Mark S. Taylor, Department of Physical Education

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the Durabounce insole on vertical jump and energy return. In order to test Dura bounce for vertical jump and energy return, two different types of tests were conducted, a vertical jump and reach test and a submaximal treadmill test. The results of these tests were statistically analyzed and conclusions were drawn based upon these results.

Methods

To study the effects of Durabounce upon vertical jump, I 7 subjects from the Orem High School Boys Basketball team were tested. The vertical jump and reach test was conducted using a counter balanced and double blind procedure, where an aide inserted a placebo insert constructed of moleskin or the Durabounce insole into the subject’s shoes. The subjects were then instructed on how the jump was to be done, with a run up and a one foot take off, reaching up with one hand to tip the measuring flags on the Vertec machine. They were then given two practice jumps to help familiarize them with the procedure. After the practice jumps, the subjects were given three trial jumps and these jumps were measured using the vertec machine. The insoles were then switched, and the subject was measured again for three trial jumps. The measurements for each of these trial jumps were then averaged and statistically analyzed.

To test the effect of Durabounce on energy return 12 male and 3 female volunteers participated in the study. This test was also conducted using a counterbalanced and double blind procedure, and placebo made of moleskin was also used in this study. The subjects were instructed that the protocol for this test was a 7 minute run at 7 miles per hour. They were then allowed to warm up on the treadmill for one to two minutes to familiarize themselves with the treadmill. The subjects were then tested. Data was collected, using a computerized gas analyzer. Gasses were obtained using a tube which the person breathed through that was connected to a collecting tank. The computer then determined amount of oxygen consumed (V02) and printed this information out. Data was also taken on the number of strides taken during minutes 4 through 6, using a hand held counter. After the first trial, the subject rested until their heart rate returned to a normal resting rate, fifteen to thirty minutes, and they were then tested again using the other insole,

The results obtained in these two studies were then statistically analyzed. The means and standard deviations for Durabounce and the placebo was computed for each test. A dependent t-test was also used to determine statistical significance.

Results and Discussion

In the vertical jump and reach test, the mean height for the Durabounce was 125.52 inches with a standard deviation of 4. 76. The mean height for the placebo was 125.17 with a standard deviation of 4.73. The dependent t-test produced a p-value of .156 at 16 degrees of freedom. These results show that there is not a statistically significant difference between the Durabounce insole and the placebo insole.

In the energy return test, the mean V02 for the Durabounce insole was 39.02 with a standard deviation of 2.46. The mean V02 for the placebo was 39.00 with a standard deviation of 2.78. The dependent t-test produced a pvalue of .948 at 14 degrees of freedom. These results also show that a statistically significant difference does not exist between the Durabounce insole and the placebo insole.

In the data for the number of strides taken during the fourth and sixth minute of the test, the mean number of strides taken using the Durabounce Insole was 331.4 7 with a standard deviation of 24.7 4. The mean number of strides taken using the placebo Insole was 329.73 with a standard deviation of 26.38. The dependent t-test produced a p-value of .238 at 14 degrees of freedom. These results also show that there is no statistically significant difference between the Durabounce and placebo Insole.

The vertical jump test, was the only test that produced a p-value that was close to the .05 that is required for statistical significance. If one were to only examine the mean values that were obtained, there Is a half Inch greater jump height for the Durabounce insole. A possible explanation as to why statistically significant numbers were not obtained could be attributed to inexperience. The subjects lack of familiarity with the vertec machine could have hindered their performance. Also a lack of jumping experience and utilizing force could explain why the Durabounce Insole didn’t produce more significant differences in the measurements.

Conclusion

Based upon the measurements and the statistic results that were obtained In this study, It could be concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference between the Durabounce Insole and the placebo insole made of moleskin. Also, based upon these results, one could say that there is not a great enough pay back In energy to warrant carrying the extra weight of the Durabounce insole in one’s shoes.

Comments on the Study

I felt very good about the study I conducted. I felt that I received generous support from Doctor Mark Ricard and Doctor Pat Kelly In gathering my data. I also feel like I learned some valuable lessons on how research projects can be conducted more efficiently with greater reliability, and I know this information will be valuable to me in my graduate studies.