research on basketball shoes

Effect of shoe modifications on biomechanical changes in basketball: A systematic review

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Kinesiology, Shenyang Sport University, Shenyang, China.
• 2 Li Ning Sports Sciences Research Center, Li Ning (China) Sports Goods Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
• 3 Physical Education and Sports Science Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
• PMID: 31578122
• DOI: 10.1080/14763141.2019.1656770

Shoe modifications are suggested to reduce the risks of injuries and improve sports performance in basketball. This review aimed to critically evaluate the effect of different basketball shoe modifications on biomechanical changes in basketball movements. Searches of four major databases for biomechanics studies which evaluated footwear construction/material in basketball yielded 442 records. After duplicates were removed and exclusion/inclusion criteria applied to the titles and abstracts, 20 articles remained for further quality assessment. Two reviewers independently confirmed 17 articles ( n = 340 participants), with 95.5% of agreement between judgements, which were included for review. The results were categorised based on the following shoe modifications: (a) cushioning, (b) midsole hardness, (c) collar height, (d) outsole traction component, (e) forefoot bending stiffness and (f) shoe mass that influence lower limb biomechanics. The included articles revealed that 1) better shoe cushioning or softer midsole is related to better impact attenuation in passive/unanticipated situations, 2) high shoe collars are effective to improve ankle stability in jumping and cutting tasks, 3) increased shoe traction and forefoot bending stiffness can improve basketball jump, sprint and/or cut performances and 4) lighter shoe mass results in better jump and/or cut performances when the shoe mass is known.

Keywords: Cushioning; collar height; midsole hardness; outsole; shoe mass.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Athletic Performance*
• Basketball*
• Biomechanical Phenomena

• Design a Custom Shoe
• Launch Your Shoe Line
• Branded Business Shoes
• Custom Best Sellers Shoes
• Custom Low-Tops Sneakers
• Custom Basketball Shoes
• Custom High-Tops
• Custom Boots
• Custom Kids Shoes
• Custom Sandals
• All Custom Shoes
• Other Custom Products
• All Customizable Products
• Marketplace
• Affiliate Program

Exploring the Importance of Wearing Basketball Shoes

Aug 3, 2023

By Mariah Bosita

Venture into the intricate world of basketball footwear , where every component weaves a tale of performance and protection. From the supportive upper to the cushioned midsole and traction-driven outsole, these elements orchestrate your on-court prowess. Discover the significance of shoe cuts, from high-top guardians of stability to low-top champions of agility. As we explore the symbiotic dance of design and science, you'll uncover how these shoes not only elevate your game but safeguard against common injuries. Join us in unlocking the secrets that lie within your basketball shoes.

The Anatomy of Basketball Shoes

To truly understand the impact of basketball shoes, we must first explore their intricate anatomy. These shoes are carefully crafted with multiple components, each playing a vital role in determining how well they perform on the court. From the upper that offers support and breathability to the midsole that provides cushioning and stability, and the outsole responsible for traction, every element contributes to your performance and injury prevention . 

Selecting the right shoe cut, whether it be high, mid, or low, tailored to your playing style and specific needs in basketball, is of paramount importance for any serious player. The shoe cut plays a significant role in providing the right balance of support, flexibility, and mobility, directly influencing your on-court performance and overall comfort.

1. High-Top Basketball Shoes:

High-top basketball shoes are characterized by their extended collar that covers the ankle. These shoes offer maximum ankle support and stability, making them a popular choice for players who prioritize protection against sprains and injuries. They are particularly beneficial for players with a history of ankle issues or those who engage in frequent jumping and landing maneuvers, such as centers and power forwards.

2. Mid-Top Basketball Shoes:

Mid-top basketball shoes have a collar that extends slightly above the ankle, striking a balance between support and flexibility. They are versatile and are preferred by many guards and forwards who require some ankle support without compromising their agility and mobility on the court. Mid-tops can cater to various playing styles and are a great option for players who value a blend of stability and maneuverability.

3. Low-Top Basketball Shoes:

Low-top basketball shoes have a low-cut design, providing maximum freedom of movement and agility. These shoes prioritize flexibility and are favored by players who rely on speed, quick cuts, and swift movements, such as point guards and shooting guards. However, due to their minimal ankle support, they might not be the best choice for players prone to ankle injuries or those who need extra stability during aggressive play.

Enhanced Performance and Injury Prevention

It's not just a marketing claim; basketball shoes genuinely elevate your on-court performance. We'll break down the ways these shoes work their magic, improving your traction to allow quick pivots and cuts, enhancing your agility, and boosting your responsiveness to stay ahead of the competition. But it's not just about performance; basketball shoes also play a crucial role in injury prevention.

