Barefoot Running Debate

Increased arch height seems to be associated with higher leg stiffness- foot pronation adding to the amount of "compression of the spring for a given load"? Or more hip / knee flexion in low arched feet? During running, leg stiffness depends on the surface stiffness. As far as I can understand the body adjusts leg stiffness to surface stiffness to maintain the net stiffness (surface stiffness + leg stiffness if you like) within as constant a range as possible.

The real question is whether stiffer leg = faster, slower or the same. McMahon stiffened the legs of his runners and improved performance by getting his subjects running on softer surfaces, so it might follow that if we make the legs of the runner more compliant by increasing surface stiffness, performance might be reduced. Given two athletes running on an identical surface, the logic above suggests the one with stiffer legs on that surface should equal better performance, however too stiff leg + too stiff surface and you run the risk of falling outside of the ZOOLS: probably = bony injury. Just as too compliant you run the risk of falling outside of the ZOOLS: probably equals soft tissue injury.

Moreover, if leg stiffness was the only important factor in running, we would be able to spot our next olympic champions just be measuring their leg stiffness. I'm not sure we can do this.

 

Interesting?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155506/
"During running and walking, contact is made with the rear foot first, and the foot subsequently goes through a period of subtalar pronation as it progresses into midstance.10,12 In landing, the initial ground contact is made with the forefoot first, and the biomechanical sequence of events that follows has not been clearly documented. On the basis of what we know of subtalar motion during gait, the midtarsal joints are typically locked in supination when weight is transferred onto the forefoot.10,12 Thus, it may be that full subtalar pronation in a forefoot-to-heel sequence is not the same as in a heel-to-forefoot sequence. Further, the posterior lower-leg muscles would seem to be a more effective and powerful decelerator of, and shock absorber for, the body during this type of landing, which may lessen the impact and relative contribution of subtalar joint in shock absorption with landing.27,44 Devita and Skelly27 noted that the ankle plantar flexors and the knee extensors were the muscle groups primarily responsible for deceleration during landing, with the ankle plantar flexors becoming more active as knee excursion decreased.
Our findings suggest that factors influencing impact forces in running and landing activities may be entirely different because all subjects in our study made contact with the forefoot first. Although we believe that a forefoot-first landing strategy is appropriate and consistent with what typically occurs during functional activity, it is possible that full subtalar motion either is not required or plays a lesser role in force dissipation. Impact forces sustained at the forefoot may bypass the subtalar joint altogether and be taken up by other lower extremity joints."

 

Simon,

Just taking things back a bit for a sec to clarify something in my mind - when we talk about leg stiffness are we referring to the entire lower extremity (leg AND foot)?

 

Sorry - that previous post probably should've gone into the leg stiffness thread - bit of overlap between the two now.

To get back on track with the barefoot discussion... forget the American Podiatric Medical Association, forget the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists... theres a new gang in town now: http://www.primalfootalliance.org/

 

Yes leg + foot.

 

First of all sorry, you will see that my english is not perfect but I think you can understand!

Hi all!! very interessant debate!!!

But I think you are truying to make too many generalities.

Like foot is not made for cycling, foot is not made for running with shoes. But the problem is sport and performance. I don't whant to say that sport is not good for human, but our legs and feets are designed to move for our survival (walk and run if necessary).

If barefoot make muscles works and legs get stiffer maybe why so many people have a lot of deviations is because childrens put shoes to early?

Running barefoot can not be a generality, some who are use from there youngest age to walk and run barefoot (I'm thinking of the africans) can, they developed a different muscularity and a different skin and adipose tissu.... And I think running with shoes will be an error for them! I think some very good runners in africa ran slower when puma and reebook start putting there feets in shoes!

I'm a good triathlete and I experienced the barfoot running when I was younger, the sensations are incredible, the informations you get barefoot are not comparable with the informations you get with shoes. And without the weight of your shoes you really think you are flying! The big probleme is that after some kilometers I started getting tired and attacked with the rear foot. And i'm sure this can cause big big injuries! My muscles were not stiff enought for running barefoot!

So I think running always barefoot is not a good idea but running one's a week or one's every two weeks barefoot ( I will prefer barefoot than with a nike free...) can be a good solution to get some muscles working and getting more stiff!

I also think that injuries if running barefoot will depend on a lot of facors (deviations, muscles...) a minority will be able to run barefoot without any problem and with greater sensations! For a majority it will be a loss of efficiency and it will cause injuries in short term!

