Biomechanical analysis of running in military boots with new and degraded insoles

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 472-479

  Dixon, Sharon J ^a   Waterworth, Claire ^b   Smith, Calum V ^b   House, Carol M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF NAVAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ground reaction force; Kinematic adaptation; Lower extremity stiffness; Sagittal plane kinematics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARMY; ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; DEGRADATION; FOOT INJURY; FORCE; FRICTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KINEMATICS; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT; RIGIDITY; RUNNING; SHOE; SIMULATION;

ADULT; ANKLE; BIOMECHANICS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FOOT; HUMANS; KNEE; MILITARY PERSONNEL; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RUNNING; SHOES; THIGH; TRACK AND FIELD;

EID: 0037373373     PISSN: 01959131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000053733.64049.27     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. BAUMANN, W., B. KRABBE, and P. GALBIERZ. Life characteristics of running shoes and shoe material. Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics, Cologne, Germany, 1995, pp. 38-39.
2. CAMPBELL, G. J., M. MCLURE, and E. N. NEWELL. Compressive behaviour after simulated service conditions of some foam materials intended as orthotic shoe insoles. J. Rehabil. 21:57-65, 1984.
3. CLARKE, T. E., E. C. FREDERICK, and L. B. COOPER. Biomechanical measurement of running shoe cushioning properties. In: Biomechanical Aspects of Sport Shoes and Playing Surfaces, B. M. Nigg and B. A. Kerr (Eds.). Calgary: University of Calgary, 1983, pp. 25-33.
4. CINATS, J., D. C. REID, and J. B. HADDOW. A biomechanical evaluation of Sorbothane. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 222:281-288, 1987.
5. DE WIT, B., D. DE CLERCQ, and M. LENOIR. The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot motion during running. J. Appl. Biomech. 11:395-405, 1995.
6. DE WIT, B. D. DE CLERCQ, and P. AERTS. Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J. Biomech. 33:269-278, 2000.
7. DIXON, S. J., and D. G. KERWIN. The influence of heel lift manipulation on sagittal plane kinematics in running. J. Appl. Biomech. 15:139-151, 1999.
8. DIXON, S. J., M. E. BATT, and A. C. COLLOP. Artificial playing surfaces: a review of medical, engineering and biomechanical aspects. Int. J. Sports Med. 20:1-10, 1999.
9. DIXON, S. J., A. C. COLLOP, and M. E. BATT. The influence of changes in running surface on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in shod running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1919-1926, 2000.
10. EVANS G. W. L. Stress fractures at Commando Training Centre Royal Marines, Lympstone: a retrospective survey. J. R. Navy Med. Serv. 68:77-81, 1982.
11. FOTO, J. G., and J. A. BIRKE. Using bench top methods to evaluate dual-density materials used in therapeutic footwear. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics, Canmore, Canada, E. M. Hennig and D. J. Stephanyshyn (Eds.). 1999, pp. 40-41.
12. FREDERICK, E. C., T. E. CLARKE, J. L. LARSEN, and L. B. COOPER. The effects of shoe cushioning on oxygen demands of running. In: Biomechanical Aspects of Sport Shoes and Playing Surfaces, B. M. Nigg and B. A. Kerr (Eds.). Calgary: University of Calgary, 1983, pp. 107-114.
13. GARDNER L. I., J. E. DZIADOS, B. H. JONES, et al. Prevention of lower extremity fractures: a controlled trial of a shock absorbent insole. Am. J. Public Health 78:1563-1567, 1988.
14. HRELJAC, A., R. N. MARSHALL, and P. A. HUME. Evaluation of lower extremity overuse injury potential in runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1635-1641, 2000.
15. LEES, A., and P. J. MCCULLAGH. Preliminary investigation into the shock absorbency of running shoes and shoe inserts. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 10:95-106, 1984.
16. MILGROM C., M. GILADI, and H. KASHTAN. A prospective study of the effect of a shock-absorbing orthotic device on the incidence of stress fractures in military recruits. Foot Ankle 6:101-104, 1985.
17. NIGG B. M., W. HERZOG, and L. J. READ. Effect of viscoelastic shoe insoles on vertical impact forces in heel-toe running. Am. J. Sports Med. 16:70-78, 1988.
18. PRATT, D. J. Medium term comparison of shock attenuating insoles using a spectral analysis technique. J. Biomed. Eng. 10:426-429, 1988.
19. PRATT, D. J. Long term comparison of some shock absorbing insoles. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 14:59-62, 1990.
20. RADIN, E., K. H. YANG, C. RIEGGER, V. L. KISH, and J. O'CONNER. Relationship between lower limb dynamics and knee joint pain. J. Orthop. Res. 9:398-405, 1991.
21. SCHEFFÉ, H. Analysis of Variance. Chichester: Wiley, 1959, pp. 55-89.
22. STEPHANYSHYN, D. J., P. STERGIOU, V. M. Y. LUN, and W. H. MEEUWISSE. Dynamic variables and injuries in running. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics, Zurich, Switerland, E. Hennig and A. Stacoff (Eds.), 2001, pp. 74-75.
23. WHITTLE, M. W. The Use of Viscoelastic Materials in Shoes and Insoles: A Review. Magister Corporation, 1996, pp. 1-7.
24. WINDLE, C. M., S. M. GREGORY, and S. J. DIXON. The shock attenuation characteristics of four different insoles when worn in a military boot during running and marching. Gait Posture 9:31-37, 1999.
25. WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly Helsinki, Finland, 1964, and amended by the 52nd World Medical Association General Assembly, Edinburgh, October 2000, pp. 1-5.