Midfoot and Ankle Mechanics in Block and Incline Heel Raise Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Chiu, LZF and Dæhlin, TE. Midfoot and ankle mechanics in block and incline heel raise exercises. J Strength Cond Res 35(12): 3308-3314, 2021-Although the heel raise exercise is performed to strengthen the calf muscles, the combination of calf muscle and ground reaction forces elicits moments that may deform the foot's longitudinal arch. The primary purpose of this investigation was to examine whether the foot muscles contribute to supporting the longitudinal arch during heel raises. The secondary purpose was to compare foot and ankle mechanical efforts between traditional block vs. 22° incline heel raises. Six women and 6 men performed heel raises with body mass plus a barbell loaded with 40% (BM + 40%) and 60% (BM + 60%) of their body mass. Three-dimensional motion analysis and force platform data were collected. The midfoot joint was evaluated from the angle between the forefoot and rearfoot (i.e., arch angle) and net joint moment, which may elevate or reduce the arch height. Midfoot joint arch elevator moment seemed to be greater for BM + 60% than BM + 40% (p < 0.05; Cohen's d = 1.24-1.61), with minimal change in arch angle (p < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.15-0.19). Midfoot joint arch elevator and ankle plantar flexor moments seemed to be greater in incline vs. block heel raises for both loads (p < 0.05; Cohen's d = 0.58-0.67). The increase in midfoot joint arch elevator moment with trivial change in arch angle supports the hypothesis that the foot muscles contribute to longitudinal arch support during heel raises. Performing incline heel raises may be hypothesized to be more effective to stimulate foot and calf muscle adaptations than block heel raises.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".