I'm sure anyway that the REAL running shoes we have now on the market are really far from the ideal shoes for the foot ( in term of efficiency)! I'm very happy to see Newton working on the frontfoot! Even if this is an other debate I think shoes manufactors should think more frontfoot!

Our orthoses is a good solution to work with frontfoot and rear foot, to do motion limitations to get the foot more rigid and more reactive but without a proper neutral and ideal shoe it's a loss of correction and of efficiency!

Sorry for my english again!!! Hope I wasn't too long and maybe not very in the real debate?

Have a good weekend!

 

netizens
From the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...running-barefoot/story-e6frg8y6-1225842557276

toeslayer

 

Anyone spot the hypocrisy?

On one hand he can criticise a commercial relationship that a shoe company has with an organisation, and on the other hand has his own commerical interests! Talk about having it both ways!

 

Nick Brown and Paynie spoke about Pose, Chi and Barefoot running at the state conference yesterday and as a result I went back over this thread looking for something that Paynie said:

The debate has never been about if people should run barefoot or not, its really about what Paynie said above.

Nick did a brilliant deconstruction of the claims of the reseach that is supposed to support Pose running and Paynie was funny in his characterisation of Chi and barefoot running. Thankfully we have people like this that can get under the rhetoric and spin and sound bites to tell it like it is.

 

Siraj Gena Wins Rome Marathon BAREFOOT

 

Hang on a minute!

 

From ESPN:

Nothing to do with the 5k bonus then?

 

Who put up the 5K bonus -vibram?

 

Haha - that would've been nice (they are bringing out the Bikila shoe very soon after all). Apparently it was the race organisers.

 

And who sponsored the race?

 

Ooo good question - Asics for one...

 

Interesting. Is this the anti-marketing market? That's a big market.... Either that or the marketing manager for ASICS has just been fired- should be: "lets sponsor the finish tape in a race where the winner is going to cross the line barefoot". Pointy, scratchy beard meeting was clearly needed for that one. I guess no publicity is bad publicity, even if you are a running shoe manufacturer that sponsors the finish tape, with a barefoot runner crossing it first. LMAO. I note the lack of full length photo. I suppose the race organisers might not have told them, in which case they might be seeking compensation?

Question: who's shoes was this fella running in until he took them off, i.e. who sponsors his shoes? He might have to re-negotiate his contract soon. Could be worth more than 5K to him.

 

evening all
i was doing a bit of reading about Zola Budd and here is a direct quote from a story by John Bryant (her one time trainer) after she had a hip injury

" ....she met an applied kinesiologist named ronald holder, something of an expert in human movement. Holders technique for treating Zolas injury involved placing wedges made from cut up telephone directories in her shoes. Bizarre though it sounds, these orthotics allowed Zola to run without pain. Zola always wore shoes to run on roads only when she ran on track and cross country did she run barefoot."

i thought it was quite interesting anyway. the queen of barefoot running using orthoses! (and shoes)
cheers
JB

 

Here's the official site: http://www.maratonadiroma.it/

My Italian isn't up to scratch but can't see a mention of Vibrams (or any other barefoot technology) to be fair.

 

JB,

I've done a bit of reading into this for something I am writing with Isaacs.

Zola Budd still allegedly runs tens miles per day in her native South Africa. But...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/10/southafrica.past1

 

hiya ian
would love to read whatever it is when you are finished. where will i be able to find it.
the whole story of her life and struggles, her problems with her dad etc and his grisly end is all fascinating. perhaps we should get chris mcdougall to write a biography of her. he is a talented writer!!
cheers
jb

 

JB,

If Zola rows your boat then you might wanna give her autobiography a go: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0091592712/ref=ed_oe_p_olp

 

That'll be Nike then: http://www.esmintl.com/athleteDetails.asp?id=152

 

Here's the full length in its glory. I too wonder what the bods in these sort of meetings talk about. Marketing not one of my strong points however - still struggle to see the point of McDonalds involvement too - but Big Macs in the finishing bag would be a right touch

 

Here is a question I asked recently on the biomechanics list-serve, Biomech-L, on the topic of whether the impact peak of rearfoot striking runners cause injuries. The responses follow. Interesting stuff!

*************************************************************

I am interested in what type of injury risk rearfoot striking runners have due to the impact (passive) peak seen in the ground reaction force vs time curve from force plate studies. It has been suggested that since midfoot and forefoot striking running does not demonstrate this initial impact peak, then midfoot and forefoot striking may be a running style which produces less running injuries than rearfoot striking running. Are there any studies that have documented any correlation or lack of correlation between this rearfoot striking impact peak and running injuries?

Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Colleagues:

Thank you all for the excellent responses to my question of whether the impact peak that is seen specific to rearfoot striking running is likely to produce running injuries. I have recently become more interested in this topic due to my involvement in debating the potential merits of barefoot versus shod running in the popular press. In addition, in my private sports podiatry practice, many of my runner-patients are curious about the barefoot running fad and its potential health/performance implications.

My personal impression, both from my sports medicine practice and from my 40 years as a distance runner, is that rearfoot striking and midfoot/forefoot striking running styles are self-selected styles of running, neither of which is better or with less injury-risk than the other. One thing that I have noted in the clinical examination of runners over the past 25 years is that the vast majority of runners that tend to naturally choose to be midfoot/forefoot strikers (versus choosing to be a rearfoot striker) while running shod have restrictions in passive ankle joint dorsiflexion with the knee flexed (i.e. soleus/ankle equinus) when compared to the rearfoot striking runners. Possibly those runners, while running shod, that have adequate ankle joint dorsiflexion with the knee flexed will naturally choose to rearfoot strike and those that have inadequate ankle joint dorsiflexion with the knee flexed will naturally choose to midfoot/forefoot strike at slower running speeds? This idea is something certainly to chew on for all of you who are looking for potential research projects on this fascinating subject.

Thanks again for all the excellent responses that follow.

Cheers,

Kevin

*****************************************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Clinical Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt University
Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA

Voice: (916) 925-8111 (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
********************************************************************************
Dear Dr. Kirby,

This paper was published in nature and perhaps can help you.

Lieberman DE, Vankadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D’Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang’Eni RO, Pitsiladis Y: Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531-536, 2010.

Thanks,

Koosha

Koosha Aslani M.S.
Research Engineer, Bioengineering Laboratory
Department of Orthopaedics
The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University / Rhode Island Hospital
email: kaslani@lifespan.org
phone: 401-444-4567 401-444-4567
fax: 401-444-4418
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin,

We met at CSUS while I was in the PT program, and while I was doing research with Rafael Escamilla. Hope you're well.

I'm at University of Delaware now, and research is being conducted on your very question. Attached is an abstract.

Altman AR, Davis IS: Is midfoot striking during running advantageous over rearfoot or forefoot striking?

Toran MacLeod

Toran MacLeod PT, MS
PhD Student, BIOMS program

University of Delaware
Mechanical Engineering
126 Spencer Lab
130 Academy St
Newark, DE 19716

m. 707.318.2662
macleod@udel.edu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kevin,

Great question and very timely, after Lieberman's recent paper in
Nature.

I am not aware of any studies that found an association between impact
peak or high loading rate and running injuries.

About 15 years ago I did a thorough review of literature on relationship
between impact load and OA. There have been many attempts to show a
relationship, but there seems to be no epidemiological evidence
whatsoever that people who do a lot of running have an earlier onset of
OA. Of course those are not randomized trials, there is a selection
bias because people tend to stop running when they have pain. But if
there was any relationship, I think it would have been shown in
epidemiological studies.

My explanation is that the external ground reaction force is only a
minor component of the internal loads on joints and bones. Internal
forces are several times higher, and mainly generated by muscles.
Muscles are soft tissue and don't generate or transmit such impact
peaks. So the bones and joints will hardly notice the impacts.

The comparative view is also interesting. Metal horseshoes produce huge
impact forces but no injuries.

Ton van den Bogert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Kevin,

Here are two you may find interesting, or helpful.

Regards,

Rob Kell

**********************************
Dr. Robert Kell
Assistant Professor, Work Physiology
Dept. of Social Sciences
University of Alberta
Augustana Campus
4901 - 46 Avenue
Camrose, AB T4V 2R3
CAN

