Human Performance Laboratory 3) Cigoja et al. (2019). J ...€¦ · Midsole bending stiffness of...

1
Midsole bending stiffness of running shoes & muscle-tendon unit mechanics 6) Carrier et al. (1994). Science 265: 651-653. 7) Fath et al. (2010). J. Appl. Physiol. 109: 1644-1652. 8) Firminger et al. (2019). Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 51(9): 1-9. 9) Riddick et al. (2019). J. R. Soc. Interface 16:20180680. 10)Cheung et al. (2006). Clin. Biomech. 21: 194-203. Saša Čigoja, B. Sc. PhD Candidate – Kinesiology Human Performance Laboratory University of Calgary 001 (403) 399-4496 [email protected] linkedin.com/in/cigoja-uofcbiomech References 1) Ker et al. (1987). Nature 325: 7-9. 2) Stearne et al. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6: 19403. 3) Cigoja et al. (2019). J. Sci. Med. Sport: 1-6. 4) Hoogkamer et al. (2018). Spor. Med. 4: 1009-1019. 5) Takahashi et al. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6: 1-11. Introduction ▪ Multiple compliances of the foot-shoe interface (e.g., plantar aponeurosis, Achilles tendon, shoe) were suggested to store and release energy during running 1-3 . ▪ The midsole bending stiffness (MBS) of a running shoe is an external compliance that can be manufactured to increase athletic performance 4 . ▪ One mechanism as to why increased MBS can improve athletic performance was suggested to be its ability to alter the mechanics of muscle-tendon units (MTUs) of the foot-shoe interface 5 . Purpose The purpose of this project was to investigate how compliances of the foot-shoe interface are affected during running when the MBS of a sport shoe is increased. Specifically, the behaviour of the plantar (pMTU) and shank muscle-tendon units (sMTU) were of interest. Methods Control Nike Free k = 1.2 N/mm 5.0 Stiff Nike Carbon Free + fibre 5.0 plate k = 11.9 N/mm Conditions 8 camera motion capture system Force-instrumented treadmill Ultrasound Dynamometry Equipment Pos. Work [J*kg -1 ] Neg. Work [J*kg -1 ] Net Work [J*kg -1 ] Control Stiff Control Stiff Control Stiff pMTU 0.13 (0.04) 0.09* (0.03) -0.04 (0.02) -0.06* (0.03) 0.10 (0.05) 0.03* (0.04) sMTU 0.76 (0.13) 0.73 (0.11) -0.45 (0.11) -0.45 (0.10) 0.31 (0.14) 0.28* (0.10) Results pMTU sMTU Control Stiff Mean ± SD * Represents a significant (α < 0.05) difference between footwear conditions Discussion ▪ Increasing the stiffness of the external compliance (i.e., MBS of shoe) resulted in: → Less stretch of the pMTU → Less shortening of the pMTU → Slower shortening of the pMTU → Less positive and net work performed by the pMTU → More negative work performed by the pMTU → Slower shortening of the sMTU → Less net work performed by the sMTU ▪ Differences in work between shoe conditions were due to velocities, not forces → amount/velocity of MTU deformation was reduced but mechanical load remained the same ▪ Significantly longer ground contact times in the stiff condition could have allowed the MTUs to generate the same amount of force at slower velocities → muscular compartment of the MTUs operated more economically Conclusion ▪ If slower shortening velocities of the MTUs are attributed to the muscle → Could be related to lower metabolic cost of running ▪ If slower shortening velocities are attributed to the tendon → Could be indicative of reduced energy return capacities of the tendon ▪ Deformation of linear compliances (i.e., pMTU) was reduced when running with increased MBS of a shoe; however, mechanical load remained the same → Apparent stiffness of this compliance was increased with greater MBS → The foot-shoe interface could then be modelled as multiple springs that act in series: k foot/shoe =( 1 k foot + 1 k shoe ) −1 Hypothesis It was hypothesized that the positive work performed by the pMTU will be reduced in the stiff condition because it’s shortening will be limited due to the windlass mechanism. Also, it was hypothesized that the sMTU mechanics will be altered by increasing the MBS of running shoes. shortening shortening shortening MTU models MH MP1 NT pMTU GT F pMTU M Arch MA sMTU sMTU F sMTU sMTU shank muscle-tendon unit 6 MA sMTU sMTU moment arm 7 F sMTU sMTU force 8 M Arch arch moment AA arch angle pMTU plantar muscle-tendon unit 9 F pMTU pMTU force 10 MH medial heel NT navicular tuberosity MP1 distal head of 1 st metatarsal GT great toe k shoe k foot N = 13 Male, recreational runners 30 seconds running Speed: 3.5 m/s Participants

Transcript of Human Performance Laboratory 3) Cigoja et al. (2019). J ...€¦ · Midsole bending stiffness of...

Page 1: Human Performance Laboratory 3) Cigoja et al. (2019). J ...€¦ · Midsole bending stiffness of running shoes & muscle-tendon unit mechanics 6) Carrier et al. (1994). Science 265:

Midsole bending stiffness of running

shoes & muscle-tendon unit mechanics

6) Carrier et al. (1994). Science 265:

651-653.

