Fig 1.
Total mechanical work (Wtot) for each footwear condition at each speed in the contralateral (A) and ipsilateral (B) limb, showing that Wtot increases with gait speed in the standardised speed conditions in both limbs, but was also lower in BOOT and EVEN, compared with NORM, at all speeds in the ipsilateral limb.
Wtot did not change between footwear conditions at PWS but was lower in BOOT at the standardised speeds. PWS = preferred walking speed. Data pertaining to this figure, along with a summary of statistical results, can be found in S1 Table.
Fig 2.
Ankle joint mechanical work (Wankle) for each footwear condition at each speed, displayed relative to body mass in the contralateral (A) and ipsilateral (B) limb, and as a relative contribution to total mechanical work in the contralateral (C) and ipsilateral (D) limb.
Ipsilateral Wankle was lower in BOOT and EVEN, compared to NORM in all cases. Contralateral Wankle (relative to body mass) was lower in BOOT at PWS, but not in the standardised speeds, and increased with speed. Contralateral Wankle (relative contribution to total mechanical work) was lower in EVEN at PWS and at standardised speeds, as well as being lower at higher speeds. PWS = preferred walking speed. Data pertaining to this figure, along with a summary of statistical results, can be found in S1 Table.
Fig 3.
Knee joint mechanical work (Wknee) for each footwear condition at each speed, displayed relative to body mass in the contralateral (A) and ipsilateral (B) limb, and as a relative contribution to total mechanical work in the contralateral (C) and ipsilateral (D) limb.
Ipsilateral Wknee (relative to body mass) did not change between footwear conditions, but contralateral Wknee (relative to body mass) was lower in BOOT at PWS, and higher in EVEN during the standardised speeds, and increased with speed. Ipsilateral Wknee (relative contribution to total mechanical work) was lower in NORM at PWS and at standardised speeds, as well as increasing with speed. Contralateral Wknee (relative contribution to total mechanical work) was mostly higher in EVEN and tended to increase with speed. PWS = preferred walking speed. Data pertaining to this figure, along with a summary of statistical results, can be found in S1 Table.
Fig 4.
Hip joint mechanical work (Whip) for each footwear condition at each speed, displayed relative to body mass in the contralateral (A) and ipsilateral (B) limb, and as a relative contribution to total mechanical work in the contralateral (C) and ipsilateral (D) limb.
Whip (relative to body mass) was similar between conditions but increased with speed. Whip (relative contribution to total mechanical work) was mostly lower in NORM at PWS and in the standardised speeds, although this was not the case for the contralateral limb at standardised speeds. Ipsilateral Whip (relative contribution to total mechanical work) was lower at higher speeds, but the contralateral limb did not change. PWS = preferred walking speed. Data pertaining to this figure, along with a summary of statistical results, can be found in S1 Table.
Table 1.
Spatiotemporal parameters for each footwear condition at preferred walking speed (PWS) and each of the standardised walking speeds. Speed influenced all spatiotemporal parameters reported, but footwear condition did not. Some main effects of condition were present at PWS but not in the standardised speeds, whilst some were present in the standardised speeds but not at PWS.