Efficacy of motion control shoes for reducing excessive rearfoot motion in fatigued runners | Semantic Scholar (2024)

The ground reaction force characteristics in novice female runners with pronated feet during running with different footwear before and after fatigue of the lower limb muscles showed that the frequency with a power of 99.5% of in the vertical ground Reaction force with the motion control shoes were lower than that control shoes during post-test.

The motion control shoe may facilitate a more stable activation pattern and higher fatigue resistance of the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus in individuals with excessive rearfoot pronation during running.

The plantar force on the medial foot structures increased with mileage of running with neutral shoes but not with motion control shoes, which has implications for injury prevention with footwear selection for recreational runners who have more than 6 degrees of foot pronation.

The findings suggest that the motion control shoe may facilitate a stable temporal activation of VMO during running.

Lower limb kinematics and kinetics in young female runners with pronated feet during running with anti-pronation versus regular (neutral) running shoes in unfatigued and fatigued condition and significant main effects of “Fatigue” were indicated.

The influence of motion control, neutral, and cushioned running shoes on joint function dissipates moving proximally, with larger changes reported at the ankle compared with knee and hip joints.

Data indicate that reduced force output of the tibialis posterior muscle did not alter rearfoot and forefoot motion during gait, and the anatomical structure of the rearfoot was not associated with the dependence of muscular activity that an individual requires to maintain normal rearfoot kinematics duringGait.

The rearfoot eversion angle changed an average 4 degrees when running shod and the RM barefoot altered quite a lot when using a running shoe, as claimed by the manufacturers.

Reductions in midfoot–rearfoot eversion and medial longitudinal arch deformation in the motion control running shoe may be due to increased medial posting and torsional control systems in this shoe, however, these changes in mid foot kinematics may be offset by significant increases in sagittal plane midfoot-rear foot and forefoot– rearfoot range of motion, particularly during mid-stance.

...

...

The purpose of this investigation was to show whether the pronation angle and the torsion angle differ when running barefoot, with spikes, and with running shoes and to reduce the risk of injury.

The results of this study suggest that the increase in rearfoot motion is directly affected by fatigue and not by a fatigue-induced increase in step length.

It was found that shoes with soft midsoles allowed significantly more maximum pronation (MP) and total rearfoot movement (TRM) than shoes with either medium (35 durometers) or hard (45 durometer) midsoles.

It is concluded that lateral stability may be improved by altering the properties and design of the shoe sole as well as the upper.

This study shows that corrections to the static position of forefoot varus and calcaneal valgus can result in changes in transverse- and frontal-plane motion of the foot and knee during walking and running.

In the healthy lower extremity, increased internal and external tibial rotation is resolved at the hip joint, with changes at the tibiofemoral joint that barely are detectable with the techniques used in this study.

It is concluded that the tibiocalcaneal kinematics of running may be individually unique and that shoe sole modifications may not be able to change them substantially.

Clinicians should consider combined posting or rear- foot posting alone when maximal control of rear-foot frontal-plane pronation is desired, though forefoot posting alone and the orthotic shell also provide control of Rear- foot frontal- plane pronation.

...

...