ArticlePDF Available

Does the weight of basketball shoes affect speed and jumping performance?

December 2018
Physical Education of Students 22(6):316-319

DOI:10.15561/20755279.2018.0606

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Hatay Mustafa Kemal University

Purpose: The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of different weights of basketball shoes on speed and jumping performance in male basketball players. Methods: 20 male basketball players in two groups, as eyes open (n:10) and eyes closed (n:10) participated in the study. The two groups performed vertical jump (VJ) and 10m sprint tests with three different weights of shoes (light, 352g; medium, 510g; heavy, 637g). The data were analyzed with Friedman repeated measurements variance analysis. Results: In Vertical Jump test, jumping performance of the eyes open group (EOG) with light shoes was found to be statistically higher as 1.8% and 2.1%, respectively when compared with medium and heavy shoes (p< 0.001). In eyes closed group (ECG), no statistically significant difference was found between any of the 3 shoe weights in vertical jump performance (p>0.005). In 10 meter (m) sprint test, 10 m sprint time of the eyes open group was found to be statistically better as 0.5% and 1.6%, respectively when compared with medium and heavy shoe performance (p<0.001). Medium weight shoe was found to be 1.2% statistically better than heavy shoes (p<0.001). In eyes closed group, light shoes affected 10m sprint performance statistically better with 1% when compared with heavy shoes (p<0.001). Conclusions: Wearing light shoes in basketball has 2.1% and 1.6% positive effect on jumping and sprint performance, respectively. It can increase basketball players’ performance. Choosing light shoes will help provide both psychological and physical advantages.

Content uploaded by Bereket Köse

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Bereket Köse

Content may be subject to copyright.

316

PHYSICAL

EDUCATION

OF STUDENTS

Does the weight of basketball shoes affect

speed and jumping performance?

Köse B.ABCDE

Department of Physical Education and Sport Teaching, School of Physical Education and Sport,

Sirnak University, Turkey

Authors’ Contribution: A – Study design; B – Data collection; C – Statistical analysis; D – Manuscript Preparation;

E – Funds Collection.

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to analyze the eect of dierent weights of basketball shoes on speed and

jumping performance in male basketball players.

Material: 20 male basketball players in two groups, as eyes open (n:10) and eyes closed (n:10) participated in the study.

The two groups performed vertical jump (VJ) and 10m sprint tests with three dierent weights of shoes (light,

352g; medium, 510g; heavy, 637g). The data were analyzed with Friedman repeated measurements variance

analysis.

Results: In Vertical Jump test, jumping performance of the eyes open group (EOG) with light shoes was found to

be statistically higher as 1.8% and 2.1%, respectively when compared with medium and heavy shoes (p<

0.001). In eyes closed group (ECG), no statistically signicant dierence was found between any of the 3 shoe

weights in vertical jump performance (p>0.005). In 10 meter (m) sprint test, 10 m sprint time of the eyes open

group was found to be statistically better as 0.5% and 1.6%, respectively when compared with medium and

heavy shoe performance (p<0.001). Medium weight shoe was found to be 1.2% statistically better than heavy

shoes (p<0.001). In eyes closed group, light shoes aected 10m sprint performance statistically better with

1% when compared with heavy shoes (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Wearing light shoes in basketball has 2.1% and 1.6% positive eect on jumping and sprint performance,

respectively. It can increase basketball players’ performance. Choosing light shoes will help provide both

psychological and physical advantages.

Keywords: Basketball, basketball shoes, footwear, jump, sprint.

Introduction1

In basketball, approximately 997 to 1103 moves are

made during a game [1]. This shows that about 22-25%

of the game period consists of high intensity efforts such

as jumps, technical explosive moves and short sprints

[2]. In each of these high intensity efforts, players need

to produce mechanical actions to speed up and suddenly

slow down the mass of shoe [3]. One should think that

light shoes have a positive effect on performance [4].

Hence, 100 gram decrease in weight decreases the

metabolic cost and maximal oxygen consumption with a

rate of 1%. Wearing light shoes rather than heavy shoes

has been shown to have physiological advantages such

as low oxygen consumption and heart rate [5]. Similarly,

Franz et al. showed that for each 100 g of mass added per

foot, oxygen consumption increased by 0.92% and 1.19%

during barefoot and shod running, respectively [6]. Within

this context, since there are very few studies in literature

in terms of effects of shoe weight on performance the aim

of this study was to determine the effect of shoe weight

on vertical jump and 10 meter sprint performance.

