Amazoniac
Member
Right of the batch I must comment that this is not to disdain the psychological effect that dressing like a warrior has, but there's a foolish side of it that deserves mention.
One of the images below contains a casual boot, can you tell which is it?
That's the picture that I have in mind when I find guys wearing heavy-duty boots on urban areas whose surfaces are so smooth and leveled that they could be used as ice skating shoes instead.
As you know, boots are usually made for tough conditions, to prevent objects from piercing through sole, to be stabilizing on challenging terrains, protect from animals, be impermeable, and so on. These features are present at the expense of factors such as mobility, you'll be wearing an archaic orthopedic cast for most of your day. The exceptional products of this category are still inappropriate for what they're being used in cities.
It's worth being wary about their effects because it can be one more unnecessary (and avoidable) stress. However when taken into account how less potent you feel in not wearing them and the decrease in chances of procreation, the stress may be considered necessary.
- Work boot design affects the way workers walk: A systematic review of the literature
@firebreather, you can find discussions specific to your case, there should be ways to minimize issues.
- A History of Medical Scientists on High Heels (it's impressive the number of publications available on this topic)
One of the images below contains a casual boot, can you tell which is it?
That's the picture that I have in mind when I find guys wearing heavy-duty boots on urban areas whose surfaces are so smooth and leveled that they could be used as ice skating shoes instead.
As you know, boots are usually made for tough conditions, to prevent objects from piercing through sole, to be stabilizing on challenging terrains, protect from animals, be impermeable, and so on. These features are present at the expense of factors such as mobility, you'll be wearing an archaic orthopedic cast for most of your day. The exceptional products of this category are still inappropriate for what they're being used in cities.
It's worth being wary about their effects because it can be one more unnecessary (and avoidable) stress. However when taken into account how less potent you feel in not wearing them and the decrease in chances of procreation, the stress may be considered necessary.
- Work boot design affects the way workers walk: A systematic review of the literature
"Safety boots are compulsory in many occupations to protect the feet of workers from undesirable external stimuli, particularly in harsh work environments. The unique environmental conditions and varying tasks performed in different occupations necessitate a variety of boot designs to match each worker’s occupational safety and functional requirements. Unfortunately, safety boots are often designed more for occupational safety at the expense of functionality and comfort. In fact, there is a paucity of published research investigating the influence that specific variations in work boot design have on fundamental tasks common to many occupations, such as walking."
"Interactions among the supporting surface, shoe and human body create a three-part system whereby changes in footwear can influence walking (Frederick, 1986). Substantial research exists documenting how different non-work related footwear types influence biomechanical variables that characterise walking, such as kinematics (joint ranges of motion, segmental alignment and temporal-spatial patterns), kinetics (ground reaction forces, joint moments and plantar pressure distributions) and electromyography (muscle activity patterns). For example, numerous studies have identified differences in variables characterising walking between shod and barefoot conditions (Bishop et al., 2006; Bonacci et al., 2013; Shakoor and Block, 2006), shoes of varying sole hardness/texture (Demura and Demura, 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Kersting et al., 2005; Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005; Wakeling et al., 2002), differences between standard and athletic shoes (Bourgit et al., 2008; Kong et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2011) and unstable footwear (Myers et al., 2006; Nigg et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2012)."
"Boot design can alter the way the foot moves while walking, affecting the way the ground reaction forces are distributed throughout the lower limb (Redfern et al., 2001). If the lower limb is forced to move in a way that opposes its natural structural alignment, excess strain can be placed on the supporting anatomical structures, such as the ligaments, tendons and muscles, to maintain equilibrium (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Hamill and Bensel, 1996; Neely, 1998)."
"Walking in pull-up bunker firefighting boots (see Figure 4), compared to low-cut running shoes, significantly reduced ball of foot flexion-extension and ankle plantar flexion-dorsiflexion range of motion (in both directions) in the sagittal plane (8 male and 4 female firefighters; Park et al., 2015). Ball of foot and ankle range of motion are vital during walking as these movements facilitate push-off for pre-swing, clearing the ground during mid-swing and absorption of the ground reaction force during initial contact (Whittle, 2007). Limited range of motion during these phases could lead to an abnormal walking pattern where stumbling and falling are likely to occur, particularly on uneven surfaces typically seen in occupations where high shafted work boots are mandatory (Park et al., 2015)."
