Limits...
Foot Morphological Difference between Habitually Shod and Unshod Runners.

Shu Y, Mei Q, Fernandez J, Li Z, Feng N, Gu Y - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: In this study, 168 habitually unshod runners (90 males whose age, weight & height were 23±2.4 years, 66±7.1 kg & 1.68±0.13 m and 78 females whose age, weight & height were 22±1.8 years, 55±4.7 kg & 1.6±0.11 m) (Indians) and 196 shod runners (130 males whose age, weight & height were 24±2.6 years, 66±8.2 kg & 1.72±0.18 m and 66 females whose age, weight & height were 23±1.5 years, 54±5.6 kg & 1.62±0.15 m) (Chinese) participated in a foot scanning test using the easy-foot-scan (a three-dimensional foot scanning system) to obtain 3D foot surface data and 2D footprint imaging.Foot length, foot width, hallux angle and minimal distance from hallux to second toe were calculated to analyze foot morphological differences.This study found that significant differences exist between groups (shod Chinese and unshod Indians) for foot length (female p = 0.001), width (female p = 0.001), hallux angle (male and female p = 0.001) and the minimal distance (male and female p = 0.001) from hallux to second toe.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.

ABSTRACT
Foot morphology and function has received increasing attention from both biomechanics researchers and footwear manufacturers. In this study, 168 habitually unshod runners (90 males whose age, weight & height were 23±2.4 years, 66±7.1 kg & 1.68±0.13 m and 78 females whose age, weight & height were 22±1.8 years, 55±4.7 kg & 1.6±0.11 m) (Indians) and 196 shod runners (130 males whose age, weight & height were 24±2.6 years, 66±8.2 kg & 1.72±0.18 m and 66 females whose age, weight & height were 23±1.5 years, 54±5.6 kg & 1.62±0.15 m) (Chinese) participated in a foot scanning test using the easy-foot-scan (a three-dimensional foot scanning system) to obtain 3D foot surface data and 2D footprint imaging. Foot length, foot width, hallux angle and minimal distance from hallux to second toe were calculated to analyze foot morphological differences. This study found that significant differences exist between groups (shod Chinese and unshod Indians) for foot length (female p = 0.001), width (female p = 0.001), hallux angle (male and female p = 0.001) and the minimal distance (male and female p = 0.001) from hallux to second toe. This study suggests that significant differences in morphology between different ethnicities could be considered for future investigation of locomotion biomechanics characteristics between ethnicities and inform last shape and design so as to reduce injury risks and poor performance from mal-fit shoes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493034&req=5

pone.0131385.g003: A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).

Mentions: To illustrate the difference between habitually shod and unshod feet, the hallux angle and minimal distance were analyzed together for both females and males. The mean (SD) value of the hallux angle was HA = 10.3±5.4 and HA’ = 3.42±3.5 (Fig 3A), and the mean (SD) value of the minimal distance was D = 5.98±5.8 and D’ = 21.71±12.1 (Fig 3B). There was a trend observed with the larger the hallux angle the smaller the minimal distance (Fig 3C). However, when quantifying the correlation between hallux angle and minimal distance the fitted values for habitually shod feet (green line) and habitually unshod feet (blue line) were poorly correlated, with R2 = 0.057 for habitually shod feet and R2 = 0.182 for habitually unshod feet.


Foot Morphological Difference between Habitually Shod and Unshod Runners.

Shu Y, Mei Q, Fernandez J, Li Z, Feng N, Gu Y - PLoS ONE (2015)

A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493034&req=5

pone.0131385.g003: A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).
Mentions: To illustrate the difference between habitually shod and unshod feet, the hallux angle and minimal distance were analyzed together for both females and males. The mean (SD) value of the hallux angle was HA = 10.3±5.4 and HA’ = 3.42±3.5 (Fig 3A), and the mean (SD) value of the minimal distance was D = 5.98±5.8 and D’ = 21.71±12.1 (Fig 3B). There was a trend observed with the larger the hallux angle the smaller the minimal distance (Fig 3C). However, when quantifying the correlation between hallux angle and minimal distance the fitted values for habitually shod feet (green line) and habitually unshod feet (blue line) were poorly correlated, with R2 = 0.057 for habitually shod feet and R2 = 0.182 for habitually unshod feet.

Bottom Line: In this study, 168 habitually unshod runners (90 males whose age, weight & height were 23±2.4 years, 66±7.1 kg & 1.68±0.13 m and 78 females whose age, weight & height were 22±1.8 years, 55±4.7 kg & 1.6±0.11 m) (Indians) and 196 shod runners (130 males whose age, weight & height were 24±2.6 years, 66±8.2 kg & 1.72±0.18 m and 66 females whose age, weight & height were 23±1.5 years, 54±5.6 kg & 1.62±0.15 m) (Chinese) participated in a foot scanning test using the easy-foot-scan (a three-dimensional foot scanning system) to obtain 3D foot surface data and 2D footprint imaging.Foot length, foot width, hallux angle and minimal distance from hallux to second toe were calculated to analyze foot morphological differences.This study found that significant differences exist between groups (shod Chinese and unshod Indians) for foot length (female p = 0.001), width (female p = 0.001), hallux angle (male and female p = 0.001) and the minimal distance (male and female p = 0.001) from hallux to second toe.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Sports Science, Ningbo University, Ningbo, China.

ABSTRACT
Foot morphology and function has received increasing attention from both biomechanics researchers and footwear manufacturers. In this study, 168 habitually unshod runners (90 males whose age, weight & height were 23±2.4 years, 66±7.1 kg & 1.68±0.13 m and 78 females whose age, weight & height were 22±1.8 years, 55±4.7 kg & 1.6±0.11 m) (Indians) and 196 shod runners (130 males whose age, weight & height were 24±2.6 years, 66±8.2 kg & 1.72±0.18 m and 66 females whose age, weight & height were 23±1.5 years, 54±5.6 kg & 1.62±0.15 m) (Chinese) participated in a foot scanning test using the easy-foot-scan (a three-dimensional foot scanning system) to obtain 3D foot surface data and 2D footprint imaging. Foot length, foot width, hallux angle and minimal distance from hallux to second toe were calculated to analyze foot morphological differences. This study found that significant differences exist between groups (shod Chinese and unshod Indians) for foot length (female p = 0.001), width (female p = 0.001), hallux angle (male and female p = 0.001) and the minimal distance (male and female p = 0.001) from hallux to second toe. This study suggests that significant differences in morphology between different ethnicities could be considered for future investigation of locomotion biomechanics characteristics between ethnicities and inform last shape and design so as to reduce injury risks and poor performance from mal-fit shoes.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus