Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Barefoot/minimalism running biomechanics

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, May 14, 2013.

  1. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    Hey Craig.. quite interesting to have 3 in a row.. and all seem to me to have some inherent positives to measured barefoot training or training in a less structured shoe.. once one gets past all the hubris.
    Taken in the light of last year's Rao paper, there might be a whiff of something worthwhile, especially the concept that barefoot training does not necessarily improve muscle strength, but rather the increased “biomechanically efficient” use of the bi-articular LG and MG muscles-tendon structures. Thoughts on this one? Also.. can you access the Sinclair article? I can't get hold of it!
     
  2. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Comparison of Minimalist Footwear Strategies for Simulating Barefoot Running: A Randomized Crossover Study.
    Hollader K, Argubi-Wollesen A, Reer R, Zeh A
    PLoS ONE 10(5): e0125880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125880
     
  3. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Influence Of Habitual Footwear And Foot Strike On Resultant Ground Reaction Forces.
    Hanah M. Rice, Steve T. Jamison, Irene S. Davis,
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
     
  4. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Another study on this topic:
    Prevalence of Inaccurate Foot Strike Detection in Runners: Relation to Shoe Type and Injury
    Laura A. Zdzarski, Heather K. Vincent, FACSM, Cong Chen, Kevin R. Vincent, FACSM, MaryBeth Horodyski
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
     
  5. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Ground Reaction Forces In Rearfoot And Forefoot Running Assessed By A Continuous Wavelet Transform
    Allison H. Gruber , W. Brent Edwards , Joseph Hamill, FACSM, Timothy R. Derrick, Katherine A. Boyer
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
     
  6. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Effect of a 10-Week Barefoot Running Intervention on Race Performance in Habitually Shod Runners
    Aliaksandr Leuchanka.
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
     
  7. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Comparison of Self-Selected Pace and Heart Rate Response in Barefoot vs Shod Running
    Peter M. Magyari, Tracy Alloway, Ross Alloway, Shelley Floyd, Greg Cosentino.
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
     
  8. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Changes in Joint Contributions to the Support Impulse During an Acute Transition to Barefoot Running
    Andrea M. Du Bois, Rami Hashish, Sachithra Samarawickrame, George M. Salem, FACSM.
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
    INTRODUCTION: The knee is the most commonly injured joint from running participation. Relative to shod rear-foot strike (RFS) running, a forefoot strike (FFS) is associated with a shift in mechanical demand from the knee to the ankle. Accordingly, a FFS has been promoted as a method to reduce injury rates. Largely attributed to its association with a FFS among habituated populations, barefoot running has risen in popularity. However, recent investigations indicate that habitually shod runners do not innately adopt a FFS when acutely transitioning to barefoot running. Thus, it is unknown whether altered joint demands are a function of the adopted foot strike pattern or running barefoot.
    PURPOSE: To examine the relative contribution of the ankle, knee and hip to the support impulse in habitually shod runners during an acute bout of barefoot running.
    METHODS: 22 habitually shod RFS runners performed over-ground running shod and barefoot. Runners were grouped according to their barefoot foot strike pattern: RFS, mid-foot strike (MFS), and FFS. The support impulse was a measure of the cumulative ankle, knee and hip extensor moments during absorption (initial contact to peak knee flexion). The relative contributions of the ankle, knee, and hip were calculated as a percentage.
    RESULTS: 5 runners adopted a FFS, 9 adopted a MFS, and 8 maintained a RFS during the barefoot condition. There were no differences in support impulse magnitude (p>0.05). All barefoot runners demonstrated increased ankle contribution relative to shod (p≤0.028) while only MFS runners demonstrated reduced knee and hip contribution (p≤0.021). FFS demonstrated a trend towards decreased knee contribution (p=0.095). FFS and MFS runners had a larger ankle contribution and lesser knee contribution than RFS runners (p≤0.021). Furthermore, when shod, the FFS runners presented with greater ankle contribution than RFS runners (p≤0.007).
    CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous research, there was an increase in the demands at the ankle across all foot strike patterns while only MFS runners presented with reduced demands at the knee and hip. FFS runners demonstrated a trend towards reduced knee demands suggesting that adopting a FFS or MFS when running barefoot can reduce knee injury risk. However, due to the increased demands at the ankle, it is important that all habitually shod runners gradually transition to barefoot running.