"Evidence is available that implicates boot shaft height influences foot mobility, and consequently stability, when individuals walk. Again, differences in boot design features other than shaft height were present and only limited biomechanical variables characterising walking were collected (see Table 2). For example, when 30 young participants (15 men; 25.5 ± 5.6 years of age; 77.8 ± 13.7 kg mass; 1.78 ± 0.06 m height and 15 women; 22.5 ± 1.6 years of age; 64.4 ± 4.1 kg mass; 1.63 ± 0.08 m height) marched and ran in several different types of work and leisure boots with varying shaft heights, footwear had a significant effect on the mobility of their feet (see Figure 4; Hamill and Bensel, 1996). When the participants wore a Nike cross trainer boot or a Reebok Pump boot they displayed significantly greater movement of their centre of pressure than when they wore other boot types (combat military boot, jungle military boot and Red Wing work boot)."
"The influence of boot shaft height on ankle stability, however, appears to be context specific. For example, elevating and tilting the narrow plank, in the study by Simeonov et al. (2008) described above, increased the participants’ rearfoot angular velocities, which were unexpectedly more pronounced while participants wore boots with a higher shaft compared to boots with a lower shaft height (Simeonov et al., 2008). The authors speculated this unexpected result was caused by an interaction of the higher boot shaft with the ankle joint when the plank was tilted, resulting in additional moments and lateral forces being generated, leading to instability. It was suggested that a higher boot shaft with more flexibility might dampen the generation of additional moments and lateral forces so when a boot shaft is tilted at an angle, i.e. when walking on a sloped surface, it would not have such a direct impact on ankle joint motion (Simeonov et al., 2008). Indeed, military and work boots with a higher boot shaft, compared to footwear with a low shaft, have been shown to limit ankle dorsiflexion, restricting ankle range of motion and, in turn, leading to slower times when study participants completed an agility course (Hamill and Bensel, 1996). Restricted ankle motion was thought to influence shank movement, therefore leading to slower performance times when participants planted their foot to change direction (Hamill and Bensel, 1996)."
"Manipulation of shaft stiffness in hiking boots (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Cikajlo and Matjacić, 2007), military boots (Hamill and Bensel, 1996) and basketball boots (Robinson et al., 1986) has been found to significantly alter ankle range of motion. A more flexible shaft increased ankle range of motion during walking and a stiffer shaft reduced it. The amount of ankle range of motion allowed by a boot shaft appears crucial to both efficient biomechanics, as well as reducing lower limb injury occurrence. Although adequate ankle range of motion is vital to efficient gait, excessive ankle motion is potentially problematic because it causes the joint to rely on secondary anatomical structures, such as the muscles and ligaments, for support (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Hamill and Bensel, 1996), increasing the risk of lower limb sprain/strain injuries (Neely, 1998)."
"There is relatively strong evidence suggesting that restricted ankle joint motion during walking can have negative implications for the more proximal joints of the lower limb, such as the knee."
"Boot mass is the most variable element of work boot design and can typically range between 1 and 4 kg (Chiou et al., 2012; Dobson et al., 2015; Garner et al., 2013; Nunns et al., 2012). The mass of a work boot is dependent on a multitude of design features such as the boot material, presence of a steel cap, height of the shaft, type of sole and other boot design features illustrated in Figure 1. Changing just one of these design features, even slightly, can have a substantial impact on boot mass, explaining the high variability in this design parameter."
"[..]heavier footwear has been shown to alter the way individuals walk, particularly kinematic parameters characterising walking and oxygen consumption (Jones et al., 1984; Majumdar et al., 2006)." "Increases in boot mass [appear] to cause a loss of control at initial contact and mid-swing, as well as requiring more energy to move the heavier boot (Chiou et al., 2012)."
