No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Texas at El Paso, 2007. / Title from title screen. Vita. CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

Thesis (M.S.)--Brigham Young University. Dept. of Exercise Sciences, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2005 . / Principal faculty advisor: Irene S. Davis, Physical Therapy Department. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of British Columbia, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-94). Also available online (PDF file) by a subscription to the set or by purchasing the individual file.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of British Columbia, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 89-94).

For years track and field athletes have worn spiked shoes to enhance performance. This study was conducted to determine the effect of track spikes on hip, knee, and ankle peak joint moments (PJM) in collegiate and elite athletes while running. To measure differences in joint moments, ten intercollegiate and post graduate male distance runners from Brigham Young University ran at a four-minute-mile pace (6.7 m/s) across a force plate synched with infrared cameras tracking body positioning in each shoe condition. Repeated measures ANOVA (p < 0.05) revealed no significant peak joint differences between running shoes and track spikes. The minimum hip and peak knee PJM approached significance (F = 3.221, P = 0.116 and F = 2.875, P = 0.134 respectively). The high variability of joint moments between trials made it difficult to detect differences between conditions. The variability may be explained by any number of factors including: biomechanical differences in running form, running at high speeds, type of subjects, and potentially other factors.

Cheng, Yuk Lap. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 64-67). / Abstracts in English and Chinese; appendix and questionnaire also in Chinese. / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT --- p.I / ABSTRACT --- p.II / TABLE OF CONTENT --- p.V / LIST OF FIGURES --- p.VII / LIST OF TABLES --- p.VIII / Chapter I --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Background --- p.1 / Statement of Problem --- p.3 / Hypothesis --- p.3 / Significance of Study --- p.4 / Theoretical Contribution --- p.4 / Practical Contribution --- p.4 / Operational Definition --- p.5 / Chapter II --- REVIEW OF LITERATURE --- p.7 / Problem of poor fitting --- p.7 / Common foot problem --- p.10 / Definition of fit --- p.11 / Recommendation of shoe fit --- p.13 / Sizing --- p.13 / Pressure distribution --- p.14 / Subjective fit --- p.15 / Footwear Comfort --- p.15 / Chapter III --- METHODOLOGY --- p.18 / Design --- p.18 / Subject --- p.18 / Instrumentation --- p.18 / Fit questionnaire --- p.18 / Foot scanner --- p.19 / Pressure sensors --- p.19 / Running shoes --- p.20 / Shoe lasts --- p.20 / Procedure --- p.21 / Foot scanning --- p.22 / Fit questionnaire --- p.24 / Set up --- p.24 / Reliability test --- p.25 / Pressure measurement --- p.25 / Data Reduction --- p.29 / Foot scanning --- p.29 / Fit questionnaire --- p.29 / Video --- p.29 / Pressure distribution --- p.30 / Data Analysis --- p.30 / Chapter IV --- RESULT --- p.32 / Subject Detail --- p.32 / Questionnaire --- p.32 / Fit Rating --- p.37 / Size Difference --- p.39 / Pressure Distribution --- p.43 / Regression --- p.46 / Chapter V --- DISCUSSION --- p.52 / Subjective fit rating --- p.52 / Reliability of the fit questionnaire --- p.52 / Fit rating --- p.53 / Size --- p.54 / Foot shape --- p.54 / Dimensional Difference --- p.54 / Correlation with subjective fit --- p.55 / Pressure --- p.58 / Dimensional Difference and Pressure --- p.59 / Subjective fit and objective measures --- p.60 / Limitation --- p.61 / Future Direction --- p.62 / Chapter VI --- CONCLUSION --- p.63 / Chapter VII --- REFERENCE --- p.64 / APPENDIX / Appendix A -Explanation of study --- p.68 / Appendix B - Informed consent --- p.69 / Appendix C - Footwear fit questionnaire --- p.70 / Appendix D -Explanations of fit questionnaire --- p.72 / Appendix E - Anthropometric information of the subjects --- p.73 / Appendix F - Fit rating --- p.74 / Appendix G - Foot dimensions of the subjects --- p.89 / Appendix H - Foot - last size difference of each subject --- p.90 / Appendix I - Guilford's suggested interpretation for value of r --- p.92

Background: Despite the introduction of running footwear in the 1970’s, running injury rates continue to be unacceptably high. The subsequent revival of barefoot running and the introduction of minimalist footwear occurred, in an attempt to reduce injury rates and increase performance. There is much contention in the literature around the effectiveness of these footwear conditions. Furthermore individual responses have recently been proposed to provide more accurate and reflective conclusions than the use of mean data. Objectives: Twofold: a) to compare the biomechanical, physiological and perceptual responses between the shod, minimalist and barefoot footwear conditions and b) to assess and compare individual responses under these footwear conditions. Methods: 26 well-trained, male, habitually shod endurance runners, aged between 18 - 30 years completed three experimental sessions on an indoor runway and motorized treadmill. Each session was completed in either the shod, minimalist or barefoot condition, running at 15km.h-1. Variables assessed included stride rate, stride length, impact peak, vertical impact and average loading rate and strike time (biomechanical); heart rate, oxygen consumption and electromyography (physiological); and rating of perceived exertion and body discomfort (perceptual). Results: Biomechanics – Stride rate and stride length showed a significant (p<0.001) increase and decrease respectively when running in the minimalist or barefoot conditions versus shod. Running barefoot versus the minimalist and shod conditions resulted in a significantly (p<0.001) greater vertical impact loading rate. Strike time was significantly (p=0.008) reduced running in the minimalist and barefoot conditions versus shod. Physiology – Running barefoot versus shod resulted in a significantly (p=0.02) reduced heart rate and Tibialis Anterior activity (p=0.005). There was a large variability in individual responses for many variables, with responders and non-responders seen. Conclusion: The study suggests that there are significant differences between all three forms of running for some variables. It was further noted that there is support for the proposal that individual responses are highly variable and should be analysed accordingly

The aim of this research was to specify and develop a service that is capable of delivering personalisable running shoes with mass appeal. Current sports footwear personalisation services focus primarily on aesthetic design via the internet. Aesthetics do not appear to be the consumers primary interest when purchasing running shoes and a large number are also reluctant to purchase online; preferring to purchase from specialist running stores where they receive the advice needed and can directly interact with the product. After reviewing the literature, it was hypothesised that the implementation of a primarily comfort and performance running shoe personalisation service with an in store fitting element, utilising additive manufacturing as an enabling technology, would give the greatest opportunity for success. Survey methods and store visits were employed that targeted both qualitative and quantitative data, exploring consumer running shoe purchase preferences, running shoe use and opinions of current personalisation services. The findings from these studies supported the previously stated hypothesis and enabled the specification of a suitable service. Subsequently, the focus of this research was the development of a toolkit, a computer-based system that enables the consumer to make their selections, the core of most of the current services. Experts in biomechanics and additive manufacturing were consulted to ensure that a feasible yet innovative solution was delivered. The resultant toolkit prototype (www.yourstep.co.uk) was tested formatively, using multiple methods and summatively with a large sample. Using the toolkit was considered an enjoyable, intuitive experience; a large percentage (69%) of summative testing participants would consider purchasing personalised running shoes using this method. The approach adopted to specify and develop this service provides a framework, based upon empirical research, for those looking to implement a practical running shoe personalisation service that meets their consumers requirements.