Publication Date
2020
Document Type
Data Set
Keywords
Alternative shoe closures, Athletic shoes, Biomechanical engineering
Abstract
The objective of this research was to determine if three alternative shoe closures improve biomechanical performance measures compared to a standard lace closure in agility-based movements. NCAA Division 1 and club-level male athletes recruited from lacrosse, soccer, tennis, and rugby performed four court-based movements: Lateral Skater Jump Repeats (LSJ), Countermovement Jump Repeats (CMJ), Triangle Drop Step Drill (TDS), and Anterior-Posterior Drill (AP). Each athlete performed the movements in four shoe upper closures: Standard Closure, Lace Replacement, Y Wrap, and Tri Panel. Movement completion time, Ground contact time, peak eccentric rate of force development (RFD), peak concentric GRF, peak concentric COM power, eccentric work, and concentric work were measured for all four movements, and ankle, knee and hip range of motion and peak joint moments in the sagittal, frontal and transverse planes, as well as peak joint powers, were calculated for CMJ and LSJ movements. In terms of biomechanical performance, the Y Wrap configuration the Tri Panel configuration delivered improvements between 3 and 9% over the Standard Closure depending on the movement tested and variable of interest. The Lace Replacement had mixed results with some improvements and some declines in performance. For joint-level biomechanics, alternative fit configurations led to increased ankle plantarflexion and knee extension joint moments. Frontal and transverse plane ranges of motion at the ankle, knee and hip were reduced in at least one alternative fit configuration. This study allowed for the mechanical properties of the shoe bottom package to remain consistent across designs to examine if alternative upper configurations could enhance performance. We hypothesize that improved containment and possibly increased proprioception—due to the wrapping fit of the configurations influences these changes in performance. These findings suggest that the design and construction shoe upper is essential to consider in athletic shoe design.
Demographics:
Subject ID ___ Sport _____ Age __ Height ___ Foot Dominance ___ Shoe Size
1 ___________ Lacrosse ___ 20 ____ 6'0" _____ R ______________ 11
2 ___________ Tennis _____ 19 ____ 6'1" _____ R ______________ 10.5
3 ___________ Soccer _____ 34 ____ 5'11" ____ R ______________ 11
4 ___________ Soccer _____ 25 ____ 6'0" _____ R ______________ 10.5
5 ___________ Soccer _____ 22 ____ 6'0" _____ R ______________ 11
6 ___________ Soccer _____ 26 ____ 6'0" _____ R ______________ 10.5
7 ___________ Lacrosse ___ 37 ____ 5'10.5" ___ R ______________ 10.5
8 ___________ Rugby _____ 27 ____ 5'11" _____ R ______________ 11
9 ___________ Soccer _____ 29 ____ 6'1" _____ R ______________ 10.5
10 __________ Rugby _____ 40 ____ 6'1" ______ R ______________ 11.5
11 __________ Rugby _____ 27 ____ 5'8" ______ R ______________ 11.5
12 __________ Soccer ____ 24 _____ 5'8" _____ R ______________ 10.5
13 __________ Soccer ____ 20 ____ 5'10" _____ R ______________ 10.5
14 __________ Soccer ____ 19 _____ 6'0" _____ R ______________ 10.5
15 __________ Soccer ____ 24 _____ 6'1" _____ L ______________ 11
16 __________ Tennis _____ 21 ____ 6'2" _____ R ______________ 11.5
17 __________ Rugby _____ 20 ____ 5'9" _____ R ______________ 11
18 __________ Rugby _____ 21 ____ 5'9" _____ R ______________ 10.5
19 __________ Tennis _____ 18 ____ 6'2" _____ R ______________ 11
20 __________ Lacrosse ___ 18 ____ 5'11" ____ L ______________ 11
21 __________ Rugby _____ 20 ____ 5'11" ____ R ______________ 10
22 __________ Rugby _____ 20 ____ 5'7" _____ R ______________ 9.5
23 __________ Rugby _____ 20 ____ 5'10" ____ R ______________ 10
24 __________ Rugby _____ 19 ____ 5'10" ____ R ______________ 9.5
25 __________ Rugby _____ 20 _____ 6'2" ____ R ______________ 11.5
26 __________ Rugby _____ 24 _____ 6'4" ____ R ______________ 11.5
27 __________ Rugby _____ 24 _____ 5'10" ___ R ______________ 11
28 __________ Rugby _____ 20 _____ 5'9" ____ L ______________ 11
29 __________ Lacrosse ___ 21 _____ 6'1" ____ R ______________ 11
30 __________ Soccer _____ 22 _____ 5'8" ____ L ______________ 9.5
31 __________ Rugby _____ 33 _____ 5'11" ____ R ______________ 10
Recommended Citation
Davidson, Bradley S.; Shelburne, Kevin B.; Pyrhoda, Moira; Wathen, Rachel; Nelson, Nick; Higinbotham, Sean; Dicharry, Jay; Feeney, Daniel; and Harrison, Kate, "Alternative Upper Configurations During Agility-Based Movements: Part 2, Joint-Level Biomechanics" (2020). Alternative Upper Configurations During Agility-Based Movements. 2.
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/shoe_configuration_agility/2
Joint-level Biomechanics Data
AgilityAnalysisPaper2_FINAL.R (2 kB)
Joint-level Biomechanics Analysis
Comments
Citations:
Pryhoda MK , Wathen RJ , Dicharry J, Shelburne KB, Feeney D, Harrison K, Davidson BS. Alternative upper configurations during agility-based movements: Part 1, biomechanical performance. Footwear Science (in review; revision submitted July 15, 2020)
Harrison K, Feeney D, Pryhoda MK, Dicharry J, Nelson, N, Shelburne KB, Davidson BS. Alternative upper configurations during agility-based movements: Part 2, joint-level biomechanics. Footwear Science (in review; submitted July 15, 2020)