Short CommunicationKinematic and kinetic comparison of barefoot and shod running in mid/forefoot and rearfoot strike runners
Introduction
Barefoot running has received considerable attention in the scientific literature as of late [1]. Much of the interest has been driven by media claims of potential performance benefits and reduced injury risk. Barefoot running results in gait alterations that may lead to these proposed benefits. Gait alterations associated with barefoot running include decreased stride length [2], [3], [4] and switching from a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern when shod to a mid/forefoot strike (M/FFS) pattern when running barefoot [2], [3], [5]. However, it is estimated that 72–89% of individuals are RFS runners, while the remainder M/FFS even when wearing cushioned running shoes [5], [6]. The purpose of this study was to determine if the mechanics of barefoot running by natural shod RFS runners differed from natural shod M/FFS runners.
Section snippets
Material and methods
Ten healthy, injury free, natural M/FFS individuals [5 men, 5 women; age: 28 ± 5.9 years; height: 1.71 ± 0.08 m; mass: 70.8 ± 10.3 kg] and RFS individuals [5 men, 5 women; age: 29 ± 6.0 years; height: 1.70 ± 0.09 m; mass: 65.3 ± 8.6 kg] volunteered for this study. Foot strike was verified by motion analysis, with M/FFS defined as a foot strike angle <0° and RFS defined as a foot strike angle >0° [7]. The University of Idaho's Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Results
The M/FFS and RFS groups both showed a significant decrease in stride length when switching from shod to barefoot running. The RFS group had an 8.0% reduction in stride length (p = 0.008), and the M/FFS group experienced a 6.3% decrease (p < 0.001) (Table 1). There were no significant differences between RFS and M/FFS groups in stride length (p = 0.177) or velocity (p = 0.160) (Table 1).
Discussion
The only difference when from switching from shod to barefoot running in M/FFS subjects was a decrease in stride length. Alternatively, RFS individuals experienced gait changes commonly associated with barefoot running [1]; including decreased stride length, a plantarflexed position at ground contact and reduced impact peak magnitude. These changes reflect that when running barefoot, the RFS group ran similar to the M/FFS group.
The primary kinematic difference between SHOD M/FFS and RFS runners
Conflict of interest
None of the authors report a conflict of interest.
References (15)
- et al.
The effect of stride length on the dynamics of barefoot and shod running
J Biomech
(2014) - et al.
A kinematic method for foot strike pattern detection in barefoot and shod runners
Gait Posture
(2012) - et al.
The effect of speed on leg stiffness and joint kinetics in human running
J Biomech
(1999) - et al.
Barefoot running: biomechanics and implications for running injuries
Curr Sports Med Rep
(2012) - et al.
Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running
Int J Sports Med
(2005) - et al.
Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners
J Sports Med Phys Fit
(2009) - et al.
Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners
Nature
(2010)
Cited by (35)
Using the spring-mass model for running: Force-length curves and foot-strike patterns
2020, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :For example, Lussiana, Hébert-Losier 2015 [9] concluded that stiffness provided a unique and alternative way of describing the biomechanical changes that occur during different running conditions [9]. However, it has previously been shown that minimal shoes sometimes result in participants transitioning from a rearfoot to a forefoot strike pattern [30], and given our findings that foot-strike index has a significant effect on linearity, their results may have been affected by the linearity of the force-length curve. This further brings into question whether it is appropriate to use a single value of stiffness to determine changes which are associated with different running conditions.
Acute responses to barefoot 5 km treadmill running involve changes in landing kinematics and delayed onset muscle soreness
2020, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :On the other hand, barefoot running is nowadays been suggested as a strategy to minimize impact forces and reduce the risk of injury [8,9]. In the transition to barefoot on a treadmill, runners reduce the stride length, change ankle kinematics at foot strike and perceive lower impact compared to shod runners [10]. Barefoot running is also advocated to reduce energy expenditure and minimize the impact on joints, which together could improve endurance performance [9].
Superficial plantar cutaneous sensation does not trigger barefoot running adaptations
2017, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Specifically, when running barefoot most individuals decrease stride length by approximately 5.0–8.5% as compared to shod running [6–8]. Additionally, despite the fact that 72–89% of individuals exhibit a rearfoot strike pattern when wearing traditional shoes [9,10], nearly all individuals adopt a fore/midfoot strike pattern when running barefoot or in less cushioned minimalist shoes [6,9,7,11]. It has been proposed that the gait alterations associated with barefoot running are due to changes in sensory feedback from the sole of the foot.
Can running kinetics be modified using a barefoot training program?
2018, Apunts Medicina de l'EsportCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, barefoot running is also associated with a shorter stride a higher stride cadence both low and high running speed,7,8 reducing stride length decreased the probability of stress fracture by 3–6%.5 Previous studies of barefoot running specify even more the kinematic changes such as: shorter step length and larger step frequency, shorter landing phase, shorter contact time, shorter flight time and shorter step time.7–11 Barefoot running is also related with a higher stride cadence both low and high running speed.7,8
Effects of different contact angles during forefoot running on the stresses of the foot bones: a finite element simulation study
2024, Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology