The effects of loaded, unloaded, dynamic, and static activities on foot volumetrics

Abstract 

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare loaded activities (standing and walking) versus unloaded activities (stationary biking and sitting), and dynamic activities (stationary biking and treadmill walking) versus static activities (sitting and standing) on foot volumetrics.

Design: This study was a single-group, repeated measures design.

Methods: Thirty-four subjects participated in four different sessions (sitting, standing, stationary biking, and walking) over 3 weeks. Each randomly assigned activity was performed for 12min. Pre- and post- foot volumes were measured.

Results: A 2 (within subject − pre and post)×4 (between subject – condition) ANOVA was significant for an interaction (p=0.041). Post-hoc testing revealed significantly greater increases for the two loaded conditions, standing (p<0.0005) and walking (p=0.003), whereas no differences were observed for the two unloaded conditions, sitting (p=0.086) and biking (p=0.338). Loaded conditions produced a significantly greater increase in foot volume compared to unloaded conditions (p=0.015). Static conditions produced a significantly greater increase in foot volume compared to dynamic conditions (p=0.005).

Conclusions: The results suggest that unloaded positioning resulted in less foot volume increase than loaded positioning. Additionally, dynamic activities resulted in less foot volume increase than static activities. Of the four positions tested, biking resulted in the least amount of volume increase. Therefore, it may be the most appropriate activity when an increase in foot volume may be a concern.

Keywords: Fluid volume, Oedema, Weight-bearing activities