Runners perception of loss of rearfoot cushioning in worn running shoes

NewsBot · Sep 15, 2017

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
CAN RUNNERS PERCEIVE CHANGES IN HEEL CUSHIONING AS THE SHOE AGES WITH INCREASED MILEAGE?
Cornwall MW, McPoil TG
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2017 Aug;12(4):616-624.

BACKGROUND:
For those runners who utilize footwear and have a rearfoot strike pattern, the durability of the midsole heel region has been shown to deteriorate as shoe mileage increases.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to determine if the runner can self-report changes in heel cushioning properties of the midsole after an extended period of distance running, 2) to determine if force and plantar pressures measured in the heel region of the midsole using a capacitance sensor insole change after running 640 km, and 3) to determine if a durometer could be used clinically to objectively measure changes in the hardness of the material in the heel region of the midsole.
STUDY DESIGN:
Cross-sectional Study.
METHODS:
Fifteen recreational runners voluntarily consented to participate and were provided with a new pair of running shoes. Each participant's running style was observed and classified as having a rearfoot strike pattern. Inclusion criteria included running at least 24 km per week, experience running on a treadmill, no history of lower extremity congenital or traumatic deformity, or acute injury six months prior to the start of the study. The ability of each participant to self-perceive changes in shoe cushioning, comfort and fit was assessed using the Footwear Comfort Assessment Tool (FCAT). In-shoe plantar pressures and vertical forces were assessed using a capacitance sensor insole while runners ran over a 42-meter indoor runway. A Shore A durometer was used to measure the hardness of the midsole in the heel region. All measures were completed at baseline (zero km) and after running 160, 320, 480, and 640 km. In addition to descriptive statistics, a repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine if the FCAT, pressures, forces, or midsole hardness changed because of increased running mileage.
RESULT:
While plantar pressures and vertical forces were significantly reduced in the midsole heel region, none of the runners self-reported a significant reduction in heel cushioning based on FCAT scores after running 640 km. The use of a durometer provided an objective measure of the changes in the heel region of the midsole that closely matched the reductions observed in pressure and force values.
CONCLUSION:
The results indicated that runners who have a rearfoot strike pattern will have a 16% to 33% reduction in the amount of cushioning in the heel region of the midsole after running 480 km. Although there were significant reductions in heel cushioning, the experienced recreational runners in this study were not able to self-perceive these changes after running 640 km. In addition, the use of a durometer provides a quick and accurate way to assess changes in the hardness of the heel region of the midsole as running mileage increases.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Sep 15, 2017

Related Threads:
Shoe cushioning reduces impact and muscle activation during landings from unexpected, but not self-initiated, drops
Aging comparison of two running shoes with different technology
Enhancing Performance by Modulating Shoe Cushioning
Running shoe cushioning does not affect injury rate
Cushioned heel running shoes may alter adolescent biomechanics, performance

NewsBot · Nov 29, 2017

Women perception of shoe cushioning as a function of mechanical properties of footwear using a sensory trained panel method
Nicolas Delattre & Alexia Cariou
Footwear Science 28 Nov 2017

Most of the studies investigated footwear cushioning through the quantification of impact load or running-related injuries. Few studies focused on users’ perception of footwear cushioning. Users’ perception is usually investigated in other domains like food and consumer products using the ‘Sensory Trained Panel’ method. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between women's perception of shoe cushioning and mechanical properties of running shoes using a sensory trained panel approach. An initial mechanical characterization enabled to select 10 shoes having a wide range of mechanical properties. Ten recreational women runners were trained to become a ‘Sensory Trained Panel.’ First, simple vocabulary and gestures were highlighted to make shoe feature definition explicit and understood by all participants. Then, participants were trained to become discriminant, repeatable and in consensus for the rating of a given shoe feature. Finally, after running with a shoe model, participants rated the shoe feature intensity on a linear scale. The order of shoe models was balanced to avoid any effect of rank, sequence and fatigue. Each footwear model was available in four copies to limit alterations of shoe properties due to repetitive use. All the shoe models were blinded to avoid any effect of shoe design on the sensory evaluation. ‘Heel penetration’ was the explicit shoe feature understood by all participants to describe shoe cushioning. Panel performances were statistically verified. A significant correlation was highlighted and enabled to predict users’ perception of heel penetration based on shoe absolute maximal compression (r = 0.86, p = 6.9 × 10−4). The sensory trained panel method seemed powerful to quantify the perception of shoe features and could be used for other purposes than correlation between sensory and mechanical data.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Aug 8, 2018

