http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6601-5630
Figures
Abstract
We aim to determine the influence of sports floorings and sports shoes on impact mechanics and performance during standardised jump tasks. Twenty-one male volunteers performed ankle jumps (four consecutive maximal bounds with very dynamic ankle movements) and multi-jumps (two consecutive maximal counter-movement jumps) on force plates using minimalist and cushioned shoes under 5 sports flooring (SF) conditions. The shock absorption properties of the SF, defined as the proportion of peak impact force absorbed by the tested flooring when compared with a concrete hard surface, were: SF0 = 0% (no flooring), SF1 = 19%, SF2 = 26%, SF3 = 37% and SF4 = 45%. Shoe and flooring effects were compared using 2x5 repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparisons. A significant interaction between SF and shoe conditions was found for VILR only (p = 0.003). In minimalist shoes, SF influenced Vertical Instantaneous Loading Rate (VILR) during ankle jumps (p = 0.006) and multi-jumps (p<0.001), in accordance with shock absorption properties. However, in cushioned shoes, SF influenced VILR during ankle jumps only (p<0.001). Contact Time was the only additional variable affected by SF, but only during multi-jumps in minimalist shoes (p = 0.037). Cushioned shoes induced lower VILR (p<0.001) and lower Contact Time (p≤0.002) during ankle jumps and multi-jumps compared to minimalist shoes. During ankle jumps, cushioned shoes induced greater Peak Vertical Ground Reaction Force (PVGRF, p = 0.002), greater Vertical Average Loading Rate (p<0.001), and lower eccentric (p = 0.008) and concentric (p = 0.004) work. During multi-jumps, PVGRF was lower (p<0.001) and jump height was higher (p<0.001) in cushioned compared to minimalist shoes. In conclusion, cushioning influenced impact forces during standardised jump tasks, whether it was provided by the shoes or the sports flooring. VILR is the variable that was the most affected.
Citation: Malisoux L, Gette P, Urhausen A, Bomfim J, Theisen D (2017) Influence of sports flooring and shoes on impact forces and performance during jump tasks. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186297. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186297
Editor: Steven Allen Gard, Northwestern University, UNITED STATES
Received: July 10, 2017; Accepted: September 28, 2017; Published: October 11, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Malisoux et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was funded by Mondo Luxembourg S.A., Foetz, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [JB], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the 'author contributions' section.
Competing interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: JB is employed at Mondo Luxembourg S.A. No other relevant competing interest applies. This commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Jumping is an essential athletic task used during many different sporting activities, such as basketball, volleyball or gymnastics. Impact forces experienced during ground contact in landings can reach a magnitude of 3 to 7 times body weight [1]. The rate at which impact forces develop also deserves attention since loading rate has been associated with increased injury risk in running [2, 3]. Indeed, a meta-analysis showed that the loading rate of the impact force is significantly higher among people with stress fractures compared to control groups [4]. It is common belief that impact forces and loading rate are associated with the risk of overuse injuries in sports requiring repetitive jumps [5, 6], however the level of evidence is still weak. To reduce the potential risk of injury associated with high vertical ground reaction forces, different interventions (e.g. cushioned shoes, patellar taping, feedback on landing technique…) have been used to decrease ground reaction forces by altering lower extremity biomechanics during landing [7–9]. The concept of cushioning has been used for several decades in footwear engineering in an attempt to reduce such impacts [10, 11]. However, the results of the many studies focussing on the effects of shoe hardness (or materials) in reducing impact force peaks and loading rate have been to some extent inconclusive [9, 12, 13].
In addition to the sports shoe, sports flooring (SF) represents another material that comes as an interface between the foot and the ground during landing. Multifunctional point elastic SF consist of layers of natural and synthetic rubber and an elastic foam supporting underlay. Shock absorption is assessed with a specific apparatus (termed Artificial Athlete Apparatus) [14], according to a standard method which consists in comparing the tested surface to a completely rigid flooring construction. The method measures how much of the impact force (%) is absorbed by the tested flooring [15]. Although widespread, this test method also generates some criticism for being too simple and not giving enough insight on athlete-flooring interactions under real conditions [16].
