See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23804393

Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics of running

shoes

Article  in  Journal of Sports Sciences · December 2008

DOI: 10.1080/02640410802482425 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

29 3,262

2 authors:

Marco Hagen Ewald M Hennig

University of Duisburg-Essen Queensland University of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS   248 CITATIONS    451 PUBLICATIONS   5,076 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Prevention of Falls - Balance Improvement in the Elderly and Parkinson Patients View project

Mechanical and Elektrophysiological Parameters of the M. Quadriceps femoris of Sprinters, Marathon Runners, Volleyball Players and not Specific Trained People View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Hagen on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Hagen, Marco]
On: 2 February 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 908385694]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721847

Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics of running shoes

Marco Hagen a; Ewald M. Hennig a
a
Sport and Movement Sciences, Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2009

To cite this Article Hagen, Marco and Hennig, Ewald M.(2009)'Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics of running
shoes',Journal of Sports Sciences,27:3,267 — 275
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02640410802482425
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410802482425

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, February 1st 2009; 27(3): 267–275

Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics

of running shoes

MARCO HAGEN & EWALD M. HENNIG

Sport and Movement Sciences, Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Duisburg Essen, Essen, Germany

(Accepted 16 September 2008)

Abstract
In the present study, we examined the influence of shoe lacing on foot biomechanics in running. Twenty experienced
rearfoot runners ran in six different lacing conditions across a force platform at a speed of 3.3 m  s71. Foot pronation
during contact, tibial acceleration, and plantar pressure distribution of the right leg were recorded. The test conditions
differed in the number of laced eyelets (1, 2, 3, 6 or 7) and in lacing tightness (weak, regular or strong). The results show
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009

reduced loading rates (P 5 0.05) and pronation velocities (P 5 0.01) in the tightest and highest lacing conditions. The
lowest peak pressures under the heel and lateral midfoot (P 5 0.01) were observed in the high (seven-eyelet) lacing pattern.
Regular six-eyelet cross-lacing resulted in higher loading rates (P 5 0.05) and higher peak heel pressures (P 5 0.01) than
seven-eyelet lacing, without any significant differences in perceived comfort. The low lace shoe conditions resulted in lower
impacts (P 5 0.01) and lower peak pressures under metatarsal heads III and V (P 5 0.01), which is probably induced by the
foot sliding within the shoe. A firm foot-to-shoe coupling with higher lacing leads to a more effective use of running shoe
features and is likely to reduce the risk of lower limb injury.

Keywords: Footwear, foot–shoe coupling, pronation, loading, perception

properties of the shoe (Ferrandis, Garcia, Ramiro,

Introduction
Sport shoe research has been of major interest for
more than 30 years. The main objective of scientific
research has been to gain knowledge about changes
in the construction and structure of sport shoes to
prevent sport-specific injuries and complaints. The
main purpose of running footwear is to reduce
impact shocks and excessive rearfoot pronation, both
of which are linked to overuse injuries in running.
Therefore, the key concepts of functional running
shoes can clearly be recognized in the rear of the shoe
and in its midsole constructions. Nigg and Morlock
(1987) showed that a negative lateral heel flare
construction reduced the pronating moment and
therefore initial pronation. Running in shoes with
varus wedges resulted in reduced pronation and
pronation velocities (Milani, Schnabel, & Hennig,
1995). These two studies have influenced the design
of running shoes on sale today. However, few studies
have looked at the influence of the mechanical
coupling between foot and shoe on the protective
Hoyos, & Vera, 1994; Van Gheluwe, Kerwin,
Roosen, & Tielemans, 1999; Van Gheluwe,
Tielemans, & Rosen, 1995). For example, in a badly
laced running shoe, the foot may slip within the shoe
and so the runner may not receive the full benefit of
the design features of the shoe. It can be speculated
that the foot slips across the rear part of the shoe and
lands in a more forward directed position within the
shoe in relation to the shoe during touchdown. Van
Gheluwe et al. (1995) showed that heel fit affects the
eversion behaviour of the calcaneus during ground
contact. A snug heel fit reduces pronation as well as
the relative movement between the calcaneus and the
shoe heel counter (Stacoff, Reinschmidt, & Stüssi,
1992).
The aim of the present study was to explore the
effect of shoe lacing on the biomechanics of heel–toe
running. Although the leading shoe manufacturers
recommend special lacing techniques (e.g. for high
and low arch feet), the influence of different shoe-
lacing conditions on the biomechanics of the running

