Korean Journal of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회지)

Korean Society of Applied Biomechanics (한국운동역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study for impact absorption function of midsole in Cushioned Marathon Shoes

충격흡수용 마라톤화(Cushioned Shoes) 개발을 위한 중창·하지의 충격흡수기능 연구 -마라톤화 연구의 과거 & 현재를 중심으로-

  • Published : 2002.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze impact absorption function of midsole in cushioned marathon shoes. The foot is made up of a complex interaction of bones, ligaments, and muscles. These structures help the foot alternate between being a mobile, flexible adaptor and a stable rigid lever. The foot is broken down into two functional parts, the forefoot and the rearfoot. Cushioned marathon shoes for high arches have generous cushioning for efficient and high-mileage runners. Cushioned marathon shoes are made for feet that have high arches or no excessive motion and don't roll inward or roll outward. This condition is known as underpronation. Especially, Cushioned marathon shoes are designed to reduce shock and generally have the softest (or most cushioned) midsoles and the least medial support. They are usually built on a semicurved or curved last to encourage foot motion, which is helpful for underpronators (who have rigid, immobile feet). Cushioning marathon shoes recommended for the high-arched runner, whose foot may roll outward (supinate) rather than the natural slight inward roll, or whose feet may be relatively rigid. Cushioning shoes emphasize flexibility and usually are built on a curved or semicurved last to encourage a normal motion of the foot. Cushioning shoes usually offer no medial (inner foot) support. Cushioned marathon shoes have the single-density midsole, which is stable and relatively firm for a cushioned shoe, stays the same. But the forefoot is more rounded, and the rearfoot now includes a new and supportive rearfoot cradle. A foam midsole, perhaps with layers of different densities, to provide cushioning and shock absorption. EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) and PU (polyurethane), the materials from which these foams usually are made. EVA is slightly softer than PU. EVA and PU may be layered together in a shoe, or a shoe may have more than one density of EVA.

Keywords

References

  1. Barnes RA, Smith PD.(1994). The role of footwear in minimizing lower limb injury. J Sports Sci 12, 341-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419408732180
  2. Bordelon RL.(1989). Orthotics, shoes, and braces. Orthop Clin N Am 20(4), 751-757.
  3. Carroza P. (1999). A question of durability. Runners World, Roddale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Available: www. runnersworld.com.
  4. Carroza P. (1999). Chase the fit, not the fashion. Runners World, Roddale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Available: www.runnersworld.com.
  5. Carroza P. (1999). Fitting frustration. Runners World, Roddale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Available: www. runnersworld.com.
  6. Carroza P. (1999). Right shoes for the big runner. Runners World, Roddale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Available: www.runnersworld.com.
  7. Cook SD.(1990). Brinker MR, Poche M. Running shoes: Their relationship to running injuries. Sports Med 10(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199010010-00001
  8. Cook SD.(1985). Kester MA, Brunet ME. Shock absorption characteristics of running shoes. AJSM 13(4), 248-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658501300406
  9. Cook SD.(1985). Kester MA, Brunet ME, Haddad RJ. Biomechanics of running shoe performance. Clin Sports Med 4(4), 619-626.
  10. Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, 1998.
  11. Finestone A. et al.(1992). A prospective study of the effect of the appropriateness of foot-shoe fit and training shoe type on the incidence of overuse injuries among infantry recruits. Mil Med 157(9), 489-490.
  12. Frederick EC.(1986). Biomechanical consequences of sport shoe design. Exerc Sports Sci Rev 14, 375-400.
  13. Frederick EC.(1986). Kinematically mediated effects of sport shoe design: A review. J Sports Sci 4, 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640418608732116
  14. Fredericson M.(1996). Common Injuries in runners: Diagnosis, rehabilitation, prevention. Sports Med 21(1), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199621010-00005
  15. Frey C.(1997). Footwear and stress fractures. Clin Sports Med 16(2), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-5919(05)70020-X
  16. Gardner LI, et al.(1988). Prevention of lower extremity stress fractures: A controlled trial of a shock absorbent insole. AJPH 78(12), 1563-1567. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.78.12.1563
  17. Hoeberigs JH. Factors related to the incidence of running injuries: A review. Sports Med 13(6), 408-422, 1992. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199213060-00004
  18. Jorgensen U.(1990). Body load in heel-strike running: The effect of a firm heel counter. AJSM 18(2), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/036354659001800211
  19. Jorgensen U, Ekstrand J.(1988). Significance of heel pad confinement for the shock absorption at heel strike. Int J Sports Med 9, 468-473. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1025053
  20. Kaufman KR, et al.(1999). The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries. AJSM 27(5), 585-593.
  21. Komi PV, Gollhofer A, Schmidtbleicher D, Frick U.(1987). Interaction between man and shoe in running: Considerations for a more comprehensive measurement approach. Int J Sports Med 8, 196-202. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1025655
  22. Levitz SJ, DeFrancisco JA, Guberman R, Kamen M.(1988). Current footwear technology. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 5(3), 737-751.
  23. Macera CA.(1992). Lower extremity injuries in runners: Advances in prediction. Sports Med 13(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-199213010-00005
  24. Macera CA, et al.(1989). Predicting lower-extremity injuries among habitual runners. Arch Intern Med 149, 2565-2568. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.149.11.2565
  25. McKensie DC, Clement DB, Taunton JE.(1985). Running shoes, orthotics, and injuries. Sports Med 2, 334-347. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-198502050-00003
  26. McNair PJ, Marshall RN.(1994). Kinematic and kinetic parameters associated with running in different shoes. Brit J Sports Med 28(4), 256-260. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.28.4.256
  27. Milgrom C et al.(1998). A comparison of the effect of shoes on human tibial axial strains recorded during dynamic loading. Foot and Ankle Int 19(2), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079801900206
  28. Nigg BM, Anton M.(1995). Energy aspects for elastic and viscous shoe soles and playing surfaces. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27(1), 92-97.
  29. Nigg BM, De Boer RW, Fisher V.(1995). A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 27(1), 98-105.
  30. Nigg BM, Khan A, Fisher V, Stefanyshyn D.(1998). Effect of shoe insert construction on foot and leg movement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30(4), 550-555. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199804000-00013
  31. Nigg BM, Morlock M.(1987). The influence of lateral heel flare of running shoes on pronation and impact forces. Med Sci Sports Med 19(3), 294-302.
  32. Nigg BM, Segesser B.(1992). Biomechanical and orthopedic concepts in sport shoe construction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24(5), 595-602.
  33. Rodale Press. (1999). Know your foot type. Runners World, Available: www.runnersworld.com.
  34. Shorten MR.(1993). The energetics of running and running shoes. J Biomech 26(suppl 1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(93)90078-S
  35. Stacoff A, Kalin X, Stussi E.(1991). The effects of shoes on the torsion and rearfoot motion in running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 23(4), 482-490.
  36. Weinman, C. (1999). Running shoe review. Runners World, Roddale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA. Available: www.runnersworld.com.

Cited by

  1. Effects for Running Shoes with Resilience of Midsole on Biomechanical Properties vol.25, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5103/KJSB.2015.25.1.103