## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subject Number** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **13** \\ \hline Height, cm & 155 & 157 & 151 & 153 & 153 & 172 & 150 & 156 & 146 & 159 & 164 & 163 & 144 \\ Weight, kg & 57.2 & 60 & 50 & 52 & 70 & 63.8 & 59 & 68.6 & 55.3 & 84.6 & 62.7 & 72 & 67.6 \\ FL, mm & 249 & 266 & 237 & 240 & 252 & 276 & 237 & 251 & 240 & 240 & 270 & 273 & 234 \\ FW, mm & 98 & 118 & 106 & 91 & 100 & 108 & 96 & 102 & 94 & 100 & 100 & 99 & 90 \\ Shoe size & 40 & 42 & 38 & 38 & 40 & 43 & 38 & 40 & 38 & 39 & 40 & 42 & 37 \\ L, mm & 4.5 & 3.0 & 1.5 & 4.0 & 5.0 & 3.0 & 4.0 & 7.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 2.0 & 4.0 & 6.0 \\ CH, mm & 37.4 & 39.9 & 35.6 & 36.0 & 37.8 & 41.4 & 35.6 & 37.7 & 36.0 & 36.0 & 40.5 & 41.0 & 35.1 \\ S, mm & 38.0 & 34.0 & 36.0 & 38.0 & 39.0 & 41.0 & 35.0 & 39.0 & 30.0 & 38.0 & 34.0 & 34.0 & 36.0 \\ (CH-S), mm & \(-0.6\) & 5.9 & \(-0.5\) & \(-2.0\) & \(-1.2\) & 0.4 & 0.5 & \(-1.4\) & 6.0 & \(-2.0\) & 6.5 & 7.0 & \(-0.9\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: A detailed description of each subject. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**PMCP Related to the Length of Spur Types**} \\
**Heel Site** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Feet** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **PMCP (kg/cm\({}^{2}\))** \\ **Mean \(\pm\) SD (Number of Feed)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean \(\pm\) SD (Range)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Small** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Medium** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Large** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline
1 & 1 & 1.32 & 1.32 (1) & - & - \\
2 & 5 & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.25 (1.24–1.87) & - & - & 1.24 (1) & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.13 (4) \\
3 & 2 & 3.13 \(\pm\) 0.25 (2.95–3.3) & 2.95 (1) & 3.3 (1) & - \\
4 & 2 & 2.38 \(\pm\) 0.37 (2.11–2.64) & - & 2.38 \(\pm\) 0.37 (2) & - \\
5 & 3 & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.41 (1.92–2.71) & - & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.41 (3) & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The pain minimum compressive pressure (PMCP) values at each heel site. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Shoe Insole Area (mm\({}^{2}\))**} \\ \cline{3-5}
**\% Shoe Insole Area** & \% **Deduction** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**From Modification of**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**From Equation (1)**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **FROM Application of** \\ **z-Coordinates** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{1}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **From Equation (1)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \hline
100 & 0 & 17,972 & 17,972 \\
75 & 16.5 & 17,063 & 17,071 \\
50 & 34.5 & 16,169 & 16,170 \\
25 & 56 & 15,266 & 15,269 \\
0 & 100 & 14,368 & 14,368 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The deduction percentage and area of shoe inside result of modification of z-coordinate and calculation using Equation (1) from one of the study subjects. a proportion of BW and the percentage of each sensor to the total pressure of all of the sensors. In comparison to the BW, it is seen that the percentage area of the shoe insole is increased. However, the peak pressure is decreased for the MH, LH and CH. The significant decreases are seen at the MH of 75% to 100% A and at the LH of 50% to 75% A and 75% to 100% A, respectively. In comparison to the total pressure of all sensors seen, there is a significant increase at the MH of 50% to 75%. In contrast, the pressure at the LH shows a significant decrease at the same percentage areas of shoe insole. The distribution of loading at the MH, LH and CH for the five percentage areas of shoe insole is shown in Figure 6. The pressure applied at the CH is lower than the PMCP for all percentage areas of the shoe insole, while the pressure at the LH is lower than the PMCP with increasing percentage area of shoe insole from 25%.