effects of different footwear on vertical jump and ...

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT FOOTWEAR JUMP AND LANDING PARAMETERS

ON

VERTICAL

JOE W. LAPORTA, LEE E. BROWN, JARED W. COBURN, ANDREW J. GALPIN, JAMES J. TUFANO, VANESSA L. CAZAS, AND JEREMY G. TAN Human Performance Laboratory and Center for Sport Performance, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, Californian ABSTRACT LaPorta, JW, Brown, LE, Coburn, JW, Galpin, AJ, Tufano, JJ, Cazas, VL, and Tan, JG. Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters. J Strength Cond Res 27(3): 733– 737, 2013—Little is known about the effects of different footwear on anaerobic performance variables. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different footwear on vertical jumping and landing parameters. Ten men and 10 women participated. After a dynamic warm-up, subjects performed a vertical jump (VJ), depth drop (DD), and Bosco test on a force plate in 3 different conditions, on 3 separate days: bare feet (BF), minimalist footwear (MF), and tennis shoes (TS). Bare feet had greater relative peak power (relPP) in the VJ (men: BF, 59.87 6 5.09 W$kg21; MF, 58.39 6 5.69 W$kg21; TS, 57.70 6 6.54 W$kg21; women: BF, 45.26 6 4.10 W$kg21; MF, 45.06 6 3.53 W$kg21; TS, 44.77 6 4.55 W$kg21), while for men, jump height (JH) was also greater in BF and MF (BF, 44.5 6 4.46 cm; MF, 43.47 6 5.5 cm; TS, 41.47 6 14.45 cm). Results of the Bosco test revealed average relPP was greatest in BF compared with MF and TS (men: BF, 19.70 6 3.01 W$kg21; MF, 19.28 6 3.00 W$kg21; TS, 18.93 6 3.33 W$kg21; women: BF, 14.68 6 1.41 W$kg21; MF, 13.97 6 1.56 W$kg21; TS 13.62 6 1.67 W$kg21), while for JH, BF and MF were greater than TS (men: BF, 28.62 6 5.0 cm; MF, 27.78 6 5.09 cm; TS, 26.54 6 5.1 cm; women: BF, 18.60 6 1.97 cm; MF, 17.86 6 6.35 cm; TS, 17.35 6 2.47 cm). No differences in relative impact force were seen during the DD between conditions. Therefore, athletes and coaches interested in enhancing single and multiple VJs might consider either BF or minimalist shoes.

KEY WORDS power, impact, force

INTRODUCTION

M

any believe that a return to a more primitive or naturalistic condition is paramount for optimal health. The previous research regarding this topic has been focused on the type of footwear worn; specifically, the effect footwear has on endurance running (2,5–7,11,14,18). It has been speculated that the arch support and cushion that a shoe provides may inhibit any positive adaptations relating to shock absorption and produce an unnatural foot motion. The result of this is an improved performance with a lower risk of injury (11,15,18). Numerous studies have assessed barefoot and minimalist footwear (MF) conditions on running and walking performance (2,5,6,11,14,16,18). It is still not definitive if there are significant jumping performance differences between traditional tennis shoes (TS), bare feet (BF), or MF (4,13,14,21). This question has been assessed through ground reaction forces (11,12,14,20), 3-dimentional motion capture, joint positioning, kinetics, and kinematics (2,7,19,20). With much of the current research focusing on variables related to running, there are very few studies that have investigated plyometric or ballistic movements (1,5,8,21). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of different footwear on jumping and landing parameters in men and women.

METHODS Experimental Approach to the Problem

This study was a repeated measures design with each subject performing single vertical jumps (VJs), multiple VJs (Bosco), and depth drops (DDs) in 3 different conditions (BF, TS, and MF). The order of conditions was randomized and differences between conditions and sex were determined. Subjects

Address correspondence to Lee E. Brown, [email protected]. 27(3)/733–737 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research Ó 2013 National Strength and Conditioning Association

Ten men (age, 22.4 6 2.24 years; height, 175 6 6.67 cm; mass, 73.74 6 6.67 kg) and 10 women (age, 22.6 6 2.06 years; height, 164.5 6 5.27 cm; mass, 62.68 6 4.61 kg) volunteered to participate. Participants were selected using convenience sampling. Inclusion criteria were healthy, recreationally trained individuals with a jumping background, with no current lower body VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2013 |

733

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.


