INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, SPORTS AND APPLIED SCIENCE, VOL.8, NO.4,October,2018

Transcription

1 Availabl Onlin Journal DOI Scintific Journal Impact Factor BAREFOOT, SHOD AND SHOE SPIKE: WHICH IS MORE EFFICIENT? Dr. Kuldp Singh 1 Mahipal 2 Affiliations: 1 Ph. D in Physical Education, (Asstt. Prof. of Physical Education), Indira Gandhi National Collg, Ladwa (Kurukshtra) Affiliatd to K. U., Kurukshtra (Haryana), Kuldpskkr@gmail.com 2 M.Phil. in Physical Education, Athltics Coach Sports & Youth Affair Dptt. Panipat, Haryana. Mahi.gaur13@gmail.com ABSTRACT Purpos: Th purpos of th study is to find out th diffrnc among barfoot, shod and spiks conditions of sprintrs in ordr to provid information about th potntial ffcts of footwar on comptitiv runnrs. Dsign/mthodology/approach: Th twnty six (n= 26) mal sprintrs participatd at stat/ intr-collgiat lvl comptitions of thir ag rang 17 to 25 yars wr purposivly slctd as subjcts from Haryana Stat, India. Th acclration ability by 30m run tst, prformanc by 100 Mts. rac and strid frquncy by high kn action for on minuts wr masurd in thr diffrnt bar foot, shod and with sho spiks conditions of sprintrs. To calculat th man diffrnc among diffrnt conditions on way ANOVA and to calculat multipl Comparisons among diffrnt conditions; whr diffrnc is xists Tuky HSD tst wr usd. Findings: A statistical significant man diffrnc wr obsrvd for 100m sprint and acclration run ability in all thr diffrnt conditions, whras thr xists insignificant man diffrnc among diffrnt conditions i.., bar foot, shod and sho spiks conditions of sprintrs. Conclusion: It is concludd that th sprintrs prformd bttr with spiks as compard to shod and barfoot conditions in acclration run and 100M rac, hnc sprintrs had mor strid frquncis in natural barfoot condition as compar to shod and sho spiks conditions. Originality/valus: Th study provids a succinct introduction to th us of sho spiks, shod and barfoot conditions during practics and comptitions and maks an innovativ contribution by focusing on, how spiks hlps in acclration zon and bar foot in strid frquncy. Kynots: Sho spiks, barfoot, shod and sprintrs. ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 1

2 1. INTRODUCTION In rcnt days diffrnt sho manufacturing companis ar introducing imprssiv and ffctiv shos/spiks for training as wll as for comptitions but still in som countris trainrs ar also mphass upon barfoot training. But in rviwing th rsarch, from th Nik Sport Rsarch Laboratory publishd an articl in which h postulatd that th thr main nds of th athlt ar prformanc, injury protction, and comfort (Lafortun, 2008). In th 1960 Olympic Gams, an Ethopian barfoot runnr namd Abb Bikila won th Marathon gold with a tim 2:15:16. This st th marathon world rcord, and is considrd a rspctabl tim to this day. This was probably on of th first accounts in modrn tims of somon winning a major comptition whil compltly without shos (Christophr McDougall, 2009). Zola Budd is anothr barfoot runnr that won rcognition by stting a world rcord at 5000 m in 1985, finishing at 15:01:83 (Christophr McDougall, 2009). This is qustion that many hav sought to answr. On rcnt trnd is th intrst in barfoot. Thr ar many voics on th Intrnt that bliv it may b mor bnficial to run barfoot than th standard practic of in cushiond shos (Barfoot runnr, 2012). Manufacturs of bar foot sports shos currntly stat that waring thir shos will stimulat and strngthn muscls in th ft and lowr lgs, improving gnral foot halth and rducing th risk of injury. Furthr stimulat nural function important to balanc and agility. Th shos would vn hlp you to unlash your optimal strid. Th impact forc has bn a major concrn for sho dsignrs and manufacturrs, as on of th primary rols for shos is to provid shock absorption (Cavanagh 1980; Nigg & Wakling 2001). Additionally, for improving th athlt prformanc th total wight of th sho has bn rducd. Hnc, racing tracks, shos and spiks hav bn dvlopd to hlp facilitat optimal prformanc (Cavanagh & Lafortun 1980; Dnton 2005). William (2001) statd Natural walking is mchanically impossibl for any sho-waring prson. Natural walking and footwar ar mchanically incompatibl bcaus shos convrt th natural foot into th unnatural which doctors considr normal. In comparison to most shos, spiks and racing track surfac hav lss cushioning and a flat, thinnr hl to produc a lightr sho for tournamnts and practic/training sssions. Whil comptitiv footwar has its tim and plac, it is assumd that this typ of sho should b usd with alrtnss and awarnss of th possibl incrasd injury risks (Dnton, 2005). Th body nd to adapt to barfoot anatomically if on prviously has bn only in shos and th lack of propriocption in a minimal sho affct form (Librman,2012). This rsarch, "Will b a Guid for Runnrs that in which conditions w should do training with bar, shod and sho spiks bcaus w may find spiks uncomfortabl at first bcaus of th lack of cushioning, and th sharp spiks locatd undr th ball of our foot. Thr will b a priod of adjustmnt until thy bcom comfortabl, and w may choos to us our rgular shos for most of our training, and spiks for racing only. It is tru a big qustion aris on th minds of vry athlts, coachs, trainrs, physical thrapists and physicians is whthr barfoot, shod or with sho spiks ar bttr for athlts or not. In prsnt study w try to find out answr of this qustion by xprimntal rsarch. Th rsults of th prsnt study may b hlpful for athlts, physical ducation tachrs, coachs and sport trainrs. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Sampl : For th purpos of th prsnt study, Twnty-six (N=26), Mal athlts participatd at Intr- Collgiat and Stat lvl comptitions of thir ag group of yars from Haryana wr slctd as subjct in this study. Th subjcts wr purposivly slctd and tstd thr tims for slctd kinmatics and kintic variabls in diffrnt conditions of i.., barfoot, shod and with spiks. ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 2