"Walking on a treadmill in a heavier combat boot (1 kg) [] led to increased vastus medialis muscle activity over a 30 min time period when compared to a rain boot (0.80 kg) and Converse sneaker (0.71 kg; see Figure 4; Kim et al., 2015)."
"Energy expenditure while walking can increase by 0.7-1% for every 100 g increase in footwear mass (Jones et al., 1984)."
"Although boot mass differences are the most likely explanation for the reduced performances in postural sway reported by Garner et al. (2013), other boot design features such as differences in boot materials cannot be discounted as potential contributing factors. As discussed in previous sections of this paper, a rubber boot has a more flexible shaft than a leather boot. This between-boot difference in shaft stiffness can influence ankle motion and/or proprioception at the ankle joint and, in turn, influence lower limb mediated responses to postural sway." "Although research related to boot mass predominantly focuses on negative implications associated with heavier work boots, no study has investigated whether a work boot could be too light."
"Sole flexibility is the ability of the sole of a shoe to flex. The amount of flexibility in a work boot sole is primarily determined by the materials used to construct the layers of the sole, which will also determine its thickness, elasticity, texture and padding (Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005). An abundance of literature has documented the influence of variations in shoe sole flexibility on variables characterising gait (Demura and Demura, 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Kersting et al., 2005; Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005; Wakeling et al., 2002) and oxygen consumption (Roy and Stefanyshyn, 2006)."
"Despite differences in boot mass, firefighter boots with a more flexible sole have been shown to result in significant reductions in absolute and relative oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production when participants stepped over obstacles compared to when wearing a boot with a less flexible sole (Chiou et al., 2012). The authors of the study speculated that a more flexible sole enhanced ankle joint movement and, subsequently, power generation, which ultimately reduced metabolic and respiratory cost. Dobson et al. (2015) also found that participants who walked in a boot with a more flexible sole required less muscle activity to maintain the same walking pattern than when they walked wearing a boot with a stiffer sole. These boots, however, again differed in mass, with the stiffer soled boot weighing more than the flexible soled boot (Dobson et al., 2015)."
"It is speculated that forefoot stiffness in certain work boots requires increased metatarsal flexion to accomplish enough power generation at toe-off to propel the body forward during walking (Hamill and Bensel, 1996)."
"The sole flexibility of army boots has further been associated with the occurrence of other lower limb overuse injuries. Compared to two athletic shoes (a cross-trainer and a running shoes), significantly greater impact loading was generated when participants wore an army combat boot with a stiffer sole (see Figure 4; Sinclair and Taylor, 2014). This greater impact loading in the army boot was accompanied by increased ankle joint eversion and tibial internal rotation. These kinematic variables that were associated with higher impact loading, ankle joint eversion and tibial rotation, have been identified as risk factors for developing musculoskeletal injuries such as plantar fasciitis and iliotibial band syndrome when individuals perform repetitive activities like prolonged walking and marching (Neely, 1998; Sinclair and Taylor, 2014)."
"Interactions among the supporting surface, shoe and human body create a three-part system whereby changes in footwear can influence walking (Frederick, 1986). Substantial research exists documenting how different non-work related footwear types influence biomechanical variables that characterise walking, such as kinematics (joint ranges of motion, segmental alignment and temporal-spatial patterns), kinetics (ground reaction forces, joint moments and plantar pressure distributions) and electromyography (muscle activity patterns). For example, numerous studies have identified differences in variables characterising walking between shod and barefoot conditions (Bishop et al., 2006; Bonacci et al., 2013; Shakoor and Block, 2006), shoes of varying sole hardness/texture (Demura and Demura, 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Kersting et al., 2005; Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005; Wakeling et al., 2002), differences between standard and athletic shoes (Bourgit et al., 2008; Kong et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2011) and unstable footwear (Myers et al., 2006; Nigg et al., 2006; Scott et al., 2012)."