Material and Methods

Subjects. 20 male basketball players who were playing

in the university basketball teams and who were having

training at least 3 days a week (eyes open group: mean

± SD; age 21.8±3 years, body mass 77.4±4.9 kg, height

1.83±4.6 cm; eyes closed group: age 22±1.9 years, body

doi:10.15561/20755279.2018.0606

mass 78.1±3.6 kg, height 1.82±4.9) voluntarily participated

in the study. Athletes who had lower extremity injuries at

least for six months were not included in the study. The

participants were told not to have intense training and

use substances which are considered as ergogenic aid 48

hours prior to the tests. Care was taken to make the tests

at a temperature of 23-24 degrees and at the same hour of

the day. The study was carried out according to the ethical

standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been

approved by Sirnak University ethical board.

Study design. For the study, the weight of one shoe

of each pair was determined as light (352 g), medium

(510 g) and heavy (637g). The intervals of shoe weights

correspond to upper and lower limits of the existing

basketball shoes [4]. The participants were randomly

divided into two groups: eyes open (n:10) and eyes closed

(n:10). The eyes open group was informed before each

test to raise awareness. The eyes closed experimental

group was not informed about the weights of shoes

and the main idea of the study. The experimental group

who were blindfolded during the tests was not allowed

to lift and touch their shoes. The shoes were put on the

participants by the same researcher during the whole

experimental process. After the tests ended, the eye closed

group was explained the purpose of the study. The tests

were performed randomly in the sports hall with intervals

of 24 hours. Randomization was required as it prevented

the effect of adaptation and learning on athletes and thus

results would be effected. The participants carried out the

tests 3 times in total on different days.

2018

317

Experimental measurements. Before the tests, a

15-minute standardized warm up program was conducted

and measurements were performed after a 5-minute rest.

Vertical jump test was measured by using portable platform

(Newtest Power Timer, Finland). The participants were

asked to start the test as half squatting with a knee angle

of 90º, with free hands and the body completely stable.

While the hands of the participants swing up, they jump

as high as possible by taking strength from their knees.

Knees should not be bent at the moment of jumping. The

participants should touch the ground on their heels and

with their knees straight. Before the test, jumps were

performed as a try-out 2 or 3 times at submaximal level.

Later, 3 measurements were taken from each participant

and the best result was recorded. 10m sprint test was

implemented by using photocell (Newtest Power timer,

Finland). 2 photocells were put with a distance of 10m for

the test. The participants started to run from 1m behind

the start photocell and continued until the end of the

second photocell. Before the measurements, necessary

explanation was made to participants. The measurements

were repeated 2 times with intervals of 2 minutes and the

best result were assessed.

Statistical analysis. SPSS- 20 program was used

for the analysis of data. The data of both groups were

calculated with “Friedman Repeated Measurements

Variance Analysis”. In situations where differences were

found as a result of “Friedman” test, “Wilcoxon Paired

Sign Test” was used to nd out which group caused the

difference. P<0.05 condence interval was used for all

statistical procedures.

Result

Vertical jump results are shown in Figure 1. Jump

performance of EOG with light shoes (50.95±2.36 cm)

was found to be statistically higher at a rate of 1.8%

and 2.1%, respectively when compared with medium

(50.04±2.28 cm) and heavy (49.92± 2.26) shoes (p<

Figure 1. Jumping values of eyes open and eyes closed group with 3 different shoe weights. Asterisk mark significant

differences between shoe conditions (p<0.01). cm: centimeter.

50.95

50.04 49.92

LIGHT M ED I U M HEAVY

Eyes opened group

Vert i cal Jump (c m)

50.71 50.55 50.54

LIGHT M ED I U M HEAVY

Eyes closed group

Verti c al Jump (cm )

Figure 2. 10m sprint values of eyes open and eyes closed group with 3 different shoe weights.

Asterisks mark significant differences between shoe conditions (p<0.01). s: Second

1.848

1.856

1.878

1,836

1,846

1,856

1,866

1,876

1,886

1,896

LIGHT M ED I U M HEAVY

Eyes open group

10m Sprint

Time (s) *

1.856

1.865

1.875

1,836

1,846

1,856

1,866

1,876

1,886

1,896

L IGH T ME D IUM HEAVY

Eyes closed group

10m Sprint

Time (s)

318

PHYSICAL

EDUCATION

OF STUDENTS

0.001). No difference was found between medium weight

and heavy shoes (p>0.05). In vertical jump performances

of EOG, no statistically signicant difference was found

between all three shoe weights (light, medium, heavy) (p>

0.353).