3 2.2 Slction of Variabls Th variabls wr slctd according to th activitis i.., 100m sprint tst to obsrv bar foot, shod and with spiks condition ffcts on athlts, acclration ability (30 m sprint), strid frquncy (by high kn action for on minuts. Th 400m grassy surfac standard track was usd for 100m sprint tsts. Th subjcts wr usd thir own routin training shos and (5 or 7 nails) spiks. Th subjcts wr blongs to smi rural ara and thy wr usd to do in bar foot, shod and with sho spiks. 2.3 Statistical Analysis Th data wr analyzd by using ANOVA to obsrv significant man diffrnc among bar foot, shod and with spiks condition of sprintrs and to calculat multipl Comparisons, whr diffrnc xist Tuky HSD tst was usd with th hlp of SPSS (vrsion 11.5) computr softwar. 3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION TABLE 1 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STD. ERROR AND ONE-WAY ANOVA OF ATHLETES ACCELERATION RUN ABILITY AMONG BARE FOOT, SHOD AND SHOE of acclration run ability Conditions SPIKES RUNNING CONDITIONS. (N=26) S.D. Std. Sourc of Error varianc (Sc.) ability with Bar Foot (Sc.) ability with Shod (Sc.) ability with Spiks (Sc.) Total Sum of Squar DF Squar Btwn Within Total F-ratio Tabl 1 shows, standard dviation, std. rror and F valu of sprintrs acclration run ability with bar foot, shod and sho spiks. Th calculatd F valu of acclration run ability is 4.317, which is gratr than th rquird tabl valu at 0.05 lvl of confidnc. Rsults shows that th p valu.017 is lss than 0.05 indicats that thr xist significant man diffrnc at last btwn two groups. Furthr th man valus of acclration run ability of sprintrs with sho spiks (4.271) conditions wr found lss as compard to sprintrs run with barfoot (4.423) and shod (4.432) on th othr hand man valu of sprintrs acc. ability with barfoot (4.423) is lss than that of shod (4.432) condition. Th (30mts. run) acclration run ability is invrsly rlatd to prformanc of th sprintrs, if prformanc incrass th tim will dcras, hnc it clarly indicats that th sprintrs acclration run ability with sho spiks followd by barfoot ar bttr than that of shod conditions. It is bcaus runnrs with flat/minimalist footwar and bar foot hav a shortr strid lngth (Lss flight phas); but highr strid frquncy (fastr turnovr) which is main ncssity of acclration run ability; spiks also nabls th athlts to add traction to run as fast as possibl by gnrating ground raction forc. In cas of with sho it add sol hight of sho by virtu of this athlts hav a wid strid lngth (longr flight phas); and lowr strids 7 7 ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 3

