A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Impact accelerations during a prolonged run using a microwavable self-customised foot orthosis. | LitMetric

The use of custom-made foot orthoses has been associated with numerous benefits, such as decreased impact accelerations. However, it is not known whether this effect could be due to better customisation. The present study analysed the effects of the first generation of  a microwavable prefabricated self-customised foot orthosis vs. a prefabricated standard one on impact accelerations throughout a prolonged run. Thirty runners performed two tests of 30-min running on a treadmill, each one with an orthosis condition. Impact acceleration variables of tibia and head were recorded every 5 min. Microwavable self-customised foot orthosis increased the following variables in the first instants compared to the prefabricated standard one: tibial peak (min1: 6.5 (1.8) vs. 6.0 (1.7) g, = .009, min5: 6.6 (1.7) vs. 6.2 (1.7) g, = .035), tibial magnitude (min1: 8.3 (2.6) vs. 7.7 (2.4) g, = .030, min5: 8.5 (2.6) vs. 7.9 (2.5) g, = .026) and shock attenuation (min1: 61.4 (16.8) vs. 56.3 (16.3)%, = .014, min5: 62.0 (15.5) vs. 57.2 (15.3)%, = .040), and tibial rate throughout the entire run (504.3 (229.7) vs. 422.7 (212.9) g/s, = .006). However, it was more stable throughout 30-min running ( < .05). These results show that the shape customisation entailed by the thermoformable material does not provide impact acceleration improvements.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2021.1902553DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

impact accelerations
12
self-customised foot
12
foot orthosis
12
accelerations prolonged
8
microwavable self-customised
8
prefabricated standard
8
30-min running
8
impact
4
prolonged microwavable
4
foot
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!