| Literature DB >> 36141483 |
Hung-Wen Chen1, Hsien-Te Peng1,2, Yan Wei2.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in biomechanical parameters and sports-specific performance of lower limbs between arch support insoles (ASI) and flat insoles (FLI) when performing net strides. After installing the MVN IMU system, 18 college badminton team members were asked to take the following tests: (1) Consecutive net stride tests; (2) Six-point footwork tests; (3) Retrieve/stroke the ball at the left and right net; (4) Smash and retrieve/stroke the ball at the net; (5) Smash at the front and back crossover step. The joint angle of the lower limbs and ground reaction force during the support phase was collected. The results demonstrated that the peak right hip flexion angle was significantly greater with ASI than FLI (63.09 ± 10.70; 60.08 ± 13.82; p = 0.028), while the peak right foot inversion angle was significantly smaller with ASI than FLI (20.68 ± 7.87; 23.85 ± 8.11; p = 0.013). The principal conclusion was that the arch support insole avoids the decrease in the hip flexion angle and the increase in the foot inversion angle during the net stride tests.Entities:
Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament injury; ground reaction force; kinematics; kinetics; lower extremity stability; sports performance
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141483 PMCID: PMC9517320 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Consecutive net stride tests.
Figure 2Consecutive six-point footwork tests (1–6 represents the sequence of the six-point).
Figure 3Movement test: a) Retrieve/stroke the ball at the left and right net; (b) Smash and retrieve/stroke the ball at the net; (c) Smash at the front and back crossover step.
Biomechanical parameters of consecutive net stride tests and performance.
| Parameters | FLI | ASI | % |
| ES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Support time (s) | 0.60 ± 0.11 | 0.59 ± 0.15 | −1.7 | 0.506 | 0.16 |
|
| |||||
| RhipF (deg) | 42.58 ± 10.09 | 44.75 ± 14.64 | 5.1 | 0.17 | 0.32 |
| RkneeF (deg) | 31.37 ± 17.22 | 35.85 ± 20.19 | 14.3 | 0.523 | 0.15 |
| RfootI (deg) | 13.97 ± 7.13 | 12.46 ± 4.8 | −10.8 | 0.326 | 0.25 |
| RfootPF (deg) | 12.67 ± 9.56 | 5.37 ± 15.38 | −57.6 | 0.272 | 0.32 |
|
| |||||
| RhipF (deg) | 60.08 ± 13.82 | 63.09 ± 10.70 | 5.0 | 0.028 * | 0.52 |
| RkneeF (deg) | 58.79 ± 10.86 | 60.41 ± 13.87 | 2.8 | 0.372 | 0.21 |
| RfootI (deg) | 23.85 ± 8.11 | 20.68 ± 7.87 | −13.3 | 0.013 * | 0.59 |
| RfootPF (deg) | 36.07 ± 15.94 | 31.1 ± 12.38 | −13.8 | 0.332 | 0.24 |
|
| |||||
| PvGRF (BW) | 2.16 ± 0.30 | 2.16 ± 0.32 | 0 | 0.948 | 0.02 |
| PhGRF (BW) | 1.23 ± 0.24 | 1.22 ± 0.20 | −0.8 | 0.845 | 0.05 |
| VLR (BW/s) | 26.12 ± 12.69 | 26 ± 12.26 | −0.5 | 0.828 | 0.05 |
| HLR (BW/s) | 16.28 ± 8.28 | 15.82 ± 6.96 | −2.8 | 0.711 | 0.09 |
|
| |||||
| Test 2 (s) | 36.97 ± 3.00 | 36.34 ± 3.12 | −1.7 | 0.210 | 0.29 |
| Test 3 (1) (s) | 63.85 ± 13.4 | 62.18 ± 11.47 | −2.7 | 0.372 | 0.21 |
| Test 3 (2) (s) | 53.31 ± 8.53 | 52.06 ± 10.51 | −2.3 | 0.777 | 0.06 |
| Test 3 (3) (times) | 30.6 ± 2.96 | 31.5 ± 3.96 | 2.9 | 0.184 | 0.31 |
* significant difference found between FLI and ASI. p < 0.05. RhipF: Right hip flexion; RkneeF: Right knee flexion;RfootI: Right foot inversion; RfootPF: Right foot plantar flexion; PvGRF: Peak vertical GRF; PhGRF: Peak horizontal GRF; VLR: Vertical loading rate; HLR: Horizontal loading rate. Positive percentage values indicate an increase relative to FLI, and negative values indicate a decrease relative to FLI.