Changes in lower extremity movement and power absorption during forefoot striking and barefoot runni

NewsBot · Oct 24, 2012

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Changes in lower extremity movement and power absorption during forefoot striking and barefoot running.
Williams DS 3rd, Green DH, Wurzinger B.
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Oct;7(5):525-32.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND:
Both forefoot strike shod (FFS) and barefoot (BF) running styles result in different mechanics when compared to rearfoot strike (RFS) shod running. Additionally, running mechanics of FFS and BF running are similar to one another. Comparing the mechanical changes occurring in each of these patterns is necessary to understand potential benefits and risks of these running styles. The authors hypothesized that FFS and BF conditions would result in increased sagittal plane joint angles at initial contact and that FFS and BF conditions would demonstrate a shift in sagittal plane joint power from the knee to the ankle when compared to the RFS condition. Finally, total lower extremity power absorption will be least in BF and greatest in the RFS shod condition.

METHODS:
The study included 10 male and 10 female RFS runners who completed 3-dimensional running analysis in 3 conditions: shod with RFS, shod with FFS, and BF. Variables were the angles of plantarflexion, knee flexion, and hip flexion at initial contact and peak sagittal plane joint power at the hip, knee, and ankle during stance phase.

RESULTS:
Running with a FFS pattern and BF resulted in significantly greater plantarflexion and significantly less negative knee power (absorption) when compared to shod RFS condition. FFS condition runners landed in the most plantarflexion and demonstrated the most peak ankle power absorption and lowest knee power absorption between the 3 conditions. BF and FFS conditions demonstrated decreased total lower extremity power absorption compared to the shod RFS condition but did not differ from one another.

CONCLUSIONS:
BF and FFS running result in reduced total lower extremity power, hip power and knee power and a shift of power absorption from the knee to the ankle.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:
Alterations associated with BF running patterns are present in a FFS pattern when wearing shoes. Additionally, both patterns result in increased demand at the foot and ankle as compared to the knee.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · Oct 24, 2012

Related threads:
Other threads tagged with Running technique
Lower extremity joint stiffness characteristics during running with different footfall patterns
Effect of forefoot striking on the low back
Relationships Among Self-reported Shoe Type, Footstrike Pattern, and Injury Incidence
Foot-strike Pattern and Performance in a Marathon
The relationship between running economy and biomechanical variables in distance runners
Effects of forefoot running on chronic exertional compartment syndrome
Foot strike patterns and ground contact times during high-calibre middle-distance races
Chi Running
Foot strike patterns and ground contact times during high-calibre middle-distance races
Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Cadence of 180 steps/min to treat and reduce risk of running injury
Mechanics and injury trends among various running styles
Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study
Increased Tibial Strain in Forefoot Striking
Arch deformation characteritics between forefoot and rearfoot striking
Impact parameters were significantly greater in the barefoot running
Joint moments in forefoot vs rearfoot strike running
Meb Keflezighi Heel Strikes His Way to a 2:09 Boston Marathon
Sensitive/proprioceptive heel strike during running
Landing Pattern Modification to Improve Patellofemoral Pain in Runners
Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race
Some barefoot runners heel strike first
Impact frequency data suggest unique risks for forefoot strikers
Does running form matter?
Heel-Striking Running is More Energy Efficient Than Midfoot-Striking Running

Craig Payne · Oct 24, 2012

NewsBot said: ↑

BF and FFS running result in reduced total lower extremity power, hip power and knee power and a shift of power absorption from the knee to the ankle.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what we have discussed in many other threads, that the total 'energy' in the system is the same whichever running form you use..... its just different running forms load different structures differently.... ie the theoretical injury risk is applied to a different structure.

Blaise Dubois · Oct 31, 2012

Craig Payne said: ↑

Which is exactly what we have discussed in many other threads, that the total 'energy' in the system is the same whichever running form you use..... its just different running forms load different structures differently.... ie the theoretical injury risk is applied to a different structure.
Click to expand...

Hi Craig,
- What do you think about one statement of the authors "total lower extremity joint Power" is bigger for the RFS than BF or FFS?
- What do yo think of my poster on shoes prescription based on that concept? http://www.therunningclinic.ca/medias/pdf/5390-cdc-affiche-organigramme-.pdf

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

Craig Payne Moderator

Blaise Dubois Active Member

Lower Extremity Changes Experienced During Pregnancy

Peripheral vascular changes in the lower limbs following cocaine abuse

Nail changes in diabetes

Neuromechanical adaptations of foot function to changes in surface stiffness during hopping

HMRC changes

New Changes with HMRC and self employment for podiatrists

Foot orthoses induce immediate changes in intrinsic foot muscle EMG activity during walking

Share This Page