"Boot design can alter the way the foot moves while walking, affecting the way the ground reaction forces are distributed throughout the lower limb (Redfern et al., 2001). If the lower limb is forced to move in a way that opposes its natural structural alignment, excess strain can be placed on the supporting anatomical structures, such as the ligaments, tendons and muscles, to maintain equilibrium (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Hamill and Bensel, 1996; Neely, 1998)."
"Walking in pull-up bunker firefighting boots (see Figure 4), compared to low-cut running shoes, significantly reduced ball of foot flexion-extension and ankle plantar flexion-dorsiflexion range of motion (in both directions) in the sagittal plane (8 male and 4 female firefighters; Park et al., 2015). Ball of foot and ankle range of motion are vital during walking as these movements facilitate push-off for pre-swing, clearing the ground during mid-swing and absorption of the ground reaction force during initial contact (Whittle, 2007). Limited range of motion during these phases could lead to an abnormal walking pattern where stumbling and falling are likely to occur, particularly on uneven surfaces typically seen in occupations where high shafted work boots are mandatory (Park et al., 2015)."
"Evidence is available that implicates boot shaft height influences foot mobility, and consequently stability, when individuals walk. Again, differences in boot design features other than shaft height were present and only limited biomechanical variables characterising walking were collected (see Table 2). For example, when 30 young participants (15 men; 25.5 ± 5.6 years of age; 77.8 ± 13.7 kg mass; 1.78 ± 0.06 m height and 15 women; 22.5 ± 1.6 years of age; 64.4 ± 4.1 kg mass; 1.63 ± 0.08 m height) marched and ran in several different types of work and leisure boots with varying shaft heights, footwear had a significant effect on the mobility of their feet (see Figure 4; Hamill and Bensel, 1996). When the participants wore a Nike cross trainer boot or a Reebok Pump boot they displayed significantly greater movement of their centre of pressure than when they wore other boot types (combat military boot, jungle military boot and Red Wing work boot)."
"The influence of boot shaft height on ankle stability, however, appears to be context specific. For example, elevating and tilting the narrow plank, in the study by Simeonov et al. (2008) described above, increased the participants’ rearfoot angular velocities, which were unexpectedly more pronounced while participants wore boots with a higher shaft compared to boots with a lower shaft height (Simeonov et al., 2008). The authors speculated this unexpected result was caused by an interaction of the higher boot shaft with the ankle joint when the plank was tilted, resulting in additional moments and lateral forces being generated, leading to instability. It was suggested that a higher boot shaft with more flexibility might dampen the generation of additional moments and lateral forces so when a boot shaft is tilted at an angle, i.e. when walking on a sloped surface, it would not have such a direct impact on ankle joint motion (Simeonov et al., 2008). Indeed, military and work boots with a higher boot shaft, compared to footwear with a low shaft, have been shown to limit ankle dorsiflexion, restricting ankle range of motion and, in turn, leading to slower times when study participants completed an agility course (Hamill and Bensel, 1996). Restricted ankle motion was thought to influence shank movement, therefore leading to slower performance times when participants planted their foot to change direction (Hamill and Bensel, 1996)."
"Manipulation of shaft stiffness in hiking boots (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Cikajlo and Matjacić, 2007), military boots (Hamill and Bensel, 1996) and basketball boots (Robinson et al., 1986) has been found to significantly alter ankle range of motion. A more flexible shaft increased ankle range of motion during walking and a stiffer shaft reduced it. The amount of ankle range of motion allowed by a boot shaft appears crucial to both efficient biomechanics, as well as reducing lower limb injury occurrence. Although adequate ankle range of motion is vital to efficient gait, excessive ankle motion is potentially problematic because it causes the joint to rely on secondary anatomical structures, such as the muscles and ligaments, for support (Böhm and Hösl, 2010; Hamill and Bensel, 1996), increasing the risk of lower limb sprain/strain injuries (Neely, 1998)."
"There is relatively strong evidence suggesting that restricted ankle joint motion during walking can have negative implications for the more proximal joints of the lower limb, such as the knee."