4 frquncy (slowr turnovr) which is opposit to th basic nd of acclration zon. To find out whr th diffrncs xist among diffrnt conditions, w us th Tuky posthoc multipl comprssion tst. TABLE 2 TUKEY POSTHOC MULTIPLE COMPRESSION TEST OF ACCELERATION RUN ABILITY. (I) GROUP30 (J) GROUP30 Acclration Ability (by 30 Mts. run tst) Acclration run Ability with bar foot Acclration run Ability with shod Acclration run Ability with spiks Ability with shod (DEPENDENT VARIABLE: MT30) Std. Diffrnc (I-J) Error Sig. 95% Confidnc Intrval Lowr Uppr * Ability run with spiks Ability with bar foot Ability with spiks.1615* Ability with bar foot * Ability with shod * Th man diffrnc is significant at th.05 lvl * Tabl 2 clarly indicats that thr xist significant diffrnc (.1519) at.05 lvl of significanc of 30 mts. acclration run ability btwn barfoot and with spiks conditions but thr xist no significanc diffrnc (-.0096) btwn acclration run ability btwn barfoot and shod conditions. It shows that thr xists significant diffrnc (.1615) at.05 lvl of significanc in acclration run ability btwn with shod and with spiks conditions. It suggsts that in cas of acclration run ability spiks and bar foot conditions ar bttr than that of shod, hnc sho incras xtra mass and hight btwn foot and surfac so it incrass strid lngth (Mor flight phas) but dcrass strid frquncy which is basic nd of acclration run ability. In cas of spiks and bar foot, spiks add traction to mov forward without slipping or jrking foot backwardly and ngativ hl spiks hlps athlts mid to forfoot landing to ncourag athlt dmand. Runnrs with spiks gt lightst foot covring for safty which provids psychological gain to athlts for avoiding any surfac rlatd injury. ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 4

5 Tabl 3 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STD. ERROR AND ONE-WAY ANOVA OF ATHLETES 100 MTS. SPRINTING ABILITY AMONG BARE FOOT, SHOD AND SPIKES 0f 100M sprint Conditions Sc. 100M sprint with Bar Foot (Sc.) M sprint with Shod (Sc.) M sprint with sho Spiks (Sc.) RUNNING CONDITIONS. (N=26) S.D. Std. Error Sourc of varianc Sum of Squar Btwn Within DF Squar F Sig. P valu Total Total Tabl 3 shows, standard dviation, std. rror and F valu of 100 Mts. sprinting ability with bar foot, shod and sho spiks. Th calculatd F valu of 100 Mts. sprint is 4.312, which is gratr than th rquird tabl valu at 0.05 lvl of confidnc. Rsult shows that th p valu.017 is lss than 0.05 indicats that thr xists significant man diffrnc at last btwn two groups. Furthr th man valus of 100Mts sprint with sho spiks (12.540) conditions wr found lss as compard to sprintrs run with barfoot (13.054) and shod (13.037) on th othr hand man valu of 100 Mts. sprint with shod (13.037) is lss than that of barfoot (13.054) condition. Th 100mts. sprint tim is invrsly rlatd to prformanc of th sprintrs, if prformanc incrass th tim will dcras, hnc it clarly indicats that th 100 Mts. sprint with sho spiks followd by shod ar bttr than that of barfoot conditions. TABLE 4 TUKEY POSTHOC MULTIPLE COMPRESSION TEST OF 100 MTS. RUNNING (I) GROUP ABILITY.(DEPENDENT VARIABLE: MT30) Diffrnc Std. (J) GROUP (I-J) Error Sig. 95% Confidnc Intrval 100 Mts. sprinting conditions Lowr Uppr 100Mts sprints with 100 Mts. with shod bar foot Mts with spiks.5131* Mts sprints with 100Mts with bar shod foot Mts with spiks.4962* Mts sprints with 100Mts with bar * spiks foot 100 Mts with shod * * Th man diffrnc is significant at th.05 lvl. It is obvious from tabl- 2.2 that thr xist significant diffrnc (.5131) at.05 lvl of significanc of 100 mts. runing ability btwn barfoot and sho spiks conditions but thr xist no significanc diffrnc (.0169) btwn barfoot and shod conditions. It also shows that thr xists significant diffrnc (.4962) at.05 lvl of significanc in 100mts. mts. ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 5

