# Thermal Response in Two Models of Socks with Different 3-D Weave Separations
## 3 Results  
The mean of the overall temperature of both feet was 28.93 \(\pm\) 2.23 \({}^{\circ}\)C before the run. After the run, it increased significantly by 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C (\(p\) \(<\) 0.001) to 32.92 \(\pm\) 1.89 \({}^{\circ}\)C. When the AWC 1 sock was used, a significant increase in temperature was found in all 9 ROIs (\(p\) \(<\) 0.001). The greatest increase in temperature (5.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C) was recorded under the lesser toes, with a mean temperature of 26.66 \(\pm\) 3.35 \({}^{\circ}\)C before the exercise and 32.20 \(\pm\) 2.62 \({}^{\circ}\)C after. The area where the temperature increased the least (3 \({}^{\circ}\)C) was in the medial midfoot (Table 2). With the AWC 2.1 sock, a general increase in temperature after the exercise was also found in all the areas analyzed (\(p\) \(<\) 0.001). As with the AWC 1 case, the greatest increase in temperature was recorded under the lesser toes, while the medial midfoot was the area in which it increased the least (5.8 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 3.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively) (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ROI’s** & & **Mean** & **SD (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **Delta** & \(p\)**Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lesser toes} & Pre & 26.66 & 3.36 & \multirow{2}{*}{5.5} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 32.21 & 2.63 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hallux} & Pre & 26.61 & 3.72 & \multirow{2}{*}{5.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 31.90 & 2.73 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{5 th MTH} & Pre & 28.12 & 2.37 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 32.48 & 1.86 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2 nd–4 th MTH} & Pre & 29.21 & 2.31 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 33.47 & 2.05 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{1 st MTH} & Pre & 28.56 & 2.63 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.6} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 33.16 & 2.10 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lateral Midfoot} & Pre & 29.71 & 2.01 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 32.93 & 1.76 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Medial Midfoot} & Pre & 30.49 & 1.87 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.0} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 33.51 & 1.77 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Lateral Heel} & Pre & 28.45 & 2.42 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.9} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 32.37 & 2.16 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Medial Heel} & Pre & 28.82 & 2.06 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{<0.001} \\  & Post & 32.24 & 2.25 & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} ROI’s Regions of interest. MTH, metatarsal head.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Pre- and post-exercise temperatures when using the AWC 1 model sock. When comparing the temperatures of the 9 ROIs after the 10-km run, a higher temperature was found in the 1 st metatarsal head when using the AWC 2.1 sock (33.6 \(\pm\) 2.0 \({}^{\circ}\)C) compared with AWC 1 (33.2 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C) (\(p\) = 0.014). In the rest of the areas analyzed, there were no statistically significant differences (Table 4). When assessing the physiological characteristics perceived with the socks, the participants scored moisture and cushioning with an average score greater than 4, except for thermal