"Boot mass is the most variable element of work boot design and can typically range between 1 and 4 kg (Chiou et al., 2012; Dobson et al., 2015; Garner et al., 2013; Nunns et al., 2012). The mass of a work boot is dependent on a multitude of design features such as the boot material, presence of a steel cap, height of the shaft, type of sole and other boot design features illustrated in Figure 1. Changing just one of these design features, even slightly, can have a substantial impact on boot mass, explaining the high variability in this design parameter."
"[..]heavier footwear has been shown to alter the way individuals walk, particularly kinematic parameters characterising walking and oxygen consumption (Jones et al., 1984; Majumdar et al., 2006)." "Increases in boot mass [appear] to cause a loss of control at initial contact and mid-swing, as well as requiring more energy to move the heavier boot (Chiou et al., 2012)."
"Walking on a treadmill in a heavier combat boot (1 kg) [] led to increased vastus medialis muscle activity over a 30 min time period when compared to a rain boot (0.80 kg) and Converse sneaker (0.71 kg; see Figure 4; Kim et al., 2015)."
"Energy expenditure while walking can increase by 0.7-1% for every 100 g increase in footwear mass (Jones et al., 1984)."
"Although boot mass differences are the most likely explanation for the reduced performances in postural sway reported by Garner et al. (2013), other boot design features such as differences in boot materials cannot be discounted as potential contributing factors. As discussed in previous sections of this paper, a rubber boot has a more flexible shaft than a leather boot. This between-boot difference in shaft stiffness can influence ankle motion and/or proprioception at the ankle joint and, in turn, influence lower limb mediated responses to postural sway." "Although research related to boot mass predominantly focuses on negative implications associated with heavier work boots, no study has investigated whether a work boot could be too light."
"Sole flexibility is the ability of the sole of a shoe to flex. The amount of flexibility in a work boot sole is primarily determined by the materials used to construct the layers of the sole, which will also determine its thickness, elasticity, texture and padding (Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005). An abundance of literature has documented the influence of variations in shoe sole flexibility on variables characterising gait (Demura and Demura, 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Kersting et al., 2005; Nigg et al., 2003; Nurse et al., 2005; Wakeling et al., 2002) and oxygen consumption (Roy and Stefanyshyn, 2006)."
"Despite differences in boot mass, firefighter boots with a more flexible sole have been shown to result in significant reductions in absolute and relative oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production when participants stepped over obstacles compared to when wearing a boot with a less flexible sole (Chiou et al., 2012). The authors of the study speculated that a more flexible sole enhanced ankle joint movement and, subsequently, power generation, which ultimately reduced metabolic and respiratory cost. Dobson et al. (2015) also found that participants who walked in a boot with a more flexible sole required less muscle activity to maintain the same walking pattern than when they walked wearing a boot with a stiffer sole. These boots, however, again differed in mass, with the stiffer soled boot weighing more than the flexible soled boot (Dobson et al., 2015)."
"It is speculated that forefoot stiffness in certain work boots requires increased metatarsal flexion to accomplish enough power generation at toe-off to propel the body forward during walking (Hamill and Bensel, 1996)."
"The sole flexibility of army boots has further been associated with the occurrence of other lower limb overuse injuries. Compared to two athletic shoes (a cross-trainer and a running shoes), significantly greater impact loading was generated when participants wore an army combat boot with a stiffer sole (see Figure 4; Sinclair and Taylor, 2014). This greater impact loading in the army boot was accompanied by increased ankle joint eversion and tibial internal rotation. These kinematic variables that were associated with higher impact loading, ankle joint eversion and tibial rotation, have been identified as risk factors for developing musculoskeletal injuries such as plantar fasciitis and iliotibial band syndrome when individuals perform repetitive activities like prolonged walking and marching (Neely, 1998; Sinclair and Taylor, 2014)."
@firebreather, you can find discussions specific to your case, there should be ways to minimize issues.
- A History of Medical Scientists on High Heels (it's impressive the number of publications available on this topic)
Last edited:
. Not really suitable for snowy winters though.