Figure 2 shows 10m sprint results. 10m sprint results

of EOG with light shoes (1.848±0.28 s) were found to

be statistically better than the medium (1.856±0.36 s) and

heavy (1.878±0.40 s) shoe performances with a rate of

0.5% and 1.6%, respectively (p<0.001). Medium weight

shoe was found to be 1.2% statistically better than heavy

shoe (p<0.001). In the eyes closed group, light shoe

(1.856±0.18 s) inuenced 10 meter sprint performance

statistically better than heavy shoe (1.875±0.27 s) with a

rate of 1% (p<0.001).

Discussion

The effect of different weights of basketball shoes on

vertical jump performance was compared between two

groups. One group was blindfolded and unaware of the

weight of their shoes, while the other group knew that

their shoe weights were different. In the study, light shoes

of EOG were found to increase VJ performance with a

rate of 1.8% and 2.1%, respectively when compared with

medium and heavy shoes. In the eyes closed group (EOG),

shoe weight was not found to have an inuence on jump

performance. Eyes open group with light shoes showed a

better jump performance. We believe that this created a

placebo effect in performance since athletes’ expectations

against light and medium shoes resulted in positive and

negative psychological factors, respectively. Mohr et al.

compared jump performance in basketball players with

heavy and light shoes. They reported that light shoes

caused 2% increase in eyes open group when compared

with heavy shoes. They added that this increase resulted

in psychologically positive and negative expectations for

light and heavy shoes [4]. In another study, Blanche et

al. reported that heavy shoes decreased jump performance

[7]. Unlike Mohr et al. and Blache et al.; Worobets and

Wannop reported that shoe weight did not increase

jump performance in basketball players [4,7,8]. Jumps

characterize one of the motoric features of a basketball

player and in fact vertical jump ability is a very important

component of performance in basketball [7]. Basketball

players need to jump very quickly and to the highest point

to get the ball from the basket before their opponents and

to stop the opponent’s ball. In the present study, increases

were found in the performance of the group who were not

aware of which shoe weight they jumped with. Increases

were also found in the performance of the eyes closed

group who did not know the shoe weight. These results

showed how important psychological factors can be

and that these psychological factors can affect physical

parameters. Thus, as some of the studies conducted so far

show that light shoe weight can increase vertical jump

and thus can encourage basketball players to wear lighter

shoes. Therefore, the belief of basketball players to have

better performance by wearing light shoes may increase.

One of the remarkable results of the study was that

basketball shoes with different weights affected 10m

sprint performance in both groups. The eyes open group

was found to be statistically better than medium and

heavy shoe performance with a rate of 0.5% and 1.6%,

respectively. Medium weight shoe was found to be 1.2%

better than heavy shoe statistically. In the eyes closed

group, light shoes were found to affect 10 meter sprint

performance 1% better when compared with heavy shoe.

Mohr et al. found 3% performance difference in 10m

sprint time in both eyes open and eyes closed basketball

players who wore light shoes when compared with those

wearing heavy shoes. They stated that performance

advantages of light shoes took place in the rst two or

three steps of sprint start. They also added that these

advantages lasted until the end of 10 meters [4]. Vienneau

et al. reported that basketball players who wore light shoes

presented signicant decreases in oxygen consumption

and energy expenditure when compared with players

who wore medium and heavy shoes [9]. Worobets and

Wannop reported that shoe weight did not affect sprint

performance in basketball players. They also stated that

decreases in shoe weight did not have positive effects on

performance. For these reasons, they concluded that it may

not be a feature that should be taken into consideration

while choosing shoes [8]. Although some studies other

than basketball showed that light shoes increased running

performance and decreased metabolic need [6, 10-12].

Some other studies reported that light shoes did not have

an inuence on running performance [13-17]. In the light

of all these ndings, it can be suggested that wearing light

shoes in basketball can increase sprint performance.

Conclusion

As in all sport branches, the primary objective in

basketball is to win as a team and to maximize individual

performance. Since a game can be won within the last

seconds of the game, seconds and even split seconds

are very important in basketball game. Thus, basketball

coaches should take into consideration every detail

such as technical, tactical, condition, ergogenic aid, and

placebo effect and want to get the maximum efciency

to maximize athletes’ performance. The present study

concluded that better jump performance of the eyes open

group with light shoes created a placebo effect in their

performance increase. The reason of this situation was

that players’ expectations against light and medium shoes

inuenced positive and negative psychological factors. In

jump performance, it is thought that better performance of

both groups with light shoes results from physical factors

rather than psychological factors. The results obtained

show that wearing light shoes in basketball has a positive

inuence of 2.1% and 1.6%, respectively on both jump and

short distance sprint performance. This can also improve

the performance of basketball players. As a conclusion,

preferring light shoes will help male basketball players

to gain both psychological and physical advantage during

the game.