Correspondence: M. Hagen, Sport and Movement Sciences, Biomechanics Laboratory, University of Duisburg Essen, Gladbecker Str. 182, D-45141 Essen,
Germany. E-mail: marco.hagen@uni-due.de
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02640410802482425
 268 M. Hagen & E. M. Hennig
shoe is unclear. From the mathematical point of
view, the most frequently used X-lacing is the best
and strongest way to lace shoes (Polster, 2002).
Sandrey and colleagues (Sandrey, Zebas, & Bast,
2001) showed that a soccer shoe with a special ‘‘anti-
pronation lacing technique’’ was more effective in
controlling rearfoot motion. Brüggemann (2006)
noted that in athletic footwear construction there is
substantial inter-individual variability in shoe fit
because in the shoe manufacturing process a shoe
last is developed on the basis of average foot
morphology. Different shoe-lacing systems are one
strategy to improve shoe fit and therefore shoe
comfort, which is probably the most important
aspect of athletic shoes. Because a good shoe fit
results in a more homogeneous pressure distribution
across the dorsum of the foot, greater comfort can be
expected (Hagen, Hömme, Umlauf, & Hennig,
2008; Jordan, Payton, & Bartlett, 1995).
The most common running shoes are provided
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
with six straight eyelets in line. Many running shoes
have a higher seventh eyelet that is slightly shifted to
the lateral side. However, most runners do not
use this additional seventh eyelet. Therefore, the aim
of this study was to evaluate the effect of different
lacing tightness and lacing height techniques on
biomechanical variables (shock attenuation and rear-
foot motion) as well as on perceived shoe comfort.
We hypothesized that the tighter and higher lacing
techniques would lead to less rearfoot motion due to
better heel counter fit. We also expected that shoe
comfort would decrease as a consequence of too
much lacing tightness.
Methods
Participants and lacing conditions
Twenty experienced and symptom-free male rearfoot
runners (mean age 32 years, s ¼ 10; height 1.78 m,
s ¼ 0.06; body mass 73 kg, s ¼ 9) participated in the
study. After receiving a written summary and oral
information about the test procedures, the partici-
pants were required to sign a consent form indicating
voluntary participation. The protocol was approved
by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital
Duisburg-Essen.
In randomized order, six shoe-lacing conditions of
the right foot were investigated in a biomechanical
study and in a perception test. Runners were chosen
based on their match to a US size 10.5 experimental
shoe (NIKE Air Pegasus), which was provided with
an X-lacing, or so-called ‘‘zig-zag-lacing’’. As shown
in Table I, the test conditions differed in the number
of pairs of eyelets used (1, 2, 3, 6 or 7) and in the
tightness of the lace (weak, regular or tight).
Table I. Lacing conditions.
Code Number of eyelets
REG6 6 eyelets – regular lacing
WEAK6 6 eyelets – very weak lacing
TIGHT6 6 eyelets – very tight lacing
EYE12 eyelets 1 and 2
EYE135 eyelets 1, 3, and 5
ALL7 all 7 eyelets (special technique between
eyelets 6 and 7)
Participants were instructed to use their preferred
lace tightness according to their own perception of
weak, regular, and tight conditions. This ensured
that the tightness of the laces would be similar to that
used by the participants in their regular running
routine. In the condition ‘‘ALL7’’, the laces were
pulled from the outside from the sixth to the seventh
homolateral eyelet, and then to the resulting loop
between the sixth and seventh eyelet of the contral-
ateral side. This lacing technique is recommended by
many experienced runners and some shoe manufac-
turers (Figure 1d).
The test shoe (Nike Air Pegasus, US size 10.5)
was scanned by using spiral computer tomo-
graphy (Philips Brilliance 64, Philips Medical Ima-
ging, Germany) to identify the areas of the
cushioning elements in the rear of the shoe in the
sagittal plane.
Kinetic and kinematic measurements
The participants ran in each shoe condition at a
speed of 3.3 m  s71 across a piezoelectric force
platform (Kistler 9281 B). Running speed was
controlled by two photocells at equal distance in
front of and behind the force platform. Only running
trials within +3% of the target speed were accepted.
Five successful trials were recorded in each lacing
condition. Simultaneous with the recording of
ground reaction forces, in-shoe pressure distribution,
tibial acceleration, and rearfoot motion measure-
ments of the right foot were performed. Seven
anatomical locations of the foot (medial and lateral
heel; lateral midfoot; first, third, and fifth metatarsal
heads; hallux) were palpated, and piezoceramic
transducers (46462 mm; Halm, Germany) were
fastened under the foot with adhesive tape. The
physical properties of the piezoceramic transducers
are described elsewhere (Hennig, Cavanagh, Albert,
& Macmillan, 1982). To measure tibial acceleration,
an Entran EGAX-F-25 miniature accelerometer was
glued to the skin above the medial aspect of the tibia
at a location midway between the medial malleolus
and tibial plateau. The accelerometer was fastened

Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
Figure 1. Lacing conditions: (a) 6-eyelet cross-lacing of conditions REG6, WEAK6, TIGHT6; (b) EYE12; (c) EYE135; (d) ALL7.
by an elastic strap to improve the mechanical
coupling to the underlying bone.
A lightweight half-circular metal construction
with a potentiometer was fixed at the heel counter
with its axis of rotation close to the height of the
subtalar joint. A precision conductive plastic po-
tentiometer (Megatron MP 10) showed an angular
resolution of 0.058 and a linearity of 1%. The
movable part of the goniometer was fixed at the
lower leg parallel to the Achilles tendon orientation.
The flexible low-mass arm of the goniometer
(mass ¼ 3.0 g) slid in a mechanical guide, which
was glued to the skin and strapped around the
shank with an elastic bandage. This placement
ensured that the goniometer arm was at the same
position on the posterior lower leg for the different
shoe-lacing conditions. Rearfoot angle, as defined
by the angle between rearfoot bisection and the
direction of the Achilles tendon, could thus be
determined by the goniometer.
After the goniometer was attached to the shoe, the
participants positioned the shoes along two guiding
lines on the floor. The participant adopted an upright
sitting postion with approximately right angles at the
hip and knee joints, and their two fists placed
between the medial aspects of the knees. The neutral
angle of the goniometer was determined in this
sitting position, and all pronation and supination
measurements refer to this neutral position. The
neutral angle goniometer reading was recorded as a
reference value, which was substracted from all
subsequent goniometer values during the following
Shoe lacing in heel–toe running 269
trial. Following the nomenclature of Edington and
colleagues (Edington, Frederick, & Cavanagh,
1990), maximum pronation and maximum velocity
of pronation were calculated from the angular values.
In the perception test, the participants compared
the shoe comfort and stability in the changed lacing
conditions (right shoe) against the comfort and
stability of the left foot, on which they wore the
reference shoe (regular lacing, REG6). The 20
runners evaluated the shoes according to ‘‘comfort’’
and ‘‘stability’’ during standing and walking on an
anchored 7-point perception scale (1 ¼ very very low;
2 ¼ very low; 3 ¼ low; 4 ¼ equal; 5 ¼ high; 6 ¼ very
high; 7 ¼ very very high; point 4 represented regular
X-lacing REG6 of the reference shoe). This protocol
corresponds to that of Hennig and colleagues
(Hennig, Valiant, and Liu, 1996; Milani, Hennig,
& Lafortune, 1997) with a modified rating scale. At
the end of the test, the participants had to provide a
ranking of the shoe-lacing conditions according to
their perceived comfort and stability, assigning ranks
from 1 (highest comfort, highest stability) to 6
(lowest comfort, lowest stability).
Data collection and processing
The ground reaction force, axial tibial acceleration,
pressure distribution, and rearfoot motion were
collected simultaneously by a computer in a pre-
trigger mode. The data were sampled at a rate of
1 kHz per channel with a resolution of 12 bits. A
threshold of 5 N of the vertical ground reaction force
 270 M. Hagen & E. M. Hennig
was chosen to determine the time onset of foot strike.
The force and acceleration values were determined
as multiples of body weight (BW) and gravitational
acceleration (g), respectively. The maximum force
rate was calculated as the highest differential
quotient of adjoining vertical ground reaction force
divided by the time resolution of 1 ms.
Under the seven anatomical locations, peak
pressures were determined for all participants
and all lacing conditions during foot contact.
Using the time integral of the local forces during
the stance phase, regional impulses were determined
for each sensor. A relative load was calculated by
dividing each regional impulse by the sum of all
impulse values and expressing the value as a
percentage.
Maximum pronation and pronation velocity were
chosen as descriptors of rearfoot motion. Based on
the convention of Edington et al. (1990), negative
values represent a valgus and positive values a varus
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
orientation of the rearfoot against neutral. Neutral
was defined as a position in which the Achilles
tendon angle and the rearfoot orientation were in line
(Denoth, 1986).
Data analysis
After confirming normality for all measured variables
by applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (P 5 0.05),
a one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to determine the main effects of
the six experimental conditions. Statistical significance
was set at P 5 0.05. Simple effects were calculated
using paired Fisher LSD Student t-tests (P 5 0.05).
Results
Perception questionnaire
The results of the subjective ratings show that the
runners perceived moderately tight fitting running
shoes as being very comfortable, which corresponds
to the most favourable lacing conditions (EYE135
and WEAK6). The tightest lacing (TIGHT6) was
Table II. Results of perceived comfort and stability with changes in lacing conditions on a 7-point perception scale (group mean values and
standard errors).
þ }
EYE12 EYE135
Comfort 3.4+0.6 4.6+0.3
}} & ~~ þþ ~~**
Stability 1.0+0.0 2.6+0.5
}} && .. ~~** þþ & ~~ ..**
Note: Significant differences between the lacing conditions (post-hoc t-tests): one symbol (P 5 0.05), two symbols (P 5 0.01).
perceived as the least comfortable, followed by the
lowest and most unstable lacing condition, EYE12.
The highest lacing (ALL7) was not significantly
different to the normal X-Lacing (REG6) and was
viewed by the participants as a comfortable lacing for
distance running. The tightest (TIGHT6) and the
highest (ALL7) lacings were perceived to be the most
stable conditions (see Tables II and III).
Shock attenuation
The peak vertical forces show for the weakest lacing
condition (EYE12) about 7.5% and 8.4% lower
impacts than in REG6 and TIGHT6, respectively. In
condition EYE12, peak vertical forces are signifi-
cantly lower than in all 6- and 7-eyelet lacings
(Figure 2). The lowest maximum vertical loading
rates were observed with the highest (ALL7) and
tightest (TIGHT6) lacings, which were significantly
different from the lowest condition (EYE12), the
weakest condition (WEAK6), and even the regular
X-lacing condition (REG6) (Figure 3).
The ANOVA did not show significant differences
in peak tibial accelerations, although high correla-
tions between peak tibial acceleration and maximum
loading rate were reported by Hennig and Lafortune
(1991).
Rearfoot motion
The ANOVA did not identify significant differences
in maximum pronation, but pronation velocities
were significantly lower in the tightest (TIGHT6),
the highest (ALL7), and the regular (REG6) condi-
tions compared with the low-laced (EYE12,
EYE135) and soft-laced (WEAK6) conditions. In
TIGHT6, ALL7, and REG6, pronation velocities
were reduced by 15–30% (Figure 4).
Plantar pressure distribution
Peak pressures beneath the lateral and medial heel
showed a similar distribution. ALL7 resulted in
the lowest peak heel pressures, WEAK6 in the
& . ~ *
WEAK6 REG6 TIGHT6 ALL7
4.4+0.4 4.0+0.0 2.00+0.2 3.4+0.2
þ ~~* ~~ þþ }} && ..** }} & ~~
2.1+0.7 4.0+0.0 5.5+0.2 5.1+0.2
þþ } ~~ ..** þþ}} && ~~** þþ }} && ..* þþ}} && .. ~
 Shoe lacing in heel–toe running 271