Phone: (780) 679-1651
Fax: (780) 679-1590
email: rob.kell@ualberta.ca

Boyer, K. A. and T. P. Andriacchi (2009). "Changes in running kinematics and kinetics in response to a rockered shoe intervention." Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(10): 872-6.
BACKGROUND: A suggested link between ambulatory mechanics and injury development has resulted in significant interest the development of footwear to change locomotion patterns. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that there will be significant changes in the kinematics and kinetics at the ankle and minimal changes at the knee and hip in the mechanics of running in a shoe with a sagittal plane curvature relative to a flat soled shoe. METHODS: During running 3-D lower extremity kinematics and kinetics for 19 healthy volunteers were quantified using an optoelectronics system and a force plate. Data were collected for a flat sole conventional shoe (New Balance 658 (Control)) and a shoe with a rounded sole in the sagittal plane (Masai Barefoot Technologies (MBT)). Data were compared for the two shoe conditions using paired Student t-tests (alpha=0.05). FINDINGS: The ankle dorsi-flexion angles at heel-strike and mid-stance were greater, while the ankle plantar and dorsi-flexion moments and peak ankle joint power were significantly lower with the MBT relative to the control (P<0.05). Decreases in the first medial GRF peak and the peak anterior GRF peak were also found for running in the MBT shoe. INTERPRETATION: Despite a major difference in sole geometry, accommodations to the rockered sole were found only at the ankle. These results suggest changes in ankle kinematics and kinetics may be used to minimize the effect of changes in sole rocker on limb dynamics. Thus, changes in shoe rocker may offer potential therapeutic opportunities for running related conditions at the ankle without substantial risk to the knee or hip.

Lieberman, D. E., M. Venkadesan, et al. "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners." Nature 463(7280): 531-5.
Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Kevin

It could be helpful maybe.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9462910

http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2009/pdf/1128.pdf

http://books.google.cz/books?id=PrO...=forefoot rearfoot runner injury risk&f=false

http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/viewFile/451/391


MUDr. Ivan Vareka, Ph.D.
Department of Biomechanics
Department of Physiotherapy
Faculty of Physical Culture
University of Palacky
Olomouc
Czech Republic
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You may want to check out
http://www.youtube.com/user/NatureVideoChannel#p/a/f/0/7jrnj-7YKZE
for a short video highlighting Daniel Lieberman's research on this topic
at Harvard.

--
Kath Bogie, D.Phil
Senior Research Scientist
Cleveland FES Center& APT Center, L. Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center
Website: http://www.aptcenter.research.va.gov

Assistant Professor (Adjunct)
Dept of Orthopaedics, Case Western Reserve University

Dept of Orthopaedics -or- Advanced Platform Technology Center of Excellence, 151 AW/APT
2109 Adelbert Rd, BRB336 L. Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center
Case Western Reserve University 10701 East Blvd
Cleveland, OH 44106 Cleveland, OH 44106
Phone: (216) 791-3800 X3820 Phone: (216) 368-5270
FAX: (216) 778-4259 FAX: (216) 707-6420
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Dr. Kirby,

My lab has recently been investigating differences in rearfoot vs.
forefoot running. Yes, forefoot running does not have the initial impact
peak, but it does not mean the risk of injury less than rearfoot
runners; it is the type of injury that changes. Rearfoot runners are
more predisposed to bone injuries whereas forefoot runners are more
predisposed to muscle, tendon, or ligament injuries; both types are from
repetitive impact loading. Also, although there are studies that
correlate the passive peak to injury, correlation does not mean
causation and a link of passive peak to injury is still very debated. We
are presently working on a few manuscripts and hope to publish our
results soon. Please feel free to let me know if you have any more
questions.

--
Allison Gruber, M.A.
Doctoral Candidate
Biomechanics Lab
Department of Kinesiology
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Totman Building Room 6
30 Eastman Lane
Amherst, MA 01003-9258

Email: agruber@kin.umass.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Kevin,

You might wish to take a look at the following:

Biomechanical and anatomic factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners.
Pohl MB, Hamill J, Davis IS.
Clin J Sport Med. 2009 Sep;19(5):372-6.
PMID: 19741308 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Distinct hip and rearfoot kinematics in female runners with a history of tibial stress fracture.
Milner CE, Hamill J, Davis IS.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Feb;40(2):59-66.
PMID: 20118528 [PubMed - in process]

Biomechanical predictors of retrospective tibial stress fractures in runners.
Pohl MB, Mullineaux DR, Milner CE, Hamill J, Davis IS.
J Biomech. 2008;41(6):1160-5. Epub 2008 Apr 2.
PMID: 18377913 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Repeated application of incremental landing impact loads to intact knee joints induces anterior cruciate ligament failure and tibiofemoral cartilage deformation and damage: A preliminary cadaveric investigation.
Yeow CH, Ng KS, Cheong CH, Lee PV, Goh JC.
J Biomech. 2009 May 29;42(8):972-81. Epub 2009 Apr 19.
PMID: 19380143 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Mechanical impact and articular cartilage.
Scott CC, Athanasiou KA.
Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2006;34(5):347-78. Review.
PMID: 17206919 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

My best,

Katherine

Katherine K. Whitcome
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
446 Braunstein Hall
PO Box 210380
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0380
Office: 513-556-0369 513-556-0369
katherine.whitcome@uc.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Kevin,

Have you seen the Lieberman studies in Nature?
Vol 463, 28 Jan, 2010, p 531
Vol 432, 18 Nov, 2004, p 345
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100126/full/news.2010.36.html

You may recognize the name Daniel Lieberman, who has done a few studies on barefoot running, which would produce midfoot and forefoot strike. His most recent article (Jan. 2010) speaks to the habitually barefoot vs. habitually shot runners, but I'm not sure it is specific to injury. Maybe you have seen this already?

Also The Science of Sport blog (http://www.sportsscientists.com/) is doing a series of posts on barefoot running, which may be helpful for references and general thought provoking discussion.

I am VERY interested in this topic so please share what you might find.

Thanks and good luck!

Laura Gilmour
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dr. Irene Davis in my dept has ongoing research on this.

Best,

Cole Galloway

======================================
James C. (Cole) Galloway, PT, PhD
Director, Infant Motor Behavior Lab
Associate Professor, Dept of Physical Therapy
Biomechanics and Movement Sciences Program
311 McKinly Lab
University of Delaware
Newark, DE USA 19716
Phone: 302.831.3697(office), x3214 (lab), x4234 (fax)
http://www.udel.edu/PT/About Us/People/galloway.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Kevin,
I recently did a lit review on running injuries for a chapter in my dissertation (happy to share this if you're interested). A summary of the major points:

(1) The reported injury rates in epidemiological literature have not changed since the 1980s; if you average across studies within a decade, in the '80s, '90s, and 2000s, the yearly injury rate is about 40% in each decade. However, within that 40%, the rates of specific injuries have changed somewhat. Achilles tendinitis rates seem to have gone down, while knee injuries and stress fractures have gone up. Whether this is due to actual changes in injury susceptibility and prevention, or just changes in the reporting of or definition of injuries, I don't know.

(2) I only came across one study that reported greater vertical GRF impact peaks in the "injured" group (Hreljac et al., 2000, in MSSE). Literally every other study looking at impact peaks in healthy and injury-prone runners found no significant difference. However, there are several studies that have greater vertical impact loading rates in injury-prone runners. A couple that come to mind are the Hreljac study, and Milner et al. (2006), a stress fracture study. Since nearly all biological tissues are at least somewhat visco-elastic, loading rates may be important injury factors.

(3) There is a huge lack of prospective studies on specific running injuries. I think Noerhen et al. (2007) looked at the GRF in runners who prospectively developed ITBS and didn't find any differences. Benno Nigg has a review paper in 1995 (Journal of Applied Biomechanics) where he cites a masters thesis that found greater impact peaks in the runners who prospectively developed injuries, but the study was never published to my knowledge.

My current thought is that the impact peak doesn't actually vanish in the forefoot strike (there still has to be impulsive contact with the ground, regardless of the foot posture), but it gets "swallowed up" by the active peak, which occurs sooner due to the shorter stride length and consequently the resultant GRF being oriented more directly through the body's mass center. I think runners can likely move the forces around and change when and where they happen by adjusting footstrike patterns. What this means regarding injury potential, I'm not sure. Tim Derrick had a conference proceeding several years ago on extracting the impact peak from the vertical GRF:

http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2005/pdf/0773.pdf

It may be interesting to perform this analysis on GRF from both rearfoot and forefoot striking.

Hope this helps,

Ross

============
Ross H. Miller
Doctoral candidate, Dept. of Kinesiology
University of Massachusetts
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Kevin,

I've attached a paper that I wrote during my time working with Irene
Davis. We found greater vertical GRF load rates associated with runners
who had a history of plantar fasciitis. However, all the subjects were
rearfoot strikers so it's impossible to attribute the injury history to
the foot strike pattern. Reed and myself are currently tackling the
question of whether midfoot/forefoot strike patterns are more beneficial
than a rearfoot strike pattern. The bottom line is that there is no
evidence to suggest that one pattern may be more beneficial than the other
in preventing injury!

Hope all is going well for you.

Cheers,

Mike

_____________________
Postdoctoral Fellow
Running Injury Clinic
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, CANADA
T2N 1N4
P: 403-210-8501 403-210-8501
F: 403-220-0546
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------------------------------------------------------
Information about BIOMCH-L: http://www.Biomch-L.org
Archives: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/Biomch-L.html
---------------------------------------------------------------


Kevin,

Sorry for weighing in late on this issue.