Scientific research has provided valuable insights into how proper ankle support and cushioning in basketball shoes play a crucial role in reducing the risk of common basketball injuries, thus safeguarding players' precious playing time. Let's explore the evidence-backed benefits of these features:

1. Ankle Support:

Ankle injuries, such as sprains and strains, are among the most prevalent in basketball. Proper ankle support in basketball shoes helps reduce the likelihood of these injuries in several ways:

a. Limiting Ankle Inversion (Rolling Inward):

High-top and mid-top basketball shoes with firm collars provide external support to the ankle, limiting excessive inward rolling during abrupt movements or landings. This stabilizing effect reduces the risk of lateral ankle sprains, one of the most common injuries in basketball.

b. Enhancing Proprioception:

Well-designed ankle support in basketball shoes enhances proprioception, which is the body's ability to sense its position in space. Improved proprioception allows players to better detect and react to unstable movements, reducing the risk of twisting or rolling their ankles.

c. Controlling Range of Motion:

Shoes with proper ankle support restrict the excessive range of motion, preventing the ankle joint from going beyond its natural limits. This controlled movement reduces strain on the ligaments and tendons, protecting them from injury.

2. Cushioning:

Basketball involves constant impact and jumping, putting significant strain on the feet and lower extremities. Adequate cushioning in basketball shoes provides numerous benefits for injury prevention:

a. Shock Absorption:

Quality cushioning materials, such as air or foam, absorb the impact forces during jumping, running, and landing. This lessens the stress on joints, including the ankles and knees, reducing the risk of overuse injuries and joint pain.

b. Energy Dissipation:

Proper cushioning in basketball shoes helps distribute the impact energy evenly, preventing localized pressure on specific areas of the foot. This reduces the risk of stress fractures and other foot-related injuries.

c. Stability During Landing:

 Cushioned midsoles assist in maintaining stability and balance during landings, minimizing the risk of awkward landings that could lead to ankle or knee injuries.

Choosing the Perfect Fit

Basketball shoes provide traction and protection for your feet.  They also add support for the ankles and knees. If your shoes are not comfortable or durable, they will get in the way of your game. You can damage your ankles and knees if you have poor footwear, which can cause long-term health problems.  Finding the perfect fit for your basketball shoes is a fundamental aspect of achieving peak performance. Making an informed decision when trying on basketball shoes in-store or purchasing them online is crucial to ensure you find the perfect fit for your needs. Here is a list of what you need to do to achieve the perfect fit:

1. Measure Your Feet:

Always measure your feet before trying on or purchasing basketball shoes. Our feet can change over time, and having accurate measurements will help you choose the right size . Measure both feet, as they may differ slightly in size, and go with the size of the larger foot.

2. Know Your Size Across Brands:

Different shoe brands may have slight variations in sizing. Be aware of your size in various brands, as this will help you narrow down options when trying on shoes in-store or making online purchases.

3. Try Shoes in the Afternoon:

Feet tend to swell throughout the day, so it's best to try on shoes in the afternoon or evening when your feet are at their largest. This ensures you get the most comfortable fit, especially during intense basketball sessions.

4. Wear Basketball Socks:

When trying on basketball shoes, wear the same type of socks you plan to wear during games. Basketball socks are usually thicker and can affect the fit of the shoes, so testing them together is essential.

5. Check for Proper Fit:

When trying on shoes, make sure there's enough room in the toe box for your toes to move comfortably. Your feet should not feel cramped or restricted. There should be about a thumb's width of space between your longest toe and the shoe's end.

6. Lace Up and Walk Around:

Don't just stand in the shoes; walk around, jog, and even mimic basketball movements if possible. This will give you a better sense of how the shoes perform and if they offer the necessary support and comfort during dynamic activities.

7. Assess Ankle Support:

For players seeking ankle support, pay attention to how the shoe's collar feels around your ankle. High-top and mid-top shoes should provide a snug fit without causing discomfort or rubbing.

8. Test Traction:

On a clean, non-carpeted surface, check the shoe's traction by making quick cuts and pivots. A good grip is essential for preventing slips and falls on the court.

9. Consider Return Policies:

When purchasing online, check the return policy of the retailer. This allows you to try on the shoes at home and return them if they don't meet your expectations or fit as expected.

10. Read Reviews and Ratings:

Before making an online purchase, read customer reviews and ratings for the specific basketball shoes you're interested in. This can provide valuable insights into the fit, comfort, and performance of the shoes.

11. Stick to Reputable Brands:

Choose basketball shoes from reputable brands known for their quality and performance. Established brands often have a track record of producing reliable footwear for basketball players.

12. Take Advantage of Size Charts:

When purchasing online, refer to the brand's size chart and use your foot measurements to determine the appropriate size. Size charts can help you find the best fit, especially when trying a new brand.

By following these tips, you'll be better equipped to make an informed decision and find basketball shoes that provide the perfect fit, support, and comfort for your playing style, ultimately enhancing your performance on the court.

