Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

The natural frequency of the foot-surface cushion during the stance phase of running

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by mike weber, Jan 11, 2011.

Tags:

  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Journal of Biomechancis in press:

    http://www.jbiomech.com/article/S0021-9290(10)00607-X/abstract

    The natural frequency of the foot-surface cushion during the stance phase of running

    Wangdo Kim, John Tan, Antonio Veloso, Veronica Vleck, Arkady S. Voloshin

    Found this, looked interesting and would not mind a read of the full text.

    But in reading the abstract something jumped out.

    Why would you use a inverted pendulum model for running when a spring mass model is the norm.

    Also the journal key words are leg stiffness as we have discussed leg stiffness is based on spring mass models so somewhat :confused:
     
  2. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Copy in your inbox
     
  3. Just a quick post Mike, I haven't read the paper yet. I think that spring-mass and inverted-pendulum are effectively the same model. That is, the inverted-pendulum model is just and example of the spring-mass model with a very, very high Kleg. In other words, the spring-mass model considers the leg to be relatively more compliant than the inverted-pendulum model, but theoretically if we plotted GRF's and energetics for every Kleg from infinitely compliant to infinitely stiff, would we not see a gradual transition from those observed with the spring-mass model towards those observed with the inverted-pendulum model as leg stiffness increased toward infinity??

    Now, until I've read the paper, I have no idea why they modelled running as a stiff-legged gait.
     
  4. Thanks sir

    I agree about the stiff spring-mass model in walking from our discussions last year. Perhaps the paper will shed some light on the matter of why a stiff spring-mass model was used.
     
  5. Right Ive had a read and the authors state their main aim.

    So I see what they say but I still don´t get why the knee was removed, In my way of thinking the flexion -extension moment at the knee would effect the cushioning at the ground foot interface ?
     
Loading...

Share This Page