2018

319

Highlights

This study is primarily relevant for coaches and

basketball athletes. This study emphasizes the importance

of a proper blinding of the research participants, as the

results show that psychological factors affect performance

outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The investigator would like to thank all subjects for

their participation in this study.

Financial support

No nancial support.

Conict of interest

The author declares no Conicts of interest concerning

this article.

Information about the author:

Köse B. (Corresponding author); http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5315-9195; bereket.kose@hotmail.com; Department of Physical

Education and Sport Teaching, School of Physical Education and Sport, Sirnak University; Mehmet Emin Acar Campus,

73000-Sirnak, Turkey.

Cite this article as: Köse B. Does the weight of basketball shoes aect speed and jumping performance?. Physical education of

students, 2018;22(6):316–319. doi:10.15561/20755279.2018.0606

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.sportedu.org.ua/index.php/

PES/issue/archive

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits

unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en).

Received: 04.09.2018

Accepted: 11.10.2018; Published: 26.12.2018

References

1. Abdelkrim NB, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. Time–motion

analysis and physiological data of elite under-19-year-

old basketball players during competition. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 2007;41(2):69- 75.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.032318

2. Abdelkrim NB, Castagna C, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. The

effect of players’ standard and tactical strategy on game

demands in men’s basketball. The Journal of Strength

& Conditioning Research, 2010;24(10): 2652- 2662.

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e2e0a3

3. Nigg BM. Biomechanics of Sport Shoes. University of

Calgary; 2010.

4. Mohr M, Trudeau MB, Nigg SR, Nigg BM. Increased

Athletic Performance in Lighter Basketball Shoes:

Shoe or Psychology Effect?. International Journal of

Sports Physiology and Performance, 2016;11(1): 74- 79.

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2014-0538

5. Frederick EC, Daniels JR, Hayes JW. The effect of shoe

weight on the aerobic demands of running. In: Bachl N,

Prokop L, Suckert R. (Eds.) Current Topics in Sports

Medicine, Proceedings of the World Congress of Sports

Medicine. Vienna: Urban and Schwarzenberg; 1984. P. 616-

625,

6. Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R. Metabolic cost of

running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better?. Medicine

& Science in Sports & Exercise, 2012;44(8):1519- 1525.

https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182514a88

7. Blache Y, Beguin A, Monteil K. Effects of various parameters

of basketball shoes on vertical jumping performance:

A case study. Science & Sports, 2011;26(1): 48- 50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2010.08.007

8. Worobets J, Wannop JW. Inuence of basketball shoe mass,

outsole traction, and forefoot bending stiffness on three athletic

movements. Sports Biomechanics, 2015; 14(3):351- 360.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2015.1084031

9. Vienneau J, Tomaras EK, Nigg S, Nigg BM. Effect of

basketball shoes of different weights on performance in

a game-like scenario. In ISBS-Conference Proceedings

Archive, 2016;33(1):735-738.

10. Divert C, Mornieux G, Freychat P, Baly L, Mayer F, Belli

A. Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect?.

International Journal of Sports Medicine, 2008;29(6);512- 518.

https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-989233

11. Cheung RT, Ngai SP. Effects of footwear on running economy

in distance runners: A meta-analytical review. Journal

of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2016;19(3):260- 266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.03.002

12. Ayarra R, Nakamura FY, Iturricastillo A, Castillo

D, Yanci J. Differences in Physical Performance

According to the Competitive Level in Futsal Players.

Journal of Human Kinetics. 2018;64(1):275-285.

https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0201

13. Sterzing T, Müller C, Hennig EM, Milani TL. Actual and

perceived running performance in soccer shoes: A series

of eight studies. Footwear Science, 2009;1(1):5- 17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19424280902915350

14. Menger B, Kannenberg A, Petersen W, Zantop

T, Rembitzki I, Stinus H. Effects of a novel foot-

ankle orthosis in the non-operative treatment of

unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Archives of

Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2016;136(9):1281-1287.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2500-2

15. Sharp JS, Poole SF, Kleiman BW. Optical Measurement

of Contact Forces Using Frustrated Total Internal

Reection. Physical Review Applied. 2018;10(3).

