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

Abstract

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 D .009) but not at the lateral midfoot to forefoot and indicated a trend (p D .069) preferring softer medial hardness. Plantar peak pressure (medial: p D .006, lateral: p D .000) and relative loads (medial: p D .000, lateral: p D .000) were increased when midsole sections were harder. Ground contact time (p D .045) and maximum loading rate I (p D .016) were higher for shoes having softer medial hardness, while rearfoot (p D .040) and forefoot (p D .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.

Segmented Forefoot Plate in Basketball Footwear: Does it Influence Performance and Foot Joint Kinematics and Kinetics?

“…Studying plantar pressure on the plate locations would provide insights into plantar stress-related injuries and stability. 13 For performance aspect, the optimal pathway hypothesis proposed that better comfort perception might allow for optimal movement pathway of individual. 31…”

“…On one hand, inserting a medial stiffening only the medial aspect of forefoot region of the shoe may induce forefoot instability. 13 On the other hand, inserting plates in both medial and lateral aspects may increase lateral foot loading. 14 High loading at the lateral aspect of the foot is undesirable as it is associated with Jones fracture (i.e.…”

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

“…Testing took place simultaneously with biomechanical data collection, with participants filling in on the questionnaire immediately after completing the eight successful trials required for the respective shoe condition. Runners assessed six perception variables (shoe weight, fit, arch support, cushioning, stability, and over preference) on a questionnaire that had been repeatedly highlighted in some articles ( Sterzing et al, 2015 ; Tay et al, 2017 ; Bishop et al, 2020 ). Also, a 15-cm visual analog scale (VAS) was carried out; these have been previously applied for running footwear assessment ( Mündermann et al, 2002 ; Mills et al, 2010 ; Kong et al, 2015 ; Sterzing et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Runners assessed six perception variables (shoe weight, fit, arch support, cushioning, stability, and over preference) on a questionnaire that had been repeatedly highlighted in some articles ( Sterzing et al, 2015 ; Tay et al, 2017 ; Bishop et al, 2020 ). Also, a 15-cm visual analog scale (VAS) was carried out; these have been previously applied for running footwear assessment ( Mündermann et al, 2002 ; Mills et al, 2010 ; Kong et al, 2015 ; Sterzing et al, 2015 ). Participants were shown and explained both variables before each shoe condition during the initial familiarization and data collection.…”

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

“…Furthermore, other research has shown an inability of runners to perceive specific biomechanical characteristics of running shoes. For example, runners showed similar frontal plane ankle stability perception despite testing shoes that were designed to induce different degrees of rearfoot motion (Brauner, Sterzing, Gras, & Milani, 2009; Sterzing, Custoza, Ding, & Cheung, 2015; Sterzing, Thomsen, Ding, & Cheung, 2015). Running shoe preference is further complicated by extrinsic factors, such as aesthetics (Au & Goonetilleke, 2007; Williams & Nester, 2006), brand, and price (Clinghan, Arnold, Drew, Cochrane, & Abboud, 2008; Hennig & Schulz, 2011).…”