Showing 2 results for Walking
Dr Siavash Etemadi Nejad, Saed Ahmadi Ganjeh, Dr Jamshid Yazdani Charati, Dr Seyed Esmaeil Hoseininejad,
Volume 6, Issue 4 (3-2019)
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of unstable shoes on lower limb kinetic parameters of walking in healthy male students with different geometric shapes. Today, various shoes have been developed to reduce the effects of injury parameters and improve performance parameters for walking.
Methods: 20 of the healthy male lambs were selected 178.96 ± 3.92 cm, 27 ± 3 years old, 73.99 ± 6.6 kg and 42 (EU) number, in four position, domestic production unstable shoes , foreign Similar unstable shoes, regular control shoes, and barefoot, The Kinetic parameters associated with Lower limbs was evaluated by force plate while walking. To examine the significant statistical differences between dependent variables between the four conditions of foot cover, the general linear model and the analysis of variance with repeated data and / or Friedman in the case of normalization of data in the alpha level of 5% using software version 23 SPSS was used.
Results: In relation to the kenetic parameters of the lower extremity, there was no change in the peak Postereior Force and the peak active force in the case when there was a significant change in the peak passive force and peak anterior Force and and the free movment and loading rate.
Conculosion: The results indicate to the domestic production unstable shoes inefficiency in reducing the damage and increasing the comfort of the lower limbs.
Saeed Ilbeigi, Zahra Karimi, Abbass Farjad Pezeshk,
Volume 13, Issue 2 (9-2025)
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Backpacks with pelvic belts are commonly used for carrying loads during long treks and mountaineering, as they help distribute the load between the upper and lower body and reduce muscular effort. However, they may also restrict movement. This study aimed to compare three common pelvic belt mechanisms in backpacks regarding their effects on postural control and center of pressure (COP) parameters during standing and walking.
Methods: This semi-experimental study was conducted on 20 male physical education students aged 19 to 25. Participants used three types of backpacks (1–with a movable pelvic belt, 2–with a crossed-frame back support, and 3–a regular backpack) while carrying a standard 13 kg load on a flat surface. A walking test without a backpack was also conducted as a control. COP indicators—including area, displacement, velocity, and sway—were measured. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and statistical comparisons were made using repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests.
Findings: No significant differences were observed among the backpacks in terms of COP area during standing and walking. However, during eyes-closed standing, significant differences were found in COP displacement and velocity in the anterior-posterior direction (p=0.009), particularly between the regular backpack and the one with a movable pelvic belt. For COP sway (p=0.030), significant differences were found among the three backpacks in the medial-lateral direction, though pairwise comparisons showed no statistical significance.
Conclusion: The backpack with a movable pelvic belt showed superior performance in minimizing COP sway, displacement, and velocity. Differences in pelvic belt designs become more evident under higher complexity postural tasks.