Little information is available on the interaction between the athlete’s biomechanics and SF properties. This is surprising, since this interaction might play a role in the athletes’ performance [17], as well as their safety. Additionally, this lack of knowledge represents a barrier to designing the optimal solution regarding safety and performance [14]. Most studies investigating impact attenuation have focused on the role of footwear in shock absorption during running [11, 12, 18], but little is known about the influence of shoes or surfaces on landing activities [9, 16]. Indeed, care must be taken when extrapolating observations from running to other activities, as several studies showed that cushioning effects are task-specific [9, 19].
The aim of this study was to determine the influence of SF, as well as sports shoes, on impact forces and jump performance during standardised jump tasks. Different SF with specific technical properties were compared to identify which are most efficient in lowering impact forces at landing. The primary hypothesis was that the SF with the highest shock absorption properties would display a lower vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR) as well as a lower peak vertical ground reaction force (PVGRF) compared to the SF with the lowest shock absorption properties.[20] Our secondary hypothesis was that shoe features would also influence impact forces, and therefore, that VILR and PVGRF would be lower in cushioned shoes compared with minimalist shoes. Finally, given the lack of consistency between the few studies that investigated the effect of cushioning on jump performance [17, 21], we hypothesised that jump performance would not be affected by shoe and SF conditions.
Materials and methods
Study participants
A convenience sample of 41 physically active and healthy men were contacted in local sports clubs in November 2016. Twenty-one volunteers (age: 26.8±5.7 years, height: 1.85±0.07 m, and body mass—BM: 79.9±10.4 kg) accepted to participate in this cross-sectional study and fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: aged 18 to 50 years, shoe size between 42 and 47, experienced in jumping training through regular practice (at least twice weekly) of sports involving jumping tasks (e.g. volleyball, basketball…), no contraindication to jumping and testing, no history of surgery to the lower limbs or the back region within the previous 12 months or any degenerative conditions, and no use of insoles for physical activity. Among the 41 participants initially contacted, 16 had inappropriate shoe size, 3 eventually declined to participate and 1 incurred an injury before entering the study. The participants were requested not to practice any physical activity the day before the test and to have their last meal at least 2 hours before the beginning of the experiment. The volunteers were fully briefed about the study protocol and provided written informed consent for participation. All procedures had previously been approved by the National Ethics Committee for Research (ref. 201609/03 v1.1).
This cross-sectional study is purely exploratory. Nevertheless, based on studies that investigated the effect of shoe features on impact forces [11, 22], we estimated that a difference (mean ± SD) in PVGRF of 0.20 ± 0.29% BM between shoe or SF conditions would give a statistical power of about 80% if the significance level were set at p = 0.05 and 17 participants were included in the study.
Experimental tasks
Two jump tasks were investigated separately: ankle jumps and multi-jumps. The ankle jumps task consisted of four consecutive maximal jumps with very dynamic ankle movements and straight knees. The participants were requested to jump as high as possible using primarily their lower legs and ankle muscle power, while reducing the contact time as much as possible. The multi-jumps task consisted of two consecutive maximal counter-movement jumps, each preceded by a knee flexion of about 90°. Both tasks were explained and demonstrated to the participants, and several training trials were allowed before recording. Participants performed as many practice attempts as needed to feel comfortable jumping with the tested shoe conditions for each of the experimental tasks. A jump was considered valid if the participant landed with each foot on a force plate and if the hands remained placed at the hips. Each task was repeated 3 times for each condition (combination of shoe models and SF). The order of the conditions was administered in a random sequence for each participant. A 1 minute rest was foreseen between two consecutive records to avoid fatigue, perform a data check and change the testing conditions. All tests were administered within a single session and preceded by a warm-up run of 5–10 minutes on a treadmill at a self-selected pace.
Conditions
Sports floorings.