__________________________________________________

Key Takeaways

The importance of wearing basketball shoes cannot be overstated. Through this comprehensive guide, we've revealed the many facets of their significance, from elevating your on-court performance to safeguarding you from potential injuries. We encourage you to take the knowledge gained here and make informed choices when selecting your basketball footwear.  Personalized footwear contributes to your individuality and fashion, amplifying your confidence every time you engage in activities. Explore our customization page now to craft your own masterpiece. Remember, your shoes are your most crucial equipment on the court, and investing in the right pair will undoubtedly impact your game positively.

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)

1. What are high-top basketball shoes? High-top basketball shoes have an extended collar for maximum ankle support, making them ideal for players who prioritize stability and protection against injuries.

2. What are mid-top basketball shoes best for? Mid-top basketball shoes strike a balance between support and agility, making them a versatile choice favored by guards and forwards who need ankle support without sacrificing mobility.

3. Who benefits from low-top basketball shoes? Low-top basketball shoes offer freedom of movement and are preferred by players who rely on speed and quick movements, such as point guards and shooting guards.

4. How do basketball shoes prevent ankle injuries? Basketball shoes with proper ankle support limit inversion, enhance proprioception, and control range of motion to reduce the risk of ankle sprains and strains.

5. What should you consider when choosing the right fit for basketball shoes? Measure your feet accurately, try on shoes in the afternoon, wear basketball socks, assess ankle support, test traction, and consider reputable brands and customer reviews to find the perfect fit for your playing style.

How To Make Custom Slide Sandals

Discover the step-by-step process of designing custom sandals with Shoe Zero. Explore design options, navigate our platform with ease, and get pro tips for a personalized creation. Make your footwe...

How to Customize Clogs

Customize your own clogs with Shoe Zero to reflect your personal style. Choose from a variety of materials and colors, and add unique designs for a truly personal touch. Ensure your custom clogs st...

Shoes of the Week

Explore how to join and win in Shoe Zero's "Shoes of the Week" contest. Discover our easy-to-use design platform and expert tips to create winning shoe designs. Become part of a vibrant community c...

Top Shoes Of This Week

Explore Shoe Zero's Top Customized Shoes of the Week showcase to find inspiration for your next pair of personalized footwear. See standout designs and learn how to participate in our weekly contes...

What Sandals Are In Style This 2024

Explore 2024's top sandal trends, the importance of customization, and sustainability in footwear with Shoe Zero. Get styling tips for every occasion and see how choosing eco-friendly materials mak...

Is Sandals Worth It?

Explore the essential summer footwear with Shoe Zero's deep dive into sandals. Understand the benefits of comfort, style, customization, and sustainability. Find out how to choose sandals that matc...

Developing ash-free high-strength spherical carbon catalyst supports

• Domestic Catalysts
• Published: 28 June 2013
• Volume 5 , pages 156–163, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• V. V. Gur’yanov 1 ,
• V. M. Mukhin 1 &
• A. A. Kurilkin 1  

49 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The possibility of using furfurol for the production of ash-free high-strength active carbons with spheroidal particles as adsorbents and catalyst supports is substantiated. A single-stage process that incorporates the resinification of furfurol, the molding of a spherical product, and its hardening while allowing the process cycle time and the cost of equipment to be reduced is developed. Derivatographic, X-ray diffraction, mercury porometric, and adsorption studies of the carbonization of the molded spherical product are performed to characterize the development of the primary and porous structures of carbon residues. Ash-free active carbons with spheroidal particles, a full volume of sorbing micro- and mesopores (up to 1.50 cm 3 /g), and a uniquely high mechanical strength (its abrasion rate is three orders of magnitude lower than that of industrial active carbons) are obtained via the vapor-gas activation of a carbonized product. The obtained active carbons are superior to all known foreign and domestic analogues and are promising for the production of catalysts that operate under severe regimes, i.e., in moving and fluidized beds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Optimization of the preparation conditions for cocoa shell-based activated carbon and its evaluation as salts adsorbent material

A. Y. León, J. R. Rincón, … D. R. Molina

Carbon adsorbents for methane storage: genesis, synthesis, porosity, adsorption

Ilya Men’shchikov, Andrey Shiryaev, … Anatoly Fomkin

Hierarchical nanostructured carbons as CO2 adsorbents

Kiara Montiel-Centeno, Deicy Barrera, … Karim Sapag

Burushkina, T.N., Zh. Ross. Khim. O-va im. D.I. Mendeleeva , 1995, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 122.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kryazhev, Yu. G., Abstract of Papers, Materialy XII vserossiiskogo simpoziuma s uchastiem inostrannykh uchenykh “Aktual’nye problemy teorii adsorptsii, poristosti i adsorptsionnoi selektivnosti” (Proc. of XII th All-Russia Symposium with the Participation of Foreign Scientists “Urgent Problems of the Theory of Adsorption, Porosity, and Adsorption Selectivity”), Moscow, 2008, p. 69.