Perception of running shoe cushioning: wear test vs. controlled experiment
Eric Pisciotta & Martyn Shorten
Footwear Science : 06 Aug 2018

Footwear developers employ feedback from human wear testers to assess the functionality and acceptability of their products. However, there is often poor correspondence between perceptions reported in wear tests and in vitro measurements of running shoe characteristics. This study evaluated runners’ ability to perceive differences in running shoe cushioning under controlled conditions and compared those results with wear test outcomes. Five running shoe conditions were chosen based on the ASTM F1976 impact test results (g-max) to span a typical range of cushioning scores with g-max differences among shoes distributed between 0.9 and 6.5 g. Samples of each shoe condition were used by an independent group of wear testers for about one month and 160 km of running. They provided ratings of various shoe attributes, including ‘heel cushioning’ and ‘forefoot cushioning’, using a 1–7 Likert-type scale. In a laboratory study, 50 healthy runners evaluated the same five shoe conditions and ranked them from ‘least cushioned’ to ‘most cushioned’. For each of the 10 possible pair-wise shoe comparisons, the probability that subjects would rank the shoes consistently with g-max scores was calculated as a function of the difference in g-max between shoes. There were no significant differences in wear test cushioning ratings among the four most cushioned shoes. However, using the ranking protocol, subjects were able to detect differences in cushioning with a ‘least noticeable difference’ of 1.4 g and demonstrated increasing sensitivity with larger difference magnitudes. In contrast to a typical wear test protocol, the laboratory test demonstrated that runners are able to perceive cushioning differences of sufficient magnitude, consistent with mechanical test results, under appropriately controlled conditions.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jun 24, 2020

Perception of Running Shoe Cushioning: Objective
and Subjective Measurements in Short-Distance
Running
Bahador Keshvari et al
Presented at the 13th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Online: 15 June 2020

The aim of this study is to investigate the link between the cushioning feature of running
shoes in objective and subjective measurements (OM and SM). In OM, four insoles materials were
chosen after impact tests (S1 = 12.6 g, S2 = 7.2 g, G = 11.54 g, and E = 32.41 g). In SM (n = 19), perceived
cushioning comfort of insoles was measured using pairwise comparison tests and a Visual analogue
scale (VAS) during running. Lower impact peak (IP) leads to greater perceived comfort of
cushioning only between S1, S2 and G. But insole E with the highest IP was rated as the most
comfortable in cushioning. Its relationship can be explained by associating acceleration magnitudes
from the beginning contact to the IP in two possible ways: i) participants did not reach the critical
impact peak in SM or ii) participants perceived the critical impact peak, but other factors such as
energy rebound and perceived stability influenced their rating in the pairwise comparison tests.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jun 24, 2020

Effect of Rest Periods on Mechanical Ageing of
Running Shoes
Tom Allen, Matthew Pagan, Ryan Martin and Olly Duncan
Presented at the 13th conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Online, 22–26 June 2020.

Running is a popular form of exercise, although runners are prone to injury from repeated
impact. Running shoes can limit impact forces, but they deteriorate with use. Mechanical ageing
typically involves repeatedly compressing the midsole while measuring the energy absorbed within
compression cycles to assess degradation. Literature suggests mechanical aging often causes a
higher rate of degradation than natural ageing. This work investigated the effect of introducing rest
periods into mechanical ageing. Five shoes were mechanically aged using a sine plus dwell
waveform (1.25 Hz, max. load 1.5 kN) for seven hours, equating to a simulated distance of 60 km.
Three of the shoes were rested for 22 hours every 20 km. The shoes aged with rest periods absorbed
more energy than their unrested counterparts for the first 10 km when testing recommenced. This
finding has implications for the mechanical ageing, design and recommended lifespan of running
shoes.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Oct 21, 2020

Influence of heel design on lower extremity biomechanics and comfort perception in overground running
Zuo-Liang Liu , Wing-Kai Lam ORCID Icon, Xianyi Zhang , Benedicte Vanwanseele & Hui Liu
Journal of Sports Sciences : 03 Sep 2020

