Different soccer stud configurations effect on running and cutting movements

Dong Sun, Yaodong Gu, Qichang Mei, Julien S. Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
380 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test for differences in performance and injury risks between three different outsole configuration soccer shoes on natural turf. A total of 14 experienced soccer players participated in the tests. Participants were asked to complete tasks of straight-ahead running and 45° left sidestep cutting respectively at the speed of 5.0±0.2 m/s on natural turf. They selected soccer shoes with firm ground design (FG), artificial ground design (AG) and turf cleats (TF) randomly. During 45° cut, FG showed significantly smaller peak knee flexion and greater abduction angles than TF. FG showed significant greater peak horizontal ground reaction force (GRF) and average required traction ratio compared with AG and TF. FG may offer a performance benefit on artificial turf compared to AG and TF on natural turf. However, increased knee valgus angle and decreased knee flexion angle of FG may increase knee loading and risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Higher vertical average loading rate and excessive plantar pressure of FG may also resulted in calluses observed in plantar skin, forefoot pain or even metatarsal stress fracture. In summary, FG would enhance athletic performance on natural turf, but also may undertake higher risks of non-contact injuries compared with AG and TF.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-32
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
Volume24
Issue number1
Early online date24 Apr 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 24 Apr 2017

Keywords

  • stud configurations
  • running
  • cutting
  • natural turf

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Different soccer stud configurations effect on running and cutting movements'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this