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.10.034051

16. Ullah A, Shah M. Incapacitated decision making power,

over emphasized obedience and its exclusionary effects on

children. Journal of Social Inclusion. 2016;7(2).

17. Zhang HL, Cui XJ, Cao SL, Zhang Q, Sang SB, Zhang

WD. Human Body as a Power Source for Biomechanical

Energy Scavenging Based on Electrode-Free Triboelectric

Nanogenerators. Energy Technology. 2018;6(10):2053-2057.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201800162

The Role of Footwear Design in Basketball

Thesis

Full-text available

Mar 2021

Daniel Niedermeyer

Optimal physical performance and the absence of injury to athletes are essential for success in the sport of basketball. Functional footwear design concepts have been created by industry and academia with the aim of reducing the risk of injury and improving athletic performance in basketball. This scientific review explores and analyzes the effect of different basketball shoe design modifications on biomechanical changes of the athlete's lower extremity during typical basketball movements. Implications for injury prevention and performance in basketball are then discussed based on the findings of the effect of basketball shoe design modifications. A systematic literature search was conducted to find scientific studies on functional design concepts of the basketball shoe. After evaluating the literature search the results were categorized based on the following design modifications: cushioning systems, midsole hardness, midsole bending stiffness, torsional stiffness, collar height and shoe mass. Results: A softer basketball shoe cushioning system or softer midsole can minimize stressful impact forces on the athlete and reduce the risk of overuse injury especially during uncontrolled ground landings and high landing heights. Cushioning systems or changes in midsole hardness of the basketball shoe can affect the magnitudes of ground reaction forces and plantar maximum pressures during basketball movements. Whether the effect of the higher basketball shoe upper significantly improves ankle stability and thus reduces ankle sprains cannot be clarified based on current data. Manipulating the bending stiffness of the basketball shoe's midsole can lead to improved performance in basketball movements. Also an improvement in performance of basketball movements can be expected up to a certain limit range of the traction coefficient due to an increase in the traction character- istics of the outsole. Within the weight range of commercially available basketball shoes, mass does not influence basketball-specific performance in the non-fatigued athlete. However, reduced shoe mass can provide a positive performance effect assuming the reduced shoe mass is associated with positive expectations and beliefs. The presented articles prove that some designed construction concepts of the basketball shoe provide functional benefits during basketball play. Nevertheless there are discrepancies in the study results for "well-established" functional modification concepts such as cushioning systems, midsole hardness, midsole bending stiffness and basketball shoe upper height. The complex interrelationship between the various shoe modifications in the basketball shoe as well as the interaction with human factors makes the interpretation of the findings difficult. Further structured research will additionally provide understanding for basketball shoe development.

Jumpers’ Subjective Perception of Footwear, but not Jump Performance, is Influenced Influenced in a Placebo-Like Manner by a Retail Orthotic

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021

Introduction: Within the realm of sports and exercise, athletes have a desire to improve performance and a common strategy is via equipment. In this study, the performance effects and wearer perception of a butadiene and natural rubber retail orthotic was investigated. Methods: A total of 38 subjects (20 females and 18 males) were included. Subjects performed all tasks twice in identical shoes that differed in whether the orthotic was present or absent. Subjects were divided equally into two groups. In the Aware group (AWG), subjects were told which shoes contained the orthotic and which did not; in the Unaware group (UAWG), condition was not disclosed to them. Measurements included maximum vertical jump and broad jump performance, goniometry (dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, inversion, eversion), and several perceptual measurements (shoe comfort, shoe stability, shoe cushioning, and jump performance). Results: Across both groups, there were no significant differences for orthotic versus control in maximum vertical jump performance (18.15.7 in. for orthotic, 18.46.2 in. for control), broad jump performance (71.419.3 in. for orthotic, 70.219.5 for control), goniometry measurements, or performance perception. There were no differences in footwear perception scores between orthotic versus control in the UAWG, however, there were significant differences in the AWG such that they rated the orthotic condition as more comfortable after both jumps and more cushioned after the broad jump compared to control. Conclusions: Since there was no significant differences in jump performance, goniometry measurements, or performance perception in either group, and differences in footwear perception were seen only in the UAWG, results may indicate a placebo-like effect.