highest. Plantar pressure distribution under the
lateral midfoot showed a very clear trend towards
lower pressures the higher and the tighter the shoe
was laced. It can be assumed that a tighter and
higher lacing compresses the midfoot and induces a
higher lateral arch of the foot. Lacing EYE12
resulted in the lowest peak pressures under the
whole forefoot, with significantly reduced values
under metatarsal heads III and V. These findings
correspond to the perception of the runners who
reported the foot sliding within the shoe in condition
EYE12.
Discussion
The results reveal a strong influence of different
shoe-lacing conditions on foot–shoe coupling in
running. It can be assumed that tighter coupling
due to higher (ALL7) and stronger (TIGHT6) lacing
induces better use of running shoe features, such as
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
foot is supposed to come closer to the ground so that
the pronation lever arm is reduced (Nigg & Morlock,
1987). Therefore, the tightest (TIGHT6) and the
highest (ALL7) lacing conditons, which probably
press the heel into the heel counter of the shoe and
increase the coupling between foot and shoe, showed
lower loading rates and lower peak pressures under
the heel. Thus, these lacing conditions showed a
better use of the running shoe cushioning features in
the rear of the shoe. The results for pronation velo-
cities underline this effect. ALL7, TIGHT6, and the
regular cross lacing (REG6) showed significantly
lower pronation velocities than the lower- and soft-
laced conditions, which can also be explained by a
better use of the crash-pad when foot–shoe coupling
is increased. However, the pronation data have to be
treated with caution because some participants
reported slipping within the shoe in condition
EYE12. The goniometer was attached to the heel
counter of the shoe so that shoe to lower leg angular

