Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00192-XGet rights and content

Abstract

This study investigated spatio-temporal variables, ground reaction forces and sagittal and frontal plane kinematics during the stance phase of nine trained subjects running barefoot and shod at three different velocities (3.5, 4.5, 5.5 m s-1). Differences between conditions were detected with the general linear method (factorial model). Barefoot running is characterized by a significantly larger external loading rate than the shod condition. The flatter foot placement at touchdown is prepared in free flight, implying an actively induced adaptation strategy. In the barefoot condition, plantar pressure measurements reveal a flatter foot placement to correlate with lower peak heel pressures. Therefore, it is assumed that runners adopt this different touchdown geometry in barefoot running in an attempt to limit the local pressure underneath the heel. A significantly higher leg stiffness during the stance phase was found for the barefoot condition. The sagittal kinematic adaptations between conditions were found in the same way for all subjects and at the three running velocities. However, large individual variations were observed between the runners for the rearfoot kinematics.

Introduction

Nowadays running can be considered one of the most important recreational activities. Since most people are running shod, many scientific studies investigated the influence of alterations in the properties of the shoe on the running style. Ground reaction forces and kinematic variables were found to vary with shoe hardness and shoe geometry (Nigg, 1986; Nigg and Morlock, 1987; Lees, 1988; Pratt, 1989; Edington et al., 1990; Van Woensel and Cavanagh, 1992; McNair and Marshall, 1994). The relationship between kinematic and external and internal kinetic variables was also studied using dynamic simulation models (Denoth, 1986; Gerritsen et al., 1995; Wright et al., 1998).

But there are still many aspects concerning the manner in which athletes adapt to different surfaces, shoes and other boundary conditions which are not well understood. This insight could be enhanced by studying the difference in kinematics between barefoot and shod running since in these situations boundary conditions influencing running kinematics are manipulated. Barefoot running can be seen as a running condition wherein external protection and shock reduction is minimal. So, alterations in running style are expected to be more pronounced than when comparing different shod conditions.

Until now, several authors studied barefoot running but conflicting results were presented in literature, probably because of limited samples. However, all studies agreed with the fact that the external loading rate is significantly larger in the barefoot condition (Dickinson et al., 1985; Komi et al., 1987; Lees, 1988; De Clercq et al., 1994). Concerning the sagittal plane kinematics a more extended body position and a smaller touchdown velocity of the foot were found during barefoot running (De Koning and Nigg, 1993).

The aim of the current study is to provide a comprehensive description of barefoot running using a statistical representative data set, and to compare barefoot with shod running. Therefore, spatio-temporal variables, ground reaction forces and sagittal and frontal plane kinematics of barefoot and shod running at three different velocities are analyzed and compared. In that way, systematic adaptations in the running style can be detected and hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms will be formulated.

Section snippets

Subjects and experimental protocol

Nine trained male long distance runners (30–40 km week−1) were tested while running barefoot and shod (neutral jogging shoe; Adidas 033153, T-response) at three different velocities (3.5, 4.5 and 5.5 m s−1). All of them were free of injuries at the time of the experiment. They were informed about the procedures and signed an informed consent. The average characteristics were: age: 27.3±9 yr; height: 1.78±0.07 m; body mass: 70±9 kg; shoe size: UK 8.9±1.5.

The three orthogonal components of the ground

Spatio-temporal variables

The results are presented in Table 2. For all the tested velocities, runners take significantly smaller steps at a higher frequency for the barefoot condition and a shorter contact time was found.

Kinetic variables

Fig. 3 shows the representative curves of one runner for the vertical ground reaction forces at 4.5 m s−1. Barefoot running is characterized by a significantly larger loading rate than in shod running and, in general, more than one impact peak was found for the barefoot condition. No significant main

Discussion

In the current study differences in kinematics and in ground reaction forces, between running with and without running shoes, were studied in order to gain more insight in the adaptation of athletes to changes in the mechanical characteristics of the foot–ground interface.

In barefoot running, a significantly larger loading rate during impact (Gzi) was found, agreeing with results of previous studies (Dickinson et al., 1985; De Koning and Nigg, 1993; De Clercq et al., 1994). Two studies

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study shows a change in running pattern between barefoot and shod running, mainly characterized by a larger external loading rate and a significantly flatter foot placement at touchdown in barefoot running. The joint configuration of the leg is already prepared in free flight by a larger plantar flexion, by more knee flexion and a larger knee flexion velocity while running barefoot, implying an actively induced adaptation strategy for this running condition. Plantar pressure

Acknowledgements

This research was partially financially supported by a grant of BOZF-RUG (nr 011B0996). Special thanks to an anonymous reviewer for his valuable suggestions.

References (26)

  • De Koning J., Nigg, B., 1993. Kinematic factors affecting initial peak vertical ground reaction forces in running. In...
  • Denoth, J., 1986. Load on the locomotor system and modeling. In: Nigg, B.M. (ed.) Biomechanics of running shoes....
  • C.J. Edington et al.

    Rearfoot motion in distance running

  • Cited by (408)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text