Effects of technological running shoes versus barefoot running on the intrinsic foot muscles, ankle mobility, and dynamic control: a novel cross-sectional research
Background: Technological running shoes have become increasingly popular, leading to improvements in performance. However, their long-term effects on foot musculature and joint mobility have not been thoroughly studied. Objective: To compare the activation of the intrinsic foot muscles between runne...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Europea (UEM) |
| Repositorio: | ABACUS. Repositorio de Producción Científica |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:abacus.universidadeuropea.com:11268/12958 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11268/12958 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Sistema musculoesquelético Tobillo Deporte Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages |
| Sumario: | Background: Technological running shoes have become increasingly popular, leading to improvements in performance. However, their long-term effects on foot musculature and joint mobility have not been thoroughly studied. Objective: To compare the activation of the intrinsic foot muscles between runners wearingtechnological footwear and barefoot runners. Secondary bjectives included assessing ankle dorsiflexion (DF) range of motion (ROM) and dynamic postural control in both groups. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 22 technological footwear runners and 22 barefoot runners. Ultrasonography was used to measure the thickness of the plantar fascia (PF) and the quadratus plantae (QP), abductor digiti minimus (ADM), abductor hallucis (AH), and flexor hallucis longus (FHL) muscles. Ankle mobility and dynamic postural control were also recorded. Results: Ultrasonography measurements showed statistically significant differences for PF thickness (mean difference [MD]: -0.10 cm; 95 %CI: -0.13, -0.05 cm), QP cross-sectional area (CSA) (MD: -0.45 cm2; 95 %CI: -0.77, -0.12 cm2), ADM CSA (MD: -0.49 cm2; 95 %CI: -0.70, -0.17 cm2), and FHL thickness (MD: 0.82 cm; 95 %CI: 0.53, 1.09 cm), with all measurements being lower in the group wearing technological footwear compared to the barefoot runners. Ankle DF ROM was also significantly greater for the barefoot runners (MD: -5.1°; 95 %CI: -8.6, -1.7°). Conclusions: These findings suggest potential implications for the foot musculature and ankle mobility in runners using technological footwear. |
|---|