The Influence of Forefoot Bending Stiffness of Futsal Shoes on Multiple V-Cut Run Performance

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

A forefoot bending stiffness (FBS) property of footwear is known to benefit athletes in running performance. To date, the efficacy of bending stiffness on performance is rather unknown from the perspective of futsal shoes. This study investigates the influence of bending stiffness property of three commercial futsal shoes on change of direction run resultant performance. Nineteen university level athletes participated in the human performance test (multiple V-cut change of direction run) on a hardwood flooring facility using three pairs of futsal shoes (i.e., S1, S2, and S3) with different models but similar in outsole material (S1—mass: 311 g, heel-to-toe drop: 10 mm, friction coefficient, 1.25; S2—mass: 232 g, heel-to-toe drop: 8 mm, friction coefficient: 1.34; and S3—mass: 276 g, heel-to-toe drop: 7 mm, friction coefficient: 1.30). The FBS properties for each shoe were mechanically measured. Results from the analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference of FBS value among the three shoes (S1: 0.32 Nm/deg., S2: 0.26 Nm/deg., and S3: 0.36 Nm/deg.) [F(2,8) = 28.50 (p < 0.001)]. Shoes with relatively higher shoe-playing surface friction coefficient (S2 and S3) had significant impact on the V-cut performance (p < 0.05) when compared with the shoe with lower friction coefficient (S1). In contrast to the literature, the shoe with the lowest FBS (S2) did not suffer any detriments on the resultant performance in the test conducted. These findings suggested that there could be other performance limiting factors, such as the friction coefficient, rather than FBS that have greater influence on the test outcomes.

Comparison of ground reaction force and contact time during various-direction lunges between badminton shoes without and with a lateral forefoot wedge sole

Article

Dec 2023

This study compared the ground reaction force (GRF), GRF ratio, and contact time between badminton shoes without and with a lateral forefoot wedge sole during lunges in three directions. Fifteen collegiate athletes wore forefoot wedge shoes (5° incline) and control shoes without a lateral forefoot wedge sole (in random order) and performed three typical badminton lunge movements (forward, lateral, and backward directions). A total of nine GRF, GRF ratio, and contact time parameters were analyzed. A paired t test was performed to assess the differences between two shoes. The significance level was set at p < 0.0056 (0.05/9) based on Bonferroni correction to avoid chances of type 1 errors. In the forward lunge, the forefoot wedge shoes resulted in a significantly higher average vertical ground reaction force (GRFv, 3.9%), average horizontal GRF (GRFh, 7.8%) in the braking phase and higher average GRFh (3.9%) in the propulsion phase than the control shoes. In the lateral lunge, the forefoot wedge shoes resulted in a significantly shorter total contact time (−4.6%) than the control shoes in the backward lunge, the forefoot wedge shoes resulted in a significantly higher GRFh to GRFv ratio (6.4%) in the braking phase compared with the control shoes. Thus, shoes with a lateral forefoot wedge sole can effectively enhance mechanical performance in direction changes during forward and backward badminton lunges, and shorter the contact time during lateral badminton lunges. Shoes with a lateral forefoot wedge sole can be considered when designing athletic footwear.

Effect of using Weighted Balls on Performance Speed in Wheelchair Basketball Players

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2021

The researchers seek to identify the impact of weighted balls on performance speed in wheelchair basketball players. An experimental method has been used in conformity with research nature between pre-tests and post-tests sample. The sample was selected by the intended manner and divided into two equal groups (10 players experimental sample, 10 players control sample) for the 2019/2020 sports season. A speed test (5 m and 20 m without ball), speed test (5 m and 20 m with ball) were used. After statistical treatment of the results, the researchers concluded: The weighted balls are important to develop performance speed in wheelchair basketball players, and the best improvement of the experimental group based on of weighted balls is marked comparing to the control group. A regular physical training with weighted balls is very important to improve of performance speed of persons with disabilities in basketball game.

Incapacitated decision making power, over emphasized obedience and its exclusionary effects on children

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2016

Optical Measurement of Contact Forces Using Frustrated Total Internal Reflection

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2018

A simple device based on the principle of frustrated total internal reflection is used to image the regions of contact between rubber objects and a large-area perspex waveguide. Measurements of the intensity of light scattered at the interface are found to depend upon the magnitude of the applied force, the mechanical properties of the contacting material, and the roughness of the contacting objects. The intensity-force response is found to have the same functional dependence irrespective of the position on the waveguide surface, but to scale by an amount that is proportional to the local intensity of light incident on the perspex-object interface. Once this spatial variation in intensity is calibrated, the waveguide can be used to perform optical measurements of the forces/pressures exerted on the surface of the waveguide and to generate spatial maps of the pressure at frame rates up to 200 Hz. The resulting optical force platform is used to measure the time-dependent evolution of the pressure distribution beneath a foot and a sports shoe during a foot-strike event. A simple theory is developed to describe the light-scattering phenomenon and to explain the relationship between the scattered light intensity and the applied force.

