Article

Foot health and shoewear for women.

University of California, Los Angeles, Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Center, Manhattan Beach 90266, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 04/2000; DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200003000-00005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Females are different from males in structure and biomechanics. The foot in the female tends to have a narrower heel in relationship to the forefoot and overall is narrower than a man's foot relative to length. Females tend to pronate their feet more and have smaller Achilles tendons than males, both factors having implications for shoe fit. Although shoes have been worn for thousands of years for the main purpose of protecting feet from the environment, recent studies have implicated shoes as the principal cause of forefoot disorders seen in females. Several authors have reported the harmful effects of shoewear and the greatest factor is a shoe that is improperly fit. With respect to foot disorders in the female, the current study will explore anatomy, biomechanics, common forefoot disorders, and shoewear through the ages, athletic shoewear, and a toe strengthening program.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
110 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Foot dimension information on different user groups is important for footwear design and clinical applications. Foot dimension data collected using different measurement methods presents accuracy problems. This study compared the precision and accuracy of the 3D foot scanning method with conventional foot dimension measurement methods including the digital caliper, ink footprint and digital footprint. Methods: Six commonly used foot dimensions, i.e. foot length, ball of foot length, outside ball of foot length, foot breadth diagonal, foot breadth horizontal and heel breadth were measured from 130 males and females using four foot measurement methods. Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the sex and method effect on the measured foot dimensions. In addition, the mean absolute difference values and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used for precision and accuracy evaluation. The results were also compared with the ISO 20685 criteria. Results: The participant’s sex and the measurement method were found (p < 0.05) to exert significant effects on the measured six foot dimensions. The precision of the 3D scanning measurement method with mean absolute difference values between 0.73 to 1.50 mm showed the best performance among the four measurement methods. The 3D scanning measurements showed better measurement accuracy performance than the other methods (mean absolute difference was 0.6 to 4.3 mm), except for measuring outside ball of foot length and foot breadth horizontal. The ICCs for all six foot dimension measurements among the four measurement methods were within the 0.61 to 0.98 range. Conclusions: Overall, the 3D foot scanner is recommended for collecting foot anthropometric data because it has relatively higher precision, accuracy and robustness. This finding suggests that when comparing foot anthropometric data among different references, it is important to consider the differences caused by the different measurement methods.
    Journal of Foot and Ankle Research 01/2014; 7(1):44. · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A psychophysical study was conducted to determine the ideal and acceptable foot-shoe allowances for widths and girths using an in-shoe simulator. Participants wore the in-shoe simulator product, walked, and rated the various regions of the foot. The ratings together with the foot scans were used to determine the ideal fit. The results of the signal detection analysis indicate that participants liked the perceived footwear tightness in 75% or more cases where foot-shoe allowance was less than 6.4 mm, 12.1 mm and 10.7 mm at the foot breadth, ball girth and waist girth respectively. The proposed tolerances could be useful for designing shoe lasts.
    International Journal of Human Factors Modelling and Simulation 01/2011; 2(4):341 - 366.