Selected static foot assessments do not predict dynamic medial longitudinal arch motion during running

Ben Langley, Mary Cramp, Stewart C Morrison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Static assessments of the foot are commonly advocated within the running community to classify the foot with a view to recommending the appropriate type of running shoe. The aim of this work was to determine whether selected static foot assessment could predict medial longitudinal arch (MLA) motion during running. Methods: Fifteen physically active males (27 ± 5 years, 1.77 ± 0.04 m, 80 ± 10 kg) participated in the study. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), MLA angle and rearfoot angle were measured in a relaxed standing position. MLA motion was calculated using the position of retro-reflective markers tracked by a VICON motion analysis system, while participants ran barefoot on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.8 ± 0.5 m.s−1). Bivariate linear regression was used to determine whether the static measures predicted MLA deformation and MLA angles at initial contact, midsupport and toe off. Results: All three foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA angle at initial contact, midsupport and toe off (p < .05) explaining 41–90 % of the variance. None of the static foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA deformation during the stance phase of running. Conclusion: Selected static foot measures did not predict dynamic MLA deformation during running. Given that MLA deformation has theoretically been linked to running injuries, the clinical relevance of predicting MLA angle at discrete time points during the stance phase of running is questioned. These findings also question the validity of the selected static foot classification measures when looking to characterise the foot during running. This indicates that alternative means of assessing the foot to inform footwear selection are required.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-6
JournalJournal of Foot and Ankle Research
Volume8
Issue number56
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Oct 2015

Fingerprint

Foot
Toes
Posture
Shoes
Linear Models
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • Foot
  • Running
  • Kinematics
  • Medial longitudinal arch
  • Static foot assessment

Cite this

@article{19aaf7cfd3d046f29c5b75fa5066d4d6,
title = "Selected static foot assessments do not predict dynamic medial longitudinal arch motion during running",
abstract = "Background: Static assessments of the foot are commonly advocated within the running community to classify the foot with a view to recommending the appropriate type of running shoe. The aim of this work was to determine whether selected static foot assessment could predict medial longitudinal arch (MLA) motion during running. Methods: Fifteen physically active males (27 ± 5 years, 1.77 ± 0.04 m, 80 ± 10 kg) participated in the study. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), MLA angle and rearfoot angle were measured in a relaxed standing position. MLA motion was calculated using the position of retro-reflective markers tracked by a VICON motion analysis system, while participants ran barefoot on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.8 ± 0.5 m.s−1). Bivariate linear regression was used to determine whether the static measures predicted MLA deformation and MLA angles at initial contact, midsupport and toe off. Results: All three foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA angle at initial contact, midsupport and toe off (p < .05) explaining 41–90 {\%} of the variance. None of the static foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA deformation during the stance phase of running. Conclusion: Selected static foot measures did not predict dynamic MLA deformation during running. Given that MLA deformation has theoretically been linked to running injuries, the clinical relevance of predicting MLA angle at discrete time points during the stance phase of running is questioned. These findings also question the validity of the selected static foot classification measures when looking to characterise the foot during running. This indicates that alternative means of assessing the foot to inform footwear selection are required.",
keywords = "Foot, Running, Kinematics, Medial longitudinal arch, Static foot assessment",
author = "Ben Langley and Mary Cramp and Morrison, {Stewart C}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1186/s13047-015-0113-6",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "1--6",
journal = "Journal of Foot and Ankle Research",
issn = "1757-1146",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",
number = "56",

}

Selected static foot assessments do not predict dynamic medial longitudinal arch motion during running. / Langley, Ben; Cramp, Mary; Morrison, Stewart C.

In: Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, Vol. 8, No. 56, 12.10.2015, p. 1-6.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Selected static foot assessments do not predict dynamic medial longitudinal arch motion during running

AU - Langley, Ben

AU - Cramp, Mary

AU - Morrison, Stewart C

PY - 2015/10/12

Y1 - 2015/10/12

N2 - Background: Static assessments of the foot are commonly advocated within the running community to classify the foot with a view to recommending the appropriate type of running shoe. The aim of this work was to determine whether selected static foot assessment could predict medial longitudinal arch (MLA) motion during running. Methods: Fifteen physically active males (27 ± 5 years, 1.77 ± 0.04 m, 80 ± 10 kg) participated in the study. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), MLA angle and rearfoot angle were measured in a relaxed standing position. MLA motion was calculated using the position of retro-reflective markers tracked by a VICON motion analysis system, while participants ran barefoot on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.8 ± 0.5 m.s−1). Bivariate linear regression was used to determine whether the static measures predicted MLA deformation and MLA angles at initial contact, midsupport and toe off. Results: All three foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA angle at initial contact, midsupport and toe off (p < .05) explaining 41–90 % of the variance. None of the static foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA deformation during the stance phase of running. Conclusion: Selected static foot measures did not predict dynamic MLA deformation during running. Given that MLA deformation has theoretically been linked to running injuries, the clinical relevance of predicting MLA angle at discrete time points during the stance phase of running is questioned. These findings also question the validity of the selected static foot classification measures when looking to characterise the foot during running. This indicates that alternative means of assessing the foot to inform footwear selection are required.

AB - Background: Static assessments of the foot are commonly advocated within the running community to classify the foot with a view to recommending the appropriate type of running shoe. The aim of this work was to determine whether selected static foot assessment could predict medial longitudinal arch (MLA) motion during running. Methods: Fifteen physically active males (27 ± 5 years, 1.77 ± 0.04 m, 80 ± 10 kg) participated in the study. Foot Posture Index (FPI-6), MLA angle and rearfoot angle were measured in a relaxed standing position. MLA motion was calculated using the position of retro-reflective markers tracked by a VICON motion analysis system, while participants ran barefoot on a treadmill at a self-selected pace (2.8 ± 0.5 m.s−1). Bivariate linear regression was used to determine whether the static measures predicted MLA deformation and MLA angles at initial contact, midsupport and toe off. Results: All three foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA angle at initial contact, midsupport and toe off (p < .05) explaining 41–90 % of the variance. None of the static foot classification measures were significant predictors of MLA deformation during the stance phase of running. Conclusion: Selected static foot measures did not predict dynamic MLA deformation during running. Given that MLA deformation has theoretically been linked to running injuries, the clinical relevance of predicting MLA angle at discrete time points during the stance phase of running is questioned. These findings also question the validity of the selected static foot classification measures when looking to characterise the foot during running. This indicates that alternative means of assessing the foot to inform footwear selection are required.

KW - Foot

KW - Running

KW - Kinematics

KW - Medial longitudinal arch

KW - Static foot assessment

U2 - 10.1186/s13047-015-0113-6

DO - 10.1186/s13047-015-0113-6

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 6

JO - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

JF - Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

SN - 1757-1146

IS - 56

ER -