The main objective of this research was to know how five different cushioning shoes may interfere in ground contact times of each gait phase of walking and running in contrast with barefoot condition. Thirty healthy sport recreational male runners participated in this study. They played over a treadmill wearing minimalist, Boost®, Ethyl-vinyl-acetate (EVA), Air® chamber and pronation-control cushioning shoes technologies and under barefoot condition, recording the last 30 s of walking and running at 5.17 km/h and 9 km/h respectively, while ground contact time duration of each phase of gait was recorded with circular standard pressure sensors located on plantar feet. During walking, the heel contact phase was the station that increased significantly ground contact times wearing all sole cushioning shoes (p < 0.001), excepting no sole shoes (minimalist), versus barefoot condition, being Air® chamber the model that showed the highest times of contact floor versus barefoot (0.28 ± 0.08 ms and 0.23 ± 0.12 ms vs 0.12 ± 0.07 ms and 0.18 ± 0.07 ms in heel contact during midstance phases, respectively). During running, propulsion phase was the station that showed the highest spent times on ground contact with the floor under all shoe conditions, even with minimalist, being again Air® chamber the model with higher significant times in two of three phases versus barefoot (0.11 ± 0.04 ms and 0.16 ± 0.11 ms vs 0.09 ± 0.03 ms and 0.10 ± 0.02 ms in midstance and propulsion phases respectively). Air chamber® was the model too with the most switch ratio to forefoot strike pattern (0.07 ± 0.10 ms to 0.16 ± 0.11 from heel contact to propulsion phase, respectively). In conclusion, a ground contact times increase using all cushioning running shoes compared with barefoot condition was shown in both walking and running test.
Keywords: Cushioning running shoes; Ground contact time; Phases of gait; Running economy; Strike pattern.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.