Jumping tasks were performed on four different SF, positioned on top of 2 force plates (see Biomechanical measurements). For each condition, a single sample covered both force plates and was fixed with double-sided adhesive tape. The flooring samples were provided by MONDO (Mondo Luxembourg S.A., Luxembourg) and consisted in layers of rubber and an elastic foam underlay. Their thickness was: SF1 = 14 mm, SF2 = 7.5 mm, SF3 = 11 mm, and SF4 = 18 mm (see Fig 1). Jumps performed on the force plates without any flooring served as the control condition (SF0). Shock absorption properties of the SF (SF1 = 19%, SF2 = 26%, SF3 = 37%, and SF4 = 45%) were provided by Mondo after data treatment, thus ensuring researcher and participant blinding.
A: Sports flooring 1 (SF1 = 14 mm); B: Sports flooring 2 (SF2 = 7.5 mm); C: Sports flooring 3(SF3 = 11 mm); D: Sports flooring 4 (SF4 = 18 mm).
Sports shoes.
All jump conditions were performed using two types of running shoes that differed, among other, in cushioning properties (Fig 2). The minimalist shoes (MIN; Merrell Vapor Glove) had a 0 mm heel-to-toe drop, a 5 mm overall stack height, weighed 159 g (size 45) and were very flexible. The standard cushioned running shoes (CUSH; Kalenji Kiprun MD) had greater shock absorption properties and were characterised by 10 mm drop, 26 mm overall stack height, and 320 g shoe mass (size 43).
A: Minimalist shoes (MIN); B: Cushioned shoes (CUSH).
Biomechanical measurements
Two Arsalis 3D force plate systems (Arsalis 800x500; Arsalis SPRL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) were used to capture vertical ground reaction force (Fz) data at a sampling rate of 1000 kHz. Each analogue output amplifier was configured to the sensitivity of 1.60 mV/N and had the minimal measurable force of 0.25 N. Neither analogue nor digital signal filtering was conducted at any device level to avoid possible signal distortion [23]. Time-synchronised raw signal records of the two force plates were imported into a custom-programmed Matlab graphical user interface (Matlab R2014a, MathWorks, Netherlands). The two force plates were treated as one, which means that the raw signals from both force plates were summed before the calculations. Prior to the experiment, the two force plates were calibrated against weights of known masses.
Signal processing
Participant’s body weight (BW, N) was obtained by the average Fz signal recorded during quiet stance (see Fig 3). The net vertical acceleration (Az, m.s-2) of the participant’s centre of mass (COM) was computed as Az = (Fz–body weight)/BM [24]. Net COM vertical velocity (Vz, m.s-1) and displacement (Sz, m) were obtained through numerical integration using the trapezoidal rule throughout the record [25]. The scalar product of force and velocity yielded net power, normalised to the participant’s BM (P, in W/kg). Work (W, in J) was calculated by integrating the power curve with respect to time [26]. Negative values represented hereby the net eccentric work (Wecc) done to decelerate the COM when landing from a jump, whereas positive values reflect the net concentric work (Wcon) performed to jump up. The transition from the phase of Wecc to the phase of Wcon during each jump was defined by the corresponding minimum of the COM displacement curve (Fig 3). Touch-down (TD) and take-off (TO) events were determined based on a 10 N threshold from the vertical ground reaction force curve [23]. Flight time (FT, in s) was defined as the time interval between TO and TD, contact time (CT, in s) as the time interval between TD and TO.
a: ground reaction force is equal to body weight propulsion and jumper reaches maximum vertical velocity; b: take-off 1, when ground reaction force < 10 N; c: maximum jump height; d: touch-down; e: peak vertical ground reaction force; f: lower position of COM; g: take-off 2; b-d: Flight time; d-g: contact time.
To assess the landing impact, several variables were computed in the period from TD to the subsequent lowest COM position. PVGRF (N.kg-1) was extracted from the recorded signal. Vertical average loading rate (VALR, N.s-1.kg-1) was computed as VALR = (Fzmax—FzTD) / (tFzmax—tTD) and, VILR (N.s-1.kg-1) as VILR = max (dFz / dt), where (tTD < t < tFzmax) [27]. Finally, Wecc was calculated between tTD and tFzmax. Jump task performance was assessed by jump height (JH, m) and Wcon (J). JH was calculated using the COM vertical displacement curve obtained via double integration [28, 29]. JH value was corrected by the distance of the COM position between quiet stance and TO. Wcon was calculated between the instant of preceding lowest COM position and the subsequent TO.
