Alsenoy Ken Van, van der Linden Marietta L, Girard Olivier, Ryu Joong Hyun, Raisi Lubna Al, Santos Derek
Research and Scientific Support Department, Aspetar, Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, FIFA Medical Centre of Excellence, Doha, Qatar; Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research (CHEARR), Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, UK.
Centre for Health, Activity and Rehabilitation Research (CHEARR), Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, UK.
Gait Posture. 2025 May;118:45-50. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.01.030. Epub 2025 Jan 28.
This study examined the effects of orthotic materials on running economy, running mechanics, and footwear comfort.
A double-blinded randomized crossover study design was used.
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)].
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.
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.
本研究探讨了矫形材料对跑步经济性、跑步力学和鞋类舒适度的影响。
采用双盲随机交叉研究设计。
18名运动员在装有仪器的跑步机上，以低于其第一个通气阈值10%的速度（平均：9.9±1.3千米/小时）跑6分钟，共四种鞋类条件[对照组（CON）、乙烯醋酸乙烯酯（EVA）、热塑性聚氨酯（TPU）以及EVA和TPU的组合（HYB）]。
各条件之间在跑步经济性方面未发现差异（p = 0.099）。与CON相比，所有定制足部矫形材料均降低了足跟撞击峰值力（p < 0.001）。与CON相比，TPU降低了足跟撞击时的滞后现象（-47.8%，p = 0.016）。与TPU和CON相比，HYB的飞行时间分别缩短（-3.8%，p = 0.016；-3.1%，p = 0.021），平均垂直加载率分别降低（-4.0%，p = 0.003；-7.1%，p < 0.001）。与TPU相比，HYB的垂直加载峰值率更高（+7.4%，p = 0.002），撞击峰值更早出现（-5.7%，p < 0.001）。与CON相比，HYB的推进阶段持续时间更长（+2.0%，p = 0.003），但推进峰值力更低（-3.3%，p = 0.009）。与TPU相比，HYB的“整体舒适度”降低（-26.4%，p = 0.004），“足跟缓冲舒适度”降低（-43.3%，p < 0.001），“前脚掌缓冲舒适度”降低（-18.3%，p = 0.048），但与EVA相比，“前脚掌缓冲舒适度”有所提高（+48.0%，p = 0.032）。
材料组合可提高跑步过程中的舒适度，并导致跑步力学发生细微变化。总体而言，与CON相比，EVA、TPU及其组合均未显著改善跑步经济性。
