Metatarsophalangeal joint function during sprinting: A comparison of barefoot and sprint spike shod foot conditions

This is the authors' post print as accepted for publication in Journal of Applied Biomechanics. The published version is available at http://journals.humankinetics.com/jabThe metatarsophalangeal joint is an important contributor to lower limb energetics during sprint running. This study compared the kinematics, kinetics and energetics of the metatarsophalangeal joint during sprinting barefoot and wearing standardised sprint spikes. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether standard sprinting footwear alters the natural motion and function of the metatatarsophalangeal joint exhibited during barefoot sprint running. Eight trained sprinters performed maximal sprints along a runway, four sprints in each condition. Three dimensional high speed (1000 Hz) kinematic and kinetic data were collected at the 20 m point. Joint angle, angular velocity, moment, power and energy were calculated for the metatarsophalangeal joint. Sprint spikes significantly increase sprinting velocity (0.3 m/s average increase), yet limit the range of motion about the metatarsophalangeal joint (17.9 % average reduction) and reduce peak dorsiflexion velocity (25.5 % average reduction), thus exhibiting a controlling affect over the natural behaviour of the foot. However, sprint spikes improve metatarsophalangeal joint kinetics by significantly increasing the peak metatarsophalangeal joint moment (15 % average increase) and total energy generated during the important push-off phase (0.5 J to 1.4 J). The results demonstrate substantial changes in metatarsophalangeal function and potential improvements in performance-related parameters due to footwear

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p