The study investigated whether an alteration of the shoe heel curvature would influence lower extremity biomechanics and comfort perception in running. Twenty recreational habitual rearfoot strikers performed five running trials in running shoes with three different heel curvature designs (short-parallel, long-parallel and oblique curvatures). Synchronised force plate and motion capturing systems were used to collect three-dimensional lower extremity joint kinetics and kinematics, followed by subjective comfort perception on the 15 cm Visual Analogue Scale. The results showed that participants wearing oblique and long-parallel curvature shoes exhibited larger initial frontal shoe-ground angle (p= 0.003, p= 0.016) and ankle inversion angle (p= 0.008, p= 0.032) as well as higher maximum sagittal foot slap velocity (p= 0.041, p = 0.011) compared with a short-parallel curvature shoe. When wearing the short-parallel curvature shoe, participants had better rearfoot stability perception than the oblique curvature shoes (p = 0.028). These results suggest that the short parallel curvature shoes had better motion control and stability perception than the other two curvature conditions. However, the design of heel curvature seems to have minimal influence on the cushioning related variables in running.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · May 16, 2021

Biomechanical and perceptual cushioning sensitivity based on mechanical running shoe properties
Joshua Isherwood,Esther Rimmer,Fengqin Fu,Zhihao Xie &Thorsten Sterzing
Footwear Science: 07 May 2021

Mechanical shoe properties impact running biomechanics, triggering subjective shoe perception. Regarding midsole hardness little is known about the minimal mechanical alteration needed to change running biomechanics and perception. Three ethylene-vinyl acetate midsoles differing in rearfoot hardness (47, 53, 57 Asker C), and peak rearfoot impact acceleration (11.65, 12.40, 12.96 g), were used to create experimental shoe conditions (softer, medium, harder), featuring differing peak rearfoot impact accelerations (12.83, 13.49, 13.95 g) when measured with insoles. Twenty-five male rearfoot runners ran on a concrete loop, while capturing ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics of eight valid right foot ground contacts in each shoe. Perception of shoe cushioning and shoe rebound was also assessed during these runs using a 15 cm visual analogue scale. Variable magnitude means were compared for main effects (p < 0.05) by repeated measures analysis of variance, Bonferroni post-hoc tests, and effect size estimation (ηp2). No lower limb kinematic effects were induced by the shoes. Kinetically the softer shoe significantly reduced maximal vertical loading rate 1 compared to the medium and harder shoe (131.28 to 138.40 and 139.54 bw/s). Runners significantly perceived the difference in shoe cushioning between the softer and harder shoe (6.32 to 8.06 cm). For the running shoe model in this research a difference in mechanical peak impact acceleration of 0.66 g was sufficient to elicit different biomechanical loading. To elicit different cushioning perception a mechanical difference of 1.12 g was sufficient, resulting in a maximal vertical loading rate 1 difference of 8.26 bw/s. Knowing a shoe model’s biomechanical and perceptual sensitivity to mechanical alteration allows better informed design, development, and manufacturing decisions.
Click to expand...

NewsBot · Jul 27, 2023

Perceived Cushioning Levels of Running Shoes with
Different Mechanical Properties
P.S.P. Teng et al
Source

In place of human testing, mechanical shoe tests could be used to save time and
costs for shoe manufacturers. This study aimed to compare perceived levels of cushioning
with mechanical test results from a new dynamic drop test of running shoes. Nineteen
participants were recruited to brisk walk over a 10-m walkway and vertical drop jump from
a 30-cm platform. Participants then rated their perceived levels of cushioning of four
models of running shoes using the 10cm visual analog scale (VAS). Results showed that
the significantly worst perceived cushioned running shoe corresponded with the worst
loading rate measured in the dynamic test. On the other hand, perceived levels of
cushioning of shoes were not significantly different among shoes with similar loading rates
in the dynamic tests. These results suggest that the perceived levels of cushioning only
matched dynamic test results if the difference in cushioning properties is sufficiently large
Click to expand...

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Examining injury risk and pain perception in runners using minimalist footwear

‘It has to hurt’ - how elite runners handle pain

Classifying runners based on the 'duty factor'

Are models of plantar heel pain suitable for competitive runners?

Dynamic Stability in Runners with and without Plantar Fasciitis

The Training Characteristics of World-Class Distance Runners

Motivation behind running among older adult runners

Share This Page