Statistics
The three trials of each subject in each experimental condition were averaged. A 2x5 (shoe x SF) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effects of shoes and SF on impact forces and jump performance separately for each jump task. Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to determine individual significant differences. Stratified analyses according to shoe condition were performed to investigate specific effects of SF in each shoe type, using (1X5) repeated measure ANOVA. The significance level was set at p<0.05. Omega squared (ω2), defined as the proportion of variance associated with or accounted for by each variable in an ANOVA, was used as measure of effect size [30]. ω2 values were classified as large (>0.14), medium (0.14–0.06) or small (≤0.06). All analyses were performed using STATA/SE V.14.
Results
Effect of sports floorings on PVGR and VILR during ankle jumps
No SF by shoe interaction was found for any variable analysed during ankle jumps. PVGRF was not significantly influenced by SF, but VILR was (ω2 = 0.10, Table 1). The post-hoc analysis revealed that VILR was lower in SF4 when compared to SF0 (p = 0.001, 95%CI: -939 to -174 N.s-1.kg-1), SF1 (p = 0.001; 95%CI: -929 to -165 N.s-1.kg-1) and SF2 (p = 0.004, 95%CI: -865 to -99 N.s-1.kg-1). A stratified analysis confirmed that VILR was lower in SF4 when compared to SF0 and to SF1 in MIN (see Table 2). In CUSH, VILR was lower in SF4 than in SF0, SF1, SF2 and SF3 (see also Fig 4).
Effect of sports floorings on PVGR and VILR during multi-jumps
During multi-jumps, a single significant SF by shoe interaction was found for VILR (Table 1 and Fig 4). The stratified analysis revealed that in MIN, VILR was lower in SF4 compared to SF0 and SF2, and lower in SF3 compared to SF0 (Table 2). No significant difference was observed in CUSH. SF did not influence PVGRF.
Effect of sports floorings on other impact-force-related variables
CT was the only additional variable affected by SF, but only during multi-jumps (ω2 = 0.05). Lower values were observed for SF2 compared to SF1 (p = 0.004, 95%CI: -0.077 to -0.009 s). After stratification, this difference was only observed in MIN (p = 0.033, 95%CI: -0.098 to -0.002 s).
Effect of shoe conditions
Shoe conditions impacted most of the variables (Table 1). CUSH induced lower VILR during both ankle jumps (95%CI: -943 to -607 N.s-1.kg-1, ω2 = 0.31) and multi-jumps (95%CI: -979 to -627 N.s-1.kg-1, ω2 = 0.31). During ankle jumps, CUSH induced greater PVGRF (95%CI: 0.62 to 2.58 N.kg-1, ω2 = 0.05), greater VALR (95%CI: 54 to 102 N.s-1.kg-1, ω2 = 0.19), lower CT (95%CI: -0.013 to -0.007 s, ω2 = 0.17) and lower eccentric (95%CI: -0.23 to -0.04 J.kg-1, ω2 = 0.03) and concentric (95%CI: -0.26 to -0.05 J. kg-1; ω2 = 0.04) work compared to MIN (Table 1). During multi-jumps, PVGRF was lower (95%CI: -4.20 to -2.20 N.kg-1, ω2 = 0.18), CT was shorter (95%CI: -0.039 to -0.009 s, ω2 = 0.05) and JH was higher (95%CI: 0.3 to 0.9 cm; ω2 = 0.06) in CUSH compared to MIN.
