Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during

NewsBot · May 24, 2013

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running
Thorsten Sterzing, Vreni Schweigera, Rui Ding, Jason Tak-Man Cheung & Torsten Brauner
Footwear Science Volume 5, Issue 2, 2013

Purpose: Running shoe cushioning research has focused widely on rearfoot (RF) characteristics, whereas forefoot (FF) characteristics have been rather neglected. However, altered cushioning may affect running biomechanics and respective subjective perception at RF and FF. Thus, this research compared the effect of running shoes with different midsole hardnesses at RF and FF.

Methods: Twenty-eight heel-toe runners were tested in five experimental shoe conditions that featured three segmented EVA midsoles (RF, midfoot (MF), FF). Three conditions had the same midsole hardness at RF and FF (soft (SS), medium (MM), hard (HH)). Two conditions had different RF and FF midsole hardness (soft-RF/hard-FF (SH), hard-RF/soft-FF (HS)). All midsoles featured the same MF segment of medium hardness. Vertical ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics during stance, subjective cushioning of the heel-toe transition and the overall comfort were quantified. Data were analysed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc tests (p < 0.05), and effect size analyses (pη2).

Results: The consistent midsole shoe conditions showed increased maximum loading rates of impact and propulsion peaks from SS to HH. Respective maximum loading rates of SH were similarly to SS, and respective maximum loading rates for HS were similar to HH. Subjectively, the consistent midsole conditions were rated according to their mechanical properties and softer shoes were preferred over harder shoes. In the varied midsole shoe conditions, SH was perceived similar to SS, whereas HS was perceived similar to MM.

Conclusion: The examined biomechanical variables were influenced almost entirely by respective RF cushioning properties. The hard FF did not negatively affect cushioning perception as long as the RF was soft. Combining a soft FF with a hard RF improved inferior cushioning perception associated with shoes being hard at RF and FF.
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Diabetic Foot Influencers on Twitter

Muscular Systems and Their Influence on Foot Arches

Influence of Cognitive Performance on Musculoskeletal Injury Risk

The Influence of Pain and Resiliency on Foot and Ankle Surgery Outcomes

Motivations, sources of influence and barriers to being a podiatrist

Influence of a novel elastic foot orthosis in foot motion with mild flat foot

Foot Sole Cutaneous Sensitivity is Influenced by Foot Posture

Share This Page