency.
Conclusion:
When compared with running in traditional, cushioned shoes, both barefoot (socked) running and minimalist running shoes produce greater running efficiency in some experienced runners, with a greater tendency toward a midfoot or forefoot strike and a shorter ground contact time. Minimalist shoes closely approximate socked running in the 4 measurements performed.
Clinical Relevance:
With regard to running efficiency and biomechanics, in some runners, barefoot (socked) and minimalist footwear are preferable to traditional running shoes.</description><subject>Current Research</subject><issn>1941-7381</issn><issn>1941-0921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kM1LAzEQxYMotlbvnmSPXlaTnU2yexGktCpUBNFzyOajpmyTutlV-t-7pbWo4GmGeb95MzyEzgm-IoTza1LmhENBCKWc4BIO0HAzSnGZkcNdv9EH6CTGBcYsZ4Qfo0HGCBDA-RDBxFqj2iTY5NF5t5S1i20yDaH9NLJJgk-eO--dnyc96JQzXq1P0ZGVdTRnuzpCr9PJy_g-nT3dPYxvZ6mCnLapygooygyDlthSWQJlXLOy4lVpraKgQRWMyopTYzUjudZcY24rLTnreYARutn6rrpqabQyvm1kLVZN_2azFkE68Vvx7k3Mw4fI8yIDnPUGlzuDJrx3JrZi6aIydS29CV0UhJVACgBGexRvUdWEGBtj92cIFpusxd-s-5WLn-_tF77D7YF0C0Q5N2IRusb3cf1v-AUdC4az</recordid><startdate>20150501</startdate><enddate>20150501</enddate><creator>Gillinov, Stephen M.</creator><creator>Laux, Sara</creator><creator>Kuivila, Thomas</creator><creator>Hass, Daniel</creator><creator>Joy, Susan M.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150501</creationdate><title>Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency</title><author>Gillinov, Stephen M. ; Laux, Sara ; Kuivila, Thomas ; Hass, Daniel ; Joy, Susan M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c28389203da0f5a93567d69b7b9ffc53d3c865ab75efd614dd7d07fbda76f5a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Current Research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gillinov, Stephen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laux, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuivila, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hass, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joy, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Sports health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gillinov, Stephen M.</au><au>Laux, Sara</au><au>Kuivila, Thomas</au><au>Hass, Daniel</au><au>Joy, Susan M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency: A Randomized Crossover Trial</atitle><jtitle>Sports health</jtitle><addtitle>Sports Health</addtitle><date>2015-05-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>256</spage><epage>260</epage><pages>256-260</pages><issn>1941-7381</issn><eissn>1941-0921</eissn><abstract>Background:
Although minimalist footwear is increasingly popular among runners, claims that minimalist footwear enhances running biomechanics and efficiency are controversial.
Hypothesis:
Minimalist and barefoot conditions improve running efficiency when compared with traditional running shoes.
Study Design:
Randomized crossover trial.
Level of Evidence:
Level 3.
Methods:
Fifteen experienced runners each completed three 90-second running trials on a treadmill, each trial performed in a different type of footwear: traditional running shoes with a heavily cushioned heel, minimalist running shoes with minimal heel cushioning, and barefoot (socked). High-speed photography was used to determine foot strike, ground contact time, knee angle, and stride cadence with each footwear type.
Results:
Runners had more rearfoot strikes in traditional shoes (87%) compared with minimalist shoes (67%) and socked (40%) (P = 0.03). Ground contact time was longest in traditional shoes (265.9 ± 10.9 ms) when compared with minimalist shoes (253.4 ± 11.2 ms) and socked (250.6 ± 16.2 ms) (P = 0.005). There was no difference between groups with respect to knee angle (P = 0.37) or stride cadence (P = 0.20). When comparing running socked to running with minimalist running shoes, there were no differences in measures of running efficiency.
Conclusion:
When compared with running in traditional, cushioned shoes, both barefoot (socked) running and minimalist running shoes produce greater running efficiency in some experienced runners, with a greater tendency toward a midfoot or forefoot strike and a shorter ground contact time. Minimalist shoes closely approximate socked running in the 4 measurements performed.
Clinical Relevance:
With regard to running efficiency and biomechanics, in some runners, barefoot (socked) and minimalist footwear are preferable to traditional running shoes.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>26131304</pmid><doi>10.1177/1941738115571093</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1941-7381 |
ispartof | Sports health, 2015-05, Vol.7 (3), p.256-260 |
issn | 1941-7381 1941-0921 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4482302 |
source | EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus with Full Text; PubMed Central; EZB Electronic Journals Library; SAGE |
subjects | Current Research |
title | Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Running Efficiency: A Randomized Crossover Trial |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T18%3A53%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20Minimalist%20Footwear%20on%20Running%20Efficiency:%20A%20Randomized%20Crossover%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Sports%20health&rft.au=Gillinov,%20Stephen%20M.&rft.date=2015-05-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=256&rft.epage=260&rft.pages=256-260&rft.issn=1941-7381&rft.eissn=1941-0921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1941738115571093&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1693183365%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c28389203da0f5a93567d69b7b9ffc53d3c865ab75efd614dd7d07fbda76f5a33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1693183365&rft_id=info:pmid/26131304&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1941738115571093&rfr_iscdi=true |