Segmented midsole hardness in the midfoot to forefoot region of running shoes alters subjective perception and biomechanics during heel-toe running revealing potential to enhance footwear

Purpose: Dual density midsole constructions at the lateral rearfoot and medial midfoot provide opportunities to improve cushioning and stability of running shoes. By similar mechanisms, non-uniform midsole density across the medio-lateral direction at the midfoot to forefoot may allow better negotiation of different loading magnitudes of the medial and lateral midfoot to forefoot during running. Thus, the effect of segmented midsole hardness at the midfoot to forefoot of running shoes on perception and biomechanics was examined. Methods: Four custom-made running shoes featured a three section longitudinal hardness pattern at midfoot to forefoot. The central section as well as the rearfoot section always had consistent medium hardness, whereas medial and lateral sections were systematically softer or harder. A sample of 24 runners participated in visual analogue scale based perception measurements and in recording of in-shoe plantar pressures, ground reaction forces, and multi-segment foot kinematics. Shoe effects were analysed by repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) (p<.05), followed by least significant difference (LSD) and Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc tests (p<.05) for discrete variables. Interaction of shank and foot segments was also analysed using motion-time curves. Results: Runners distinguished midsole hardness at the medial (p = .009) but not at the lateral midfoot to forefoot and indicated a trend (p = .069) preferring softer medial hardness. Plantar peak pressure (medial: p = .006, lateral: p = .000) and relative loads (medial: p = .000, lateral: p = .000) were increased when midsole sections were harder. Ground contact time (p = .045) and maximum loading rate I (p = .016) were higher for shoes having softer medial hardness, while rearfoot (p = .040) and forefoot (p = .001) showed increased maximum ankle eversion for these conditions. Conclusion: Segmented running shoe midsole hardness across the medio-lateral direction of the midfoot to forefoot influences subjective comfort and biomechanical forefoot stability. Findings allow systematic approaches to improve both features, thereby creating enhanced running footwear.

[1]  Pui W. Kong,et al.  Subjective evaluation of running footwear depends on country and assessment method: a bi-national study , 2015, Ergonomics.

[2]  T. Sterzing,et al.  Systematically modified crash-pad reduces impact shock in running shoes , 2010 .

[3]  Wing Kai Lam,et al.  Influence of protocol complexity on fit perception of basketball footwear , 2013 .

[4]  P Lundgren,et al.  Invasive in vivo measurement of rear-, mid- and forefoot motion during walking. , 2008, Gait & posture.

[5]  P. Pidcoe,et al.  Repeatability of the modified Oxford foot model during gait in healthy adults. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[6]  B M Nigg,et al.  The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  Thomas L. Milani,et al.  Small changes in the varus alignment of running shoes allow gradual pronation control , 2009 .

[8]  A. Leardini,et al.  Rear-foot, mid-foot and fore-foot motion during the stance phase of gait. , 2007, Gait & posture.

[9]  Joseph Hamill,et al.  Interaction of Arch Type and Footwear on Running Mechanics , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[10]  H. Menz,et al.  A comparison of foot kinematics in people with normal- and flat-arched feet using the Oxford Foot Model. , 2010, Gait & posture.

[11]  L. B. Cooper,et al.  Effects of Shoe Cushioning Upon Ground Reaction Forces in Running , 1983, International journal of sports medicine.

[12]  A. Belli,et al.  Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. , 2005, International journal of sports medicine.

[13]  Benno M. Nigg,et al.  Influence of Heel Flare and Midsole Construction on Pronation, Supination, and Impact Forces for Heel-Toe Running , 1988 .

[14]  Joseph Hamill,et al.  Kinematic adaptations during running: effects of footwear, surface, and duration. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[15]  D R Bassett,et al.  Characteristics and performance of male citizen cross-country ski racers. , 1988, International journal of sports medicine.

[16]  B M Nigg,et al.  The Role of Impact Forces and Foot Pronation: A New Paradigm , 2001, Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine.

[17]  Marco Hagen,et al.  Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics of running shoes , 2009, Journal of sports sciences.

[18]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[19]  Erin Higgins,et al.  Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race , 2011, Journal of sports sciences.

[20]  A. J. van den Bogert,et al.  Tibiocalcaneal motion during running, measured with external and bone markers. , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[21]  A. Mündermann,et al.  Development of a reliable method to assess footwear comfort during running. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[22]  G. Rao,et al.  The influence of footwear on foot motion during walking and running. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  Chris Bishop,et al.  Quantifying foot kinematics inside athletic footwear: a review , 2013 .

[24]  W. Kraemer,et al.  FOOT STRIKE PATTERNS OF RUNNERS AT THE 15‐KM POINT DURING AN ELITE‐LEVEL HALF MARATHON , 2007, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[25]  E. Frederick,et al.  The effects of shoe design parameters on rearfoot control in running. , 1983, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[26]  C. Dancey,et al.  Statistics Without Maths For Psychology , 1999 .

[27]  Cheryl Tay,et al.  Overall Preference of Running Shoes Can Be Predicted by Suitable Perception Factors Using a Multiple Regression Model , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Thomas L. Milani,et al.  The position of medial dual density midsole elements in running shoes does not influence biomechanical variables , 2011 .

[29]  K. Mills,et al.  Identifying clinically meaningful tools for measuring comfort perception of footwear. , 2010, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[30]  A. Lundberg,et al.  Intrinsic foot kinematics measured in vivo during the stance phase of slow running. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Edward C Frederick,et al.  Relationship between running speed and initial foot contact patterns. , 2014, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[32]  Thorsten Sterzing,et al.  Sensitivity Mapping of the Human Foot: Thresholds at 30 Skin Locations , 2009, Foot & ankle international.

[33]  Ravindra S. Goonetilleke Strategic Capabilities to Implement Mass Customization of Athletic Footwear: The Example of Miadidas , 2012 .

[34]  A. Mündermann,et al.  Effect of shoe inserts on kinematics, center of pressure, and leg joint moments during running. , 2003, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[35]  Robert Rosenthal,et al.  Effect Sizes Why, When, and How to Use Them , 2009 .

[36]  Rebecca Shultz,et al.  Determining the maximum diameter for holes in the shoe without compromising shoe integrity when using a multi-segment foot model. , 2012, Medical engineering & physics.

[37]  Thorsten Sterzing,et al.  Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running , 2013 .

[38]  Thomas L Milani,et al.  Perceptual and biomechanical variables for running in identical shoe constructions with varying midsole hardness. , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[39]  A. Lundberg,et al.  Foot kinematics during walking measured using bone and surface mounted markers. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.