-How viable the project would be to do

-Different shoes we could use

-When we would start the lab testing

-What was to come in the next few weeks (learning each lab test e.g collecting force plate data)

-What data we could collect

-Researched into carbon plate shoes and found prices for them

-Found the tibialis anterior, soleus and lateral gastrocnemius, and found some EMG data for them as a practice using the technique

-Learnt about GRFs and how to measure them

-Blue line= vertical forces, Green line= medio lateral forces, Red line= horizontal forces

-We used time gates and learnt how to set them up

Newtons laws

1st- objects will remain at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at constant velocity unless acted on by an external force (law of inertia)

2nd- acceleration of objects depend upon the mass of the object and amount of force applied

3rd- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

-We was looking at pressure distribution using the treadmill

-We used Gateway 3D software and Zebris to find the pressures of the foot when running

-We used this software to analyse gait, from this we can see if people are at risk of injury, and can also see imbalances between either leg

-Using sensors stuck to the leg, we can identify how far the foot everts when we are running

-A camera is placed behind the runner, that captures a video of the run in slow motion so we can see the amount of pronation that takes place

-We can then input this data into the computer to find out the angle, finding out how much the foot has everted

-Each research question included at least two techniques we have learnt

-The questions compared each shoes against one another and would test which shoe performed better for the techniques (e.g. which would have a better pressure distribution)

-Then stated what the dependent and independent variables would be for each research question created, also said what the experimental design would be

1. Click 'measure'

2. Click 'treadmill control'

3. Add runners data into system

4. Set speed and elevation

5. Press record after starting treadmill

6. Gather needed data and 'save' when done so

Using Zebris (pressure software)

1. Gait analysis FDM-T

2. Record and set the speed on gaitway 3D

3. 1:1 report to find averages and maximum values

1. Place reflective markers on lower leg, foot and shoes

2. Use Quintic system to video posterior frontal view of each participants lower legs

3. Set treadmill speed

Video analysis

1. Set videos to include single stance phase (couple of images before foot strike till toe off)

2. Auto digitize the markers and smooth

3. Obtain single angle of each segment to 'the horizontal'

4. Use single video angular analysis and click leg proximal, leg distal, horizontal= angle of lower leg to horizontal

5. Use same analysis and click calcaneus proximal, calcaneus distal, horizontal= angle of foot to horizontal

-We chose what our research question will be

-The presentation included the objectives and hypothesis, methods, procedures and data analysis

-Adrian tasked me to find out what loading rate was: loading rate refers to the rate at which forces is applied to the body/muscle over a period of time, expressed as the slope of the force-time curve during the initial impact phase of an activity

• Measure and contrast GRF variables (e.g. peak impact force and VLR) across the three shoes. 

• Determine whether differences in RFM and GRF among footwear types are associated with biomechanical indicators of injury risk.  

• H₁: There will be significant differences in rearfoot motion and ground reaction forces between carbon-plated and foam-soled running shoes in recreational runners. 

Pronation Angle= The angular movement of the foot, pronation is the inward roll of foot during running/walking. Measured in °.

Pronation Angular Velocity= The time rate of change of foot pronation, showing how quick the foot rolls inward. Measured in °/s.

Vertical Loading Rate= The rate of increase in vertical GRF during early stance phase, represented by the slope of the GRF-time curve. Measured in N/s.

Impact Peak Force= The initial maximum vertical GRF occurring shortly after foot strike. Measured in N.

Active Peak Force= The maximum vertical GRF, during the midstance phase. Measured in N.

Shock absorption: Cushioning materials help absorb GRF.

Biomechanics alteration: Joint kinematics can be altered due to shoe design.

Load distribution: Different shoe designs can distribute pressure differently across the foot.

Foot strike: Shoe designs can change the way runners foot strike, for example shifting foot strike more closer the forefoot.

Fatigue: Footwear can reduce muscular fatigue, reducing risk of injury.

The plate aims to increase forward propulsion through a 'lever effect'.

Biomechanics may be altered for wearers that are not experienced with the shoes, for example most recreational runners.

Example foams include EVA, TPU and PEBA.

Traditionally these shoes are the most popular for recreational runners.

All signed an informed consent form and read the information participation sheet before testing begun.

Eligibility criteria: 18-22 years old, UK shoe size 9, be a recreational runner.

Exclusion criteria: Any current injuries, were pregnant, had reduced movement, any recent lower limb injury that stopped training occurring.

Pixel clock- 192MHz

Frame rate- 99.99fps

Exposure time- 2.995ms

The system captures vertical (Fz), anterior-posterior (Fy) and medio-lateral (Fx) forces at high sampling frequency. We used a sampling frequency of 1000Hz, to capture the rapid movement during running accurately.

They then ran for 3-minutes at 10.5 km/h in each footwear condition.

Although this pattern emerged, the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed no statistically significant differences between footwear.

The inter-individual variability was high throughout the study.

For impact peak force, the data was too limited to proceed with statistical testing, however from result trends, it can be seen that the TRACE had a reduced impact loading compared to the VAPORFLY.

