Abrasion wear analysis in running shoes using a gridded methodology with CIE-L-a-b colour identification

Wear identification and projection have eluded shoe manufacturers due to the myriad of factors that affect the abrasion wear of shoes. Using a gridded three-dimensional cloud comparison in CloudCompare software, abrasion wear thickness of shoes was identified using the CIE-L-a-b colour system that is interpolated with the physical formula representation of colours. After obtaining the thickness lost, other wear factors like the material properties of the shoe sole, the runners’ personal profile and the running schedule were combined for wear projection. The methodological process from a non-destructive wear detection to wear projection allows shoe manufacturers to reduce the iterations of wear testing while maximizing the entire analysis of shoe wear. Shoe samples were kindly sponsored by ASICS Institute of Sport Science.

Run Clever – No difference in risk of injury when comparing progression in running volume and running intensity in recreational runners: A randomised trial

Background/aimThe Run Clever trial investigated if there was a difference in injury occurrence across two running schedules, focusing on progression in volume of running intensity (Sch-I) or in total running volume (Sch-V). It was hypothesised that 15% more runners with a focus on progression in volume of running intensity would sustain an injury compared with runners with a focus on progression in total running volume.MethodsHealthy recreational runners were included and randomly allocated to Sch-I or Sch-V. In the first eight weeks of the 24-week follow-up, all participants (n=839) followed the same running schedule (preconditioning). Participants (n=447) not censored during the first eight weeks entered the 16-week training period with a focus on either progression in intensity (Sch-I) or volume (Sch-V). A global positioning system collected all data on running. During running, all participants received real-time, individualised feedback on running intensity and running volume. The primary outcome was running-related injury (RRI).ResultsAfter preconditioning a total of 80 runners sustained an RRI (Sch-I n=36/Sch-V n=44). The cumulative incidence proportion (CIP) in Sch-V (reference group) were CIP2 weeks4.6%; CIP4 weeks8.2%; CIP8 weeks13.2%; CIP16 weeks28.0%. The risk differences (RD) and 95% CI between the two schedules were RD2 weeks=2.9%(−5.7% to 11.6%); RD4 weeks=1.8%(−9.1% to 12.8%); RD8 weeks=−4.7%(−17.5% to 8.1%); RD16 weeks=−14.0% (−36.9% to 8.9%).ConclusionA similar proportion of runners sustained injuries in the two running schedules.