Effect of body mass and midsole hardness on kinetic and perceptual variables during basketball landing manoeuvres

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of body mass and shoe midsole hardness on kinetic and perceptual variables during the performance of three basketball movements: (1) the first and landing steps of layup, (2) shot-blocking landing and (3) drop landing. Thirty male basketball players, assigned into "heavy" (n = 15, mass 82.7 ± 4.3 kg) or "light" (n = 15, mass 63.1 ± 2.8 kg) groups, performed five trials of each movement in three identical shoes of varying midsole hardness (soft, medium, hard). Vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) during landing was sampled using multiple wooden-top force plates. Perceptual responses on five variables (forefoot cushioning, rearfoot cushioning, forefoot stability, rearfoot stability and overall comfort) were rated after each movement condition using a 150-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A mixed factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Body Mass × Shoe) was applied to all kinetic and perceptual variables. During the first step of the layup, the loading rate associated with rearfoot contact was 40.7% higher in the "heavy" than "light" groups (P = .014) and 12.4% higher in hard compared with soft shoes (P = .011). Forefoot peak VGRF in a soft shoe was higher (P = .011) than in a hard shoe during shot-block landing. Both "heavy" and "light" groups preferred softer to harder shoes. Overall, body mass had little effect on kinetic or perceptual variables.

Basketball lay-up – foot loading characteristics and the number of trials necessary to obtain stable plantar pressure variables

“…Finally, our participants were recreational basketball players competing at the university level and therefore the results may not be applicable to players of other abilities (e.g. professional) due to differences in skill competencies (Nin et al, 2016). Despite the limitations, it is believed that the results of this study would be applicable to a general population of recreational basketball players.…”

“…After two contralateral take-off steps (right, followed by left), the ball was released in mid-air before participants landed on both feet. This lay-up task was designed to simulate the receipt of a chest-pass and subsequent execution of a lay-up, with no dribbling allowed throughout the movement (Nin et al, 2016). An attempt was considered successful if the ball passed through the basket, or had contact with both the backboard and the rim.…”

“…It is possible that running lay-ups in a dynamic environment are inherently more variable; hence our results may have underestimated the number of trials required for stable performances. On the other hand, our protocol of simulating a lay-up upon the receipt of a chest-pass is highly relevant to footwear research and testing protocols whereby standardising the initial speed across conditions and trials are essential (Nin et al, 2016). The second limitation was that foot morphology of the participants was not considered in this study.…”

“…The lay-up consists of the approach, take-off, and landing phases. In the evaluation of basketball footwear, the lay-up has been recommended over traditional drop-landing tasks when comparing biomechanical and subjective variables between shoes (Lam, Sterzing, & Cheung, 2011;Nin, Lam, & Kong, 2016).…”

Does shoe heel design influence ground reaction forces and knee moments during maximum lunges in elite and intermediate badminton players?

“…Furthermore, the footwear effect on impact forces could be participant-dependent [20–22]. Players of different levels would perform lunging with unique techniques and patterns, which might have caused to different biomechanical outcomes and thereby required adequate footwear design to reduce the harmful mechanical responses during lunges.…”