Overall Preference of Running Shoes Can Be Predicted by Suitable Perception Factors Using a Multiple Regression Model

Gender differences in footwear characteristics between half and full marathons in China: a cross-sectional survey

There are concerns about the risk of injuries caused by marathons in China. Since male and female runners have different injury risks, gender differences in running shoe functionality should be further complemented. A supervised questionnaire survey of 626 marathon runners was collected. The questionnaire was categorized into four sections: (1) participant profile, (2) importance of shoe properties, (3) functional evaluation of shoe properties and (4) importance ranking of shoe properties. The Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test of cross tabulation and Chi-square test, and two-way ANOVA were used to analyze the results of this survey. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. The full marathon participants were older than the half marathon participants. There was no gender difference in the importance of shoe features to elite runners. In addition, women are more concerned about upper elasticity and have higher requirements for running shoes than men. Women were more focused on injury prevention, while men were more focused on running performance. Heel cushioning was identified by all participants as the most important running shoe feature. There were no gender differences between elite players' demand for running shoes, but significant gender differences were found between genders at other running levels.

Effect of the Innovative Running Shoes With the Special Midsole Structure on the Female Runners’ Lower Limb Biomechanics

The study aimed to research the effects of innovative running shoes (a high heel-to-toe drop and special structure of midsole) on the biomechanics of the lower limbs and perceptual sensitivity in female runners. Fifteen healthy female runners were recruited to run through a 145-m runway with planted force plates at one peculiar speed (3.6 m/s ± 5%) with two kinds of shoe conditions (innovative running shoes vs. normal running shoes) while getting biomechanical data. The perception of shoe characteristics was assessed simultaneously through a 15-cm visual analog scale. The statistical parametric mapping technique calculated the time-series parameters. Regarding 0D parameters, the ankle dorsiflexion angle of innovative running shoes at touchdown was higher, and the peak dorsiflexion angle, range of motion, peak dorsiflexion velocity, and plantarflexion moment on the metatarsophalangeal joint of innovative running shoes during running were significantly smaller than those of normal running shoes (all p < 0.001). In addition, the braking phase and the time of peak vertical force 1 of innovative running shoes were found to be longer than those of normal running shoes (both p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the average vertical loading rate 1, peak vertical loading rate 1, peak braking force, and peak vertical force 1 in the innovative running shoes were lower than those of the normal running shoes during running (both p < 0.01). The statistical parametric mapping analysis exhibited a higher ankle dorsiflexion angle (0–4%, p < 0.05), a smaller knee internal rotation angle (0–6%, p < 0.05) (63–72%, p < 0.05), a decreased vertical ground reaction force (11–17%, p = 0.009), and braking anteroposterior ground reaction force (22–27%, p = 0.043) for innovative running shoes than normal running shoes. Runners were able to perceive the cushioning of innovative running shoes was better than that of normal running shoes. These findings suggested combining the high offset and structure of the midsole would benefit the industrial utilization of shoe producers in light of reducing the risk of running injuries for female runners.

Factors Influencing Runner's Choices of Footwear

Until the mid-2000s, qualitative research has been virtually absent from running injury research. A handful of studies have been recently published regarding the attitudes and perceptions of runners and coaches toward injury development. Footwear is frequently perceived as a risk factor for running related injuries, but empeirical evidence fails to support such beliefs. The reasons why runners choose specific footwear warrants formal investigation to further understand the links between footwear and running related injuries. This study aimed to investigate the factors influencing runners choices of footwear. Interviews were conducted with 12 runners. Recordings from the interviews were transcribed verbatim and themes were developed using thematic analysis. Findings revealed 15 unique factors that influence runner's choices of footwear for running. These factors were grouped into three main themes: personal footwear characteristic preferences, other people and economic considerations. Runners largely gather information about their footwear choices from past experiences and people they trust and admire. They also emphasized the complexity of footwear choices due to availability and the constant changes preset within the footwear industry. This research adds to the growing body of knowledge to better understand the wider running injury system. Further studies are needed to establish how runners perceptions of their footwear impact injury rates and to develop effective injury prevention strategies.

The impact of functional excess of footwear on the foot shape of 7-year-old girls and boys

Background

Properly fitted shoes can support the development of growing feet and prevent problems and pathologies, not only in childhood, but also in adulthood. This points to the need to conduct research on the impact of shoe fitting on the structure of the foot in order to raise awareness and importance of this problem, to enable proper decisions regarding the purchase and use of shoes. The aim of this study was to analyze indoor footwear fit and its impact on foot structure in 7-year-old schoolchildren.

Methods

The CQ-ST podoscope and the Clevermess device were used for measurements. The analysis was carried out using the Mann Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Chi-square test, regression analysis.

Results

About 40% of girls and boys had shoes that were incorrectly fitted in length, while as many as 74% of girls and 66% of boys wore shoes that were incorrectly fitted in width. Regression analysis demonstrated a statistically significant influence of the footwear length on longitudinal arch of the right and left foot and the transverse arch of the right foot. In boys, the length of the shoes shows associations with the right and left hallux valgus angle.

Conclusion

A significant percentage of the studied 7-year-olds, regardless of gender, wears inappropriately fitted shoes. In both sexes, the length of the footwear influenced the longitudinal arch of the right and left foot and the transverse arch of the right foot. Due to the deformity of the first metatarsophalangeal joint, the boys with hallux valgus require footwear which is wider and therefore their shoes need to be bigger in size.