Different Footwear on Jumping and Landing exercise was performed twice each for 15 m. Subjects were then familiarized with the testing protocol and with the MF. The testing protocol consisted of the VJ, DD, and a 15-second version of the Bosco Jump Test. For the VJ, subjects placed their hands on their hips, performed a countermovement, jumped as high as possible, and then landed in a stabilized position. For the DD, subjects stood atop a box (45.72 cm) with their hands on their hips, then stepped off and landed on both feet in a stabilized position. For the Figure 1. Peak velocity (mean/SD) of vertical jump by condition and sex. *Significantly greater than tennis shoes. Bosco Jump Test, subjects performed a squat to a depth that achieved a 90-degree bend in their knees. A goniometer was injuries. Also, due to shoe availability, only men with size 9 or used to measure the point at which they reached 90 degrees. 11 and women with size 7 or 9 ft participated. While holding that position, an elastic band was stretched Procedures between 2 standards and adjusted until it touched their glutes. Day 1. Subjects were measured for height and mass using The height of the band was recorded and set at the same a stadiometer (SECA, Ontario, CA, USA) and an electronic height for all subsequent trials. They then performed repeated scale (ES200L, Ohaus, Pine Brook, NJ, USA), and their age maximal effort countermovement VJs with their hands on was recorded in years. Subjects were randomly assigned the their hips for a total of 60 seconds. Each repetition of the VJ order of conditions and tests. Before participation, each required them to squat to the depth where their glutes subject read and signed an institutional review board approved touched the elastic band set at the appropriate height, while informed consent document. Subjects were instructed to avoiding horizontal and lateral movement. Flight time, maintain their normal routines related to sleeping, eating, number of jumps performed, and contact time were recorded drinking, and exercise for the duration of the study and to (3). Average power (Watts) was calculated by the equation: refrain from lower body exercise 48 hours before testing. Subjects arrived at the Human Performance Laboratory W ¼ Ft3Ts3g 2 4n ðTs2FtÞ and completed a dynamic warm-up consisting of high knee In this equation, Ts is test duration, n is the number pulls, Frankenstein’s, and forward gate swings. Warm-up of jumps, Ft is total flight time, and g is acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m$s22). Jump height (JH) was estimated by the time in the air equation.

Figure 2. Vertical jump height (mean/SD) by condition and sex. *Significantly greater than tennis shoes.

734

the

Days 2–4. Subjects returned to the Human Performance Laboratory and performed the same dynamic warm-up as day 1. They then performed each exercise in the specific condition assigned to them for that particular day. Subjects were given 2 practice attempts per movement, then data were collected on the following 3 repetitions.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research



the

TM


TABLE 1. Vertical jump relative peak power (Watts per kilograms; mean 6 SD) by condition and sex.

Men Women

Bare feet*

Tennis shoes

MF

59.87 6 5.09† 45.26 6 4.10

57.70 6 6.54† 44.77 6 4.55

58.39 6 5.69† 45.06 6 3.53

*Significantly greater than minimalist footwear (MF) and tennis shoes. †Significantly greater than women.

TABLE 2. Vertical jump relative ground reaction force (Newton per kilogram; mean 6 SD) by condition and sex.

| www.nsca.com

measured with a hand-held goniometer (Grafco, # GF-12-1001, GF Health Products, Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA). The MF for men (Model #V20555, Adidas America Inc., Portland, OR, USA) and women (Model #V22299, Adidas America Inc.) were Adidas “Adipure Trainer” shoes. Men’s TS were Adidas, Climacool Leap (Model #G48614, Adidas America Inc.) and women’s TS were Adidas, Adizero Supreme (Model # V21752, Adidas America Inc.). Statistical Analyses

Eight 3 3 2 (condition 3 sex) mixed factor analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used for analyMen 24.15 6 2.31 24.49 6 2.04 24.44 6 2.86 sis. Four ANOVAs analyzed VJ Women 23.91 6 3.79 24.26 6 4.37 24.02 6 3.60 peak relative ground reaction force (relGRF), JH, peak velocity (PV), and relative peak power (relPP). One ANOVA analyzed DD relative impact force (relIF). Three ANOVAs analyzed Bosco TABLE 3. Depth drop relative impact force (Newton per kilogram; mean 6 SD) by test average JH, average relPP, condition and sex. and total number of jumps. Bare feet Tennis shoes Minimalist footwear Descriptive statistics were calculated for height, body mass, Men 30.37 6 5.59 29.35 6 3.74 30.08 6 4.46 and age. All analyses were done Women 40.26 6 11.05* 40.22 6 17.20* 36.45 6 14.56* using the Statistical Package for *Significantly greater than men. the Social Sciences (SPSS v. 20.0). An a priori Alpha of 0.05 was used to determine significance. Reliability measures for all tests were between intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 and 0.99. Instrumentation Data were measured on an AMTI force plate (Advanced RESULTS Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), sampled at 1,000 Hz, and stored on a computer running custom Lab Vertical jump PV and JH demonstrated an interaction. This was VIEWdata collection and analysis software (version 7.1, National followed up for each test with two 1 3 3 ANOVAs by condiInstruments Corporation, Austin, TX, USA). Knee angle was tion, one for each sex. For both tests, men had greater values with BF and MF compared with TS, whereas women showed no differences (Figures 1 and 2). TABLE 4. Bosco average relative power (Watts per kilogram; mean 6 SD) by Relative peak power demoncondition and sex. strated no interaction but there Bare feet* TSs MF were main effects for condition and sex. For condition, BF was Men 19.70 6 3.01† 18.93 6 3.33† 19.28 6 3.00† Women 14.68 6 1.41 13.62 6 1.67 13.97 6 1.56 significantly greater than both TS and MF, while men had *Significantly greater than minimalist footwear (MF) and tennis shoes (TS). greater values than women †Significantly greater than women. (Table 1). Vertical jump relGRF showed no interaction or main Bare feet

