ArticlePDF Available

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

Authors:
  • Hatay Mustafa Kemal University

Abstract

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.
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
© Köse B., 2018
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
06
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
48
49
50
51
52
53
LIGHT M ED I U M HEAVY
Eyes opened group
Vert i cal Jump (c m)
*
50.71 50.55 50.54
48
49
50
51
52
53
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
06
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
... Ein weitere Studie die den Effekt von Basketballschuhgewicht auf Sprintgeschwindigkeit und Sprunghöhe analysiert kommt von Köse (2018). 20 männliche Basketballspieler wurden randomisiert zur Hälfte geteilt in eine Gruppe mit "Augen offen" und in eine Gruppe mit "Augen geschlossen". ...
... Die 10m-Sprint-Ergebnisse der Gruppe "Augen offen" mit leichten Schuhen (1,848 ± 0,28 s) war mit einer Quote von 0,5% bzw. 1,6% statistisch besser als die Leistung mit mittleren (1,856 ± 0,36 s) und schweren Schuhen (1,878 ± 0,40 s) (p <0,001) (Köse, 2018). Ein mittelschwerer Schuh verbesserte die Sprintleistung mit 1,2% mehr als ein schwerer Schuh (Köse, 2018). ...
... 1,6% statistisch besser als die Leistung mit mittleren (1,856 ± 0,36 s) und schweren Schuhen (1,878 ± 0,40 s) (p <0,001) (Köse, 2018). Ein mittelschwerer Schuh verbesserte die Sprintleistung mit 1,2% mehr als ein schwerer Schuh (Köse, 2018). Entgegen der Vermutung, in der Gruppe mit "geschlossenen Augen" bewirkte der leichte Schuh (1,856 ± 0,18 s) eine schnellere 10-Meter-Sprintleistung als der schwere Schuh (1,875 ± 0,27 s) mit einer Prozentrate von 1% (Köse, 2018). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
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.
... It can be difficult to know whether a given item is actually improving performance or not, and whether that improvement is coming from physical or psychological mechanisms. For example, several studies have shown that lightweight basketball shoes improve basketballassociated performance (such as vertical jump height) only when the athlete is aware that one pair of shoes is lighter relative to another 1,2 , and can have no impact when athletes are unaware of shoe mass 3,4 . This suggests that product marketing may be more important than product design. ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
... This finding has been supported by other similar studies. Recent study by Köse (2018) verified that the weight difference of 285 g between two shoes has shown a significant effect on 10-m sprint performance. In another study on basketball shoe, it was reported that the shoe within 20% of weight difference did not significantly influence the sprint and cutting performances (Worobets and Wannop, 2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
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.
Article
Full-text available
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.
Article
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.
Article
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.
Article
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.
Article
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.