Six different football shoes, one playing surface and the weather; Assessing variation in shoe-surface traction over one season of elite football

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>An optimal range of shoe-surface traction (grip) exists to improve performance and minimise injury risk. Little information exists regarding the magnitude of traction forces at shoe-surface interface across a full season of elite football (soccer) using common football shoes.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To assess variation in shoe-surface traction of six different football shoe models throughout a full playing season in Qatar encompassing climatic and grass species variations.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Football shoes were loaded onto a portable shoe-surface traction testing machine at five individual testing time points to collect traction data (rotational and translational) on a soccer playing surface across one season. Surface mechanical properties (surface hardness, soil moisture) and climate data (temperature and humidity) were collected at each testing time point.</p><p>Results</p><p>Peak rotational traction was significantly different across shoe models (F = 218, df = 5, p <0.0001), shoe outsole groups (F = 316.2, df = 2, p < .0001), and grass species (F = 202.8, df = 4, p < 0.0001). No main effect for shoe model was found for translational traction (F = 2.392, p = 0.07).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The rotational (but not translational) traction varied substantially across different shoe types, outsole groups, and grass species. Highest rotational traction values were seen with soft ground outsole (screw-in metal studs) shoes tested on warm season grass. This objective data allows more informed footwear choices for football played in warm/hot climates on sand-based elite football playing surfaces. Further research is required to confirm if these findings extend across other football shoe brands.</p></div

Use of monitoring technology and injury incidence among recreational runners: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Monitoring technology is increasingly accessible to recreational runners. Our aim was to examine patterns of technology use in recreational runners, and its potential association with injury. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study in a sample of adult runners. Recruitment took place at three different 5 km parkrun event across Northern Ireland. Demographics, technology use, running behaviour and running-related injury (RRI) history were examined. Regression analyses were performed to determine relationships between variables. Results Responses were obtained from 192 of 483 eligible finishers (39.8% response rate). Average age was 45.9 years (SD 10.3), with males (47.1 years SD 9.7) slightly older than females (44.8 years SD 10.8). On average, participants ran 3.0 days per week (SD 1.3), with an average weekly distance of 22.6 km (SD 19.7). Males typically ran further (MD 6.2 km/week; 95% CI 0.4 to 12.0) than females. Monitoring technology was used by 87.4% (153/175); with GPS watches the most common device (87.6% (134/153)). Runners using monitoring technology ran further (MD 14.4 km/week; 95% CI 10.3 to 18.5) and more frequently (MD 1.3 days/week; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.9) than those who did not use monitoring technology. There was no significant difference in average age between runners who used monitoring technology and those who did not (MD 4.0 years; 95% CI −0.7 to 8.7). RRI was reported by 40.6% (71/175) of participants in the previous 12 months. In a univariate analysis, none of the selected predictors (age, number of days run per week, distance run per week, or usage of technology to modify training pattern) (p > 0.1) were associated with RRI. Conclusions This study found a high prevalence of monitoring technology usage among recreational runners. While the incidence of RRI remains high, it is not associated with the usage of monitoring technology. Further prospective research should examine if monitoring technology can reduce RRI incidence among recreational runners in future

Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities That Enable It

This nationally representative telephone (wire-line and cell phone) survey explores Americans\u27 opinions about behavioral targeting by marketers, a controversial issue currently before government policymakers. Behavioral targeting involves two types of activities: following users\u27 actions and then tailoring advertisements for the users based on those actions. While privacy advocates have lambasted behavioral targeting for tracking and labeling people in ways they do not know or understand, marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible. Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages - between 73% and 86% - say they would not want such advertising. Even among young adults, whom advertisers often portray as caring little about information privacy, more than half (55%) of 18-24 years-old do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults. This survey finds that Americans want openness with marketers. If marketers want to continue to use various forms of behavioral targeting in their interactions with Americans, they must work with policymakers to open up the process so that individuals can learn exactly how their information is being collected and used, and then exercise control over their data. We offer specific proposals in this direction. An overarching one is for marketers to implement a regime of information respect toward the public rather than to treat them as objects from which they can take information in order to optimally persuade them

Fifth metatarsal stress fracture in elite male football players:An on-field analysis of plantar loading

ObjectiveEvaluate plantar loading during ‘on-field’ common football movements in players after fifth metatarsal (MT-5) stress fracture and compare with matched healthy players.MethodsFourteen elite male soccer players participated in the study conducted on a natural grass playing surface using firm ground football boots. Seven players who had suffered a primary stress fracture (MT-5 group) and seven matched healthy players (controls, CON) performed three common football movements while in-shoe plantar loading data were collected.ResultsLarge between-group differences exist for maximal vertical force normalised to bodyweight (Fmax) at the lateral toes (2-5) of the stance leg during a set-piece kick (MT-5: 0.2±0.06 bodyweight (BW), CON: 0.1±0.05 BW, effect size (ES) 1.4) and the curved run where the MT-5 group showed higher Fmaxwith very large effect size at the lateral forefoot of the injured (closest to curve) limb when running a curve to receive a pass (MT-5 injured−CON=0.01 BW, ES 1.5). Small between-group differences were evident during straight-line running. However, between-limb analysis of MT-5 group showed significant unloading of the lateral forefoot region of the involved foot.ConclusionsElite male football players who have returned to play after MT-5 stress fracture display significantly higher maximum plantar force at the lateral forefoot and lateral toes (2-5) compared with healthy matched control players during two football movements (kick and curved run) with the magnitude of these differences being very large. These findings may have important implications for manipulating regional load during rehabilitation or should a player report lateral forefoot prodromal symptoms.</jats:sec