Literature DB >> 1602942

The movement of the heel within a running shoe.

A Stacoff1, C Reinschmidt, E Stüssi.   

Abstract

Most running shoe investigations have used the same standard procedure for the evaluation of the shoes: the runners are filmed from behind and a film analysis is carried out digitizing markers at the heel counter of the shoe and on the lower leg. The angular displacement of these markers relative to the horizontal or the vertical is assumed to be an indicator for various sports injuries. The goal of this investigation was to measure the movement of the heel counter as well as the movement of the heel inside the shoe. First, the influence of the size of different heel counter windows was controlled and found negligible for the test conditions of this study. Second, 15 subjects performed the following procedure: running (a) barefoot, (b) with shoes with windows, and (c) without windows. Overall, the heel was found to move similarly but not identically to the heel counter. The maximum change of pronation was (a) 13.7 +/- 3.7 degrees, barefoot; (b) 14.1 +/- 3.8 degrees for the shoe with windows and 12.1 +/- 3.7 degrees for the heel inside these shoes; and 14.9 +/- 4.2 degrees for the shoes with no windows. To achieve a general impression of a shoe in the sense of a qualitative description, the previous method without heel counter windows still seems adequate. However, for a detailed analysis of quantitative nature, it is important to use the method with heel counter windows.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1602942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc        ISSN: 0195-9131            Impact factor:   5.411


  7 in total

1.  Football boot insoles and sensitivity to extent of ankle inversion movement.

Authors:  G Waddington; R Adams
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 2.  Neuromotor control of the lower limb in Achilles tendinopathy: implications for foot orthotic therapy.

Authors:  Narelle Wyndow; Sallie M Cowan; Tim V Wrigley; Kay M Crossley
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Biomechanics of the double rocker sole shoe: gait kinematics and kinetics.

Authors:  J T Long; N Sirota; J P Klein; J J Wertsch; D Janisse; G F Harris
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2004

4.  Shank Muscle Strength Training Changes Foot Behaviour during a Sudden Ankle Supination.

Authors:  Marco Hagen; Stephanie Lescher; Andreas Gerhardt; Matthias Lahner; Stephan Felber; Ewald M Hennig
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Reliability of a multi-segment foot model in a neutral cushioning shoe during treadmill walking.

Authors:  Megan E R Balsdon; Colin E Dombroski
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  The test-retest reliability of anatomical co-ordinate axes definition for the quantification of lower extremity kinematics during running.

Authors:  Jonathan Sinclair; Paul John Taylor; Andrew Greenhalgh; Christopher James Edmundson; Darrell Brooks; Sarah Jane Hobbs
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2012-12-30       Impact factor: 2.193

7.  Effect of medial arch-heel support in inserts on reducing ankle eversion: a biomechanics study.

Authors:  Daniel Tp Fong; Mak-Ham Lam; Miko Lm Lao; Chad Wn Chan; Patrick Sh Yung; Kwai-Yau Fung; Pauline Py Lui; Kai-Ming Chan
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 2.359

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.