0.829
IF
20
MNiSW
166.26
ICV
Online first
RESEARCH PAPER
 
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
 
 

Assessment of the influence of jogging on the shape of female foot arches

Agata Maslon 1  ,  
Joanna Golec 1,  
 
1
University of Physical Education in Cracow, Motor Rehabilitation Department, Clinical Rehabilitation Division, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Institute, Cracow, Poland
2
Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum, Health Science Division, Physiotherapy Institute Chair, Cracow, Poland
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Both walking and its faster, running, consist of cyclical subsequent phases of swing and support; however, they differ in their time proportions as well as magnitude of acting forces. There is a lack of studies concerning the long-term consequences of repeated jogging cycles on the function of feet and, above all, on their permanent impact on the shape of foot arches.

Objectives:
The objective of this study was to answer the question whether regular jogging changes the shape of the transverse and medial longitudinal arches of the feet.

Material and Methods:
The research material consisted of 96 women with an average age of 26.57, and included 50 actively jogging women, and 46 of non-joggers. The study was performed with the use of EMED-SF force platform. The plantar surface of the foot was divided into 10 regions according to Cavanagh, for which peak pressure and contact time were established. Two indicators were defined: metatarsal bone pressure distribution pattern acc. to Kantali, and longitudinal arch index acc. to Cavanagh.

Results:
The data obtained revealed more frequent occurrence of the greatest pressure under the centrally located metatarsal heads (lack of functional foot transverse arch) among the female joggers, compared with the non-joggers. Moreover, the findings indicate the higher frequency of medial longitudinal foot arch flattening among female runners, with a great deal of consistency between both feet, whereas results for the control group show asymmetrical medial arch shapes with right foot propensity to normal arch shape and left foot tendency for excessive arch.

Conclusions:
The observed differences in feet arch shapes between female joggers and non-joggers indicate the influence of jogging on feet functional adaptations.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Agata Maslon   
University of Physical Education in Cracow, Motor Rehabilitation Department, Clinical Rehabilitation Division, Orthopedic Rehabilitation Institute, Cracow, Poland
 
REFERENCES:
1. Kapandji IA. The physiology of the joints: annotated diagrams of the mechanics of the human joints. Vol. 2. Lower Limb. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, 1970.p.196–219.
2. Daentzer D, Wülker N, Zimmermann U. Observations concerning the transverse metatarsal arch. J Foot Ankle Surg. 1997; 3(1): 15–20.
3. Franco AH. Pes cavus and pes planus. Analyses and treatment. Phys Ther. 1987; 67(5): 688–694.
4. Ker RF, Bennett MB, Bibby SR, Kester RC, Alexander RM. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature. 1987; 325: 147–149.
5. Saibene F, Minetti AE. Biomechanical and physiological aspects of legged locomotion in humans. Europ J App Physiol. 2003; 88: 297–316.
6. Barr KP, Harrast MA. Evidence-Based Treatment of Foot and Ankle Injuries in Runners. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005; 16: 779–799.
7. Taunton JE, Ryan MB, Clement DB, McKenzie DC, Lloyd-Smith DR, Zumbo DB. A retrospective case-control analysis of 2002 running injuries. BJSM. 2002; 36(2): 95–101.
8. Ferber R, Davis IM, Williams DS. Gender differences in lower extremity mechanics during running. Clin Biomech. 2003; 18(4): 350–357.
9. Bus SA, de Lange A. A comparison of 1-step, 2-step, and 3-step protocols for obtaining barefoot plantar pressure data in the diabetic neuropathic foot. Clin Biomech. 2005; 20: 892- 899.
10. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM, Iboshi A. Pressure distribution under symptom-free feet during barefoot standing. Foot Ankle. 1987a; 7(5): 262–276.
11. Kantali U, Yetkin H, Simsek A, Ozturk AM, Esen E, Besli K. Pressure distribution patterns under the metatarsal heads in healthy individuals. Acta Orthop et Traumatol Turcica. 2008; 42(1): 26–30.
12. Cavanagh PR, Rodgers MM. The arch index: a useful measure from footprints. J Biomech. 1987b; 20(5): 547–551.
13. Bisiaux M, Moretto P. The effects of fatigue on plantar pressure distribution in walking. Gait and Post. 2008; 28: 693–698.
14. Jacob HAC. Forces acting in the forefoot during normal gait-an estimate. Clin Biomech. 2001; 16: 783–792.
15. Kantali U, Yetkin H, Bolukbasi S. Evaluation of the transverse metatarsal arch of the foot with gait analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003; 123: 148–150.
16. Simonsen O, Vuust M, Understrup B, Højbjerre M et. al. The transverse forefoot arch demonstrated by a novel X-ray projection. Foot and Ankle Surgery 2009; 15: 7–13.
17. Ombregt L, Bisschop P, ter Veer HJ. A System of Orthopaedic Medicine. 2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone, 2003.p.1161–1165.
18. Weist R, Eils E, Rosenbaum D. The influence of muscle fatigue on electromyogram and plantar pressure patterns as an explanation for the incidence of metatarsal stress fractures. Amer J Sport Med. 2004; 32(8): 1893–1898.
19. Morag E, Cavanagh PR. Structural and functional predictors of regional peak pressures under the foot during walking. J Biomech. 1999; 32: 359–370.
20. McPoil T, Cornwall M. Prediction of dynamic foot posture during running using the longitudinal arch angle. JAPMA. 2007; 97(2): 102–107.
21. Whiting W, Zernicke R. Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury. 2nd ed. United States of America, 2008.p.90.
22. Cheung JTM, Zhang M, An KN. Effect of Achilles tendon loading on plantar fascia tension in the standing foot. Clin Biomech. 2006; 21: 194–203.
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966