Clearly, there are no data on injury patterns between runners with
different strike patterns and thus, no conclusions can be made at
this time regarding this relationship. However, there are studies
documenting the lack of impact peak in MFS and FFS as far back as
Cavanagh and Lafortune, 1980.

We have studied the issue of impact loading as it relates to stress
fractures in RFS, and most of our papers have been cited in your
responses from others. More recently, we have found similar
associations with other types of injuries, such as PFPS and plantar
fasciitis. These studies have suggested that some aspect of impact,
including impact peak, instantaneous loadrates, average loadrates or
peak positive tibial acceleration) are significantly higher in the
injured group. While muscle forces do produce the greatest internal
loads on bones and joints, they respond, in part, to the external
forces the body experiences.

Clearly, not all RFS with impact peaks get injured, but these results
suggest that those with higher impact loading are more likely to have
a history of injury.

Studies on this topic, to date. have all been retrospective and thus,
it is unclear whether the increased impact loading seen was the
result or cause of the injury. However, we now have prospective data
that we are currently preparing for manuscript submissions, which we
hope may shed more light on this issue.

Our recent Nature paper suggests that individuals who have never worn
shoes land with MFS or FFS, that is missing the initial quick rise to
peak seen in RFS. Running barefoot with a RFS pattern results in
extremely high rates of loading - and it is very uncomfortable.
Landing with a RFS in shoes reduces the impact peak to some degree,
but the peak is still clearly present. However, landing with a MFS
or FFS in shoes eliminates or markedly attenuates these impacts, and
force patterns become similar to those seen in barefoot conditions.

It has also been shown that FFS patterns are associated with greater
eccentric work of the plantarflexors and increased dorsiflexion
velocity, which may increase risk of injuries to the gastocsoleus or
achilles tendon . Loading in a FFS pattern is mostly concentrated
under the ball of the foot which could lead to increased metatarsal
loading. Therefore a FFS pattern may very well be associated with
different types of injuries than a RFS pattern. It is plausible that
landing with a MFS pattern may be ideal as it reduces the impact
loading, increases the area of the foot over which the force is
distributed and may reduce the work of the plantarflexors.

It is clear from all of the responses that this issue needs further
study.

Thank-you for being the catalyst for a very interesting discussion!

Irene Davis

 

Nice barefoot versus shod comparison here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=40089d066dfef7fd383337aba9f70cbe

This is during badminton:
http://jmbe.bme.ncku.edu.tw/index.php/bme/article/viewFile/392/683

 

Studies show that running barefoot has benefits to our health. But do we actually need to sacrifice our soles just to get these benefits? That is why shoes that are specially designed are created to get the benefit of barefoot running without actually running barefoot.

{link drop spam removed - Admin}

 

What an absolute load of nonsense. Can you please show us just ONE of those studies?

 

Here's another comment on barefoot running from Biomech-L that some of you, especially you football (soccer) fans, may enjoy.

 

Amen. God bless the beautiful game.

 

For those of you who may be interested, here is my latest article on barefoot running from the April 2010 issue of Podiatry Today: Is Barefoot Running a Growing Trend or a Passing Fad?

 

And for those of you with a deeply infantile streak to their sense of humour

http://barebackrunning.blogspot.com/

 

Robert:

Classic! Funny thing is, early on in this barefoot running thing, I had considered this "naked" line of reasoning to spoof the barefoot running zealots.....but Barefoot Bob has beat me to it.

By the way, for you bareback runners out there that want some "minimalist support" while running, Vibram has just come out with a new product, the Vibram OneFinger.

 

Love your work Isaacs. Utterly brilliant.

 

Kevin;

there is no doubt that if that product actually existed you would be inundated with "one Fingers" from the barefoot community!

Cheers;
Bruce

 

Don't know what you mean

pmsl at the vibram 1 finger!! Is that to stop you developing calluses?

 

I'm doing a bit of online browsing at the mo as I'm going to get a pair of Vibram Five Fingers (VFF) so wanted to search for the best deal. Funny thing is that on many sites you can also buy a pair of special VFF socks. This 'barefoot' running is getting less and less barefoot the more I look into it...

P.S. Apparently Vibram is pronounced Vee-brum. You learn something new every day.

 

The vibram 1 finger prototype.

http://to55er.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/il_430xn_15411321.jpg

I've gone too far again haven't I

 

Robert;

yes, too far! Does it come in orange though?
LOL!
Bruce