7) Fath et al. (2010). J. Appl. Physiol.

109: 1644-1652.

8) Firminger et al. (2019). Med. Sci.

Sport. Exerc. 51(9): 1-9.

9) Riddick et al. (2019). J. R. Soc.

Interface 16:20180680.

10)Cheung et al. (2006). Clin. Biomech.

21: 194-203.

Saša Čigoja, B. Sc.

PhD Candidate – Kinesiology

Human Performance Laboratory

University of Calgary

001 (403) 399-4496

[email protected]

linkedin.com/in/cigoja-uofcbiomech

References1) Ker et al. (1987). Nature 325: 7-9.

2) Stearne et al. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6:

19403.

3) Cigoja et al. (2019). J. Sci. Med.

Sport: 1-6.

4) Hoogkamer et al. (2018). Spor. Med.

4: 1009-1019.

5) Takahashi et al. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6:

1-11.

Introduction▪ Multiple compliances of the foot-shoe interface (e.g., plantar

aponeurosis, Achilles tendon, shoe) were suggested to store and

release energy during running1-3.

▪ The midsole bending stiffness (MBS) of a running shoe is an external

compliance that can be manufactured to increase athletic

performance4.

▪ One mechanism as to why increased MBS can improve athletic

performance was suggested to be its ability to alter the mechanics of

muscle-tendon units (MTUs) of the foot-shoe interface5.

PurposeThe purpose of this project was to investigate how compliances of the

foot-shoe interface are affected during running when the MBS of a sport

shoe is increased. Specifically, the behaviour of the plantar (pMTU) and

shank muscle-tendon units (sMTU) were of interest.

Methods

Control

Nike

Free k = 1.2 N/mm

5.0

StiffNike Carbon

Free + fibre

5.0 plate

k = 11.9 N/mm

Conditions

8 camera motion capture system

Force-instrumented treadmill

Ultrasound

Dynamometry

Equipment

Pos. Work

[J*kg-1]

Neg. Work

[J*kg-1]

Net Work

[J*kg-1]

Control Stiff Control Stiff Control Stiff

pMTU0.13

(0.04)

0.09*

(0.03)

-0.04

(0.02)

-0.06*

(0.03)

0.10

(0.05)

0.03*

(0.04)

sMTU0.76

(0.13)

0.73

(0.11)

-0.45

(0.11)

-0.45

(0.10)

0.31

(0.14)

0.28*

(0.10)

Results

pMTU

sMTU

Control Stiff Mean ± SD

* Represents a significant (α < 0.05) difference between footwear conditions

Discussion

▪ Increasing the stiffness of the external compliance (i.e., MBS of shoe)

resulted in:

→ Less stretch of the pMTU

→ Less shortening of the pMTU

→ Slower shortening of the pMTU

→ Less positive and net work performed by the pMTU

→ More negative work performed by the pMTU

→ Slower shortening of the sMTU

→ Less net work performed by the sMTU

▪ Differences in work between shoe conditions were due to velocities, not

forces

→amount/velocity of MTU deformation was reduced but

mechanical load remained the same

▪ Significantly longer ground contact times in the stiff condition could have

allowed the MTUs to generate the same amount of force at slower

velocities

→ muscular compartment of the MTUs operated more

economically

Conclusion

▪ If slower shortening velocities of the MTUs are attributed to the muscle

→ Could be related to lower metabolic cost of running

▪ If slower shortening velocities are attributed to the tendon

→ Could be indicative of reduced energy return capacities of the tendon

▪ Deformation of linear compliances (i.e., pMTU) was reduced when running

with increased MBS of a shoe; however, mechanical load remained the

same

→Apparent stiffness of this compliance was increased with greater MBS

→The foot-shoe interface could then be modelled as multiple springs

that act in series:

kfoot/shoe = (1

kfoot+

1

kshoe) −1

HypothesisIt was hypothesized that the positive work performed by the pMTU will be

reduced in the stiff condition because it’s shortening will be limited due

to the windlass mechanism. Also, it was hypothesized that the sMTU

mechanics will be altered by increasing the MBS of running shoes.

shortening shortening

shortening

MTU models

MH

MP1

NT

pMTU

GT

FpMTU

MArch

MAsMTU

sMTU

FsMTU

sMTU shank muscle-tendon unit6

MAsMTU sMTU moment arm7

FsMTU sMTU force8

MArch arch moment

AA arch angle

pMTU plantar muscle-tendon unit9

FpMTU pMTU force10

MH medial heel

NT navicular tuberosity

MP1 distal head of 1st metatarsal

GT great toe

kshoe

kfoot

N = 13

Male, recreational runners

30 seconds running

Speed: 3.5 m/s

Participants

W. et al. Tikka Kato et al. Unterberger Park et al. Carley Matsubara et al. Lee Bradley et al. Park et al. Schmidhammer et al. Ginsburg et al. Korden et al. Mikulin et al. Bouche et

W. et al. Tikka Kato et al. Unterberger Park et al. Carley Matsubara et al. Lee Bradley et al. Park et al. Schmidhammer et al. Ginsburg et al. Korden et al. Mikulin et al. Bouche et

WHITNEY et al. v. EMMETT et al.

WHITNEY et al. v. EMMETT et al.

., et al. Petitioners, et al. Respondents.

., et al. Petitioners, et al. Respondents.

Unsteady Hydrodynamic Modeling of a Cycloidal PropellerBenedict et al 2014a, Benedict et al 2014b, Zachary et al 2013, Shrestha et al 2012, Shrestha et al 2014, Hrishikeshavan et al

Unsteady Hydrodynamic Modeling of a Cycloidal PropellerBenedict et al 2014a, Benedict et al 2014b, Zachary et al 2013, Shrestha et al 2012, Shrestha et al 2014, Hrishikeshavan et al

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US … · Liamos et al. Mann et al. Heller et al. Gotoh et al. Rush et al. Mao et al. Liamos et al. Desai ..... A61B 5,14532 204,403.01

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US … · Liamos et al. Mann et al. Heller et al. Gotoh et al. Rush et al. Mao et al. Liamos et al. Desai ..... A61B 5,14532 204,403.01

Towards a footwear design tool: Influence of shoe midsole ...

Towards a footwear design tool: Influence of shoe midsole ...

Turkmen, et al. v. Hasty, et al.

Turkmen, et al. v. Hasty, et al.

EXHIBIT E - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

EXHIBIT E - cases.justia.com · 811996 Konrad 1211996 Koppolu et al. 211997 Duscher et al. 311997 Koppolu et al. 511997 Koppolu et al. 711997 Ashe et al. 511998 Koppolu et al. 911998

et al. et al

et al. et al

USA, Et Al v. Kaplan, Et Al

USA, Et Al v. Kaplan, Et Al

AMT 13-2413-2020 - Copernicus.org · 2020. 7. 15. · et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2016; Popoola et al., 2018; Yuval et al., 2019). Distributed

AMT 13-2413-2020 - Copernicus.org · 2020. 7. 15. · et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2016; Popoola et al., 2018; Yuval et al., 2019). Distributed

The human genome Lander et al. 2001 Venter et al. 2001 Patil et al. 2001 Gabriel et al. 2002 Reich et al. 2001 Sabeti et al. 2002 Yu et al. 2002.

The human genome Lander et al. 2001 Venter et al. 2001 Patil et al. 2001 Gabriel et al. 2002 Reich et al. 2001 Sabeti et al. 2002 Yu et al. 2002.

Midsole Cleat Position

Midsole Cleat Position

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7895.275 B1 ... Gutta et al. Signes et al. Hashimoto et al. Ghashghai et al. Ting et al. Vaidyanathan et al. Obradovich Larsson et al.

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7895.275 B1 ... Gutta et al. Signes et al. Hashimoto et al. Ghashghai et al. Ting et al. Vaidyanathan et al. Obradovich Larsson et al.

Integrative analysis of multi-platform RPPA data · 2011, Hayashi et al. 2014, Bernhardt et al. 2017, Hutter et al. 2017, Lièvre et al. 2017, Aslan et al. 2018, Faham et al. 2018,

Integrative analysis of multi-platform RPPA data · 2011, Hayashi et al. 2014, Bernhardt et al. 2017, Hutter et al. 2017, Lièvre et al. 2017, Aslan et al. 2018, Faham et al. 2018,

The changes midsole cushioning and running surface have on ...

The changes midsole cushioning and running surface have on ...

(12) United States Patent (io) · Sevcik et al. Ryanetal..... 144/154.5 Govindaraj et al. Kennedy et al. Malone Woods et al. Takahashi et al. Dick et al. Ceroll et al. Caron et al.

(12) United States Patent (io) · Sevcik et al. Ryanetal..... 144/154.5 Govindaraj et al. Kennedy et al. Malone Woods et al. Takahashi et al. Dick et al. Ceroll et al. Caron et al.

Actin-based propulsive forces and myosin-II-based ... · Tsujioka et al. (Tsujioka et al., 2004), Ladam et al. (Ladam et al., 2005) and del Alamo et al. (del Alamo et al., 2007).

Actin-based propulsive forces and myosin-II-based ... · Tsujioka et al. (Tsujioka et al., 2004), Ladam et al. (Ladam et al., 2005) and del Alamo et al. (del Alamo et al., 2007).

Oceana et al vs.BOEM et al

Oceana et al vs.BOEM et al

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,120,245 B1 ...Polikarpus et al. Pham et al. Bawendi et al. Bagger et al. Masuzawa et al. Conley et al. Mardilovich Higuchi et al. Kobayashi

(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 9,120,245 B1 ...Polikarpus et al. Pham et al. Bawendi et al. Bagger et al. Masuzawa et al. Conley et al. Mardilovich Higuchi et al. Kobayashi