cushioning properties. The manufacturer emphasizes displacement was measured. For a well-laced shoe,
that the test shoe (Nike Air Pegasus) is built with a the goniometer is a valid measuring device (Milani &
lateral crash-pad that acts as a cushioning as well as Hennig, 2000; Milani et al., 1995), but for the softest
an anti-pronation element. At the initial contact, the lacing condition (EYE12) the foot slipped within the
shoe and a firm coupling between heel and heel
counter was not maintained. We speculate that the
Table III. Results of the perception test: Ranking of the lacing
amount of calceneal motion is correlated with the
conditions with respect to comfort and stability (group mean amount of heel counter motion in a regular laced
values and standard errors). condition. The reason for the lowest, although not
statistically significant, maximum pronation values in
Ranking comfort Score Ranking stability Score
the EYE12 condition could be that the slipping foot
1. EYE135 2.98+0.29 1. TIGHT6 1.49+0.20 was deforming the shoe but not everting the heel
2. WEAK6 3.11+0.40 2. ALL7 1.51+0.19 counter.
3. REG6 3.23+0.41 3. REG6 1.99+0.14 Originally, we hypothesized that the softer the
4. ALL7 4.29+0.44 4. WEAK6 4.74+0.25 lacing the greater the maximum pronation. Measur-
5. EYE12 4.94+0.62 5. EYE135 5.07+0.12
6. TIGHT6 6.05+0.28 6. EYE12 6.96+0.04
ing pronation within shoes is still a challenge. For
cinematographic measurements, it is necessary to