For active peak force, the results were very similar across the shoes, with no significant differences found.

Individual variability was high across all shoe conditions, suggesting that individual's unique biomechanics influenced the results gathered, not just the shoes design. This idea supports the 'preferred movement path', which suggests footwear should help runners run in their preferred manner and not try to alter their movement (Nigg et al., 2015).

-The chosen running pace (10.5 km/h) accurately represents recreational running speed.

-Analysing both RFM and GRF simultaneously provided a deeper understanding as to how different shoe conditions affect injury risk.

-Short running durations (3-minutes) meant that runners may not have exhibited any biomechanical changes or adaptation effects.

-Foot strike pattern was not accounted for, could have led to some misinterpretation of data.

-Although a random number generator was used, the order of shoes they ran in, participant familiarity may have contributed to variation in results.

-The cheaper KIPRUN may be a better alternative to the VAPORFLY, as they had similar results but the KIPRUN is significantly cheaper.

-Runners should ultimately select running shoes that are suited to their unique biomechanics and not solely opt for those with performance benefits.

-Incorporate electromyography (EMG) alongside RFM and GRF to examine the effects of footwear on muscle activity and correlate these findings to injury risk.

-Account for foot strike patterns of participants, to help better understand the results.

-Use longer running durations to allow for potential biomechanical changes.

When first researching about the shoes, the VAPORFLY was highly popular and had lots of studies and journals publishing about how they improve running performance. Carbon-plated shoes grew even more popular after Kelvin Kiptum set the marathon world record wearing a pair of Nike Alphafly 3s.

I noticed a lack of research that looked at the effects of these shoes on injury risk. As carbon-plated shoes become more popular and accessible to non-elite runners, it is important to understand how they may contribute to increased injury risk.

2. Beck, O.N., Golyski, P.R. and Sawicki, G.S., (2020) ‘Adding carbon fiber to shoe soles may not improve running economy: a muscle-level explanation’, Scientific Reports, 10(1), p.17154. 

3. Becker, J., James, S., Wayner, R., Osternig, L. and Chou, L.S., (2017) ‘Biomechanical factors associated with Achilles tendinopathy and medial tibial stress syndrome in runners’, The American journal of sports medicine, 45(11), pp.2614-2621. 

4. Castellanos-Salamanca, M., Rodrigo-Carranza, V., Rodríguez-Barbero, S., González-Ravé, J.M., Santos-Concejero, J. and González-Mohíno, F., (2023) ‘Effects of the Nike ZoomX Vaporfly Next% 2 shoe on long-interval training performance, kinematics, neuromuscular parameters, running power and fatigue’, European journal of sport science, 23(7), pp.1315-1323. 

5. Chan, Z.Y., Zhang, J.H., Au, I.P., An, W.W., Shum, G.L., Ng, G.Y. and Cheung, R.T., (2018) ‘Gait retraining for the reduction of injury occurrence in novice distance runners: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial’, The American journal of sports medicine, 46(2), pp.388-395. 

6. Cheung, R.T. and Davis, I.S., (2011) ‘Landing pattern modification to improve patellofemoral pain in runners: a case series’, Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy, 41(12), pp.914-919. 

7. Davis, I.S., Bowser, B.J. and Mullineaux, D.R., (2016) ‘Greater vertical impact loading in female runners with medically diagnosed injuries: a prospective investigation’, British journal of sports medicine, 50(14), pp.887-892. 

8. Dominy, T.A. and Joubert, D.P., (2022) ‘Effects of a Carbon-Plated Racing Shoe on Running Economy at Slower Running Speeds’, In International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings, 2(14), p. 15. 

9. Ferber, R., Hreljac, A. and Kendall, K.D., (2009) ‘Suspected mechanisms in the cause of overuse running injuries: a clinical review’, Sports health, 1(3), pp.242-246. 

10. Fredette, A., Roy, J.S., Perreault, K., Dupuis, F., Napier, C. and Esculier, J.F., (2022) ‘The association between running injuries and training parameters: a systematic review’, Journal of Athletic Training, 57(7), pp.650-671. 

11. Healey, L.A. and Hoogkamer, W., (2022) ‘Longitudinal bending stiffness does not affect running economy in Nike Vaporfly shoes’, Journal of sport and health science, 11(3), pp.285-292. 

12. Hoogkamer, W., Kipp, S., Frank, J.H., Farina, E.M., Luo, G. and Kram, R., (2018) ‘A comparison of the energetic cost of running in marathon racing shoes’, Sports Medicine, 48(4), pp.1009-1019. 

13. Hreljac, A., (2004) ‘Impact and overuse injuries in runners’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5), pp.845-849. 

14. Hreljac, A.L.A.N., Marshall, R.N. and Hume, P.A., (2000) ‘Evaluation of lower extremity overuse injury potential in runners’, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(9), pp.1635-1641. 