    Differences In Foot-strike Pattern In Relationship To Changes In Running Velocity
    James M. Charles, Robert I. Dudley, Kevin A. Valenzuela, Casey E. Ward, Guillermo J. Noffal, Scott K. Lynn.
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
    Foot-strike patterns employed by runners have major implications on running economy and injury biomechanics. Although previous research has shown that as finish time decreases during a half marathon there is a general trend towards a mid-foot striking pattern and away from a rear-foot striking pattern, few studies have looked at the effect running velocity has on foot strike pattern in a controlled environment. PURPOSE: To quantify how a runner alters their foot-strike pattern across a range of velocities.
    METHODS: Fourteen recreational runners (23.1 ± 2.46 yr, 1.75 ± 0.08 m, 64.99 ± 9.80 kg) completed two testing sessions. The first session consisted of a timed one-mile run in order to attain maximum sustainable running velocity. On a separate day, subjects ran on an indoor treadmill at 100% - 60% of their maximum speed for two minutes at each 10% increment. A motion capture system (Qualisys, Goetenburg, Sweden), sampling at 240 Hz, was used to identify the participant’s foot-strike angle; and a with-in subjects ANOVA was conducted to determine if a difference was present in foot-strike angle between running velocities.
    RESULTS: The ANOVA results suggest that there was a significant difference among foot-strike angles (F(4,13)=5.72, p<0.01). Further, the effect of velocity accounted for 31% (p 2 =0.31) of the change seen in foot-strike angle. A Bonferroni post hoc test revealed a significant difference in footstrike between the 100% trials and 70% trials (p=.04), as well as between the 90% and 70% trials (p<0.01).
    CONCLUSIONS: The differences between 70% and higher velocity trials (90% and 100%) is attributed to participants shifting from a rear-foot to a mid-foot striking pattern as their velocity increased. However, no difference was seen between the 60% and higher velocity trials. This was attributed to the fact these velocities were slower than participant’s preferred running speed, resulting in an unorthodox gait pattern. Previous research has suggested that this transition in footstrike pattern is done for runners to reduce the loading rates associated with higher running velocities. A better understanding of foot-strike pattern changes in regards to running velocity is important for training and injury prevention

    Changes in Foot Pronation Biomechanics From a Walk to a Run
    Reed Ferber, Patria Hume, Sean Osis, Blayne Hettinga
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
    Footwear prescription is often based on observation and/or measurement of walking (W) gait biomechanics to serve as a surrogate for foot mechanics when running (R). However, a comprehensive understanding of changes in foot biomechanics between W and R conditions remains unclear. PURPOSE: To determine changes in kinematics during W and R conditions for select foot biomechanical variables.
    METHODS: Three-dimensional W and R biomechanics were analyzed on a treadmill using standard motion analysis techniques and standardized speeds (W=1.1 m/s ±5%; R=2.7m/s ±10). Kinematic data for 437 athletes (187 male; 250 female; 18-48 years) were calculated. Variables of interest included peak rearfoot eversion RFEv, peak eversion velocity (EVVel), time to peak eversion (TTPEv), eversion excursion (EVExc), footstrike angle (FSA), and foot progression angle (PFA). All variables were analyzed using paired t-tests (p<0.05). for W to R comparisons.
    RESULTS: Compared to W, athletes exhibited small, yet significant increases during R for RFEv (W=-5.4 ±1.7°; R=-6.3 ±2.1°; p=0.01) and 147 athletes (31%) exhibited clinically meaningful increases greater than 2°. Compared to W, athletes exhibited significant increases for EVVel (W=108±30°/s; R=232±53°/s; p=0.01), and significant decreases for TTPEv (W=40±12%; R=25±5%; p=0.01) and FSA (W=24±3°; R=13±3°; p=0.01) for R. There were no significant differences between W and R for EVExc (W=-8.6±1.8°; R=-8.9±2.4°; p=0.08) or FPA (W=10.4±3.2°; R=10.5±3.3°; p=0.01).
    CONCLUSIONS: When running, FSA decreased towards a more horizontal heel strike orientation, RFEv occurred earlier during stance, and the foot everted at a greater velocity for this population of athletes. The overall subtle changes in RFEv from W to R suggest this kinematic variable does not change between walking and running for the majority of runners. However, since 31% of runners exhibited a change of 2o or more in RFEv, these results suggest that a running analysis may be required for proper footwear prescription.

