Abstract

Foot anthropometric data is important for footwear designing. As shoe sizes increases; foot dimensions influence overall foot morphology. As yet, limited studies explored the progressive changes of foot dimensions across different shoe sizes, particularly implication in footwear design. Present study collected foot anthropometric data from Indian young adults, categorized by shoe sizes and examine the variation across key foot dimensions. One hundred fifty volunteers (N=150; aged 18-25 years) were stratified by self-reported by shoe sizes: UK5 (n=50; age , height and weight were 22.56 ± 6.71 years, 156.49 ± 3.94 cm, 58.46 ± 12.29 kg), UK6 (n=50; age 22.28 ± 6.34 years, height 160.32 ± 4.90 cm, weight 60.22 ± 11.88 kg) and UK7 (n=50; age 20.82 ± 3.83 years, height 165.67 ± 4.34 cm, weight 62.69 ± 11.58 kg). Feet dimensions were obtained using 3D foot scanner, and statistical analysis was performed by SPSS v26.  Pearson correlation (r) between Foot sizes and foot dimensions showed significant (p<0.01) positive correlation, across most foot dimensions. One Way ANOVA and post hoc ANOVA showed the significant differences (p<0.05) in most foot dimensions except arch height and heelpiece total length. In this study major dimensions were increased proportionally with increased shoe sizes (UK 5, 6 and 7); while arch height and heelpiece total length were relatively decreased. These findings provide actionable evidence for footwear last design; however, results should not be generalized for the entire Indian population. Further comprehensive studies are required to develop a robust database of foot dimensions across age groups, genders, and different ethnic backgrounds.

Keywords

Shoe Sizes, Morphometric Study, Foot Anthropometric Dimensions, Footwear Design, Indian Adults,

References

  1. Ashizawa, K., Kumakura, C., Kusumoto, A., Narasaki, S. (1997). Relative foot size and shape to general body size in Javanese, Filipinas and Japanese with special reference to habitual footwear types. Annals of Human Biology, 24(2), 117-129.
  2. Baba, K. (1974). Foot measurement for shoe construction with reference to the relationship between foot length, foot breadth, and ball girth. Journal of Human Ergology, 3(2), 149-156.
  3. Branthwaite, H., Chockalingam, N., Greenhalgh, A. (2013). The effect of shoe toe box shape and volume on forefoot interdigital and plantar pressures in healthy females. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 6(1), 28.
  4. Cheskin, M.P. (1987) The complete handbook of athletic footwear. New York: Fairchild Books.
  5. Dowling, A.M., Steele, J.R., Baur, L.A. (2001). Does obesity influence foot structure and plantar pressure patterns in prepubescent children?. International Journal of Obesity, 25(6), 845-852.
  6. Goonetilleke, R.S., Luximon, A., Tsui, K.L. (2000). The Quality of Footwear Fit: What we know, don’t know and should know. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 44(12), 2-515-2-518.
  7. Hawes, M.R., Sovak, D. (1994a). Quantitative morphology of the human foot in a North American population. Ergonomics, 37(7), 1213-1226.
  8. Hawes, M.R., Sovak, D., Miyashita, M., Kang, S.J., Yoshihuku, Y., Tanaka, S. (1994b). Ethnic differences in forefoot shape and the determination of shoe comfort. Ergonomics, 37(1), 187-196.
  9. Jana, R., Maity, A., Ahmad, R., Kumar, S.D., Pal, M. (2024). Foot Dimension among Indian Population: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports, 13(3), 10-21.
  10. Kim, N., Do, W. (2019). Developing elderly men’s footwear sizing system based on their foot shapes. Fashion and Textiles, 6(1), 28.
  11. Krauss, I., Grau, S., Mauch, M., Maiwald, C., Horstmann, T. (2008). Sex-related differences in foot shape. Ergonomics, 51(11), 1693-1709.
  12. Lee, Y.C., Wang, M.J. (2015). Taiwanese adult foot shape classification using 3D scanning data. Ergonomics, 58(3), 513-523.
  13. Maity, A., Jana, R., Kumar, S.D., Ahmad, R., Pal, M. (2024). Anthropometric Parameters of the Right and Left Foot among Indian Adults: A Pilot Study. Journal of Medical Sciences, 17(4), 284-293.
  14. Manna, I., Pradhan, D., Ghosh, S., Kar, S.K., Dhara, P. (2001). A comparative study of foot dimension between adult male and female and evaluation of foot hazards due to using of footwear. Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 20(4), 241-246.
  15. Mauch, M., Grau, S., Krauss, I., Maiwald, C., Horstmann, T. (2008). Foot morphology of normal, underweight and overweight children. International Journal of Obesity, 32(7), 1068-1075.
  16. Monye, S.I., Afolalu, S.A., Kayode, J.F., Lawal, S.L., Emetere, M.E. (2023). Optimization and Analysis of Female Foot Anthropometry. In E3S Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences, 391, 01051.
  17. Nigg, B.M., Baltich, J., Maurer, C., Federolf, P. (2012). Shoe midsole hardness, sex and age effects on lower extremity kinematics during running. Journal of Biomechanics, 45(9), 1692-1697.
  18. Shariff, S.M., Bong, Y.B., Shariff, A.A., Kouchi, M., Kimura, K., Merican, A.F., bin Mohd RIJAL, O., NOOR, N.M. (2014). Development of a foot sizing system for Malaysian women. In 5th International Conference on 3D Body Scanning Technologies, 93-98.
  19. Sharma, B., Singla, R., Verma, V. (2020). An Anthropometric Study of Stature Estimation from Foot Morphometry in North Indian Population. Medico Legal Update, 20(4), 147.
  20. Telfer, S., Abbott, M., Steultjens, M.P., Woodburn, J. (2013). Dose–response effects of customised foot orthoses on lower limb kinematics and kinetics in pronated foot type. Journal of Biomechanics, 46(9), 1489-1495.
  21. Waluyono, G.F., Suhardi, B., Pujiyanto, E. (2019) The Design of Shoe Sizes for Boys Aged 4-6 Years Old Based on Foot Anthropometric Data: Length Foot, Width Foot, and Foot Ball Circumference. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 598, 12056.
  22. Wunderlich, R.E., Cavanagh, P.R. (2001). Gender differences in adult foot shape: implications for shoe design. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(4), 605-611.
  23. Zhang, X., Paquette, M.R., Zhang, S. (2013). A comparison of gait biomechanics of flip-flops, sandals, barefoot and shoes. Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, 6(1), 45.