• 1

    Manna I, Pradhan D, Ghosh S, et al: A comparative study of foot dimension between adult male and female and evaluation of foot hazards due to using of footwear. .J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci 20::241. ,2001. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Wunderlich RE, Cavanagh PR: Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. .Med Sci Sports Exerc 33::605. ,2001. .

  • 3

    Frey C: Foot health and shoewear for women. .Clin Orthop Relat Res 372::32. ,2000. .

  • 4

    Ross J, Woodward A: Risk factors for injury during basic military training. .J Occup Med 36::1120. ,1994. .

  • 5

    Reinker KA, Ozbourne S: A comparison of male and female orthopedic pathology in basic training. .Military Med 144::532. ,1979. .

  • 6

    Linenger JM, Shwayhat AF: Epidemiology of podiatric injuries in US Marine recruits undergoing basic training. .JAPMA 82::269. ,1992. .

  • 7

    Rosendal L, Langberg H, Skov-Jensen A, et al: Incidence of injury and physical performance adaptations during military training. .Clin J Sport Med 13::157. ,2003. .

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Ross J: A review of lower limb overuse injuries during basic military training: part 1. Types of overuse injuries. .Mil Med 158::410. ,1993. .

  • 9

    Potter RN, Gardner JW, Deuster PA, et al: Musculoskeletal injuries in an Army airborne population. .Mil Med 167::1033. ,2002. .

  • 10

    Pester S, Smith PC: Stress fractures in the lower extremities of soldiers in basic training. .Orthop Rev 21::297. ,1992. .

  • 11

    Frey C, Thompson F, Smith J, et al: American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society women’s shoe survey. .Foot Ankle 14::78. ,1993. .

  • 12

    Frey C, Thompson F, Smith J, et al: Update on women’s footwear. .Foot Ankle 16::328. ,1995. .

  • 13

    Rudicel SA: The shod foot and its implications for American women. .J South Orthop Assoc 3::268. ,1994. .

  • 14

    D’Ambrosia RD: Conservative management of metatarsal and heel pain in the adult foot. .Orthopedics 10::137. ,1987. .

  • 15

    Parham KR, Gordon CC, Bensel CK: Anthropometry of the Foot & Lower Leg of US Army Soldiers, (Technical Report TR 92–028), US Army Natick Research Development & Engineering Center, Natick, MA. ,1992. .

  • 16

    Gordon CC, Bradtmiller B, Clauser CE, et al: 1987–1988 Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics, (Technical Report TR 89–044), US Army Natick Research Development & Engineering Center, Natick, MA. ,1989. .

  • 17

    Freedman A: Survey of Foot Measurements and the Proper Fit of Army Shoes. Analysis of Characteristics of Footgear for Army Field Use. Army Medical Research Lab, Fort Knox, KY. ,1946. .

  • 18

    Houston VL, Mason CP, Beattie AC, et al: “The VA–Cyberware Prosthetics–Orthotics–Pedorthics Optical Digitizers,” in CAD/CAM Systems in Pedorthics, Prosthetics & Orthotics, ed by U Boenick, EM Nader, p 133, Verlag Orthopadie-Technik, Berlin, Germany. ,1998. .

  • 19

    Houston VL, Mason CP, Luo GM, et al: Biomechanical Studies and Optical Digitizer Development for Enhanced Orthopedic Footwear CAD/CAM. US Army Medical Research & Materiel Command (Technical Report #DAMD 17–00–1–0577), September. 2003. .

  • 20

    Henderson WH, Campbell JW: UCBL shoe insert: casting and fabrication. .Bull Prosthet Res 10::215. ,1969. .

  • 21

    Houston VL, Luo GM, Mason CP, et al: “An Overview of the VA Pedorthic CAD/CAM System,” in CAD/CAM Systems in Pedorthics, Prosthetics & Orthotics, ed by U Boenick, EM Nader, p 337, Verlag Orthopadie-Technik, Berlin, Germany. ,1998. .

  • 22

    Houston VL, Luo GM, Mason CP, et al: Initial results with the VA Pedorthics CAD/CAM System. In: Proceedings from the 9th World Congress International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics; June 28–July 3. ,1998. ; Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

  • 23

    Houston VL, Luo GM, Mason CP, et al: Changes in male foot shape and size with weightbearing. .JAPMA 96::330. ,2006. .

  • 24

    Shapiro SS, Wilk MB: An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). .Biometrika 52::591. ,1965. .

  • 25

    Houston VL, Luo GM, Mason CP, et al: Female personnel foot shape vs. US military last shape. .Int Rev Armed Forces Med Serv 79::21. ,2006. .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Comparison of Male and Female Foot Shape

View More View Less
  • 1 VA New York Harbor HealthCare System, New York, NY.
  • | 2 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.
  • | 3 Veterans Health Administration Podiatric Medicine Service, Montrose, NY.
Restricted access

Background: Morphological and geometric differences between male and female feet can be the decisive factor of whether well-fitting, functional, and comfortable footwear is available for both men and women.

Methods: Optical scans, plaster wrap casts, and a set of manual measurements from the right feet of 51 female participants, aged 20 to 59 years (32 ± 10.2 years), and 39 male participants, aged 22 to 71 years (47.1 ± 12.1 years), were taken to determine which parameters were the most significant in characterizing pedal geometry and which had the largest difference between male and female feet.

Results: Analysis showed that the heel-to-ball length (ball length) of the male participants’ feet (181.5 mm) was significantly longer, on average, than that of the female participants’ feet (165.0 mm). The width of the male paticipants’ feet at the ball, instep, and heel regions, as well as the ball circumference, normalized by the ball length, were all significantly larger on average, than the female test participants’ feet. However, toe region, instep, and medial and lateral malleoli heights were larger, on average, for the female participants than for the male. The results show that female feet differ in size and shape from male feet and are not algebraically scaled, smaller versions of male feet, as is often assumed.

Conclusions: The study shows that the average male participants’ feet are longer than that of the female participants’ feet, while the female feet are relatively narrower but higher than those of the male participants. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 99(5): 383–390, 2009)

Corresponding author: Gangming Luo, PhD, VA New York Harbor HealthCare System; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, 423 East 23rd St, New York, NY 10010. (E-mail: gangming.luo@nyumc.org)