Discussion
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to characterise SF regarding impact forces and jump performance during landing from standardised jump tasks using different footwear. A major finding was that VILR was lower for the softest floorings during ankle jumps, and also during multi-jumps in MIN (Table 2). In those conditions, the softest flooring presented the lowest values during both jump tasks, with the highest values observed for SF0 (control) and SF2 conditions, i.e. the hardest and the thinnest floorings (Fig 4). However, in CUSH and multi-jumps conditions, SF no longer had a significant effect on VILR. In accordance with our secondary hypothesis, overall lower VILR was observed in cushioned shoes for both jump tasks (Fig 4). These results could be relevant in the context of sport injury prevention, as overuse injuries, such as tibial stress fractures and plantar fasciitis, have previously been associated with VILR [2, 3]. Conversely, PVGRF was not attenuated by SF, which means that our primary hypothesis was only partially confirmed. Although speculative, other authors have already suggested that the rate of loading may be a better indicator of cushioning ability than impact force [20]. Since jump performance was not affected by flooring, and only marginally by footwear (mean difference: 6 mm), the effect of flooring or footwear on VILR cannot be explained by differences in JH and will be the main focus of the discussion.
The influence of cushioning properties of interfaces (i.e. footwear or SF) on impact forces and peak loading rate has been previously studied throughout a large variety of tasks. Indeed, shock absorption was investigated using impact applied under the heel [31, 32], during running at different speeds [11, 18], or during jump tasks such as drop jump from different heights [10, 13], unanticipated drop jumps [9] or single-leg step-down tasks [19]. All these tasks challenge the neuromuscular system in different manners [19], which means that factors such as postural control, lower limb angles, leg stiffness or muscle activation may influence the effect of cushioning on impact forces at landing. This could explain why impact forces and/or peak loading rate were found to be reduced [9, 28], unchanged [9, 10] or increased [11] with softer materials according to the specific task investigated.
The influence of cushioning on impact attenuation thus depends on numerous additional factors. A lower peak loading rate was observed in cushioned shoes compared to minimalist shoes during the impact phase of unanticipated drop landing, but no difference was observed during drop jumps [9]. This was confirmed by another study showing that loading rate was higher during hopping when the surface was surprisingly hard compared to a consistently soft surface, while no difference was found for loading rate between consistently hard and soft conditions [33]. Thus, cushioning could play an important role in reducing both PVGRF and VILR in unanticipated conditions.
Several studies showed an interaction between interface cushioning, knee flexion, muscle activation and limb stiffness [10, 18, 32]. In running, shoe cushioning was found to affect both limb stiffness and running kinematics [18]. Impact applied under the heel generated higher impact forces in conditions with higher muscle contraction or more extended knee, independently. Actually, both conditions independently increased limb stiffness, which should be considered as a key internal factor that influences loading rate [32]. All these observations seem to indicate that athletes can adapt limb stiffness when the underlying surface stiffness properties are modified and can be anticipated [18, 33]. This could explain why PVGRF was not modified by SF in our study. Nevertheless, PVGRF was noticeably lower in CUSH when compared to MIN during multi-jumps, which confirms our secondary hypothesis. However, the results are inconsistent between the jump tasks since PVGRF was slightly higher in CUSH during ankle jumps. Also, the effect size is much lower than for VILR. A previous study showed that PVGRF was not different in the shod condition when compared to barefoot during double-leg drop landings from 0.3 and 0.6 m heights [10]. Indeed, athletes seem to adapt in contrasting ways to different conditions according to the task.
A shorter CT was observed in SF2, the thinnest flooring, when compared to SF1 during multi-jumps. Interestingly, a previous study showed that CT was shorter when hoppers landed on an expected hard surface compared to a consistently soft surface [33]. Thus, we could speculate that the participants anticipated a hard surface because of the limited thickness of the flooring and adapted their technique accordingly. However, the effect is small, no difference was observed between the other floorings, and this observation is not supported by the comparison between MIN and CUSH shoes where a shorter CT was found in cushioned shoes during both ankle jumps and multi-jumps.
According to our secondary hypothesis, many biomechanical variables were influenced by shoe conditions, and therefore, most probably by shoe cushioning properties. Some effects were common to both jump tasks (e.g. VILR), while others were task-specific. For example, PVGRF was considerably lower in CUSH during multi-jumps, while it was slightly higher during ankle jumps. The latter observation confirms that investigating the influence of shock absorption properties of sports equipment (e.g. shoes, floorings…) on human biomechanics in different jump tasks is relevant and might provide complementary information.
