Pattern of outsole shoe heel wear in infantry recruits
© Finestone et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 24 June 2012
Accepted: 14 October 2012
Published: 25 October 2012
Excessive shoe heel abrasion is of concern to patients, parents and shoe manufacturers, but little scientific information is available. The purpose of this study was to describe the phenomenon in a group of infantry recruits performing similar physical activity, and search for biomechanical factors that might be related.
Seventy-six subjects (median age 19) enrolled. Pre-training parameters measured included height, weight, tibial length, foot arch height and foot progression angle. Digital plantar pressure maps were taken to calculate arch indexes. Shoe heel abrasion was assessed manually after 14 weeks of training with different-sized clock transparencies and a calliper.
Outsole abrasion was posterolateral, averaging 12 degrees on each shoe. The average heel volume that was eroded was almost 5 cm3. The angle of maximum wear was related to right foot progression angle (r = 0.27, p = 0.02). Recruits with lateral ankle sprains had higher angles of maximal abrasion (17° versus 10°, p = 0.26) and recruits with lateral heel abrasion had more lateral ankle sprains (14% versus 3%, p = 0.12).
While shoe heel wear affects many people, very little has been done to measure it. In this study in healthy subjects, we found the main abrasion to be posterolateral. This seems to be related to foot progression angle. It was not related to hindfoot valgus/varus or other factors related to subtalar joint motion. These findings do not warrant modification of subtalar joint motion in order to limit shoe heel abrasion.
KeywordsDurometer Shoe wear Shoe abrasion Foot progression angle
The issue of shoe outsole wear (abrasion as in “wear and tear”) has only been infrequently studied in the medical literature, even though patients frequently consult clinicians about the wear patterns on their shoes. While most foot clinicians have probably observed that the lateral side of the heel wears more frequently than other areas, we are not aware of any studies quantifying this phenomenon. A possible explanation for the predominantly lateral heel abrasion is the initial lateral strike of the heel when walking and running noted originally by Barnett et al.  and Grundy et al.  and later better described by Cavanagh et al. [3, 4]. Lateral or medial wear of the outsole is frequently attributed to walking patterns, such as over-pronation, possibly correctable by orthotics [5, 6]. One of the problems studying this field is the high variations, both in shoes people wear and in their activity. Military recruits are an ideal population to study the phenomena of outsole shoe abrasion . They wear the same shoes and do the same training while under strict surveillance. Additionally, because of the high intensity of their training, outsole shoe abrasion occurs in a relatively short period of time.
The main purpose of this study was to measure the outsole shoe abrasion in a group of training military recruits. Secondary aims were to see if there are any identifiable factors in their walking pattern that can be related to the wear pattern or its magnitude, or if subjects with eroded heels are more prone to specific injuries.
This study was an observational, prospective study on the wear pattern and its relation to overuse injuries. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). All participants were informed of the objectives, risks and benefits of the study and signed an informed consent.
Hindfoot alignment and motion measurements
The hindfoot was marked in four spots by an orthopaedic surgeon with the subject prone, feet over the end of the table. Two lower markers, representing the calcaneal segment, were placed below the axis of subtalar movement, the lowest being on the calcaneal tubercle and the other 1 cm below the axis of subtalar movement. The upper two markers, representing the leg segment, were placed 2 cm and 8 cm proximal to the axis of subtalar movement, in the midline of the Achilles tendon . The subjects’ hindfeet were photographed digitally and the angles were measured by computer screen analysis of the photographs both standing normally and standing on tiptoes. Lines were drawn connecting the pairs of markings, and the angle between the lines and the horizontal going laterally gave the calcaneal and tibial angles. Tibial-calcaneal (valgus) angle was calculated by subtracting the tibial from the calcaneal angle. Hindfoot motion was calculated by subtracting the valgus on tiptoes from the valgus standing at ease.
Outsole wear analysis
The soldiers were screened for signs and symptoms of overuse injuries by an orthopaedic surgeon every 2–3 weeks during their training. Diagnosis of stress fractures was based on the clinical examination, X-ray and bone scans . Ankle sprains were graded 1–3 . Patellofemoral pain was diagnosed clinically  with specific attention paid to myofascial pain from the muscles of the quadriceps. Achilles tendinitis was diagnosed clinically when signs and symptoms were present in the region of the Achilles tendon 2 to 6 cm proximal to the Achilles bone insertion .
Univariate analysis was performed to assess whether any of the baseline measured variables could explain the shoe abrasion. Normal distribution was verified by observing the histograms and with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit test. We compared the baseline and abrasion parameters with Pearson’s correlation and performed Student’s T test for overuse injuries both with baseline and abrasion data. Relevant interval parameters were also ranked and tested with the Chi square test. Overuse injuries in each extremity were analyzed for data on that extremity. All statistical analysis was performed with SAS 9.2.
