Table 8. Summary of the studies on shoe upper effect (n=2). |
Reference |
Shoe Conditions |
Tested running Speed (m/s) |
Subject Info (Numbers, Sex, Age, Landing type) |
Testing Protocol |
Outcome |
PEDro Score |
Performance related |
Injury related |
Onodera et al., (2015) |
1. Structured upper (Structure) 2. Minimalistic upper (Minimal) |
2.64-2.91 |
20, M, 33.3, rearfoot striker |
Overground running |
Structure ↑ contact time for total midfoot & lateral forefoot than Minimal; → contact area |
Minimal ↑ PP in total area, rearfoot & medial forefoot than Structure; Minimal ↓ PP at midfoot than Structure |
6 |
Onodera et al., (2017) |
1. Structured upper (Structure). 2. Minimalist upper (Minimal). 3. Low Resilience cushioning material (Low) 4. High Resilience cushioning material (High) |
2.64-2.92 |
27, M, 36.0, Rearfoot striker |
Overground running |
Accuracy higher than 85% was achieved by considering only 25 variables to differentiate upper structures; a mean accuracy of 93.4% with 25 variables, & 95.6% with 150 variables. |
NA |
6 |
|
|