    The Relationship Between Strike Pattern And Injuryrelated Biomechanical Variables In Male And Female Collegiate Runners
    Max R. Paquette, Daniel Kuhman, Daniel A. Melcher, Nathan Johnson.
    Presented at the ACSM Meeting; San Diego May 2015
    Runners who rearfoot strike (RFS) may develop more injuries compared to those who midfoot or forefoot strike (non-RFS). Different strike patterns alter lower extremity joint biomechanics and some of these biomechanical variables have been associated with running injuries. PURPOSE: To establish the relationship between strike pattern and injury-related variables in male and female collegiate runners.
    METHODS: 24 non-injured collegiate runners (11 women) completed five over ground running trials. Based on preferred training speeds, men ran at 4.5 m/s while women ran at 4.0 m/s. 3D joint kinematics and ground reaction force (GRF) data for the right limb were collected using a motion capture system (Qualisys) and force platform (AMTI), respectively. Runners were not given any instructions regarding their strike patterns. Strike index (SI) was used to quantify strike pattern. Data were analyzed using Visual3D software (C-Motion) and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between strike index (SI) and six injury-related variables: loading rate of the vertical GRF, peak ankle eversion velocity following foot strike, knee flexion range of motion (ROM), hip adduction ROM, hip internal rotation ROM, contralateral pelvic drop ROM.
    RESULTS: In all runners combined, SI was positively correlated to internal hip rotation ROM (r=0.55, p=0.03) but, negatively correlated to ankle eversion velocity (r=-0.56, p=0.005), and knee flexion ROM (r=-0.75, p<0.001). With respect to individual sexes, SI was negatively correlated to knee flexion ROM in male (r=-0.68, p=0.011) and female runners (r=-0.87, p<o.001). but to no other variable.
    CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that a more anterior strike pattern (i.e., non-RFS) is associated with greater internal hip rotation ROM but with lesser peak ankle eversion velocity and knee flexion ROM during stance. Strike pattern does not appear to be associated with loading rate, hip adduction ROM, and contralateral pelvic drop. The relationship between strike pattern and injury-related biomechanical variables appears to be similar between sexes in a small sample of NCAA Division I runners. Prospective studies are warranted to identify causative relationships between strike pattern and injury development in male and female runners.
     
  9. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Barefoot vs Common Footwear: A systematic review of the kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity differences during walking
    Simon Frankin, Michael J. Gray, Nicola Heneghan, Laura Bowen, François-Xavier
    Gait and Posture; Article in Press
    Abstract
     
  10. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Plantar loading changes with alterations in foot strike patterns during a single session in habitual rear foot strike female runners
    Thomas W. Kernozeki, Ph.D.,FACSM, Charles N. Vannatha, DPT, Naghmeh Gheidi, Ph.D, Sydnie Krause, B.S, Naoko Aminaka, Ph.D.,ATC
    Phys Ther Sport; Article in Press
     
  11. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Influence of Minimalist Footwear on Knee and Ankle Load during Depth Jumping
    J. Sinclair, S.J. Hobbs & J. Selfe
    Research in Sports Medicine: An International Journal; Published online: 08 Jun 2015
     
  12. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A New View of Responses to First-Time Barefoot Running
    Michael Wilkinson, Nick Caplan, Richard Akenhead and Philip R Hayes
    Int J Sports Exerc Med 2015, 1:2
     
  13. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Barefoot and shod running: their effects on foot muscle kinetics
    Jonathan Sinclair
    The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 8 (2): 2
     
  14. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    How did they draw this conclusion?? 3 muscles strengthened with BFR and 2 with SHR and yet the conclusion is " BF training may serve to strengthen the foot musculature." ?? And correct me if I am wrong, but OpenSim is a modelling program right.. so all these are estimates from a model?
     
  15. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    THE INFLUENCE OF ENERGY RETURN AND MINIMALIST
    FOOTWEAR ON THE KINETICS AND KINEMATICS OF DEPTH
    JUMPING IN RELATION TO CONVENTIONAL TRAINERS

    Jonathan Sinclair, Jordan Toth and Sarah Jane Hobbs
    Kinesiology 47(2015)1:11-18
     
  16. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Foot Morphological Difference between Habitually Shod and Unshod Runners.
    Shu Y et al
    PLoS One. 2015 Jul 6;10(7):e0131385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131385.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2015
  17. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Variation in Foot Strike Patterns among Habitually Barefoot and Shod Runners in Kenya.
    Lieberman DE et al
    PLoS One. 2015 Jul 8;10(7):e0131354
     
  18. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Acute response to barefoot running in habitually shod males
    N. Fleming, J. Walters, J. Grounds, L. Fife, A. Finch
    Human Movement Science; Volume 42, August 2015, Pages 27–37
     
  19. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A comparative biomechanical analysis of habitually unshod and shod runners based on a foot morphological difference
    Qichang Mei, Justin Fernandez, Weijie Fu, Neng Feng, Yaodong Gu
    Human Movement Science; Volume 42, August 2015, Pages 38–53
     

    Attached Files:

  20. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Six Weeks Habituation of Simulated Barefoot Running Induces Neuromuscular Adaptations and Changes in Foot Strike Patterns in Female Runners
    Iman Akef Khowailed, Jerrold Petrofsky, Everett Lohman, Noha Daher
    Med Sci Monit 2015; 21:2021-2030
     
  21. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Comparison of Barefoot vs. Shod Gait on Spinal Dynamics Using DIERS Formetric 4D and DIERS Pedoscan Systems
    Carolyn Draus, David Moravec, Adam Kopiec, Patrick Knott
    Open Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 3, 70-76. doi: 10.4236/ojtr.2015.33010.
     
