Parametric statistical methods were therefore employed to analyze

Parametric statistical methods were therefore employed to analyze data, which included two-way (footwear × slope) repeated measures analyses of variance (RM ANOVA) and Holm-Sidak procedures during post-hoc pair-wise comparisons. Statistical significance was accepted at p < 0.05. All analyses

were performed using SigmaStat for Windows 3.5 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). The mean ± SD values for kvert and kleg for the different running conditions are illustrated in Fig. 1. The two-way RM ANOVA indicated no significant interaction effects from footwear selleck chemical and slope on kleg (p = 0.543) and kvert (p = 0.861). The main effects of footwear on kleg (p < 0.001) and of footwear (p = 0.021) and slope (p < 0.001) on kvert were significant, but there was no main effect of slope Selisistat clinical trial on kleg (p = 0.543).

On level (i.e., 0%), kleg was significantly greater in MS compared to TS (p < 0.001) whereas kvert showed similar values (p = 0.227). These between-footwear patterns in kleg and kvert were maintained in uphill and downhill conditions, except at −5% and +8% where kvert was greater in MS compared to TS. Regardless of footwear, kvert was greater when running at more positive gradients (p < 0.001), while kleg remained similar (p = 0.543). The mean ± SD values for tc, tf, and f are provided in Table 1 and for Δy, ΔL, and Fmax in Table 2. The two-way RM ANOVA indicated no significant interaction effects from footwear and slope on all parameters (p ≥ 0.178). However, there was a significant main effect of footwear and slope on all these kinematic parameters (all p ≤ 0.016) with the exception of footwear on Δy (p = 0.410) and slope on tc (p = 0.567). In general, lower tc and higher tf and f values were recorded when running in MS compared to TS in all seven slope conditions, but not all post-hoc pair-wise comparisons reached statistical significance ( Table 1). For instance, on level, tc (p < 0.001) was smaller and tf (p = 0.014) was greater in MS than TS footwear, but f showed similar values (p = 0.335). At ±5%, only tc and f differed significantly between MS and TS, where 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase tc was lower and

f was higher in MS. Similarly, running in MS versus TS generally provided lower ΔL and higher Fmax values. Fmax significantly differed between footwear conditions at −8%, 0%, and +2%, only ( Table 2). Overall, a positive increase in slope gradient was associated with an increase in f and a decrease in tf, Δy, and Fmax ( Tables 1 and 2). The ΔL did not vary significantly when comparing two different slope gradients, except when comparisons were made to +8% where ΔL was the lowest. The extent of the difference between the kinematic values was always greatest when the two extreme slope conditions were compared (i.e., −8% vs. +8%). In accordance with our primary hypothesis, leg stiffness (kleg) during level running was greater in MS than TS. However, there were no differences between footwear with respect to vertical stiffness (kvert).

Related posts:

1. The particular primers employed within this re action were as fol
2. Statistical evaluation All information are expressed because the
3. All sub lines took up DiI Ac LDL, that is employed for identifica
4. NART methods physeal St changes Hypoxia and determination
5. Indeed, we did not confirm a statistical enrichment for Bim expre