Google Scholar  

Kartel’, N.T., in Adsorbtsiya, adsorbenty i adsorbtsionnye protsessy v nanoporistykh materialakh (Adsorption, Adsorbents, and Adsorption Processes in Nanoporous Materials), Tsivadze, A.Yu., Ed., Moscow: Granitsa, 2011, p. 381.

RF Patent 2026813, 1993.

RF Patent 2257343, 2003.

RF Patent 2301701, 2006.

Dubinin, M.M., Zaverina, E.D., Ivanova, L.S., Kaverov, A.T., and Kasatochkin, V.I., Rus. Chem. Bull. , 1961, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Usenbaev, K. and Zhumalieva, K., Rentgenograficheskoe issledovanie struktury i termicheskikh preobrazovanii amorfnykh uglerodov (X-ray Study of the Structure and Thermal Transformations of Amorphous Carbons), Frunze: Mektep, 1976.

Gur’yanova, L.N. and Gur’yanov, V.V., Zh. Fiz. Khim. , 1984, vol. 58, no. 6, p. 1459; 1989, vol. 63, no. 1, p. 161; 1989, vol. 63, no. 2, p. 426; 1989, vol. 63, no. 3, p. 683.

Guryanov, V.V., Petukhova, G.A., and Dubinina, L.A., Prot. Metal. Phys. Chem. Surf. , 2010, vol. 46, no. 2, p. 191.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Guryanov, V.V., Dubinin, M.M., and Misin, M.S., Zh. Fiz. Khim. , 1975, vol. 49, no. 9, p. 2374.

Gur’yanov, V.V., Petukhova, G.A., and Polyakov, N.S., Rus. Chem. Bull. , 2001, vol. 50, no. 6, p. 974.

Dubinin, M.M., Carbon , 1989, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 457.

Belyaev, N.M., Soprotivlenie materialov (Strength of Materials), Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

Temkin, I.V., Proizvodstvo elektrougol’nykh izdelii (Production of Electrocarbon Articles), Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1980.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

OAO Elektrostal’ Research and Production Association Neorganika, Elektrostal’, Moscow oblast, 144001, Russia

V. V. Gur’yanov, V. M. Mukhin & A. A. Kurilkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Original Russian Text © V.V. Gur’yanov, V.M. Mukhin, A.A. Kurilkin, 2013, published in Kataliz v Promyshlennosti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gur’yanov, V.V., Mukhin, V.M. & Kurilkin, A.A. Developing ash-free high-strength spherical carbon catalyst supports. Catal. Ind. 5 , 156–163 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070050413020062

Download citation

Received : 08 December 2011

Published : 28 June 2013

Issue Date : April 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070050413020062

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• carbon adsorbent
• porous structure
• polymerization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Order Status
• Shipping & Delivery
• Order Cancellation
• Size Charts
• Promotions & Discounts
• Product Advice
• Send Us Feedback

Popular Search Terms

• Air Force 1

Top Suggestions

Shop All Sale Items

Learn more. Terms apply.

Basketball Shoes (104)

• NBA Jerseys
• New Basketball Shoes
• Sale Basketball Shoes
• Men's Basketball Shorts
• Men's Basketball Tops & T-Shirts
• LeBron James Jerseys, Shirts & Gear
• Los Angeles Lakers Jerseys & Gear
• NBA Jerseys, Apparel & Gear
• Basketball Jerseys
• Basketball Backpacks & Bags

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Do running speed and shoe cushioning influence impact loading and tibial shock in basketball players?

Wing-kai lam.

1 Department of Kinesiology, Shenyang Sport University, Shenyang, China

2 Li Ning Sports Sciences Research Center, Li Ning (China) Sports Goods Co., Ltd., Beijing, China

Jacobus Liebenberg

3 Institute of General Kinesiology and Athletic Training, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

Jeonghyun Woo

4 Motion Innovation Centre, Korea National Sport University, Seoul, Korea

Sang-Kyoon Park

Suk-hoon yoon, roy tsz-hei cheung.

5 Gait & Motion Analysis Laboratory, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Associated Data

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data are provided as a Supplemental File .

Tibial stress fracture (TSF) is a common injury in basketball players. This condition has been associated with high tibial shock and impact loading, which can be affected by running speed, footwear condition, and footstrike pattern. However, these relationships were established in runners but not in basketball players, with very little research done on impact loading and speed. Hence, this study compared tibial shock, impact loading, and foot strike pattern in basketball players running at different speeds with different shoe cushioning properties/performances.

Eighteen male collegiate basketball players performed straight running trials with different shoe cushioning (regular-, better-, and best-cushioning) and running speed conditions (3.0 m/s vs. 6.0 m/s) on a flat instrumented runway. Tri-axial accelerometer, force plate and motion capture system were used to determine tibial accelerations, vertical ground reaction forces and footstrike patterns in each condition, respectively. Comfort perception was indicated on a 150 mm Visual Analogue Scale. A 2 (speed) × 3 (footwear) repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the main effects of shoe cushioning and running speeds.