  22. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DYNAMIC BALANCE IN SHOD AND UNSHOD CONDITIONS AMONG LONG DISTANCE RUNNERS
    SWARNALATHA SHETTY, WATSON ARULSINGH, JOSEPH OLIVER RAJ, PITCHAIAH ARUNACHALAM.
    IJTRR. 2015; 4(4): 201-204doi: 10.5455/ijtrr.00000090
     
  23. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    An Explanation of the Influence on Deciding which Type of Foot Strike to Use when Running Barefoot or in Minimalistic Shoes.
    Dolene A, Rad P, Strjnik V.
    Coll Antropol. 2015 Jul;39 Suppl 1:147-51
     
  24. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Footwear Decreases Gait Asymmetry during Running
    Hoerzer S, Federolf PA, Maurer C, Baltich J, Nigg BM
    PLoS ONE 10(10) 2015
     
  25. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Effects of a Transition to Minimalist Shoe Running on Intrinsic Foot Muscle Size
    AW Johnson, JW Myrar, UH Mitchell, I Hunter, ST Ridge
    Int J Sports Med
     
  26. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Effects of minimalist and maximalist footwear on Achilles tendon load in recreational runners
    J. Sinclair, J. Richards, H. Shore
    Comparative Exercise Physiology; Published Online: October 27, 2015
     
  27. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Three-dimensional impact kinetics with foot-strike manipulations during running
    Andrew D. Nordin, , Janet S. Dufek, John A. Mercer
    Journal of Sport and Health Science; 11 November 2015
     
  28. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Kinematics and kinetics of the lower limb in uphill and downhill running: A comparison of
    forefoot strike and rearfoot strike runners
    Erik Kowalski
    Thesis; University of Ottawa; 2015
     
  29. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The effect of footwear and footfall pattern on running stride interval long-range correlations and distributional variability
    Joel T. Fullar, Avelino Amado, Richard E.A van Emmerik, Joseph Hamil, Jonathan D. Buckley, Margarita D. Tsiros, Dominic Thewlis
    Gait & Posture; Article in Press
     
  30. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Orthopaedic Perspective on Barefoot and Minimalist Running.
    Roth J, Neumann J, Tao M.
    J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Jan 21
     
  31. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    An Acute Bout of Barefoot Running Alters Lower-limb Muscle Activation for Minimalist Shoe Users
    N. J. Snow, F. A. Basset, J. Byrne
    Int J Sports Med ; DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1565140
     
  32. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The Effects of Forefoot Striking, Increasing Step Rate, and Forward Trunk Lean Running on Trunk and Lower Limb Kinematics and Comfort
    A. F. dos Santos et al
    Int J Sports Med ; DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564173
     
  33. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Loading rate increases during barefoot running in habitually shod runners: individual responses to an unfamiliar condition
    Nicholas Tam, Janie L. Astephen Wilson, Devon R. Coetzee, Leanri van Pletsen, Ross Tucker
    Gait and Posture; Article in Press
     
  34. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Distribution of plantar pressure during jogging barefoot or in minimalistic shoes in persons who used to run in cushioned shoes.
    Szulc P, Waszak M, Bartkowiak M, Tomczak M, Boch-Kmieciak J, Cieslik K.
    J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016 Mar 9
     
  35. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The influence of minimalist footwear and stride length reduction on lower-extremity running mechanics and cumulative loading
    Colin R. Firminger, W. Brent Edwards
    Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport; Article in Press
     
  36. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Does ?transition shoe? promote an intermediate biomechanical condition compared to running in conventional shoe and in reduced protection condition?
    Ana Paula da Silva Azevedo et al
    Gait and Posture; Article in Press
     
  37. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Energy Management Mechanisms Employed at the
    Human-Material Interface of Traditional and
    Minimalist Shod Running

    Nadine M. Lippa
    Thesis; University of Southern Mississippi 2016
     
  38. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    The influence of barefoot and shod running on Triceps surae muscle strain characteristics
    Sinclair J, Cole T, Richards J
    The Foot and Ankle Online Journal 9 (1): 4
     
  39. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Injuries And Footwear (Part 2): Minimalist Running Shoes.
    Knapik JJ, Orr R, Pope R, Grier T.
    J Spec Oper Med. 2016 Spring;16(1):89-96
     
  40. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Kinematic and kinetic differences between shod and barefoot running
    Syrjala, J
    University of Jyvaskyla, Master?s Thesis in Biomechanics 2016
     
Loading...

Share This Page