Mean ± STD
177 ± 5
167 to 191
70 ± 7
55 to 88
39.7 ± 2.4
34 to 50
Body moment of inertia
222 ± 32
158 to 298
Right arch height with gauge
15 ± 3
3 to 28
Left arch height with gauge
14 ± 4
0 to 29
Right arch index
0.36 ± 0.08
0.20 to 0.53
Left arch index
0.37 ± 0.07
0.23 to 0.52
Right modified arch index
0.27 ± 0.27
0.05 to 2.26
Left modified arch index
0.23 ± 0.01
0.04 to 0.51
Right foot progression angle
Degrees to lateral
7.9 ± 3.5
0 to 16
Left foot progression angle
Degrees to lateral
7.6 ± 3.9
0 to 21
Shoe size, European
43.3 ± 1.5
40 to 47
Hindfoot angles in degrees (mean ± SD and range) for 58 subjects
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Calcaneus varus, standing
−0.8 ± 5.6
−18.0 to 8.7
1.7 ± 4.7
−12.0 to 10.0
Calcaneus varus, tiptoeing
5.2 ± 6.2
−10.0 to 22.7
9.5 ± 7.6
−5.8 to 29.0
Calcaneus-tibial angle, standing
−5.1 ± 7.0
−22.7 to 11.6
−3.2 ± 5.0
−16.0 to 8.5
8.7 ± 5.3
−12.6 to 20.6
9.7 ± 8.1
−9.2 to 34.4
During 14 weeks of basic training, 15 out of 76 (20%) of the recruits were diagnosed with 16 stress fractures (4 femoral, 10 tibial, and 2 metatarsal, one recruit having more than one fracture). Twenty percent of the recruits (15 out of 76) had anterior knee pain, 7 out of 76 (9%) sprained their ankle, and one recruit suffered from Achilles tendinitis.
Shoe outsole abrasion data
Mean ± STD
Max. abrasion direction, right
Degrees to lateral
12 ± 16
−30 to 45
Max. abrasion direction, left
Degrees to lateral
12 ± 23
−120 to 88
Lateral range of abrasion right
Degrees to lateral
73 ± 23
0 to 120
Medial range of abrasion right
Degrees to lateral
−59 ± 20
−90 to 60
Lateral range of abrasion left
Degrees to lateral
74 ± 15
45 to 105
Medial range of abrasion left
Degrees to lateral
−53 ± 21
−90 to 30
Mid range of abrasion right
Degrees to lateral
7 ± 16
−30 to 90
Mid range of abrasion left
Degrees to lateral
10 ± 11
−8 to 45
Volume of abrasion right
5.1 ± 2.8
0.4 to 13.0
Volume of abrasion left
4.7 ± 2.5
0.2 to 14.6
Percent of heel abraded right
2.7 ± 1.5
0 to 7
Percent of heel abraded left
2.5 ± 1.3
0 to 7
On univariate analysis, the angle of maximum wear was related with right foot progression angle (r = 0.27, p = 0.02), but this finding was not reproduced on the left. Recruits with lateral ankle sprains had higher angles of maximal abrasion (17° ± 14° in the ankle sprain group vs. 10° ± 17° in the group without sprains, p = 0.26) and recruits with abrasion on the lateral heel had more lateral ankle sprains [6 out of 44 (14%) vs. 1 out of 32 (3%), p = 0.12], but we were obviously underpowered for these calculations. No other abrasion parameter we measured was related to any other baseline measurements (anthropemtric, arch height or hindfoot angles). Body moment of inertia (weight * height2) was not found to be related to ankle sprains , nor were any other baseline parameters.
Arch height measurements with the 10 mm gauge, and from the foot print plate, were correlated between themselves, but r values were not high (gauge - Brosh and Arcan’s alpha r = −0.47, p < 0.0001, gauge - Chu et al’s arch index, r = −0.29, r = 0.001, Chu’s modified arch index- Brosh and Arcan’s kappa, r = −0.55, p < 0.0001).
Recruits with any stress fractures had a marginally higher kappa (heel sharpness factor , p = 0.05), a lower arch index  (p = 0.02) and a considerably lower modified arch index (0.20 vs. 0.27, p < 0.005), a finding compatible with higher arches. Similar relationships were seen for the femoral and tibial stress fractures, but not metatarsal. Recruits with tibial stress fractures also had shorter tibiae (39.0 vs. 39.8 cm, p = 0.05).