Greater tibial shock ( P < 0.001; η 2 = 0.80) and impact loading ( P < 0.001; η 2 = 0.73–0.87) were experienced at faster running speeds. Interestingly, shoes with regular-cushioning or best-cushioning resulted in greater tibial shock ( P = 0.03; η 2 = 0.39) and impact loading ( P = 0.03; η 2 = 0.38–0.68) than shoes with better-cushioning. Basketball players continued using a rearfoot strike during running, regardless of running speed and footwear cushioning conditions ( P > 0.14; η 2 = 0.13).

There may be an optimal band of shoe cushioning for better protection against TSF. These findings may provide insights to formulate rehabilitation protocols for basketball players who are recovering from TSF.

Introduction

Basketball is a popular sport with more than 450 million participants worldwide ( International Basketball Federation, 2016 ), making it an important sport for injury prevention research in order to improve healthy living. Apart from jumping, cutting, and turning, running in a straight line is an indispensable and essential task during basketball games. On average, a basketball player performs 3.4 km of running at a pace of 4 m/s per game ( Ben Abdelkrim, El Fazaa & El Ati, 2007 ). Running exercise is one of the key elements to improve conditioning attributes of basketball players such as general fitness (endurance runs), anaerobic endurance that overcomes fatigue (interval runs) and muscle endurance (resisted runs) ( National Basketball Conditioning Coaches Association, 2007 ; Ben Abdelkrim et al., 2010 ). However, the biomechanics of running in basketball players remain unclear, especially characteristics related to impact loading. Additionally, most players wear the same basketball shoes for training on the court and in the fitness room. Thus, it is currently unknown to what extent basketball shoe cushioning influences impact loading during running in basketball players.

Tibial stress fracture (TSF) is one of the most common overuse injuries in collegiate basketball players, which accounts for 10 chronic injuries per 1,000 basketball games ( Iwamoto & Takeda, 2003 ; Meeuwisse, Sellmer & Hagel, 2003 ). Although TSF has been extensively studied, the etiology of TSF has yet to be determined ( Milgrom et al., 2015 ). Previous research suggested that TSF may relate to high level of tibial shock ( Crowell & Davis, 2011 ), impact peak ( Davis, Milner & Hamill, 2004 ), and vertical loading rates ( Milner et al., 2006 ), in the running population. These kinetic parameters have been shown to be influenced by many factors in runners, including running speed ( Edwards et al., 2010 ), cushioning performance of the running shoes ( Miller & Hamill, 2009 ), and initial footstrike pattern ( Chen et al., 2016 ). It has been proposed that slower running speeds and better cushioned shoes would lower the risk of TSF in runners ( Edwards et al., 2010 ; Miller & Hamill, 2009 ). However, similar risk of TSF in runners with different footstrike patterns was reported in a recent computational study, despite the fact that significantly higher vertical loading rates were observed in runners with rearfoot strike compared to those with midfoot or forefoot strike ( Chen et al., 2016 ).

However, findings from these studies involving the running population may not be directly applicable to basketball players, simply because of the difference between runners and basketball players in terms of their muscle development, physical training regimen, functional demand of the footwear design, and postural adjustment during gait ( Leroy et al., 2000 ). Compared to distance runners, it has been suggested that athletes who require extensive power training (e.g., basketball players, Wissel, 2012 ) may demonstrate greater ankle stiffness ( Hobara et al., 2008 ). This is due to the nature of how ankle stiffness is measured by looking at the kinematics and kinetics which will implicitly result in a change in biomechanics. In addition, most previous basketball studies focused on cutting or jump landing ( Cong et al., 2014 ; Nin, Lam & Kong, 2016 ; Lam et al., 2015 ), with a small amount of research being done on running biomechanics, even though it is an essential component of a basketball game or training session ( Ben Abdelkrim, El Fazaa & El Ati, 2007 ). Since basketball players might adapt differently to running speed and footwear cushioning when compared to runners, further analysis of specific aspects of the accelerometry and ground reaction force would need to be assessed in order to analyze impact characteristics in running. Some previous research has been done on basketball footwear where evaluated plantar loading was found when basketball players performed running and sprinting movements ( Guettler et al., 2006 ; Yu et al., 2007 ).

Hence, this study compared the tibial shock, impact peak, vertical loading rate, and initial footstrike angle of basketball players running at different speeds wearing basketball shoes. Based on the previous findings in running research, it was hypothesized that slower running speeds or more cushioned basketball shoes would result in lower impact loading. Another hypothesis is that basketball players would land with a rearfoot landing pattern at slower running speeds, or when they put on basketball shoes with better cushioning performance ( Breine et al., 2014 ).

