HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 34/12/1998    most recent 0363546506290401v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Butler, R. J. Articles by Hamill, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Butler, R. J. Articles by Hamill, J. Related Collections Biomechanics Kinematics and kinetics

Interaction of Arch Type and Footwear on Running Mechanics

Robert J. Butler, PhD^*,, Irene S. Davis, PT, PhD^, and Joseph Hamill, PhD^||

From the Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, Drayer Physical Therapy Institute, Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, and ^|| Department of Exercise Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

^* Address correspondence to Robert J. Butler, PhD, University of Evansville, Department of Physical Therapy, 1800 Lincoln Ave, Evansville, IN 47722 (e-mail: robertjbutler{at}lycos.com).

Background: Running shoes are designed to accommodate various arch types to reduce the risk of lower extremity injuries sustained during running. Yet little is known about the biomechanical changes of running in the recommended footwear that may allow for a reduction in injuries.

Purpose: To evaluate the effects of motion control and cushion trainer shoes on running mechanics in low- and high-arched runners.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Twenty high-arched and 20 low-arched recreational runners (>10 miles per week) were recruited for the study. Three-dimensional kinematic and kinetics were collected as subjects ran at 3.5 ms^–1 ± 5% along a 25-m runway. The motion control shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1122, and the cushioning shoe evaluated was the New Balance 1022. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to determine if low- and high-arched runners responded differently to motion control and cushion trainer shoes.

Results: A significant interaction was observed in the instantaneous loading rate such that the low-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the motion control condition, and the high-arched runners had a lower instantaneous loading rate in the cushion trainer condition. Significant main effects for shoe were observed for peak positive tibial acceleration, peak-to-peak tibial acceleration, mean loading rate, peak eversion, and eversion excursion.

Conclusion: These results suggest that motion control shoes control rearfoot motion better than do cushion trainer shoes. In addition, cushion trainer shoes attenuate shock better than motion control shoes do. However, with the exception of instantaneous loading rate, these benefits do not differ between arch type.

Clinical Relevance: Running footwear recommendations should be based on an individual’s running mechanics. If a mechanical analysis is not available, footwear recommendations can be based empirically on the individual’s arch type.

Key Words: high arch • low arch • shoes • midsole

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Orendurff, E. S. Rohr, A. D. Segal, J. W. Medley, J. R. Green III, and N. J. Kadel Regional Foot Pressure During Running, Cutting, Jumping, and Landing Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 566 - 571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]