TY - JOUR

T1 - Sohlenaktivierte Therapieschuhe

T2 - Eine vergleichende Trainingsmittelanalyse

AU - Lohrer, Heinz

AU - Turbanski, Stephan

AU - Nauck, Tanja

AU - Schmidtbleicher, Dietmar

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - Background: Manufacturers attribute specific shoe and sole constructions to induce neuromuscular training. Thus, injury prevention or rehabilitation from injury is aimed. Hypothesis: H 1 = Different shoe and sole constructions result in different load to the neuromuscular system and postural control. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: 10 healthy subjects were tested for postural stabilization using a force plate and EMG-recordings. First, each person performed three 20 sec single leg unshod stance trials (control condition). Then, MBT® shoe, Finnamic-Rollenschuh® and ReflexControl® shoe were applied and tested in a randomized order. Results: No difference in EMG-activity was detected comparing the barefoot condition with MBT® and Finnamic-Rollenschuh® (p = 0,051-1,000). However, with one exception (barefoot M. gastrocnemius med. EMG-activity; p = 0,110) puttingon the ReflexControl® shoe increased the EMG activities relative to all three tested muscles and shoe/barefoot conditions (p = 0,000-0,001). Moreover, the ReflexControl® shoe led to highly significantly higher postural sway (p = 0,000-0,072), while MBT®, Finnamic-Rollenschuh® and barefoot conditions were not statistically different (p = 0,818-1,000). Conclusions: This study confirms that during upright stance the ReflexControl® shoe is a means for neuromuscular training, while MBT® and Finnamic-Rollenschuh® simulate barefoot stance.

AB - Background: Manufacturers attribute specific shoe and sole constructions to induce neuromuscular training. Thus, injury prevention or rehabilitation from injury is aimed. Hypothesis: H 1 = Different shoe and sole constructions result in different load to the neuromuscular system and postural control. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: 10 healthy subjects were tested for postural stabilization using a force plate and EMG-recordings. First, each person performed three 20 sec single leg unshod stance trials (control condition). Then, MBT® shoe, Finnamic-Rollenschuh® and ReflexControl® shoe were applied and tested in a randomized order. Results: No difference in EMG-activity was detected comparing the barefoot condition with MBT® and Finnamic-Rollenschuh® (p = 0,051-1,000). However, with one exception (barefoot M. gastrocnemius med. EMG-activity; p = 0,110) puttingon the ReflexControl® shoe increased the EMG activities relative to all three tested muscles and shoe/barefoot conditions (p = 0,000-0,001). Moreover, the ReflexControl® shoe led to highly significantly higher postural sway (p = 0,000-0,072), while MBT®, Finnamic-Rollenschuh® and barefoot conditions were not statistically different (p = 0,818-1,000). Conclusions: This study confirms that during upright stance the ReflexControl® shoe is a means for neuromuscular training, while MBT® and Finnamic-Rollenschuh® simulate barefoot stance.

KW - Sportwissenschaften

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58149484089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Zeitschriftenaufsätze

VL - 22

SP - 191

EP - 195

JO - Sportverletzung - Sportschaden

JF - Sportverletzung - Sportschaden

SN - 1439-1236

IS - 4

ER -