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Eighteen male basketball players (mean (SD) age = 25.0 (2.3) years; height = 179.0 (4.6) cm; mass = 74.4 (6.5) kg) were recruited for this study. All the participants had at least four years of competitive basketball experience and attended practice for more than 4 h per week. The study focused on collegiate basketball players because they represented a population closer to recreational basketball players which are more prone to injury than professional players ( Meeuwisse, Sellmer & Hagel, 2003 ; Messina, Farney & DeLee, 1999 ). Participants were free from any injury six months before the experiment were conducted, and had received no prior lower extremity surgery up till the time of the study. Ethical approval was granted by Li Ning institutional review committee (IRB-2015BM007). All participants signed an informed consent form prior to the start of the study.

Test shoe conditions

Three pairs of new basketball shoes were selected based on their cushioning performance in the standard mechanical impact attenuation test procedure (ASTM protocol F1976-13). This was done with a mechanical impact tester (Exeter Research V2.6; Exeter Research, Brentwood, NH, USA). Thirty consecutive mechanical impact trials were performed at the center of the heel region with an 8.5-kg mass dropping from a 50-mm height. The cushioning properties of a shoe were averaged with the last five trials. This standard assessment procedure allowed objective judgment for cross studies comparison ( Nin, Lam & Kong, 2016 ; Sterzing, Lam & Cheung, 2012 ). The three test shoe models were classified as best-cushioning shoe (9.8 g-force), better-cushioning shoe (11.3 g-force), and regular-cushioning shoe (12.9 g-force), which represents the available range of impact scores among the available basketball shoes (ranged from 9.8 to 12.9 g-force) in the market. Shoes with lower impact score would indicate better shoe cushioning performance.

Testing procedures

A tri-axial accelerometer (DTS 3D, 1,500 Hz; Noraxon, Scottsdale, AZ, USA) was securely affixed onto the antero-medial aspect of the proximal one-third of right tibia, with its vertical axis aligned along the tibia ( Crowell & Davis, 2011 ). In addition, reflective markers were placed over participant’s right shoe with the method described in the previous running study done by Altman & Davis (2012) . After a standardized warm-up protocol, participants were asked to perform five over-ground running trials with different footwear conditions (regular vs. better vs. best cushioned shoes) and at two different speeds (3.0 m/s vs. 6.0 m/s) on a flat, straight, 23-m long runway ( Fig. 1 ). A successful trial was determined as a trial within 5% of the target speed and was done by placing timing gates (Smartspeed; Fusion Sport Inc., Burbank, CA, USA) before and after the force plate across the runway to determine target speed. The timing gate has been shown to have good test-retest reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88–0.97) for multiple test conditions ( Green, Blake & Caulfield, 2011 ). A clean right footfall on the force plate (AMTI, Watertown, MA, USA) was needed for a successful trial. The force plate was mounted flush and located at the center of the 23-m runway. Test conditions were randomized using an online program ( http://www.random.org ). In order to ensure the participants were adapted to the specific testing conditions, they were allowed 3 min of treadmill running in the test condition and three familiarization trials prior to the data collection ( Fellin et al., 2010 ). Two minutes of rest were provided between each test condition.

Data acquisition and processing

Tibial acceleration and vertical ground reaction force were recorded at 1,500 Hz. Motion data were captured using an eight-camera motion capturing system (Vicon T40s; Oxford Metrics, Oxford, UK) at 240 Hz. To synchronize all tibial acceleration, ground reaction forces and motion trajectory signals, each participant was asked to strike hard on the force platform with his right shoe before the data acquisition of each trial. Kinetics and kinematics data were filtered using a fourth order Butterworth low pass filter at 100 and 12 Hz, respectively and vertical ground reaction force data was body mass normalized for comparison across other studies. Tibial shock was defined as the maximum positive axial acceleration that occurred during the early stance phase of gait ( Crowell & Davis, 2011 ) ( Fig. 2A ). Impact peak, vertical average loading rate (VALR) and vertical instantaneous loading rate (VILR) were calculated using the method described previously used by An, Rainbow & Cheung (2015 , Fig. 2B) . Impact peak is defined as the local maximum between foot strike and peak vertical force. VALR is the slope of the line from the 20% point to the 80% point of the impact peak ( Blackmore, Willy & Creaby, 2016 ). VILR is the maximum slope of the vertical ground reaction force curve between the successive data points in the same region (20–80%). Initial footstrike angle was measured according to the method suggested by Altman & Davis (2012) . The footstrike angles were defined as the difference between the angle of the foot at impact and the angle during standing. A footstrike angle of >8° indicated a rearfoot strike. A midfoot strike is determined if the footstrike angle lies between 8° and −1.6°; while foot a strike angle of <−1.6° indicates a forefoot strike ( Fig. 3 ).