Differences in Physical Performance According to the Competitive Level in Futsal Players

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2018

The purpose of the present study was to describe performance in acceleration capacity, change of direction ability, vertical jump, horizontal jump, repeated sprint ability, and endurance (Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1) in futsal players, and analyze the differences according to competitive categories or levels. The total sample (n = 40) was divided into three groups depending on the category in which the participants competed: Second Division B (n = 15), Third Division (n = 12) and juniors (n = 13). All the tests were performed with participants’ regular competition shoes and on the usual playing surface, in an indoor pavilion with a floating wood floor. The results of the study did not show significant differences in acceleration capacity (5 and 15 m) or change of direction ability among the different categories. In contrast, significant differences were found among the categories with regard to horizontal jump and vertical jump capacity (p < 0.05); but not in all the variables analyzed. Performance in repeat sprint ability varied significantly among the different categories in 30 m (p < 0.01) but not in 5 m (p > 0.05). The distance covered in the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 by the Second Division B and the Third Division groups was greater than that covered by the junior group. In the light of these results repeated sprint ability and aerobic endurance could be two discriminating qualities of the competitive level among different futsal categories.

Effects of a novel foot–ankle orthosis in the non-operative treatment of unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2016
ARCH ORTHOP TRAUM SU

Introduction: Unloader braces are non-surgical treatment options for patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, many patients do not adhere to brace treatment because of complications related to discomfort and poor fit. An alternative to knee bracing is an ankle-foot orthosis (AFO) with a lever arm that presses the lower leg into valgus or varus. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical benefits of this AFO for patients with unicompartmental knee OA. Materials and methods: Twenty-three patients with knee OA were enrolled in this observational study. The primary clinical outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total score. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC subscores, visual analogue pain scale, activity restriction and complication rate. Clinical scores were collected at start and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after enrollment. Statistical evaluation was performed using the Student's t test. Results: Of the patients enrolled, 83 % suffered from medial compartment OA. Most patients had Grade II OA according to the Kellgren and Lawrence classification. WOMAC total score, both subscores and visual analogue pain scale were significantly improved over time. Patients also noted a reduction in restrictions to activities of daily living and sport-related activities while using the AFO. No patients discontinued orthosis use because of adverse effects. Two types of complications were noted: discomfort or light pressure sores around the ankle (7 patients), and wear and tear of the shoe in which the AFO was worn (14 patients). Conclusions: This observational study suggests that this AFO is effective at significantly reducing pain and stiffness as well as improving the physical function of patients with mild to moderate unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee.

EFFECT OF BASKETBALL SHOES OF DIFFERENT WEIGHTS ON PERFORMANCE IN A GAME-LIKE SCENARIO

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jul 2015

Lighter shoes have been shown to improve running economy; however this same phenomenon has not been investigated in basketball shoes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the physiological effects of basketball shoes of different masses during an on-court, game like scenario. Twelve male basketball players participated in this study. One shoe that was modified to have three different masses (Light, Medium, and Heavy) was evaluated in this study. Subjects completed a basketball-specific 20 minute field-based work protocol (Basketball-20) in each shoe on three different days while five physiological variables of interest were collected. The light shoe condition resulted in significantly lower oxygen consumption, ventilation, and rate of energy expenditure than the medium and heavy conditions.

Increased Athletic Performance in Lighter Basketball Shoes: Shoe or Psychology Effect?

Article

Full-text available

May 2015

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of shoe mass on performance in basketball specific movements and how this effect changes if an athlete is aware or not of the shoe's mass relative to other shoes. In an experimental design, 22 male participants were assigned to two groups. In the "aware" group, differences in the mass of the shoes were disclosed, while participants in the other group were blinded to the mass of shoes. For both groups lateral shuffle-cut and vertical-jump performances were quantified in 3 different basketball shoe conditions (light = 352±18.4g; medium = 510±17g; heavy = 637±17.7g). A mixed ANOVA compared mean shuffle-cut and vertical-jump performances across shoes and groups. For blinded participants, perceived shoe weight ratings were collected and compared across shoe conditions using a Friedman two-way ANOVA. In the aware group, performance in the light shoes was significantly increased by 2% (vertical-jump: 2 %, p<0.001; shuffle-cut: 2.1 %, p<0.001) compared to the heavy shoes. In the blind group, participants were unable to perceive the shoe weight variation between conditions and there were no significant differences in vertical-jump and shuffle-cut performance across shoes. Differences in performance of the aware participants were most likely due to psychological effects such as positive and negative expectancies towards the light and heavy shoes, respectively. These results underline the importance for coaches and shoe manufacturers to communicate the performance enhancing benefits of products or other interventions to the athletes to optimize the performance outcome.