To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to analyse the relationship between SF and jump performance. In addition, studies relating footwear and jump performance are scarce. In a group of recreational athletes with experience in jump task, height during a vertical jump task was lower in tennis shoes when compared with barefoot and minimalist footwear conditions.[17] However, this difference was observed in men only. Another study found no difference in vertical jump performance between barefoot, minimalist and conventional running shoes.[21] In the present study, with the exception of a slightly better jump performance (6 mm) in CUSH for the multi-jumps task, no influence of footwear and SF conditions on jump height was found. Within the experimental conditions analysed to date, it seems that shock attenuation properties of sports equipment has minimal impact on jump performance.
Our study design was robust as the order of the conditions was randomised. Furthermore, both flooring and shoe cushioning properties were investigated. Finally, the researchers were blinded as to the SF characteristics until the end of the data treatment and thus less prone to be biased. One limitation of this study is that the influence of floorings on shock attenuation was not investigated at different jump heights. Also, our analysis was restricted to force measurements. Adding other measurement techniques, like motion analysis or electromyography, might have provided more insight on biomechanical adaptations to SF cushioning properties. Finally, shoe conditions differed in many aspects such as stack height at the heel, heel-toe drop, and weight (Fig 2). Thus, any shoe effect could not be attributed to cushioning properties alone.
Conclusion
Cushioning influences impact forces during standardised jump tasks, whether it is provided by the shoes or the SF. VILR is the variable that was the most often affected by both shoe and SF conditions. This is clinically interesting given that VILR was previously associated with sports injury risk. Surprisingly, many variables were affected by the shoe type but not by the SF. Further study is needed to understand biomechanical adaptation to SF cushioning, as well as to identify the best solution to lower VILR without affecting jump performance.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mrs Carmen Coljon for her precious assistance with data collection.
References
- 1. McNitt-Gray JL. Kinetics of the lower extremities during drop landings from three heights. Journal of biomechanics. 1993;26(9):1037–46. pmid:8408086.
- 2. van der Worp H, Vrielink JW, Bredeweg SW. Do runners who suffer injuries have higher vertical ground reaction forces than those who remain injury-free? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British journal of sports medicine. 2016;50(8):450–7. pmid:26729857.
- 3. Davis IS, Bowser BJ, Mullineaux DR. Greater vertical impact loading in female runners with medically diagnosed injuries: a prospective investigation. British journal of sports medicine. 2015. pmid:26644428.
- 4. Zadpoor AA, Nikooyan AA. The relationship between lower-extremity stress fractures and the ground reaction force: a systematic review. Clinical biomechanics. 2011;26(1):23–8. pmid:20846765.
- 5. Dufek JS, Bates BT. Biomechanical factors associated with injury during landing in jump sports. Sports medicine. 1991;12(5):326–37. pmid:1763250.
- 6. Richards DP, Ajemian SV, Wiley JP, Zernicke RF. Knee joint dynamics predict patellar tendinitis in elite volleyball players. The American journal of sports medicine. 1996;24(5):676–83. pmid:8883692.
- 7. Ericksen HM, Gribble PA, Pfile KR, Pietrosimone BG. Different modes of feedback and peak vertical ground reaction force during jump landing: a systematic review. Journal of athletic training. 2013;48(5):685–95. pmid:24067153.
- 8. Camara J, Diaz F, Anza MS, Mejuto G, Puente A, Iturriaga G, et al. The effect of patellar taping on some landing characteristics during counter movement jumps in healthy subjects. J Sports Sci Med. 2011;10(4):707–11. pmid:24149562.
- 9. Fu W, Liu Y, Zhang S. Effects of footwear on impact forces and soft tissue vibrations during drop jumps and unanticipated drop landings. International journal of sports medicine. 2013;34(6):477. pmid:23143698
- 10. Yeow CH, Lee PV, Goh JC. Shod landing provides enhanced energy dissipation at the knee joint relative to barefoot landing from different heights. Knee. 2011;18(6):407–11. pmid:20797866.