6 ability btwn shod and with spiks conditions. Hnc it rvals that in cas of 100m sprint ability athlts prformd bttr in sho spiks condition as compar to bar foot and shod conditions it is bcaus runnrs with minimalist sol spiks hav a narrow strid lngth (shortr flight phas); and highr strids frquncy (fastr turnovr). In condition of with spiks complt body lads by uppr body; spiks nabls th body s to absorb th shocks and forcs, protcts th foot from trauma and injuris and gnrats ground raction forc without jrk. TABLE 5 MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION, STD. ERROR AND ONE-WAY ANOVA OF ATHLETES STRIDE Strid Frquncy FREQUENCY AMONG BARE FOOT, SHOD AND SPIKES CONDITIONS. (N=26) S.D. Std. Sourc Sum of F Sc. Error of Squar High Kn Action with Bar Foot High Kn Action with Shod High Kn Action with Spiks varianc Btwn DF Squar Within Sig. P valu Total Total Tabl 4 shows, standard dviation, std. rror and F valu of strid frquncy (High kn action) with bar foot, shod and sho spiks conditions. Th calculatd F valu of strid frquncy is 1.538, which is gratr than th rquird tabl valu at 0.05 lvl of confidnc. Rsult shows that th p valu.221 is gratr than 0.05 indicats that thr xists insignificant man diffrnc among any groups. Furthr th man valus of strid frquncy with barfoot (25.923) conditions is found mor as compard to strid frquncy with shod (25.385) and sho spiks (24.308) on th othr hand man valu of strid frquncy with shod (25.385) is mor than that of sho spiks (24.308) condition. Hnc, it clarly indicats that th strid frquncy with bar foot followd by shod ar bttr than that of sho spiks conditions. It suggsts that, th bar foot runnrs prformd bttr in strid frquncy tst as compard to with spiks condition it is du to in cas of bar ft; runnrs lads on th outsid middl of th foot and th initial forc pak occurs vry rapidly, whil in spiks, thr is ngativ drop from forfoot to hl in th qust to provid gratr prformanc assistanc to run fast; runnrs foot strik first thn hl with ground and it incrass th tim takn for th initial forc pak. Spiks also add mass to th foot, which slowing down th runnrs. Athlts with bar foot also hav a shortr strid lngth (Lss flight phas); but highr strid frquncy (fastr turnovr). 4. CONCLUSION From th rsults of th prsnt study concludd that in acclration and 100mts ability th sprintrs with sho spik condition prform bttr as compard to shod and bar foot conditions and thr xist significant man diffrnc at.05 lvl of significanc, whil man valus shows that runnrs with shod prformd bttr as compard to bar foot condition but thr xist insignificant diffrnc. Whras in cas of strid frquncy th man valu shows that bar foot runnrs was bttr than that of shod and sho spik runnr and shod runnr prformd bttr as compard to sho spiks runnrs but thr xist insignificant man diffrnc among thm..221 ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 6

7 REFERENCES Barfoot runnr.( 2012).Visitd , at Com/barfoot-101. Cavanagh, P.R. (1980). In book:th Running Sho. Mountain Viw, Andrson World. Cavanagh, P.R. and Lafortun, M.A.(1980). Ground raction forcs in distanc. Journal of Biomchanics 13(5), Christnsn, D.L.Nilsn, T.H., & Schwartz, A. (2009). Hrodotos and hmrodromi: Phippids run from Athns to Sparta in 490 BC from historical and physiological prspctivs. Hrms, 137(2), Christophr McDougall (2009). Born to Run: A Hiddn Trib, Suprathlts, and th Gratst Rac th World Has Nvr Sn, thnography; Non-fiction Amrican author and journalist. Clmnt D.B., Taunton, J.E., Smart G.W. & Mc Nicol, K.L. (1981). A survy of som ovrus injuris. Phys Sports Mdicin Volum 1(3): Pp Cook, S.D., Kstr, M.A. and Brunt, M.E. (1985). Shock absorption charactristics of shos. Amrican Journal of Sports Mdicin 13(4), Dnton, J.D. (2005). Light dos not mak right. Running Tims 324, 78. DWit, B., D Clrcq, D. and Arts, P. (2000). Biomchanical analysis of th stanc phas during barfoot and sho. Journal of Biomchanics 33(3), Divrt, C., Morniux, G., Baur, H., Mayr, F. and Blli, A. (2005). Mchanical comparison of barfoot and sho. Intrnational Journal of Sports Mdicin 26(7), Singh Kuldp and Mahipal (2016). Comparison of Kinmatic and Kintic Variabls of printrs Running Barfoot and with Sho Spiks Journal of Exrcis Scinc & Physiothrapy Vol.12, No.2, pp , ISSN: (Print), ISSN: (Onlin). Lafortun, Mario (2008) Th Rol of Rsarch in th Dvlopmnt of Athltic Footwar. Journal of Foot and Ankl Rsarch Volum 1 Supplmnt 1 Pp Librman, Danil E. (2012).What W Can Larn About Running from Barfoot Running: An Evolutionary Mdical Prspctiv. Dpartmnt of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard Univrsity, Cambridg MA; Amrican Collg of Sports Mdicin. 40(2), Pp 70. Mahipal and Singh Kuldp (2016). Barfoot Running V s Shod Running IOSR Journal of Sports and Physical Education (IOSR-JSPE), Volum 3, Issu 6, PP 17-20, -ISSN: , p- ISSN: Nigg, B.M. and Wakling, J.M. (2001). Impact forcs and muscl tuning: a nw paradigm. Exrcis and Sports Scinc Rviw 29, Wyand, P.G., Strnlight, D.B., Bllizzi, M.J. and Wright, S. (2000). Fastr top spds ar achivd with gratr ground forcs not mor rapid lg movmnts. Journal of Applid Physiology 89(5), William A. Rossi, D.P.M. (2001). Footwar: Th Primary Caus of Foot Disordrs. Podiatry Managmnt. Part- II pp Bvrly, J. (2011). Shos with spiks to rac and train in. ISSN X (P), (O) Sports Scintists Viws in IJPESAS 7