Human Body as Power Outlets for Biomechanical Energy Scavenging Based on Electrode-Free Triboelectric Nanogenerators

Article

Mar 2018

We demonstrate a human body based electrode‐free triboelectric nanogenerator which is capable of grabbing biomechanical energy by triboelectrification between human body and polymer cloth. A PTFE film with nanostructured surface serves as one triboelectric layer, while the human body plays a dual role of both a triboelectric layer and natural electrode in electricity generation. Due to the appropriate conductivity of human body, the generated electricity can be acquired from any part of human body. Because the human body can serve as a natural electrode, our generator nearly can grab energies from any human motions. The output voltage can be up to 25 V during usual running at a loading resistance of 50 MΩ, which is totally enough to light up LEDs and time. Owing to the adaptive configuration, our designed TENGs can be potentially applied in self‐powered emergency disposal in outdoor sports or field survival.

Influence of basketball shoe mass, outsole traction, and forefoot bending stiffness on three athletic movements

Article

Jul 2015

Prior research has shown that footwear can enhance athletic performance. However, public information is not available on what basketball shoe properties should be selected to maximise movement performance. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of basketball shoe mass, outsole traction, and forefoot bending stiffness on sprinting, jumping, and cutting performance. Each of these three basketball shoe properties was systematically varied by ±20% to produce three shoe conditions of varying mass, three conditions of varying traction, and three conditions of varying bending stiffness. Each shoe was tested by 20 recreational basketball players completing maximal effort sprints, vertical jumps, and a cutting drill. Outsole traction had the largest influence on performance, as the participants performed significantly worse in all tests when traction was decreased by 20% (p < 0.001), and performed significantly better in the cutting drill when traction was increased by 20% (p = 0.005). Forefoot bending stiffness had a moderate effect on sprint and cutting performance (p = 0.013 and p = 0.016 respectively) and shoe mass was found to have no effect on performance. Therefore, choosing a shoe with relatively high outsole traction and forefoot bending stiffness should be prioritised, and less concern should be focused on selecting the lightest shoe.

Effects of footwear on running economy in distance runners: A meta-analytical review

Article

Mar 2015
J SCI MED SPORT

Previous studies reported inconsistent findings about the effects of footwear on running economy, which is a surrogate measure of running performance. This meta-analytical review compared the running economy between running in barefoot, minimalists, and standard running shoes. Meta-analysis. Electronic searches on MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library databases were performed and the reference lists of the screened articles were also scrutinized. Two reviewers screened clinical trials that measured the oxygen cost of runners in different footwear conditions. Thirteen studies were selected in this meta-analysis with a total of 168 runners included. Barefoot running was shown to be more economic than shod running (p<0.01; standardized mean difference=-0.43; 95% Confidence Interval=-0.21 to -0.64; Z=3.96). Similar pattern was found when comparing minimalist and shoe (p<0.01; standardized mean difference=-0.49; 95% Confidence Interval=-0.29 to -0.70; Z=4.64). The observed changes were of small effect. Conversely, no significant difference in the metabolic cost was found between running in minimalists and barefoot running (p=0.45). Barefoot running or running in minimalist may require lower utilization of oxygen than shod running. Theoretically, the lower oxygen cost may improve long distance running performance. However, more than half of the runners in the included studies had previous barefoot experience and the findings may not apply to those habitual shod runners who are undergoing the transition. In addition, high risk of bias was reported in the included studies and quality study in the future is still warranted. Copyright © 2015 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effects of various parameters of basketball shoes on vertical jumping performance: A case study

Article

Feb 2011
SCI SPORT

Introduction L’objectif de cette étude est d’analyser l’influence du port des chaussures de basketball sur la performance en sauts verticaux. Synthèse des faits Un basketteur était filmé réalisant un squat jump, un contre mouvement jump standardisé et un contre mouvement jump libre. La condition pieds nus ainsi que huit paires de chaussures étaient testées. Conclusion La plus haute hauteur de saut était atteinte pieds nus. L’interaction « haut + lourd » altère la performance des sauts verticaux. Cette diminution serait liée à une modification des coordinations et à une plus faible amplitude articulaire des articulations des membres inférieurs.