According to the literature, there are two main types of shoe heel deformation . Patients with calcaneo-varus in supination tend to flatten out the lateral shoe counter over the heel, also squeezing the lateral aspect of the heel. A second and opposite type has been described in children with over-pronation, which causes medial flattening of the shoe counter sometimes followed by flattening of the medial heel.
In this study, we quantified a third type of abrasion, mainly abrasion of the lateral heel. Most clinicians in the field have observed that most people wear their heels more on the lateral side, as originally noted (to the best of our knowledge) by Barnett et al.  in 1956. They attributed this to the initial heel strike on the posterolateral aspect of the heel. In the pathological cases that they described, excessive lateral outsole abrasion was attributed to a pathological “out-turned” foot resulting from a sciatic injury. Other reports on shoe abrasion in the medical literature are mainly descriptive [18, 19]. There is some interest in the forensic medicine literature since coroners often try to identify subjects according to their shoes or footprint [20, 21].
In spite of the paucity of validated information, patients often receive definitive explanations from the internet about shoe outsole abrasion. Commonly quoted explanations for shoe outsole abrasion patterns are “over-pronation” and “under-pronation”, and these are often translated into recommendations, such as: “Outer sole wear: You turn out. Orthotics may help….Wear on the inner sole: You pronate or turn in. Inner liners or orthotic supports may help” .
In the recent medical literature, Barton et al. , quotes Vernon et al. : “…greater lateral than medial wear at the heel and forefoot, which may indicate excessive supination”. Vernon et al’s paper is on a Delphi study on podiatrist opinions (level V evidence). They in fact concluded that there is no “one condition, one wear pattern” relationship, refuting previously accepted dogma .
Our study is on infantry basic training recruits, probably the healthiest population in Israel. Ninety percent of the recruits continued to train at a greater intensity after the study period, carrying equipment weighing up to 40% of their body weight over tens of kilometers a week. In these healthy subjects, we found great variation in all the parameters we measured. We therefore assume our biomechanical findings to be, at most, normal variation. Our main findings are that there is great variability in how subjects wear down their shoe heels and that shoes wear down more laterally than medially. On average, these recruits eroded nearly 5 cm3 of their heel in 14 weeks. The only biomechanical factor found to be related to lateral abrasion is the foot progression angle, a factor clearly suspect, as the lateral heel becomes more posterior the higher the foot progression angle. This is just as predicted by Barnett et al.  54 years ago. We did not find any of the biomechanical factors we measured that are associated with pro-supination or arch height to be related to any outsole abrasion pattern.
In this study we found that recruits with more lateral outsole wear had more lateral ankle sprains. This makes sense, as a laterally worn heel is likely to increase inversion and might elevate the risk for lateral sprains. This concept is supported by an old, but not sufficiently documented method of treatment of recurrent ankle sprains using a wedge under the heel lifting the lateral side. A similar concept that has been reproduced is using a “worm” inside the shoe . While our study design does not enable us to conclude that laterally worn heels cause sprains, it might be reasonable to recommend replacing over-worn shoes, particularly if the wear is lateral. However, we cannot disprove an often quoted statement that the trainee often wears the shoe down so that it is most appropriate for his walking pattern.
In these recruits, we found the previously described intrinsic risk factors for stress fractures of the long bones: short tibiae , and low arch [9, 25], as measured both by Brosh and Arcan’s heel sharpness factor  and Chu’s lower arch index . Metatarsal stress fractures behaved differently, also as previously described [25, 26]. These data show that even though this group was smaller than in previous studies, the methods were powerful enough for finding major effects.
This study has several limitations, one being our crude methods of measuring various parameters including subtalar motion, arch height and foot progression angle, and the limited number of variables related to walking pattern. They were dictated by technical limitations where the examinations were performed, but we decided to use these invalidated methods rather than none at all. Another problem is inherent inaccuracy in skin marking techniques. Our results are not considerably different from previous work published on video studies of subjects walking on a treadmill [10, 27]. Our standing tibio-calcaneal angle was 4.1° compared with McPoil and Cornwall’s  3.6° and Hetsroni et al’s  4.9°. Our 8.9° range of motion compares with Hetsroni et al’s 7.8°, particularly when taking into account that they measured from heel strike to full pronation only. We also might have measured tibial varum, but as knee alignment abnormalities were exclusion criteria for these recruits, this might have confounded any conclusions.
Shoe outsole heel abrasion in a training population is a common phenomenon with great variability. Its direction is posterolateral and this is probably related to out-toeing. Ankle sprains may be related to the magnitude of the abrasion. This preliminary study clearly demonstrates the phenomenon in trainees. The abrasion could not be related to subtalar joint motion parameters, so these findings do not warrant modification of subtalar joint motion in order to limit shoe heel abrasion. Additional study is needed to understand the etiology of those cases in which abrasion is excessive.
