Impact Forces
Conditions
Keywords
activity shoes, forces, torques, cartilage, bones
Brief summary
This study aims to directly compare traditional everyday activity shoes (ASICS, Nike) with a shoe created to be flatter, less cushioned, and with less cradling of the foot (OESH shoe).
Detailed description
This study addresses a common question in popular media: what attributes of traditional everyday activity shoes (Nike, New Balance, etc.) make a shoe better or worse. There have been several peer-reviewed studies aimed to answer this by calculating forces and torques at the ankles, knees, and hips while subjects wore shoes with different properties. Such characteristics include heel size, cushioning and side-to-side cradling of the foot. Interestingly, most studies have shown that the lack of a heel, less cushioning, and less cradling of the foot actually improve the biomechanics related to forces and torques, thus decreasing wear and tear on the cartilage and bones of the leg. Wear and tear on cartilage and bone may predispose patients to a bone condition called osteoarthritis, which is a disease where bones become damaged from rubbing on each other with breakdown of a cartilage cushion. This study thus aims to directly compare traditional everyday activity shoes (ASICS, Nike) with a shoe created to be flatter, less cushioned, and with less cradling of the foot (OESH shoe).
Interventions
OTHEREvaluation
Subjects will be asked to walk across the gait laboratory floor at their self-selected walking speed. They will complete a 3-5 minute warm up period, as it was found to produce stable estimates of kinetic parameter mean values during treadmill activity. The positions of each marker will be recorded through the motion capture system. Ground reaction force will be obtained in real time from the gait laboratory force plates as marker dimensions are recorded. For walking data, two trials of 15 seconds each will be recorded. The second trial will be a redundancy in the setting of potential significant marker dropout.
Sponsors
Emory University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
The subjects will be fitted in random order of a pair of ASICS Women's Gel-Venture 6 Running-Shoe, Nike Air Max 270, La Vida+ athletic shoes. Subjects will be pre-assigned randomly to start and continue with specific shoe groups, ultimately exhausting all options.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Women between the ages of 18-65 * Women who identify as healthy * Women who run or walk for exercise more than three times per week * Women in the Atlanta, Georgia area
Exclusion criteria
* Individuals with history of significant musculoskeletal pathology * Individuals with musculoskeletal injury at time of testing * Individuals unable to consent * Individuals outside of the ages 18-65 * Individuals who are prisoners * Individuals who do not speak or write in English
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in torques at the knee comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the knee comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Differences in torques at the lateral femoral condyles comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the lateral femoral condyles comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in torques at the lateral mid-shanks comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the lateral mid-shanks comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up day | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in torques at the lateral malleoli comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in torques at the bilateral anterior and posterior superior spine comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in torques at the second metatarsal heads comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the second metatarsal heads comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in torques at the heels comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the heels comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the lateral malleoli comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
| Differences in forces at the bilateral anterior and posterior superior spine comparing three study arms | One-time at enrollment, no follow-up | Joint torques and forces will be assessed via 16 markers placed on specified anatomical landmarks of the pelvis and lower extremities as the subjects walk across the gait floor at a self-selected speed. In analysis, joint torques and forces will be calculated through full inverse-dynamic model implementation using the Vicon Plug-In Gait. Differences in torques and peak forces will be calculated by ANOVA along with 95% confidence intervals. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed