Comparison of Female Foot Morphology and Last Design in Athletic Footwear—Are Men's Lasts Appropriate for Women?

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences between female feet and last design. Four hundred twenty-four feet and four men's running shoe lasts (U.S. women 6.0–9.5), which also are used for the manufacturing of women's shoes, were scanned in three dimensions. Six foot measures were quantified. Different foot types were classified using a cluster analysis. Comparisons were made between last measures and averaged as well as foot type specific foot measures. Differences in width measures between lasts and foot types vary substantially (0–9 mm). Length grading is similar for lasts and feet (differences < 1mm). Width grading is larger in lasts in comparison with average grading in feet (3.5–5.9 mm). Last design and grading should account for the sex-specific allometry in foot measures. The use of down-graded men's lasts for women's shoes has to be questioned. Therefore, sex-specific reference measures and wear tests should incorporate different foot types in different sizes to allow suitable implications for a proper design and grading of lasts.

[1]  J. Taunton,et al.  A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries , 2002, British journal of sports medicine.

[2]  K Ashizawa,et al.  Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types. , 1997, Annals of Human Biology.

[3]  M. R. Hawes,et al.  Quantitative morphology of the human foot in a North American population. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[4]  Makiko Kouchi,et al.  Inter-generation differences in foot morphology: aging or secular change? , 2003, Journal of human ergology.

[5]  Sex Differences in Relative Foot Length and Perceived Attractiveness of Female Feet: Relationships among Anthropometry, Physique, and Preference Ratings , 2007, Perceptual and motor skills.

[6]  Stefan Grau,et al.  Do the feet of German and Australian children differ in structure? Implications for children's shoe design , 2008, Ergonomics.

[7]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Designing for Comfort: A Footwear Application , 2001 .

[8]  M Kouchi.  Analysis of foot shape variation based on the medial axis of foot outline. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[9]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke,et al.  Modelling foot height and foot shape-related dimensions , 2008, Ergonomics.

[10]  D. Fessler,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in foot length proportionate to stature , 2005, Annals of human biology.

[11]  Clemens Plank,et al.  Dynamic foot scanning: A new approach for measurement of the human foot shape while walking , 2009 .

[12]  P. Dhara,et al.  A comparative study of foot dimension between adult male and female and evaluation of foot hazards due to using of footwear. , 2001, Journal of physiological anthropology and applied human science.

[13]  Y. Yoshihuku,et al.  Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. , 1994, Ergonomics.

[14]  J. Hamill,et al.  Lower Extremity Joint Stiffness in Runners with Low Back Pain , 2009, Research in sports medicine.

[15]  T. Horstmann,et al.  Foot morphology of normal, underweight and overweight children , 2008, International Journal of Obesity.

[16]  H. Yatsuya,et al.  [Association of flatfoot with pain, fatigue and obesity in Japanese over sixties]. , 2003, Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi (Japanese Journal of Public Health).

[17]  M Mochimaru,et al.  Analysis of 3-D human foot forms using the Free Form Deformation method and its application in grading shoe lasts , 2000, Ergonomics.

[18]  José Rubens Rebelatto,et al.  The relationship between foot pain, anthropometric variables and footwear among older people. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[19]  M. Mauch,et al.  A new approach to children's footwear based on foot type classification , 2009, Ergonomics.

[20]  T. Horstmann,et al.  What are causes and treatment strategies for patellar-tendinopathy in female runners? , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[21]  A Anil,et al.  An examination of the relationship between foot length, foot breath, ball girth, height and weight of Turkish university students aged between 17 and 25. , 1997, Anthropologischer Anzeiger; Bericht uber die biologisch-anthropologische Literatur.

[22]  Sean R. Mitchell,et al.  A Structured Approach to the Design of Shoe Lasts , 1995 .

[23]  J. Baumhauer,et al.  Sexual dimorphism of the foot and ankle. , 2006, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[24]  D. Janisse.  The Art and Science of Fitting Shoes , 1992, Foot & ankle.

[25]  Suzanne G. Leveille,et al.  Foot pain and disability in older women. , 1998, American journal of epidemiology.

[26]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. , 2001, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[27]  Channa P. Witana,et al.  Dimensional differences for evaluating the quality of footwear fit , 2004, Ergonomics.

[28]  C. Maiwald,et al.  Sex-related differences in foot shape , 2008, Ergonomics.

[29]  C. Frey.  Foot health and shoewear for women. , 2000, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  Inga Krauss,et al.  Sex-specific differences in foot morphology: A follow-up study , 2009 .

[31]  Ameersing Luximon,et al.  Foot landmarking for footwear customization , 2003, Ergonomics.

[32]  Makiko Kouchi,et al.  Deformation of foot cross-section shapes during walking. , 2009, Gait & Posture.

[33]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .