緒論：常人跑步著地時將承受地面之撞擊力，此撞擊力受鞋底材料結構、人體著地策略，及足部著地方式等因素影響（Chi & Schmitt, 2005; Divert et al., 2008; Hamill, Russell, Gruber, & Miller, 2011; Liang & Chiu, 2011; Lieberman et al., 2010）。過去研究指出（Chiu, 2002），跑者在赤腳跑時著地策略的調整，應是在降低足底的壓力，及降低撞擊的能量以減小撞擊負荷，而人體在穿著避震較差的鞋子時，應也會產生相同的著地策略調整。帆布鞋是國內大學生族群喜歡穿著的鞋款之一，Fong, Hong,與Li（2007）的研究中，帆布鞋的避震比起慢跑鞋、籃球鞋等其它鞋款差。因此，本研究試圖分析跑者穿帆布鞋跑時，其所受撞擊力是否也會和赤腳跑時相似？跑者著地方式是否會因其較差的避震能力而做調整？方法：共招募男、女各20位有慢跑運動習慣（每週2次以上、每次至少30分鐘）的參與者，在赤腳與穿帆布鞋的情況下，以3.0±0.3m/s的速度跑過置於10公尺長跑道中間的測力板。本研究主要比較穿鞋與赤腳且以後足先著地的跑步方式，統計採混合設計二因子（性別與穿鞋）變異數分析，並以相依樣本t-test，分別觀察男、女參與者，在穿鞋與赤腳情況下各分析參數是否達顯著差異，顯著水準皆設定為α=.05。結果：16位（80%）男性、18位（90%）女性穿鞋跑時使用後足著地；而赤腳跑時，則僅有6位男性（30%）、8位女性（40%）仍舊採用後足著地。比較赤腳與穿鞋並採後足著地的情況，女性跑者無論是撞擊力峰值或是最大負荷率，赤腳跑時都顯著高於穿鞋跑（p＜.05），但男性則沒有顯著的差異。結論：穿帆布鞋和赤腳並採後足著地跑，大部分跑者在赤腳時的撞擊力峰值與最大負荷率皆較穿帆布鞋的情況高，此現象在女性跑者中更加顯著。此外，帆布鞋的吸震能力不如慢跑鞋，大部分跑者穿帆布鞋仍會以足跟先著地方式跑，人體在穿吸震較差的帆布鞋跑時，似乎不會因足部承受較大撞擊力而調整足部著地方式。未來研究比較赤腳與穿鞋跑之地面撞擊力，除考量足部著地的方式外，也應注意性別對分析結果的影響。

Purpose: As the foot striking of human running, the body will experience an impact force that has been influenced by the sole property, runner's landing strategy and the foot striking position (Chi & Schmitt, 2005; Divert et al., 2008; Hamill, Russell, Gruber, & Miller, 2011; Liang and Chiu, 2011 and Lieberman et al., 2010). In barefoot running, the larger knee flexion and angular velocity, more vertical position of the shank, flatter foot placement and smaller horizontal heel velocity at the landing instant were the adaptation strategies of the subjects to reduce the plantar pressure under the heel and the impact loading (Chiu, 2002). The author suggested that the runner would adjust his landing strategy to the limited cushioning of the shoe sole, such as the canvas shoe. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the impact forces as human running with the canvas and identify if the foot strike position would be adjusted like under barefoot running. Methods: Twenty female and male subjects who perform running exercise on a regular basis (at least 30 minutes of running for each session, and more than twice sessions for each week) were recruited to run across a force plate placed in the middle of a 10m long track at the speed of 3.0 ± 0.3 m/s with barefoot and canvas shoe randomly. Only the rear-foot strike running trials were included in this study to examine the impact forces between the barefoot and shoe condition with two-way ANOVA mixed design. The dependent t-test was used to identify the gender effect on the impact forces. The significant level was set at .05. Results: Of the twenty male and female subjects, 16 males (80%) and 18 females (90%) ran with rear-foot strike (RFS) as shod running, while only 6 males (30%) and 8 females (40%) still ran with RFS under barefoot running. For the RFS running of females, the mean impact force peaks and maximum loading rates under barefoot running were significantly greater than running with canvas shoe. For male runners, however, all the kinetic parameters were not different significantly between barefoot and shod running. Conclusion: The female runners seemed to have experienced the greater impact force under barefoot running than running with canvas shoe. No change of the foot strike position to reduce the impact force has been found for the most subjects under running with the canvas shoes. The runners have not adjusted the foot striking position to the limited cushioning of the shoe sole. In the future, not only the foot strike position but the gender effect should be included to investigate the impact forces during barefoot running.