Figure 2. Peak vertical impact forces (group mean values and standard errors) in different lacing conditions. bw ¼ body weight.
 272 M. Hagen & E. M. Hennig
Figure 3. Maximum vertical force rates (group mean values and standard errors) in different lacing conditions. bw ¼ body weight.
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
Figure 4. Maximum pronation velocities (group mean values and standard errors) in different lacing conditions. d/s ¼ degrees/second.
apply reflective markers to the heel so that windows
have to be cut in the heel counter of running shoes,
thus changing the properties of the running shoe.
Milani and Hennig (2000), who used an in-shoe
goniometer device, concluded that shoe movement is
slightly influenced mechanically by the in-shoe
measurement. The foot is slightly elevated by the
in-shoe measuring device, and adding a rigid inter-
face for fixation of the goniometer under the heel
modifies the heel cushioning characteristics. Ker-
sting and colleagues (Kersting & Brüggemann, 2006;
Kersting, Kriwet, & Brüggemann, 2006) used an in-
shoe goniometer that does not seem to influence
shoe movement, but the goniometer axis was located
above the heel counter and therefore above the
subtalar joint axis. For measuring rearfoot motion
with an electrogoniometer, Milani and colleagues
(Milani & Hennig, 2000; Milani et al., 1995)
emphasize the importance of aligning the goniometer
axis with the subtalar joint axis.
At first sight, the peak vertical forces and loading
rates in EYE12 and ALL7 appear to contradict each
other. In ALL7, the better foot–shoe coupling
resulted in higher impact forces and lower loading
rates compared with EYE12, in which the foot
slipped. Due to the firm link between foot and shoe
in condition ALL7, the foot was directly able to use
the cushion of the shoe at touchdown, which explains
the lower loading rates compared with the softer
lacing conditions EYE12, EYE135, REG6, and
WEAK6. If the foot slips, the contact area of the
heel will shift anteriorly in relation to the shoe’s
sockliner. The position of the air cushion can be seen
clearly in a spiral computed tomographic scan of the
right test shoe (Figure 5). The more the touchdown
area of the calcaneus moves forward, the less volume
of the air cushion can be used, and as a consequence
loading rate increases.
Condition EYE12 was characterized by a very
loose fit that was described by one participant as
giving the impression of almost losing the shoe
during the swing phase. Therefore, we conclude that
due to the weak foot–shoe coupling, the foot and
shoe contact the ground in an asynchronous manner.

First, the shoe touches the ground, followed by the
heel of the runner that collides with the sole of the
shoe as if wearing flip-flops. This would also mean
that lacings EYE12 and ALL7 represent two very
different types of heel contacts, two different impact
patterns, which could explain the unexpected dy-
namometer results. It is also likely that the partici-
pants changed their running style to the loose shoe fit
in condition EYE12. To prevent the shoe slipping
from the foot in the swing phase, the participants
may have increased plantar flexion of the foot and the
toes – thus curling their toes. This would lower the
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
Figure 5. Spiral computed tomographic scan of the right test shoe
(Nike Air Pegasus), sagittal view. Also shown are the areas of
highest volume of air cushion (solid arrow) and lowest volume of
air cushion (dotted arrow).
Figure 6. Peak plantar pressures (group mean values) during running (3.3 m  s71) in lacing conditions EYE12, REG6, and ALL7.
Shoe lacing in heel–toe running 273
touchdown angle of the foot, which is more typical
for midfoot strikers. The modification of running
style would also reduce peak vertical forces, but the
impact pattern is still that of the foot falling onto the
sole of the shoe already lying on the ground.
Figure 6 presents a comparison of plantar pressure
distribution of EYE12, REG6, and ALL7. As
mentioned above, the touchdown pattern in EYE12
results in increased loading rates in spite of
decreased peak vertical forces. More vertical loading
at touchdown would explain the higher peak
pressures under the medial and lateral heel. The
most effective foot–shoe coupling in ALL7 showed
the most even pressure distribution at touchdown.
Obviously, the heel can go deeper into the cushion-
ing material of the shoe so that the crash-pad can
distribute the pressure more evenly. Peak plantar
pressures under the lateral midfoot become lower the
higher and the tighter the shoe is laced. The
pressures under the forefoot obviously increased
because of foot sliding in condition EYE12. Under
the forefoot, the running shoe is designed with less
cushioning material, so that in ALL7 shock absorp-
tion cannot be observed as it can under the heel –
peak pressures in ALL7 are increased to generate a
firm counter-effort for push-off. The results of the
plantar pressure distribution patterns support the
interpretation that lacing conditions EYE12 and
ALL7 represent two different types of initial heel
contact which have very different effects on the lower
extremities.
 274 M. Hagen & E. M. Hennig