Tennis shoes

Minimalist footwear

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2013 |

735



Different Footwear on Jumping and Landing Most previous research has focused on the effects of differTABLE 5. Bosco average jump height (centimeters; mean 6 SD) by condition and ent footwear on variables sex. related to long distance running Bare feet* TS MF† (2,5–7,11,14,18). It seems as if the cushioning effect of TS Men 28.62 6 5.0z 26.54 6 5.1z 27.78 6 5.09z may be detrimental to perforWomen 18.60 6 1.97 17.35 6 2.47 17.86 6 6.35 mance. Recent research has *Significantly greater than minimalist footwear (MF). concluded that impact forces †Significantly greater than tennis shoes (TS). were greatest in shoes with zSignificantly greater than women. a thicker sole (similar to our TS) (11,16,18), when compared with BF or MF. Sacco et al. (16) found higher braking forces with diabetic individuals in TS TABLE 6. Bosco total number of jumps (mean 6 SD). compared with BF. AdditionBF Tennis shoes MF ally, Squadrone and Gallozzi (18) saw lower impact forces Men 51.5 6 3.41 53.6 6 3.53* 51.5 6 2.37 in barefoot and minimalist conWomen 56.6 6 5.44† 55.8 6 4.71† 55.5 6 5.08† ditions compared with TS *Significantly greater than bare feet (BF) and minimalist footwear (MF). while Lieberman et al. (11) †Significantly greater than men. saw similar results with lower impact forces in BF vs. TS in traditionally barefoot runners. However, Logan et al. (12) saw higher breaking forces in effects (Table 2). Depth drop relIF showed no interaction, but men wearing racing spikes and flats (minimalist) compared there was a main effect for sex, with women having greater with running shoes (thicker sole TS), whereas women showed values than men (Table 3). no differences. Conversely, our results indicated no differences Bosco average relPP showed no interaction, but there in impact or ground reaction forces between conditions. Our were main effects for condition and sex. For condition, BF dissimilar results may be explained by different tests used to was more than MF and TS, while men had greater values measure landing forces and the use of different footwear. The than women (Table 4). Average JH demonstrated no interpreviously mentioned studies measured impact force by havaction, but there were main effects for sex and condition. For ing subjects perform walking, running, or one-legged landings condition, BF and MF were greater than TS, and BF was from a jump, whereas we had subjects perform a DD using greater than MF, while men had greater values than women both legs. Our results are supported by Yeow et al. (21), who (Table 5). For total number of jumps, there was an interacfound no differences in impact force between BF and TS tion of condition and sex. This was followed up with two during a 2-legged landing. 1 3 3 ANOVAs by condition, one for each sex. Women disIt should be noted that Squadrone and Gallozzi (18) conplayed no difference between conditions, whereas for men, TS cluded that MF appropriately mimicked BF conditions. had greater number of jumps than BF or MF (Table 6). Conversely, our study generally displayed that BF resulted DISCUSSION in greater forces when compared with MF. This may be attributed to familiarity with the MF, or that the specific The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of model of MF used in our study was different from that used different footwear on jumping and landing forces in men by Squadrone and Gallozzi (18). Last, women in our study and women. Our results demonstrated that BF resulted in exhibited greater relIFs when compared with men during greater relPP during the VJ (single) and Bosco tests DD. These findings may be attributed to different jumping (multiple), whereas JH was also greater in BF and MF and landing mechanics displayed between genders (10). compared with TS. These results may be attributed to the There is a paucity of anaerobic performance research additional cushion of the TS, when compared to BF or MF. related to BF and MF. Our study found that women had If force is being dissipated into the cushion of a shoe, then it could not be applied directly into the ground, which may greater power in BF compared with TS or MF. For men, VJ have negatively affected velocity, power, and JH. In velocity, power, and JH were significantly greater in BF. This addition, women demonstrated greater impact forces than may be attributed to increased cushion of the shoe/footwear. men in the DD, which may be explained by the different The cushion in any type of footwear acts as a shock absorber, jumping and landing mechanics displayed between dissipating force into the shoe sole material (17,21). Therefore, genders (10). if one attempts to jump by applying maximal force into the