Shoe feature recommendations for different running levels: A Delphi study

Providing runners with footwear that match their functional needs has the potential to improve footwear comfort, enhance running performance and reduce the risk of overuse injuries. It is currently not known how footwear experts make decisions about different shoe features and their properties for runners of different levels. We performed a Delphi study in order to understand: 1) definitions of different runner levels, 2) which footwear features are considered important and 3) how these features should be prescribed for runners of different levels. Experienced academics, journalists, coaches, bloggers and physicians that examine the effects of footwear on running were recruited to participate in three rounds of a Delphi study. Three runner level definitions were refined throughout this study based on expert feedback. Experts were also provided a list of 20 different footwear features. They were asked which features were important and what the properties of those features should be. Twenty-four experts, most with 10+ years of experience, completed all three rounds of this study. These experts came to a consensus for the characteristics of three different running levels. They indicated that 12 of the 20 footwear features initially proposed were important for footwear design. Of these 12 features, experts came to a consensus on how to apply five footwear feature properties for all three different running levels. These features were: upper breathability, forefoot bending stiffness, heel-to-toe drop, torsional bending stiffness and crash pad. Interestingly, the experts were not able to come to a consensus on one of the most researched footwear features, rearfoot midsole hardness. These recommendations can provide a starting point for further biomechanical studies, especially for features that are considered as important, but have not yet been examined experimentally.

Development and evaluation of a dual density insole for people standing for long periods of time at work

BACKGROUND

Appropriate footwear is important for those who stand for prolonged periods of time at work, enabling them to remain comfortable, healthy and safe. Preferences for different footwear cushioning or hardness are often person specific and one shoe or insole will not be the choice for all. The aim of this study was to develop a range of insole options to maintain comfort during long periods of standing at work and test insole material preferences in the workplace.

METHODS

The study consisted of two parts. Part one evaluated 9 insoles of the same geometry that varied in hardness under 2 different plantar regions (n = 34). Insole preference, plantar pressure and selected anthropometric foot measures were taken. Three insole designs based on the most preferred options were identified from this part. In part two, these three insoles were evaluated with 22 workers immediately after trying them on (1 min) and after a working day. Foot anthropometric measures and subjective questions concerning material hardness preferences and self-reported foot characteristics were used to investigate whether either had a relationship with insole preference.

RESULTS

Part one found insole preference predominantly varied according to material hardness under the medial arch rather than the heel/forefoot. Softer material under the heel and forefoot was associated with a reduction in peak pressures in these regions (p < 0.05). The most preferred insole had lower pressures under the hallux and first metatarsal phalangeal joint, and greater pressures and contact area under the medial midfoot (p < 0.05) compared to the least preferred insole. Height and foot anthropometrics were related to insole preference. In part two, under real world conditions, insole preference changed for 65% of participants between the immediate assessment (1 min) and after a whole workday, with dorsum height related to the latter (p < 0.05). Subjective questions for self-assessed arch height and footwear feel identified 66.7% of the insole preferences after 1 day at work, compared to 36% using immediate assessment of insole preference.

CONCLUSION

Preference for material hardness varies underneath the medial arch of the foot and is time dependent. Simple foot measures and questions about comfort can guide selection of preferred insoles.

What are the perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals on footwear and running injury risk?

Objectives

There is a gap in research exploring perceptions of runners and healthcare professionals (HCPs) about running footwear and injury risk. The objectives of this study were: (1) to document factors considered by runners when selecting footwear; (2) to compare perceptions on footwear and injury risk in runners and HCPs; and (3) to evaluate the perceived usefulness of an online educational module.

Methods

Using an online survey, we collected information on demographics and perceptions about footwear and injury risk. Runners reported their footwear selection strategy, and HCPs their typical recommendations. An evidence-based educational module was presented, and participants rated its usefulness.

Results

The survey was completed by 2442 participants, of which 1035 completed the optional postmodule questions. Runners reported relying mostly on comfort and advice from retailers when selecting shoes. Perceptions regarding the effects of specific footwear types (minimalist, maximalist), characteristics (softness, drop) and selection strategy (foot type, transition) on biomechanics and injury risk were different between HCPs and runners. Overall, runners perceived footwear as more important to prevent injury than did HCPs (7.6/10, 99% CI 7.4 to 7.7 vs 6.2/10, 99% CI 6.0 to 6.5; p<0.001). Both runners (8.1/10, 99% CI 7.9 to 8.3) and HCPs (8.7/10, 99% CI 8.6 to 8.9) found the educational module useful. A majority of respondents indicated the module changed their perceptions.

Conclusion

Footwear is perceived as important in reducing running injury risk. This online module was deemed useful in educating about footwear evidence. Future studies should evaluate if changes in perceptions can translate to behaviour change and, ultimately, reduced injury risk.

Center of Pressure and Perceived Stability in Basketball Shoes With Soft and Hard Midsoles

This study aimed to investigate the effects of varying midsole hardness on center of pressure (COP) and perceived stability during basketball-specific tasks, as well as the correlation between COP and perception measurements. A total of 20 male basketball players performed 45° cutting and layup while wearing basketball shoes with soft and hard midsoles. COP trajectories were obtained from the Pedar insole system. Stability perceptions at the forefoot and rearfoot were assessed using 150-mm visual analogue scales. Results indicated greater COP mediolateral deviations in soft midsole compared with hard midsole during layup (soft: 16.6 [4.7] mm, hard: 15.8 [4.6] mm, P = .03) but not 45° cutting (soft: 15.7 [5.9] mm, hard: 15.8 [5.6] mm, P = .60). While 16 out of 20 participants preferred soft midsole, no significant difference in visual analogue scale ratings was found between shoes for both tested movements. There was no significant correlation between COP and perceived stability during layup or 45° cutting. In conclusion, midsole hardness of basketball shoes did not consistently affect mediolateral stability of the foot during 45° cutting and layup. Subjective perception alone cannot be used to indicate mediolateral deviation of the foot when executing basketball-specific maneuvers.