Background: Studies using footprint-based estimates of arch height have indicated that obesity results in a lowered medial longitudinal arch in children. However, the potentially confounding effect of body composition on indirect measures of arch height, such as the arch index, has not been investigated. Methods: This study assessed the body composition of 12 male and 12 female adults (mean age: 39.9 ± 8.1 years, height: 1.724 ± 0.101 m; weight: 95.1 ± 13.7 kg, and BMI: 31.9 ± 3.0kg/m2) using bioelectrical impedance analysis to produce a two-component model of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM). The dynamic arch index also was determined from electronic footprints captured during gait using a capacitive pressure distribution platform with a resolution of 4 sensors/cm2. Results: While significant correlations were noted between FFM and the area of both the hindfoot (r = .75, p <.05) and forefoot (r = .72, p <.05), the midfoot area was correlated only with FM (r = .54, p <.05). Similarly, the arch index was significantly correlated with the FM percentage (r = .67, p <.05). Conclusions: The findings of this pilot study suggest that body composition influences arch index values in overweight and obese subjects. Consequently, body composition may be a confounding factor in interpreting footprint based estimates of arch height and, as such, these estimates would best be used with supplementary measures of body composition.
Atkinson-SmithCBettsRP: The relationship between footprints, foot pressure distributions, rearfoot motion and foot function in runnersFoot2:148–154, 1992.
2.
CavanaghPRRodgersMM: The arch index: a useful measure from footprintsJ. Biomech.20:547–551, 1987.
3.
ChuWCLeeSHChuWWangTJLeeMC: The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approachIEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.42:1088–1093, 1995.
4.
CornishBHThomasBJWardLC: Improved prediction of extracellular and total body water using impedance loci generated by multiple frequency bioelectrical impedance analysisPhys. Med. Biol.38:337–346, 1993.
5.
DowlingAMSteeleJR: What are the effects of gender and obesity on foot structure in children? In: HennigE.StacoffA., eds. Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics. Zuerich, Switzerland, Interrepro, 2001, pp. 30–31.
6.
DowlingAMSteeleJRBaurLA: Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children? IntJ. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord.25:845–852, 2001.
7.
DuffeyMJMartinDFCannonDWCravenTMessierSP: Etiological factors associated with anterior knee pain in distance runnersMed. Sci. Sports Exerc.32:1825–1832, 2000.
8.
ForriolFPascualJ: Footprint analysis between three and seventeen years of ageFoot Ankle11:101–104, 1990.
9.
GilmourJCBurnsY: The measurement of the medial longitudinal arch in childrenFoot Ankle Int.22:493–498, 2001.
10.
GravanteGRussoRPomaraFRidolaC: Comparison of ground reaction forces between obese and control young adults during quiet standing on a baropodometric platformClin. Biomech.18:780–782, 2003.
11.
GuoSSChumleaWCRocheAFSiervogelRM: Age- and maturity-related changes in body composition during adolescence into adulthood: the Fels longitudinal studyAppl. Radiat. Isot.49:581–585, 1998.
12.
GuoSSZellerCChumleaWCSiervogelRM: Aging, body composition, and lifestyle: the Fels Longitudinal StudyAm. J. Clin. Nutr.70:405–411, 1999.
13.
HawesMRNachbauerWSovakDNiggBM: Footprint parameters as a measure of arch heightFoot Ankle13:22–26, 1992.
14.
HillsAPHennigEMcDonaldMBar-OrO: Plantar pressure differences between obese and non-obese adults: a biomechanical analysisInt. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord.25:1674–1679, 2001.
15.
HoganMTStaheliLT: Arch height and lower limb pain: an adult civilian studyFoot Ankle Int.23:43–47, 2002.
16.
HughesJPrattLLingeKClarkPKlenermanL: Reliability of pressure measurements: the EMED-F systemClin. Biomech.6:14–18, 1991.
17.
KanatliUYetkinHCilaE: Footprint and radiographic analysis of the feetJ. Pediatr. Orthop.21:225–228, 2001.
18.
