Influence of rearfoot and forefoot midsole hardness on biomechanical and perception variables during heel-toe running

Abstract

Purpose: Running shoe cushioning research has focused widely on rearfoot (RF) characteristics, whereas forefoot (FF) characteristics have been rather neglected. However, altered cushioning may affect running biomechanics and respective subjective perception at RF and FF. Thus, this research compared the effect of running shoes with different midsole hardnesses at RF and FF. Methods: Twenty-eight heel-toe runners were tested in five experimental shoe conditions that featured three segmented EVA midsoles (RF, midfoot (MF), FF). Three conditions had the same midsole hardness at RF and FF (soft (SS), medium (MM), hard (HH)). Two conditions had different RF and FF midsole hardness (soft-RF/hard-FF (SH), hard-RF/soft-FF (HS)). All midsoles featured the same MF segment of medium hardness. Vertical ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics during stance, subjective cushioning of the heel-toe transition and the overall comfort were quantified. Data were analysed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc tests (p < 0.05), and effect size analyses ( p h 2 ). Results: The consistent midsole shoe conditions showed increased maximum loading rates of impact and propulsion peaks from SS to HH. Respective maximum loading rates of SH were similarly to SS, and respective maximum loading rates for HS were similar to HH. Subjectively, the consistent midsole conditions were rated according to their mechanical properties and softer shoes were preferred over harder shoes. In the varied midsole shoe conditions, SH was perceived similar to SS, whereas HS was perceived similar to MM. Conclusion: The examined biomechanical variables were influenced almost entirely by respective RF cushioning properties. The hard FF did not negatively affect cushioning perception as long as the RF was soft. Combining a soft FF with a hard RF improved inferior cushioning perception associated with shoes being hard at RF and FF.

Subjective evaluation of running footwear depends on country and assessment method: a bi-national study

“…This means that subjective evaluation of running shoe features using VAS may not reflect one's overall shoe preference when two models are compared directly. The moderate agreement between the perception assessment procedures reinforces previous studies in the literature that testing subjective perception is complex and difficult (Hennig 2011;Kong and Bagdon 2010;Lam, Sterzing, and Cheung 2011;Miller et al 2000;Mills, Blanch, and Vicenzino 2010;Mündermann, Stefanyshyn, and Nigg, 2001;Mündermann et al 2002;Sterzing et al 2013). Furthermore, it raises some concerns regarding the common use of VAS in assessing subjective characteristics of footwear in a laboratory setting because the test results do not necessary reflect one's shoe preference in real life.…”

“…Previous research have shown that runners were able to perceive differences in rearfoot and forefoot hardness (Sterzing et al 2013) and that cushioning shoes with good shock attenuating properties were generally preferred (Hennig 2011;Kong and Bagdon 2010). When compared with the least favoured model (C), the top ranked model (D) is characterised by heavier mass (þ 27.0%), increased rearfoot (þ 13.3%) and forefoot (þ 31.3%) thickness, higher forefoot stiffness (þ 21.1%), lower forefoot impact (2 4.6%) and higher forefoot energy return (þ 11.2%) ( Table 3).…”

“…Although some subjective measures are related to biomechanical and/or mechanical properties of the shoes (Lam, Sterzing, and Cheung 2011;Milani, Hennig, and Lafortune 1997;Pisciotta and Shorten 2013;Sterzing et al 2013), it is still unclear what contributes to the overall footwear perception (Goonetilleke 1999;Llana et al 2002;Miller et al 2000;Mills, Blanch, and Vicenzino 2010;Mündermann et al 2003). A recent review based on a series of studies over 18 years concluded that human subjects generally cannot clearly distinguish between various features of a running shoe (e.g.…”

“…Criteria such as fit, comfort and overall quality of the shoes often provide important information for footwear design (Au and Goonetilleke 2007;Hennig 2011). Much research have been done on footwear comfort with applications in military, sports, clinical and general populations (Burke 2012;Hong et al 2005;Lake and Lafortune 1998;Llana et al 2002;Mills, Blanch, and Vicenzino 2012;Mündermann, Stefanyshyn, and Nigg, 2001;Sterzing et al 2013;Witana, Feng, and Goonetilleke 2004). In everyday life, customers often rely on their subjective 'feeling' and perception of the shoes when comparing various shoe models.…”

The manipulation of midsole properties to alter impact characteristics in walking

“…Researchers report increased positive peak axial tibial acceleration values in impact assemblies and maximum loading rate of the impact peak in running with increased hardness of footwear (DeWit et al, 1995;Sterzing et al, 2013).…”