736

the

TM




the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research ground, any dissipation of that force would be detrimental, as it would not contribute to jump performance. Decreases in performance would be further exacerbated in repeated jumps, as seen in the Bosco test. A BF condition might allow individuals to apply force directly into the ground with less dissipation. Hanson et al. (9) found treadmill and over ground running were more economical in BF than in TS. Therefore, with every step, force may have been delivered directly into the ground with less dissipation. This may support our findings during the Bosco test where, with repeated jumps, BF allowed individuals to apply force directly into the ground with less dissipation leading to greater average jump height and average power.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Our results demonstrate the benefits of BF and MF, as a means of improving VJ performance with no effect on impact forces when compared with TS. Because of these benefits, one may speculate that a significant training effect would occur with repetitive jump training using BF or minimalist shoes. This training effect should then lead to enhanced performance during competition. Therefore, athletes and coaches interested in enhancing single and multiple VJs might use either BF or MF during jump training.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.

REFERENCES 1. Arampatzis, A, Morey-Klapsing, G, and Bru¨ggemann, G. The effect of falling height on muscle activity and foot motion during landings. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 13: 533–544, 2003. 2. Bishop, M, Fiolkowski, P, Conrad, B, Brunt, D, and Horodyski, M. Athletic footwear, leg stiffness, and running kinematics. J Athl Train 41: 387–392, 2006. 3. Bosco, C, Luhtanen, P, and Komi, PV. A simple method for measurement of mechanical power in jumping. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 50: 273–282, 1983. 4. Boyer, K and Nigg, B. Muscle activity in the leg is tuned in response to impact force characteristics. J Biomech 37: 1583–1588, 2004. 5. Cheung, R and Ng, G. Influence of different footwear on force of landing during running. Phys Ther 88: 620–628, 2008.

| www.nsca.com

6. Divert, C, Mornieux, G, Baur, H, Mayer, F, and Belli, A. Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. Int J Sports Med 26: 593– 598, 2005. 7. Eslami, M, Begon, M, Farahpour, N, and Allard, P. Forefoot– rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22: 74–80, 2007. 8. Garrison, J, Hart, J, Palmieri, R, Kerrigan, D, and Ingersoll, C. Lower extremity emg in male and female college soccer players during single-leg landing. J Sport Rehabil 14: 48–57, 2005. 9. Hanson, N, Berg, K, Deka, P, Meendering, J, and Ryan, C. Oxygen cost of running barefoot vs. running shod. Int J Sports Med 32: 401–406, 2011. 10. Ka-lam, S. Valgus knee angle during drop landing in female and male physical education major undergraduate students. Asia J Phys Educ Recreat 16: 65–78, 2010. 11. Lieberman, DE, Venkadesan, M, Werbel, WA, Daoud, AI, D’Andrea, S, Davis, IS, Mang’eni, RO, and Pitsiladis, Y, et al. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531–536, 2010. 12. Logan, S, Hunter, I, Hopkins, J, Feland, J, and Parcell, A. Ground reaction force differences between running shoes, racing flats, and distance spikes in runners. J Sports Sci Med 9: 147–153, 2010. 13. Mero, A and Komi, PV. EMG, force, and power analysis of sprintspecific strength exercises. J Appl Biomech 10: 1–13, 1994. 14. Morley, JB, Decker, LM, Dierks, T, Blanke, D, French, JA, and Stergiou, N. Effects of varying amounts of pronation on the mediolateral ground reaction forces during barefoot versus shod running. J Appl Biomech 26: 205–214, 2010. 15. Robbins, SE and Hanna, AM. Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19: 148–156, 1987. 16. Sacco, I, Akashi, P, and Hennig, E. A comparison of lower limb EMG and ground reaction forces between barefoot and shod gait in participants with diabetic neuropathic and healthy controls. BMC Musculoskel Dis 11: 1–9, 2010. 17. Shorten, MR. The energetics of running and running shoes. J Biomech 26: 41–51, 1993. 18. Squadrone, R and Gallozzi, C. Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 49: 6–13, 2009. 19. Trombini-Souza, F, Kimura, A, Ribeiro, AP, Butugan, M, Akashi, P, Pa´ssaro, AC, Arnone, AC, and Sacco, IC. Inexpensive footwear decreases joint loading in elderly women with knee osteoarthritis. Gait Posture 34: 126–130, 2011. 20. Webster, K, Kinmont, C, Payne, R, and Feller, J. Biomechanical differences in landing with and without shoe wear after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19: 978–981, 2004. 21. Yeow, CH, Lee, PVS, and Goh, JCH. Shod landing provides enhanced energy dissipation at the knee joint relative to barefoot landing from different heights. Knee 18: 5–9, 2010.

VOLUME 27 | NUMBER 3 | MARCH 2013 |

737

