Can increasing footwear bending stiffness ameliorate age-related mechanical and metabolic deficits in walking?


Abstract

Older adults consume metabolic energy faster than their younger adult counterparts while walking, particularly on sloped terrain. This increased rate is likely in part due to an age-related shift in moment and power production from the ankle joint to the hip. Shifting these mechanics proximally may occur due to older adults losing more mechanical energy at the foot and producing lower ankle joint moments, deficits that are exaggerated when walking uphill or against impeding forces. A promising method to target these foot and ankle mechanics is increasing footwear longitudinal bending stiffness via carbon fiber insoles. We examined how increasing footwear stiffness alters older adult (9F/10M, 70 ± 5.9 yrs) walking energetics across slopes. Increasing footwear stiffness indeed reduced the magnitude of negative power from the distal foot+shoe structures but increased negative power of the foot+shoe system as a whole. At the ankle, peak joint moment increased by ~10% in the stiffest footwear compared with the baseline standardized shoe. Neither knee and hip mechanics nor net metabolic power were consistently affected by footwear stiffness. These results indicate that increasing older adult footwear stiffness via flat carbon fiber insoles helps to address some age-related deficits in foot and ankle mechanics but does not result in a clear attenuation of the age-related distal to proximal shift in joint mechanics. However, stiffer footwear allows older adults to produce greater ankle joint moments without incurring a metabolic penalty, which could have important implications for walking speed, propulsion, fatigue resistance, and balance recovery capacity.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].