Abstracts 321

GROUND AND IN-SHOE REACTION FORCES DURING WALKING

Timothy R. Derrick and Joseph Hamill
Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
The primary function of the midsole in a running shoe is usually considered to be a reduction in the forces
experienced by the body. The vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) has been generally accepted as the best
reflection of these forces but a more meaningful measurement may be the in-shoe reaction force @RF). This
investigation was undertaken to compare the VGRF to the ISRF during walking in three conditions: no midsole,
hard midsole (50-55 shore C scale) and soft midsole (25-30 shore C scale). Five subjects performed five trials in
each of the three conditions. The maximum weight acceptance VGRF values did not change when a midsole
was introduced. The ISRF values during weight acceptance increased for four of the five subjects when the hard
midsole was added. During the soft midsole condition all five of the subjects had greater mean maximum weight
acceptance values compared to the no midsole condition. These results indicate that providing a softer midsole
does not necessarily decrease VGRF’s and actually tends to increase ISRF’s. The large differences between the
VGRF and the ISRF values suggest that calculations using the former may underestimate the actual forces
experienced by the body. This method of determining in-shoe reaction forces may prove useful and illuminating,
but the accuracy of the force platform is not challenged. The standard deviations within conditions were
approximately 23 Newtons for the force platform and 7 1 Newtons for the foot sensors during maximum weight
acceptance.

THE EFFECTS OF MIDSOLE HARDNESS ON SHOE CUSHIONING

N. Stergiou, B.T. Bates, and H.P. Davis
Department of Exercise and Movement Science
University of Oregon, Eugene 97403, USA
Two methods have been identified for evaluating the shock attenuating properties of various shoe
designs: 1) material tests using impact testing equipment and 2) evaluation of subjects using a force platform.
A lack of correlation between the two methods has been observed and has been attributed to kinematic
adjustments. This hypothesis was evaluated in the present study by comparing in-vivo and in-vitro results
obtained using a more rigorous experimental protocol. Two pairs of shoes were evaluated in each of three test
sessions, for a total of six shoes. Each session incorporated six male runners performing 25 trials for each shoe
condition while sagittal, rear view kinematic data and GRF data were collected. In addition, the two shoes
evaluated in each session were compared and classified as hard or soft based upon impact testing results.
Significant (peO.01) correlations were found for all variables evaluated. The slopes of the regression lines for
all the GRF parameters were also significantly different (pcO.01) from 1.0 indicating different results for these
parameters. These results are contradictory with results reported in the literature and a possible explanation for
these differences could be unreliable subject data due to intra-individual variability. In conclusion, the results
of the study revealed a strong relationship between in-vivo estimates of ground reaction forces and in-vitro
measurements of shoe cushioning.

EVALUATING BASKETBALL SHOE DESIGN WITH GROUND REACTION FORCES

Gordon A. Valiant and Karen Beekman Eden
NIKE S ort Research Lab, Beaverton, Oregon, 97005, USA
# he kinetics of running and jumping have been thoroughly described and applied to footwear
design, but little attention has focussed on the implications of the kinetics of lateral movement on
footwear. In this studv the mound reaction forces develoDed bv thirteen subjects during 900 cutting
around a 1.22 m tall GovabTe post, shuffling, and rapid stopping were a plied to designland evaluaiion of
stability, traction, and cushionin requirements of basketball shoes. In R ared light emitting diodes on the
shoe and the force platform su B ace were tracked with a motion measurement and digitizing system,
synchronized in time with ground reaction force samples. Force components were expressed relative to
mediolateral (F ), anteroposterior (F I,), and normal (FZ) shoe axes. For the cut, peak forces averaged
1.37 lateral, 0.6p anterior, and 2.57 bogy weights BW) vertical, and for the stop, peak forces averaged
0.61 lateral, 1.89 anterior, and 3.31 BW vertical. A orizontal and vertical forces were lowest during
shuffling. Peak horizontal forces occurred earlv during su~)uort when both rear and forefoot regions are
loaded Vertically. When the rearfoot is unloading duri:g {hi propulsive phase of the cut, the F-b
components which stabili features in the forefoot must resist, while only 56% of the mean pea impact
forces, are still 0.75 BW. ? he mean translational traction coefficient of 0.85 (Fd / F& along an a/ axis
during stoppin exceeded the mean coefficient of 0.72 required along an m/l axu!durmg cutting. CY utsole
coefficients of !.nction exceeding 1.0 are generally all that are necessary t? prevent slip during high intensity
basketball activities. Mean F, peak impact forces were 2 BW or greater, mdicating that vertical stresses
develoDed during lateral movements must be considered in addition to forces develoDed 1 durine“IiumDing
1 c
and ruining whe> evaluating cushioning needs of basketball shoes.