Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Impact forces and rearfoot eversion have been linked to overuse injuries in running. Modeling approaches suggest that both factors interact in that reduced foot eversion relates to increased impact maxima and vice versa. The aim of this study was to alter rearfoot eversion by applying three different combinations of ankle taping and bracing. Ten subjects were tested while running at 4 m/s on an instrumented treadmill. Sagittal plane kinematics, rearfoot eversion, tibial acceleration, pressure under the heel, and vertical ground reaction force (GRF) were collected simultaneously over 12 to 14 steps. All interventions reduced the maximum eversion significantly compared with unrestricted running. The largest effect was shown for combined bracing and taping, reducing rearfoot movement by 6.1 degrees while impact force varied only marginally. Overall, relationships between parameters contradict predictions by existing models of foot-ground interaction. Changes in muscular activation remain as a candidate in the regulation of impact mechanics in running.
There hever has been any evidence that foot pronation was associated with shock absoprtion/attenuation. If my memory serves me correctly, this is either the 3rd or 4th paper that shows that its not. When will this podiatric myth stop? How many publications will it take