Data analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 20.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Prior to a 2 (speed) × 3 (footwear) repeated measures ANOVA, normality test (Shapiro–Wilk test) and Mauchly’s test of sphericity were performed the variables: tibial shock, VALR, VILR, and initial footstrike angle. Greenhouse–Geisser’s epsilon adjustment was used in all cases when Mauchly’s test indicated that the sphericity assumption had been violated. When significance was demonstrated in the ANOVA, pairwise comparisons were employed for any significant main effect. Effect size (η 2 ) was interpreted as small (0 < η 2 ≤ 0.02), medium (0.02 < η 2 ≤ 0.09) and large (η 2 ≥ 0.09). Estimated power (β) was interpreted as good when β was larger than 0.8. Level of significance was set at 0.05.

For vertical ground reaction force ( Table 1 ), interactions between speed and shoe variables related to the vertical ground reaction force was not significant ( P = 0.28). Participants experienced higher impact peaks, VALR, and VILR during the faster running speed ( P < 0.001; η 2 = 0.73; β = 1.00). Significant shoe effects were found on the impact loading variables ( P = 0.03; η 2 = 0.38; β = 0.92). Pairwise comparisons of shoe effect suggested that best-cushioning shoes resulted in a greater impact peak than regular-cushioning shoes ( P = 0.04). The better-cushioning shoes presented lowest VALR and VILAR in comparison to the regular-cushioning shoes ( P = 0.01) and best-cushioning shoes ( P < 0.001).

BW, body weight; VALR, vertical average loading rate; VILR, vertical instantaneous loading rate; η 2 , partial eta squared; β, observed power.

Significant P -values ( P < 0.05) are shown in bold.

For tibial shock ( Table 1 ), no significant interaction effect between speed and shoe were found ( P = 0.49). A significant main effect of speed indicated that greater tibial shock was observed at a faster running speed ( P < 0.001; η 2 = 0.80; β = 1.00). A significant effect with the shoe factor was found on tibial shock ( P = 0.03; η 2 = 0.39; β = 0.70). In the pairwise comparisons, best-cushioning shoes demonstrated significant greater tibial shock than better-cushioning shoes ( P = 0.02).

Looking at initial footstrike angle ( Table 1 ), the initial footstrike angle remained similar in all participants, regardless of the running speed and footwear conditions ( P = 0.14). According to the cutoff angle suggested by Altman & Davis (2012) , all of the participants landed with a rearfoot strike pattern during all test conditions.

The present study aimed to compare the tibial shock, impact peak, vertical loading rate, and initial footstrike angle when basketball players ran at different speeds wearing basketball shoes. As expected, basketball players experienced greater impact loading in terms of tibial shock, impact peak, VALR, and VILR at faster running speeds. The findings partly agree with a recent basketball study ( Lam, Ng & Kong, 2017 ), which used in-shoe pressure soles to measure plantar loading. This study reported that basketball players running at faster speeds experienced significantly higher plantar loading ( Lam, Ng & Kong, 2017 ). Similar to the general running population, the greater impact loading found in the results could be explained by the increased stride length and/or step frequency when running at faster pace ( Mercer et al., 2002 ).

The relationship between mechanical and biomechanical shoe cushioning performance (i.e., mechanical impact scores vs. biomechanical impact loading) was in contrast with the original hypothesis. The results found that the impact load experienced by participants did not change systematically with changes in mechanical shoe cushioning properties. This is similar to previous studies where shoe cushioning performance did not systematically change with impact forces exerted on the participants during running ( Nigg, 2010 ) or landing ( Nin, Lam & Kong, 2016 ). This unsystematic relationship between cushioning and impact loading may be associated with participant’s body mass distribution which may result in bottomed out (sole material reaching very thin dimensions during impact) of shoe soles ( Nin, Lam & Kong, 2016 ; Nikolaidis et al., 2015 ; Shorten & Mientjes, 2011 ). The another plausible explanation is that postural control, lower limb angles, leg stiffness or muscle activation may influence the effect of cushioning on impact forces ( Paquette, Zhang & Baumgartner, 2013 ). The human body could unconsciously produce these movement patterns or initiate motor programs to avoid high impacts in different activities. For example, habitual rearfoot strike runners can change their natural movement pattern to a midfoot/forefoot striking pattern when running in a barefoot condition without priori instruction ( Lieberman et al., 2010 ). Although more research is needed on these paradigms, it might be possible that basketball players (similar to runners) change their kinematics in response to shoe cushioning based on their individual “comfort filter” and “preferred movement path” paradigms, which suggested that a runner intuitively selects a comfortable shoe product using their own perception to allow for their preferred movement pattern ( Nigg et al., 2015 ).