Table IV. Biomechanical results with changes in lacing conditions (group mean values and standard errors).

þ } & . ~ *
EYE12 EYE135 WEAK6 REG6 TIGHT6 ALL7

Peak vertical 1.85+0.19 1.92+0.16 2.00+0.17 2.02+0.19 2.00+0.17 1.96+0.16

impact force (BW) þ þþ þþ þ
Maximum vertical 132+8 123+5 132+7 132+8 118+6 118+7
force rate (BW  s71) ~* ~~ * ~* þ && . þ&.
Peak tibial 6.1+0.5 6.5+0.4 6.5+0.4 6.4+0.5 6.5+0.4 6.0+0.4
acceleration (g)
Maximum 9.8+0.7 10.4+0.6 10.0+0.8 9.9+0.7 9.8+0.7 10.4+0.6
pronation (8)
Maximum pronation 11.9+0.8 11.4+0.7 11.4+0.8 9.7+0.6 9.5+0.6 9.7+0.6
velocity (rad  s71) .. ~~ ** .. ~~ ** .. ~~ ** þþ }} && þþ }} && þþ }} &&
Peak pressure, 660+35 624+31 681+40 668+41 649+46 592+39
lateral heel (kPa) ** && .. ** }} ** }} ** þþ && .. ~~
Peak pressure, 885+51 860+58 927+55 913+60 850+57 815+54
medial heel (kPa) ** ** ** þþ && ..
Peak pressure, 168+15 164+16 158+15 147+13 131+14 133+13
lateral midfoot (kPa) . ~~ ** ~~ ** ~~ * þ þþ }} && þþ }} &
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009

Peak pressure, 232+20 260+20 251+19 247+19 259+18 252+18

metatarsal head V (kPa) }} & ~~ * þþ þ þþ þ
Peak pressure, 318+29 370+35 352+36 356+35 340+33 357+32
metatarsal head III (kPa) }} && . ~~ ** þþ þþ þþ þ þþ
Peak pressure, 584+66 592+53 608+59 609+56 599+56 608+58
metatarsal head I (kPa)
Peak pressure, 309+27 345+20 333+24 331+27 319+25 322+23
Hallux (kPa)

Note: Statistical differences between the lacing conditions (post-hoc t-tests): one symbol (P 5 0.05), two symbols (P 5 0.01). BW ¼ body
weight.

