Biomechanical and comfort analyses on the use of commercial insoles while walking and running

Background: Incidence rates of running injuries are high. Previous research has indicated that the use of prefabricated insoles may be beneficial for altering kinematic and kinetic patterns that cause running injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how prefabricated insoles affect kinematics, kinetics, plantar pressure, and perceived comfort during walking and running. Methods: Twenty-one (16 female, 5 male) participants walked and ran with their regular running shoes and with two types of prefabricated insoles. A motion capture system and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Pressure inserts were used to collect plantar pressures, and a comfort questionnaire was used to measure levels of perceived comfort. Results: The Currex insole reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing peak toe and average whole foot pressure during running. However, the regular running shoe was still preferred over the Currex insole by a higher percentage of participants, 55% to 35%. The PowerStep insole also reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing Achilles tendon load and ankle inversion moment during running. However, the PowerStep insole had lower comfort ratings than the regular running shoe and Currex insole. Conclusion: In a combined evaluation of kinematic, kinetic, and plantar pressure data with comfort scores, there was a mix of potential benefits, drawbacks, and perceptions of insole use. These conflicting results may indicate that prefabricated insoles are most likely to be beneficial when matched to an individual’s biomechanical needs, comfort preferences, and intended use

Biomechanical and comfort analyses on the use of commercial insoles while walking and running

Background: Incidence rates of running injuries are high. Previous research has indicated that the use of prefabricated insoles may be beneficial for altering kinematic and kinetic patterns that cause running injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how prefabricated insoles affect kinematics, kinetics, plantar pressure, and perceived comfort during walking and running. Methods: Twenty-one (16 female, 5 male) participants walked and ran with their regular running shoes and with two types of prefabricated insoles. A motion capture system and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Pressure inserts were used to collect plantar pressures, and a comfort questionnaire was used to measure levels of perceived comfort. Results: The Currex insole reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing peak toe and average whole foot pressure during running. However, the regular running shoe was still preferred over the Currex insole by a higher percentage of participants, 55% to 35%. The PowerStep insole also reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing Achilles tendon load and ankle inversion moment during running. However, the PowerStep insole had lower comfort ratings than the regular running shoe and Currex insole. Conclusion: In a combined evaluation of kinematic, kinetic, and plantar pressure data with comfort scores, there was a mix of potential benefits, drawbacks, and perceptions of insole use. These conflicting results may indicate that prefabricated insoles are most likely to be beneficial when matched to an individual’s biomechanical needs, comfort preferences, and intended use

Biomechanical and comfort analyses on the use of commercial insoles while walking and running

Background: Incidence rates of running injuries are high. Previous research has indicated that the use of prefabricated insoles may be beneficial for altering kinematic and kinetic patterns that cause running injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how prefabricated insoles affect kinematics, kinetics, plantar pressure, and perceived comfort during walking and running. Methods: Twenty-one (16 female, 5 male) participants walked and ran with their regular running shoes and with two types of prefabricated insoles. A motion capture system and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Pressure inserts were used to collect plantar pressures, and a comfort questionnaire was used to measure levels of perceived comfort. Results: The Currex insole reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing peak toe and average whole foot pressure during running. However, the regular running shoe was still preferred over the Currex insole by a higher percentage of participants, 55% to 35%. The PowerStep insole also reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing Achilles tendon load and ankle inversion moment during running. However, the PowerStep insole had lower comfort ratings than the regular running shoe and Currex insole. Conclusion: In a combined evaluation of kinematic, kinetic, and plantar pressure data with comfort scores, there was a mix of potential benefits, drawbacks, and perceptions of insole use. These conflicting results may indicate that prefabricated insoles are most likely to be beneficial when matched to an individual’s biomechanical needs, comfort preferences, and intended use

Biomechanical and comfort analyses on the use of commercial insoles while walking and running

Background: Incidence rates of running injuries are high. Previous research has indicated that the use of prefabricated insoles may be beneficial for altering kinematic and kinetic patterns that cause running injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how prefabricated insoles affect kinematics, kinetics, plantar pressure, and perceived comfort during walking and running. Methods: Twenty-one (16 female, 5 male) participants walked and ran with their regular running shoes and with two types of prefabricated insoles. A motion capture system and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Pressure inserts were used to collect plantar pressures, and a comfort questionnaire was used to measure levels of perceived comfort. Results: The Currex insole reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing peak toe and average whole foot pressure during running. However, the regular running shoe was still preferred over the Currex insole by a higher percentage of participants, 55% to 35%. The PowerStep insole also reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing Achilles tendon load and ankle inversion moment during running. However, the PowerStep insole had lower comfort ratings than the regular running shoe and Currex insole. Conclusion: In a combined evaluation of kinematic, kinetic, and plantar pressure data with comfort scores, there was a mix of potential benefits, drawbacks, and perceptions of insole use. These conflicting results may indicate that prefabricated insoles are most likely to be beneficial when matched to an individual’s biomechanical needs, comfort preferences, and intended use

Biomechanical and comfort analyses on the use of commercial insoles while walking and running

Background: Incidence rates of running injuries are high. Previous research has indicated that the use of prefabricated insoles may be beneficial for altering kinematic and kinetic patterns that cause running injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how prefabricated insoles affect kinematics, kinetics, plantar pressure, and perceived comfort during walking and running. Methods: Twenty-one (16 female, 5 male) participants walked and ran with their regular running shoes and with two types of prefabricated insoles. A motion capture system and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Pressure inserts were used to collect plantar pressures, and a comfort questionnaire was used to measure levels of perceived comfort. Results: The Currex insole reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing peak toe and average whole foot pressure during running. However, the regular running shoe was still preferred over the Currex insole by a higher percentage of participants, 55% to 35%. The PowerStep insole also reduced ankle eversion and peak midfoot pressure during walking, while reducing Achilles tendon load and ankle inversion moment during running. However, the PowerStep insole had lower comfort ratings than the regular running shoe and Currex insole. Conclusion: In a combined evaluation of kinematic, kinetic, and plantar pressure data with comfort scores, there was a mix of potential benefits, drawbacks, and perceptions of insole use. These conflicting results may indicate that prefabricated insoles are most likely to be beneficial when matched to an individual’s biomechanical needs, comfort preferences, and intended use

Dual tasking increases kinematic and kinetic risk factors of ACL injury

ACL injuries are common among athletes playing team sports. The impact of divided attention during team sports on landing mechanics is unclear. Twenty-one healthy females jumped at a 60° angle to their right and performed a second jump to their right or left at a 60° angle. The direction of the second jump was shown before movement (baseline) or mid-flight of the first jump (dual task). The signal for the dual-task conditions showed five arrows and the middle one indicated the jump direction (Flanker paradigm). The other arrows pointed in the same (congruent) or the opposite (incongruent) direction as the middle arrow. Results indicated larger initial and peak knee flexion angles, smaller peak knee valgus moments, and smaller vertical and posterior GRFs during baseline right jumps compared to other conditions. Peak posterior GRF was increased in the incongruent condition compared to the congruent condition during left jumps. Performance was decreased with longer stance times for the dual task compared to the baseline in both jump directions. Further, the incongruent condition had a longer stance time than the congruent condition during left jumps. More research focusing on decision-making with more challenging visual stimuli mimicking dynamic team sports is merited.This accepted article is published as Saadat, S., Bricarell, K.M., Gillette,J.C., Dual tasking increases kinematic and kinetic risk factors of ACL injury. Sport Biomechanics. Latest Articles; Oct 26 2023;https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2023.2271888. Posted with permission