advertising
-
1
Clinghan R, Arnold GP, Drew TS, et al: Do you get value for money when you buy an expensive pair of running shoes?. Br J Sports Med 42::189. ,2008. .
-
2
Goonetilleke RS: Footwear cushioning: relating objective and subjective measurements. .Hum Factors 41::241. ,1999. .
-
3
Llana S, Brizuela G, Dura JV, et al: A study of the discomfort associated with tennis shoes. .J Sports Sci 20::671. ,2002. .
-
4
Miller JE, Nigg BM, Liu W, et al: Influence of foot, leg and shoe characteristics on subjective comfort. .Foot Ankle Int 21::759. ,2000. .
-
5
Mündermann A, Nigg BM, Humble RN, et al: Orthotic comfort is related to kinematics, kinetics, and EMG in recreational runners. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 35::1710. ,2003. .
-
6
Mündermann A, Stefanyshyn DJ, Nigg BM: Relationship between footwear comfort of shoe inserts and anthropometric and sensory factors. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 33::1939. ,2001. .
-
7
Au EYL, Goonetilleke RS: A qualitative study on the comfort and fit of ladies’ dress shoes. .Appl Ergon 38::687. ,2007. .
-
8
Butler RJ, Davis IS, Hamill J: Interaction of arch type and footwear on running mechanics. .Am J Sports Med 34::1998. ,2006. .
-
9
Burkett LN, Kohrt WM, Buchbiner R: Effects of shoes and foot orthotics on VO2 and selected frontal plane knee kinematics. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 17::158. ,1985. .
-
10
Jones BH, Knapik JJ, Daniels WL, et al: The energy cost of women walking and running in shoes and boots. .Ergonomics 29::439. ,1986. .
-
11
Mueller MJ, Strube MJ, Allen BT: Therapeutic footwear can reduce plantar pressures in patients with diabetes and transmetatarsal amputation. .Diabetes Care 20::637. ,1997. .
-
12
Birtane M, Tuna H: The evaluation of plantar pressure distribution in obese and non-obese adults. .Clin Biomech 19::1055. ,2004. .
-
13
Hills AP, Hennig EM, McDonald M, et al: Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese adults: a biomechanical analysis. .Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 25::1674. ,2001. .
-
14
Keller TS, Weisberger AM, Ray JL, et al: Relationship between vertical ground reaction force and speed during walking, slow jogging, and running. .Clin Biomech 11::253. ,1996. .
-
15
Nilsson J, Thorstensson A: Ground reaction forces at different speeds of human walking and running. .Acta Physiol Scand 136::217. ,1989. .
-
16
Novachek TF: The biomechanics of running. .Gait Posture 7::77. ,1998. .
Shoe Preference Based on Subjective Comfort for Walking and Running
Search for other papers by Pui Wah Kong in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Miranda Bagdon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Subjective comfort of footwear is important for shoe and orthosis design. This study compared shoe preferences between walking and running, using subjective comfort as an outcome tool.
Methods: Forty-one participants walked and ran 20 times each along a runway in three types of footwear (cushioning, lightweight, and stability) and chose the model that they preferred most for walking and running separately based on subjective comfort.
Results: More participants preferred the cushioning model (walking, 34%; running, 41%) or the lightweight model (walking, 44%; running, 41%) over the stability model (walking, 22%; running, 17%). χ2 tests revealed no differences between walking and running, runners and nonrunners, and lighter and heavier individuals. Women were more likely (odds ratio = 4.09) to prefer the lightweight model, whereas men preferred the cushioning (odds ratio = 2.05) and stability (odds ratio = 3.19) models. Most participants (71%) chose the same model for both activities.
Conclusions: Shoe preference varies among individuals and is influenced by sex. Most people feel comfortable walking and running in the same shoe model. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100(6): 456–462, 2010)
advertising