- 11. Baltich J, Maurer C, Nigg BM. Increased vertical impact forces and altered running mechanics with softer midsole shoes. PloS one. 2015;10(4):e0125196. pmid:25897963.
- 12. Nigg BM, Wakeling JM. Impact forces and muscle tuning: a new paradigm. Exercise and sport sciences reviews. 2001;29(1):37–41. pmid:11210446.
- 13. Zhang S, Clowers K, Kohstall C, Yu YJ. Effects of various midsole densities of basketball shoes on impact attenuation during landing activities. J Appl Biomech. 2005;21(1):3–17. pmid:16131701.
- 14. Andena L, Briatico-Vangosa F, Cazzoni E, Ciancio A, Mariani S, Pavan A. Modeling of shock absorption in athletics track surfaces. Sports Engineering. 2015;18(1):1–10.
- 15.
Surfaces for sports areas: Determination of shock absorption—BS EN 14808:2005 (2006).
- 16. Durá JV, Hoyos JV, Lozano L, Martínez A. The effect of shock absorbing sport surfaces in jumping. Sports Engineering. 1999;2:103–8.
- 17. LaPorta JW, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Galpin AJ, Tufano JJ, Cazas VL, et al. Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(3):733–7. pmid:23254549.
- 18. Bishop M, Fiolkowski P, Conrad B, Brunt D, Horodyski M. Athletic footwear, leg stiffness, and running kinematics. Journal of athletic training. 2006;41(4):387–92. pmid:17273463.
- 19. Earl JE, Monteiro SK, Snyder KR. Differences in lower extremity kinematics between a bilateral drop-vertical jump and a single-leg step-down. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(5):245–52. pmid:17549953.
- 20. Dixon SJ, Collop AC, Batt ME. Surface effects on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in running. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2000;32(11):1919–26. pmid:11079523.
- 21. Harry JR, Paquette MR, Caia J, Townsend RJ, Weiss LW, Schilling BK. Effects of footwear condition on maximal jumping performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(6):1657–65. pmid:26010799.
- 22. Zech A, Argubi-Wollesen A, Rahlf AL. Minimalist, standard and no footwear on static and dynamic postural stability following jump landing. European journal of sport science. 2015;15(4):279–85. pmid:25010996.
- 23. Street G, McMillan S, Board W, Rasmussen M, Heneghan JM. Sources of Error in Determining Countermovement Jump Height With the Impulse Method. J Appl Biomech. 2001;17:43–54.
- 24. Gambelli CN, Theisen D, Willems PA, Schepens B. Motor control of landing from a jump in simulated hypergravity. PloS one. 2015;10(10):e0141574. pmid:26505472
- 25. Kibele A. Possibilities and limitations in the biomechanical analysis of countermovement jumps: A methodological study. J Appl Biomech. 1998;14:105–17.
- 26. Hatze H. Validity and reliability of methods for testing vertical jumping performance. J Appl Biomech. 1998;14:127–40.
- 27. Ueda T, Hobara H, Kobayashi Y, Heldoorn T, Mochimaru M, Mizoguchi H. Comparison of 3 Methods for Computing Loading Rate during Running. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2016.
- 28. Moir GL. Three different methods of calculating vertical jump height from force platform data in men and women. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2008;12(4):207–18.
- 29. Pupo JD, Detanico D, Santos SGd. Kinetic parameters as determinants of vertical jump performance. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano. 2012;14(1):41–51.
- 30. Richardson J. Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review. 2011;6(2):135–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001.
- 31. Lafortune MA, Hennig EM, Lake MJ. Dominant role of interface over knee angle for cushioning impact loading and regulating initial leg stiffness. Journal of biomechanics. 1996;29(12):1523–9. pmid:8945650.
- 32. Potthast W, Bruggemann GP, Lundberg A, Arndt A. The influences of impact interface, muscle activity, and knee angle on impact forces and tibial and femoral accelerations occurring after external impacts. J Appl Biomech. 2010;26(1):1–9. pmid:20147752.
- 33. Moritz CT, Farley CT. Passive dynamics change leg mechanics for an unexpected surface during human hopping. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2004;97(4):1313–22. pmid:15169748.