15. Kernozek, T.W. and Ricard, M.D., (1990) ‘Foot placement angle and arch type: effect on rearfoot motion’, Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 71(12), pp.988-991. 

16. Kiesewetter, P., Bräuer, S., Haase, R., Nitzsche, N., Mitschke, C. and Milani, T.L., (2022) ‘Do carbon-plated running shoes with different characteristics influence physiological and biomechanical variables during a 10 km treadmill run?’, Applied Sciences, 12(15), p.7949. 

17. Kulmala, J.P., Kosonen, J., Nurminen, J. and Avela, J., (2018) ‘Running in highly cushioned shoes increases leg stiffness and amplifies impact loading’, Scientific reports, 8(1), pp.1-7. 

18. Malisoux, L., Gette, P., Backes, A., Delattre, N., Cabri, J. and Theisen, D., (2021) ‘Relevance of frequency-domain analyses to relate shoe cushioning, ground impact forces and running injury risk: a secondary analysis of a randomized trial with 800+ recreational runners’, Frontiers in sports and active living, 3, p.744658. 

19. Malisoux, L., Napier, C., Gette, P., Delattre, N. and Theisen, D., (2023) ‘Reference Values and Determinants of Spatiotemporal and Kinetic Variables in Recreational Runners’, Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 11(10), p.23259671231204629. 

20. Morley, J.B., Decker, L.M., Dierks, T., Blanke, D., French, J.A. and Stergiou, N., (2010) ‘Effects of varying amounts of pronation on the mediolateral ground reaction forces during barefoot versus shod running’, Journal of applied biomechanics, 26(2), pp.205-214. 

21. Neal, B.S., Griffiths, I.B., Dowling, G.J., Murley, G.S., Munteanu, S.E., Franettovich Smith, M.M., Collins, N.J. and Barton, C.J., (2014) ‘Foot posture as a risk factor for lower limb overuse injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis', Journal of foot and ankle research, 7, pp.1-13. 

22. Nielsen, R.O., Buist, I., Sørensen, H., Lind, M. and Rasmussen, S., (2012) ‘Training errors and running related injuries: a systematic review’, International journal of sports physical therapy, 7(1), p.58. 

23. Nigg, B.M., Baltich, J., Hoerzer, S. and Enders, H., (2015) ‘Running shoes and running injuries: mythbusting and a proposal for two new paradigms: ‘preferred movement path’and ‘comfort filter’’, British journal of sports medicine, 49(20), pp.1290-1294. 

24. Pohl, M.B., Hamill, J. and Davis, I.S., (2009) ‘Biomechanical and anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners’, Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 19(5), pp.372-376. 

25. Qiu, C., Zhu, P., Dong, X. and Wang, D., (2024) ‘Supercritical foaming of novel poly (ether‐b‐amide) elastomer and compression property characterization’, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 141(23), p.e55455. 

26. Starbuck, C., Bramah, C., Herrington, L. and Jones, R., (2021) ‘The effect of speed on Achilles tendon forces and patellofemoral joint stresses in high‐performing endurance runners’, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 31(8), pp.1657-1665. 

27. Stenerson, L.R., Melton, B.F., Bland, H.W. and Ryan, G.A., (2023) ‘Running-related overuse injuries and their relationship with run and resistance training characteristics in adult recreational runners: a cross-sectional study’, Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 8(3), p.128. 

28. Tenforde, A., Hoenig, T., Saxena, A. and Hollander, K., (2023) ‘Bone stress injuries in runners using carbon fiber plate footwear’, Sports medicine, 53(8), pp.1499-1505. 

29. Udofa, A.B., Clark, K.P., Ryan, L.J. and Weyand, P.G., (2019) ‘Running ground reaction forces across footwear conditions are predicted from the motion of two body mass components’, Journal of Applied Physiology, 126(5), pp.1315-1325. 

30. Van Gent, R.N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., Van Os, A.G., Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A. and Koes, B.W., (2007) ‘Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review’, British journal of sports medicine, 41(8), pp.469-480. 

31. Verdejo, R. and Mills, N.J., (2004) ‘Heel–shoe interactions and the durability of EVA foam running-shoe midsoles’, Journal of biomechanics, 37(9), pp.1379-1386. 

32. Wezenbeek, E., Willems, T.M., Mahieu, N., Van Caekenberghe, I., Witvrouw, E. and De Clercq, D., (2017) ‘Is Achilles tendon blood flow related to foot pronation?’, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(12), pp.1970-1977. 

33. Worobets, J., Wannop, J.W., Tomaras, E. and Stefanyshyn, D., (2014) ‘Softer and more resilient running shoe cushioning properties enhance running economy’, Footwear Science, 6(3), pp.147-153. 

34. Willy, R.W. and Paquette, M.R., (2019) ‘The physiology and biomechanics of the master runner’, Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review, 27(1), pp.15-21. 

35. Zadpoor, A.A. and Nikooyan, A.A., (2011) ‘The relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the ground reaction force: a systematic review’, Clinical biomechanics, 26(1), pp.23-28.