KernozekTWRicardMD: Foot placement angle and arch type: effect on rearfoot motionArch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.71:988–991, 1990.
19.
KnutzenKMPriceA: Lower extremity static and dynamic relationships with rearfoot motion in gaitJ. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.84:171–180, 1994.
20.
LohmanTG: Advances in Body Composition Assessment. Champaign, I, Human Kinetics, 1992, pp. 37–55.
21.
LoselSBurgess-MillironMJMicheliLJEdingtonCJ: A simplified technique for determining foot progression angle in children 4 to 16 years of ageJ. Pediatr. Orthop.16:570–574, 1996.
22.
MathiesonIUptonDBirchenoughA: Comparison of footprint parameters calculated from static and dynamic footprintsFoot9:145–149, 1999.
23.
McCroryJLYoungMJBoultonAJMCavanaghPR: Arch index as a predictor of arch heightFoot7:79–81, 1997.
24.
McPoilTGCornwallMW: Use of medial longitudinal arch height to predict plantar surface contact area during walkingJ. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther.30:A29–A30, 2000.
25.
NassDHennigEMvan TreekR.: The thickness of the heel pad loaded by body weight in obese and normal weight adults. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Footwear Biomechanics. University of Calgary, Canmore, Canada, 1999, pp. 74–75.
26.
NyskaMLingeKMcCabeCKlenermanL: The adaptation of the foot to heavy loads: plantar foot pressures studyClin. Biomech.12:S8, 1997.
27.
RaoUBJosephB: The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: a survey of 2300 childrenJ. Bone Joint Surg.74-B:525–527, 1992.
28.
Riddiford-HarlandDLSteeleJRStorlienLH: Does obesity influence foot structure in prepubescent children? IntJ. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord.24:541–544, 2000.
29.
RodgersMM: Plantar pressure distribution during barefoot walking: normal values and predictive equations. PhD dissertation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania State University, 1985, pp. 1–199.
30.
RosenbaumDHautmannSGoldMClaesL: Effects of walking speed on plantar pressure patterns and hindfoot angular motionGait Posture2:191–197, 1994.
31.
SachithanandamVJosephB: The influence of footwear on the prevalence of flat foot: A survey of 1846 skeletally mature personsJ. Bone Joint Surg.77-B:254–257, 1995.
32.
SaltzmanCLNawoczenskiDATalbotKD: Measurement of the medial longitudinal archArch. Phys. Med. Rehabil.76:45–49, 1995.
33.
ShiangTYLeeSHLeeSJChuWC: Evaluating different footprint parameters as a predictor of arch heightIEEE Eng. Med. Biol.17:62–66, 1998.
StaheliLTChewDECorbettM: The longitudinal archJ. Bone Joint Surg.69-A:426–428, 1987.
36.
TanakaSHHattoriKTobeHSatakeTChumleaWC: Change of body composition over an eight year period among Japanese university studentsJ. Nutr. Health Aging3:165–168, 1999.
37.
ThomasBJCornishBHWardLC: Bioelectrical impedance analysis for measurement of body fluid volumes: a reviewJ. Clin. Eng.17:505–510, 1992.
38.
UrrySRWearingSC: The accuracy of footprint contact area measurements: relevance to the design and performance of pressure platformsFoot11:151–157, 2001.
39.
UrrySRWearingSC: A comparison of footprint indexes calculated from ink and electronic footprintsJ. Am. Podiatr. Med. Assoc.91:203–209, 2001.
40.
van SchieCHMBoultonAJM: The effect of arch height and body mass on plantar pressureWounds12:88–95, 2000.
41.
WearingSCUrrySRSmeathersJE: Ground reaction forces at discrete sites of the foot derived from pressure plate measurementsFoot Ankle Int.22:653–661, 2001.
42.
World Health Organisation.Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic, Vol. 894, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000, pp. 1–253.
43.
ZijlstraWRutgersAWFHofALvan WeerdenTW.: Voluntary and involuntary adaptation of walking to temporal and spatial constraintsGait Posture3:13–18, 1995.
