Ken Van Alsenoy , Marietta L. van der Linden , Olivier Girard , Joong Hyun Ryu , Lubna Al Raisi , Derek Santos
{"title":"混合定制足部矫形器对跑步经济性、跑步力学和舒适性的影响:一项双盲随机交叉研究。","authors":"Ken Van Alsenoy , Marietta L. van der Linden , Olivier Girard , Joong Hyun Ryu , Lubna Al Raisi , Derek Santos","doi":"10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.01.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study examined the effects of orthotic materials on running economy, running mechanics, and footwear comfort.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A double-blinded randomized crossover study design was used.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Eighteen athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill for six minutes at speeds corresponding to 10 % below their first ventilatory threshold (average: 9.9 ± 1.3 km/h) in four footwear conditions [control (CON), Ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU), and a combination of EVA and TPU (HYB)].</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No differences were found in running economy between conditions (p = 0.099). All custom foot orthoses materials reduced peak heel impact force <em>vs</em> CON (p < 0.001). TPU reduced hysteresis at heel impact <em>vs</em> CON (-47.8 %, p = 0.016). Shorter flight time (-3.8 %, p = 0.016; −3.1 %, p = 0.021) and lower mean vertical loading rate (-4.0 %, p = 0.003; −7.1 %, p < 0.001) occurred for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU and CON, respectively. Higher peak vertical loading rates (+7.4 %, p = 0.002) and earlier impact peaks (-5.7 %, p < 0.001) were found for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU. HYB exhibited longer propulsive phase duration (+2.0 %, p = 0.003) but lower peak propulsive force (-3.3 %, p = 0.009) <em>vs</em> CON. Reduced ‘overall comfort’ (-26.4 %, p = 0.004), ‘comfort of heel cushioning’ (-43.3 %, p < 0.001), and ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (-18.3 %, p = 0.048) was found for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU, but ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (+48.0 %, p = 0.032) showed an increase <em>vs</em> EVA.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combining materials could enhance comfort during running causing subtle changes in running mechanics. Overall, neither EVA, TPU nor their combination significantly improved running economy compared to CON.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12496,"journal":{"name":"Gait & posture","volume":"118 ","pages":"Pages 45-50"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of hybrid custom foot orthoses on running economy, running mechanics and comfort: A double-blinded randomized crossover study\",\"authors\":\"Ken Van Alsenoy , Marietta L. van der Linden , Olivier Girard , Joong Hyun Ryu , Lubna Al Raisi , Derek Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.01.030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study examined the effects of orthotic materials on running economy, running mechanics, and footwear comfort.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A double-blinded randomized crossover study design was used.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>Eighteen athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill for six minutes at speeds corresponding to 10 % below their first ventilatory threshold (average: 9.9 ± 1.3 km/h) in four footwear conditions [control (CON), Ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU), and a combination of EVA and TPU (HYB)].</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No differences were found in running economy between conditions (p = 0.099). All custom foot orthoses materials reduced peak heel impact force <em>vs</em> CON (p < 0.001). TPU reduced hysteresis at heel impact <em>vs</em> CON (-47.8 %, p = 0.016). Shorter flight time (-3.8 %, p = 0.016; −3.1 %, p = 0.021) and lower mean vertical loading rate (-4.0 %, p = 0.003; −7.1 %, p < 0.001) occurred for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU and CON, respectively. Higher peak vertical loading rates (+7.4 %, p = 0.002) and earlier impact peaks (-5.7 %, p < 0.001) were found for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU. HYB exhibited longer propulsive phase duration (+2.0 %, p = 0.003) but lower peak propulsive force (-3.3 %, p = 0.009) <em>vs</em> CON. Reduced ‘overall comfort’ (-26.4 %, p = 0.004), ‘comfort of heel cushioning’ (-43.3 %, p < 0.001), and ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (-18.3 %, p = 0.048) was found for HYB <em>vs</em> TPU, but ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (+48.0 %, p = 0.032) showed an increase <em>vs</em> EVA.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Combining materials could enhance comfort during running causing subtle changes in running mechanics. Overall, neither EVA, TPU nor their combination significantly improved running economy compared to CON.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gait & posture\",\"volume\":\"118 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 45-50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gait & posture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096663622500030X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gait & posture","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096663622500030X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effects of hybrid custom foot orthoses on running economy, running mechanics and comfort: A double-blinded randomized crossover study
Objective
This study examined the effects of orthotic materials on running economy, running mechanics, and footwear comfort.
Design
A double-blinded randomized crossover study design was used.
Method
Eighteen athletes ran on an instrumented treadmill for six minutes at speeds corresponding to 10 % below their first ventilatory threshold (average: 9.9 ± 1.3 km/h) in four footwear conditions [control (CON), Ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU), and a combination of EVA and TPU (HYB)].
Results
No differences were found in running economy between conditions (p = 0.099). All custom foot orthoses materials reduced peak heel impact force vs CON (p < 0.001). TPU reduced hysteresis at heel impact vs CON (-47.8 %, p = 0.016). Shorter flight time (-3.8 %, p = 0.016; −3.1 %, p = 0.021) and lower mean vertical loading rate (-4.0 %, p = 0.003; −7.1 %, p < 0.001) occurred for HYB vs TPU and CON, respectively. Higher peak vertical loading rates (+7.4 %, p = 0.002) and earlier impact peaks (-5.7 %, p < 0.001) were found for HYB vs TPU. HYB exhibited longer propulsive phase duration (+2.0 %, p = 0.003) but lower peak propulsive force (-3.3 %, p = 0.009) vs CON. Reduced ‘overall comfort’ (-26.4 %, p = 0.004), ‘comfort of heel cushioning’ (-43.3 %, p < 0.001), and ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (-18.3 %, p = 0.048) was found for HYB vs TPU, but ‘comfort of forefoot cushioning’ (+48.0 %, p = 0.032) showed an increase vs EVA.
Conclusions
Combining materials could enhance comfort during running causing subtle changes in running mechanics. Overall, neither EVA, TPU nor their combination significantly improved running economy compared to CON.
期刊介绍:
Gait & Posture is a vehicle for the publication of up-to-date basic and clinical research on all aspects of locomotion and balance.
The topics covered include: Techniques for the measurement of gait and posture, and the standardization of results presentation; Studies of normal and pathological gait; Treatment of gait and postural abnormalities; Biomechanical and theoretical approaches to gait and posture; Mathematical models of joint and muscle mechanics; Neurological and musculoskeletal function in gait and posture; The evolution of upright posture and bipedal locomotion; Adaptations of carrying loads, walking on uneven surfaces, climbing stairs etc; spinal biomechanics only if they are directly related to gait and/or posture and are of general interest to our readers; The effect of aging and development on gait and posture; Psychological and cultural aspects of gait; Patient education.