- Barnett CH, Bowden RE, Napier JR: Shoe wear as a means of analysing abnormal gait in males; an experimental study. Ann Phys Med. 1956, 3: 121-142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grundy M, Tosh PA, McLeish RD, Smidt L: An investigation of the centres of pressure under the foot while walking. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1975, 57: 98-103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cavanagh PR, Ae M: A technique for the display of pressure distributions beneath the foot. J Biomech. 1980, 13: 69-75. 10.1016/0021-9290(80)90180-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cavanagh PR, Lafortune MA: Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomech. 1980, 13: 397-406. 10.1016/0021-9290(80)90033-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Complete Foot and Ankle Care: Wear patterns. http://www.gastonfoot.com/products/shoes/wear-patterns/.
- Nadal SH: Wear patterns (in shoes). http://www.footcare.net/library/1958/WearPatterns.html.
- Milgrom C: The Israeli elite infantry recruit: a model for understanding the biomechanics of stress fractures. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1989, 34: S18-S22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chu WC, Lee SH, Chu W, Wang TJ, Lee MC: The use of arch index to characterize arch height: a digital image processing approach. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1995, 42: 1088-1093. 10.1109/10.469375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brosh T, Arcan M: Toward early detection of the tendency to stress fractures. Clin Biomech. 1994, 9: 111-116. 10.1016/0268-0033(94)90033-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hetsroni I, Finestone A, Milgrom C, Sira DB, Nyska M, Radeva-Petrova D, Avalon M: A prospective biomechanical study of the association between foot pronation and the incidence of anterior knee pain among military recruits. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006, 88: 905-908. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B7.17826.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harris JW, Stocker H: Obliquely Cut circular cylinder and segment of a cylinder. 1988, New York: Springer-Verlag, 103-104.Google Scholar
- Weisstein EW: Cylindrical wedge. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CylindricalWedge.html.
- Milgrom C, Finestone A, Shlamkovitch N, Giladi M, Lev B, Wiener M, Schaffler M: Stress fracture treatment. Orthopaedics (International Edition). 1995, 3: 363-367.Google Scholar
- Milgrom C, Shlamkovitch N, Finestone A, Eldad A, Laor A, Danon YL, Lavie O, Wosk J, Simkin A: Risk factor for lateral ankle sprain: a prospective study among military recruits. Foot Ankle. 1991, 12: 26-30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Milgrom C, Finestone A, Eldad A, Shlamkovitch N: Patellofemoral pain caused by overactivity: a prospective study of risk factors in infantry recruits. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991, 73: 1041-1043.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Milgrom C, Finestone A, Zin D, Mandel D, Novack V: Cold weather training: a risk factor for Achilles paratendinitis among recruits. Foot Ankle Int. 2003, 24: 398-401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sole CC, Milosavljevic S, Sole G, Sullivan SJ: Exploring a model of asymmetric shoe wear on lower limb performance. Phys Ther Sport. 2010, 11: 60-65. 10.1016/j.ptsp.2010.02.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Barton CJ, Bonanno D, Menz HB: Development and evaluation of a tool for the assessment of footwear characteristics. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009, 2: 10-10.1186/1757-1146-2-10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Helfe AJ: A new way of treating flat feet in children. Lancet. 1956, 270: 262-264.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lucock LJ: Identification from footwear. Med Sci Law. 1979, 19: 225-230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lucock LJ: Identifying the wearer of worn footwear. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1967, 7: 62-70. 10.1016/S0015-7368(67)70377-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vernon W, Parry A, Potter M: A theory of shoe wear pattern influence incorporating a new paradigm for the podiatric medical profession. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2004, 94: 261-268.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sándor L, Süveges G, Nacsai I: Use of the “pronation worm” in the early functional active-conservative treatment of lateral ligamentous rupture of the ankle. Unfallchirurg. 1990, 93: 284-288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Finestone A, Shlamkovitch N, Eldad A, Wosk J, Laor A, Danon YL, Milgrom C: Risk factors for stress fractures among Israeli infantry recruits. Mil Med. 1991, 156: 528-530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Simkin A, Leichter I, Giladi M, Stein M, Milgrom C: Combined effect of foot arch structure and an orthotic device on stress fractures. Foot Ankle. 1989, 10: 25-29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Milgrom C, Finestone A, Sharkey N, Hamel A, Mandes V, Burr D, Arndt A, Ekenman I: Metatarsal strains are sufficient to cause fatigue fracture during cyclic overloading. Foot Ankle Int. 2002, 23: 230-235.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- McPoil T, Cornwall MW: Relationship between neutral subtalar joint position and pattern of hindfoot motion during walking. Foot Ankle Int. 1994, 15: 141-145.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.