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

dc.contributor.authorSánchez Gómez, Rubén
dc.contributor.authorBecerro de Bengoa Vallejo, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorLópez López, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorMartínez Jiménez, Eva María
dc.contributor.authorCalvo Lobo, César 
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Sanz, David
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-16T16:19:32Z
dc.date.available2019-05-16T16:19:32Z
dc.date.issued2018
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.spa
dc.description.filiationUEMspa
dc.description.impact3.485 JCR (2018) Q1, 18/80 Engineering, Biomedical; Q2, 13/32 Materials Science, Biomaterialsspa
dc.description.impact1.037 SJR (2018) Q1, 51/367 Biomedical Engineering, 70/473 Mechanics of Materials; Q2, 23/108 Biomaterialsspa
dc.description.impactNo data IDR 2018spa
dc.description.sponsorshipSin financiaciónspa
dc.identifier.citationRoca-Dols, A., Losa-Iglesias, M. E., Sánchez-Gómez, R., Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo, R., López-López, D., Rodríguez-Sanz, D., ... & Calvo-Lobo, C. (2018). Effect of the cushioning running shoes in ground contact time of phases of gait. Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 88, 196-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.032spa
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.08.032
dc.identifier.issn1751-6161
dc.identifier.issn1878-0180
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11268/7907
dc.language.isoengspa
dc.peerreviewedSispa
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted accessspa
dc.subject.uemFisiología humanaspa
dc.subject.uemRunningspa
dc.subject.uemCalzadospa
dc.subject.unescoFisiología humanaspa
dc.subject.unescoDeportespa
dc.subject.unescoLesión
dc.titleEffect of the cushioning running shoes in ground contact time of phases of gaitspa
dc.typejournal articlespa
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationabb888c1-8c36-42a5-9043-43e51ba331a5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication224f44e5-15ae-48f2-8e32-ac0879c24e79
relation.isAuthorOfPublication43641780-6ebb-488f-8857-532d1133ace6
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryabb888c1-8c36-42a5-9043-43e51ba331a5

Files