The initial footstrike pattern of the basketball players did not differ with respect to running speed and cushioning performance of the basketball shoes. This finding is in contrast with previous studies found in runners, which suggested that runners tend to land with non-rearfoot strike at faster running speed ( Breine et al., 2014 ) or with less cushioning shoes ( Moritz & Farley, 2004 ). This finding is particularly interesting since we tested similar running speed (3.0 and 6.0 m/s) as in the study by Breine and colleagues (3.2–6.2 m/s), which suggests the different motor execution patterns between basketball players and runners even at the same physical demand. One plausible explanation is that basketball players who are generally taller would adopt stride length strategy whereas runners with shorter legs would favor stride rate strategy for increasing running speed. Another plausible explanation is that apart from running, basketball players perform a large number of powerful jumps, accelerations and decelerations, lay-ups, and cutting in various movement directions ( McClay et al., 1994 ; Ben Abdelkrim, El Fazaa & El Ati, 2007 ). These powerful movements require strong muscle strength in the lower limb. On the other hand, Paquette, Zhang & Baumgartner (2013) compared a minimal shoe model (FiveFingers KSO; Vibram, Concord, MA, USA) with a traditional running shoe model (Noveto; Adidas, Portland, OR, USA); while we selected usual basketball shoe models available in the market. The shoe cushioning performance of these basketball shoe models may not be comparable with the range covered by Paquette and colleagues.

Tibial stress fracture is one of the most common overuse injuries in basketball players. Shock absorption and impact attenuation are the primary considerations in sport footwear design to prevent impact-related injuries ( Lake, 2000 ), and these are the most important features in basketball shoes ( Brauner, Zwinzscher & Sterzing, 2012 ). The present study suggested that shoes with a medium impact score resulted in lower tibial shock and loading rates of impact loading than shoes with low or high impact score. Such findings may indicate a potential optimal band of shoe cushioning performance in lowering the risks of developing TSF among basketball players. Another possibility is that the players have better proprioception with shoes that have a lower cushioning score ( Nigg et al., 2015 ). Considering the higher tibial shock and impact loading during the fast speed used in this study, basketball players who are recovering from TSF should avoid training regimens incorporated with sprinting, as a history of stress fractures is one risk factor for recurrent TSF ( Larson et al., 2005 ; Hattori & Ito, 2015 ).

When interpreting the results, it is important to consider several limitations in the current study. Firstly, only male university basketball players were recruited and therefore the findings may not be generalized to female and professional basketball players before these populations are investigated. Secondly, the risk of TSF due to high running impact has been shown in running populations only, but not been well developed in basketball populations. In basketball, running contributes only a portion of the total impacts or loading, while other related movements such as change-of-direction running and jump landing might induce higher impacts with rapid deceleration. A total impacts or loading across typical movements that is encountered by a basketball player should be carried out before a viable conclusion can be made. Thirdly, the basketball shoe models used in this study were available in the market, which had different shoe constructions. Considering that cushioning performance incorporates all changes related to material viscoelasticity, midsole thickness and structures, studying shoe cushioning would allow comparing results across studies, especially with different footwear used. For this reason, future studies are warranted to investigate the impact loading at other isolated footwear structures (landing surface area, midsole hardness) as well as basketball related movements.

Basketball players experience greater impact loading at faster running speeds, while impact loading did not show a significant difference between shoe cushioning properties. There may be an optimal band of shoe cushioning for better protection against TSF. Other footwear designs also have to be considered before better footwear recommendation can be made. Basketball players may remain rearfoot strike during running, regardless of running speed and footwear conditions. Our findings suggest future research on the differences between impact loading and foot strike patterns in runners versus basketball players, especially related to footwear development.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental information 1, funding statement.

This study is supported by the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Science Research Planning Fund (15YJA890027). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Wing-Kai Lam is an employee of Li Ning Sports Science Research Center, Li Ning (China) Sports Goods Co., Ltd.

Wing-Kai Lam conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Jacobus Liebenberg conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Jeonghyun Woo conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Sang-Kyoon Park conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Suk-Hoon Yoon conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Roy Tsz-Hei Cheung contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Jiseon Ryu conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Ethical approval was granted by Li Ning institutional review committee (IRB-2015BM007).

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• 110 Baker St. Moscow, ID 83843
• 208.882.1226

A Classical & Christ-Centered Education

Boys Basketball

To add the HS BBB calendar to your calendar, click  here .

To add the JH BBB calendar to your calendar, click here .

Varsity Coach: Nate Wilson, [email protected]

Junior Varsity Coach: Jeremy Spencer, [email protected]

Assistant Coaches: Nick Holloway. Caleb Applegate, Isaac Grauke

8th-Grade Coach:  Aaron Rench, [email protected]

7th-Grade Coach:  Rob Sentz, [email protected]

Boys Varsity Basketball 2023-2024

Junior High Boys White Pine League (7th-8th grade) Basketball 2023-24

Important Dates

See  Activity Forms & Fees

For more information on the varsity team’s season standing, see Whitepine League.