respect to different foot types is a challenge for future

Conclusions
The results of this study show that foot movement in
heel–toe running is influenced by the lacing pattern
of the shoe. Therefore, shoe lacing has to be
considered when undertaking biomechanical com-
parisons of running shoes.
To reduce pronation velocity and shock, runners
should use highly and/or strongly laced shoes. The
highest lacing condition (ALL7) was perceived by
our participants to be as comfortable as the normal
X-lacing condition, REG6. A higher lacing with
moderate tightness results in a comfortable lacing
condition that couples the foot and shoe very well.
Very low- (EYE12) and very tight-laced (TIGHT6)
shoes were uncomfortable and were not liked by our
participants.
The perception results and the comments of the
participants show that a comfortable shoe is char-
acterized by a moderate tightness. By what amount
the studied lacing conditions differed was shown by
pressure distribution measurements at the dorsum of
the foot (Hagen et al., 2008; Jordan et al., 1997).
The leading shoe manufacturers recommend special
lacing techniques for different foot types. A biome-
chanical examination of these recommendations with
research.
References
Brüggemann, G.-P. (2006). Biomechanical and orthopaedic
concepts in athletic footwear construction. In A. Rainoldi,
M. A. Minetto, & R. Merletti (Eds.), Biomedical engineering in
exercise and sports (pp. 135–142). Torino: Edizioni Minerva
Medica.
Denoth, J. (1986). Load on the locomotor system and modelling.
In B. M. Nigg (Ed.), Biomechanics of running shoes (pp. 63–116).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Edington, C. J., Frederick, E. C., & Cavanagh, P. R. (1990).
Rearfoot motion in distance running. In P. R. Cavanagh (Ed.),
Biomechanics of distance running (pp. 135–164). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Ferrandis, R., Garcia, A. C., Ramiro, J., Hoyos, J. V., & Vera, P.
(1994). Rearfoot motion and torsion in running: The
effects of upper vamp stabilizers. Journal of Applied Biomechanics,
10, 28–42.
Hagen, M., Hömme, A. K., Umlauf, T., & Hennig, E. M.
(2008). Effects of different shoe lacing patterns on perceptual
variables and dorsal pressure distribution in heel–toe running.
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 1(Suppl. 1), O13.
Hennig, E. M., Cavanagh, P. R., Albert, H., & Macmillan, N. H.
(1982). A piezoelectric method of measuring the vertical
contact stress beneath the human foot. Journal of Biomedical
Engineering, 4, 213–222.

Hennig, E. M., & Lafortune, M. A. (1991). Relationships between
ground reaction force and tibial bone acceleration parameters.
International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 7, 303–309.
Hennig, E. M., Valiant, G. A., & Liu, Q. (1996). Biomechanical
variables and the perception of cushioning for running in
various types of footwear. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12,
143–150.
Jordan, C., Payton C. J., & Bartlett, R. M. (1997). Perceived
comfort and pressure distribution in casual footwear. Clinical
Biomechanics, 12, S5.
Kersting, U. G., & Brüggemann, G.-P. (2006). Midsole material-
related force control during heel–toe running. Research in Sports
Medicine, 14, 1–17.
Kersting, U. G., Kriwet, A., & Brüggemann, G.-P. (2006). The
role of footwear-independent variations in rearfoot movement
on impact attenuation in heel–toe running. Research in Sports
Medicine, 14, 117–134.
Milani, T. L., & Hennig, E. M. (2000). Measurements of rearfoot
motion during running Sportverletzung Sportschaden, 14, 115–
120.
Milani T. L., Hennig, E. M., & Lafortune, M. A. (1997).
Perceptual and biomechanical variables for running in identical
shoe constructions with varying midsole hardness. Clinical
Biomechanics, 2, 294–300.
Downloaded By: [Hagen, Marco] At: 09:34 2 February 2009
View publication stats
Shoe lacing in heel–toe running 275
Milani, T. L., Schnabel, G., & Hennig, E. M. (1995). Rearfoot
motion and pressure distribution patterns during running in
shoes with varus and valgus wedges. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 11, 177–187.
Nigg, B. M., & Morlock, M. (1987). The influence of lateral heel
flare of running shoes on pronation and impact forces. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 19, 294–302.
Polster, B. (2002). Mathematics: What is the best way to lace your
shoes? Nature, 420, 476.
Sandrey, M. A., Zebas, C. J., & Bast, J. D. (2001). Rearfoot
motion in soccer players with excessive pronation under 4
experimental conditions. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 10,
143–154.
Stacoff, A., Reinschmidt, C., & Stüssi, E. (1992). The movement
of the heel within a running shoe. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 24, 695–701.
Van Gheluwe, B., Kerwin, D., Roosen, P., & Tielemans, R.
(1999). The influence of heel fit on rearfoot motion in running
shoes. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 15, 361–372.
Van Gheluwe, B., Tielemans, R., & Roosen, P. (1995). The
influence of heel counter rigidity on rearfoot motion during
running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 47–67.