Minimalist Running Does NOT Increase Arch Strength

NewsBot · Jun 3, 2012

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
This is a blog from Amby Burfoot about an abstract to be presented at next weeks American College of Sports Medicine conference (2011):

Minimalist Shoes Don't Improve Arch Strength: A team from Louisiana and Alabama figured that wearing minimalist shoes for 6 months should increase an arch strength measure called Arch Rigidity Index. They had only 5 subjects, but were surprised by their no-change result. In fact, they turned it around by commenting that at least the lack-of-arch-supports did not decrease arch strength.

Bottom line: Fans of "evolutionary running," and I count myself one of them (to a point), love to make claims about how shoes destroy foot strength and integrity. I'm not sure there's much support for this position. I do know that a number of podiatrists and physical therapists have told me that the feet don't hibernate when encased in shoes. They've still got lots of work to do inside those shoes (at least if you're moving around). It's not the same thing as the well known foot- and leg-muscle loss that results from extended bed rest. (That said, shoes definitely squeeze the toes together somewhat. I've never seen anyone investigate this phenomenon.)
Click to expand...

NewsBot · May 27, 2011

Here is the abstract:
Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Arch Rigidity Index
Cory E. Etheredge et al

The idea of running barefoot continues to grow in popularity among avid and recreational runners. This interest in barefoot running has led to new shoe designs that are intended to protect the foot while keeping the foot close to the natural state; however, research has yet to determine the influence of minimalist footwear on the architecture of the foot.

PURPOSE: To compare the Arch Rigidity Index (ARI) of participants after wearing Articulated Toe Shoes (ATS) over a six month time period. It was hypothesized the ARI would increase after the six month period of wearing ATS.

METHODS: Participants were assessed on ARI initially and after wearing ATS for a period of six months (N = 5 males, Mean age: 29.4 ± 5.2 yrs, Mean height: 1.78 ± .05 m, Mean mass: 79.11 ± 7.83 kg, self reported mean ATS wear time: 5.7 ± 2.1 hrs/day). ARI was calculated by dividing the participant’s Arch Height Index (AHI) in the standing position by the AHI in the seated position. ARI was analyzed using a repeated measure ANOVA with significance set at p < .05.

RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between initial-ARI and post-ARI after six months (p = .444). Across all five test subjects, the mean initial-ARI was .929 (SD = .029); while the mean post-ARI was .938 (SD = .027).

CONCLUSION: While there was no statistical significance found, attention must be brought to the fact that the sample size was small as well as the relatively small magnitude for change of the arch height. The lack of a significant finding was surprising, especially in light of the small standard deviations, however the findings do indicate that arch rigidity did not deteriorate in the absence of arch supported footwear. Future research is needed to determine if this finding remains in a larger sample size and if the rigidity of the arch is affected if ATS are worn for more than six months.
Click to expand...

Here is another from the same group:
Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Medial Arch Height
Justin F. Shroyer et al

To appeal to barefoot running enthusiasts, several footwear companies have recently introduced minimalist running footwear to mimic running barefoot while providing protection to the foot from environmental hazards. One such common minimalist footwear is characterized by separated compartments for the phalanges of the foot. To date, there are few research studies to evaluate the effect of this minimalist footwear on the structure of the arches within the foot.

PURPOSE: To compare the Arch Height Index (AHI) of participants after wearing Articulated Toe Shoes (ATS) footwear over a six month time period. It was hypothesized the AHI would increase after the six month period of wearing ATS.

METHODS: Participants were assessed on AHI initially and after wearing ATS for a period of six months (N = 5 males, Mean age: 29.4 ± 5.2 yrs, Mean height: 1.78 ± .05 m, Mean mass: 79.11 ± 7.83 kg, self reported mean ATS wear time: 5.7 ± 2.1 hrs/day). AHI was calculated by dividing the height of the dorsal aspect of the participant’s foot at the midpoint of the total length of the foot by the length of the foot from the posterior aspect of the calcaneous to the 1st metatarsalphalangeal joint. AHI was analyzed using a repeated measure ANOVA with significance set at p < .05.

RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between initial-AHI and post-AHI after six months (p = .961). Across all five test subjects, the mean initial-AHI was .3400 (SD = .023); while the mean post-AHI was .3399 (SD = .022).

CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study should be read with some caution due to the small sample size. However, it does begin to answer one of the concerns regarding the wearing of minimal footwear, specifically, the failure of the arch in the absence of arch supports. The results of the present study seem to suggest that this concern is unwarranted. Further research is needed to investigate whether this finding remains at larger sample sizes and to determine the mechanism of the maintenance of the arch in the absences of the arch support.
Click to expand...

Admin2 · May 27, 2011

Related thread:
Do running shoes weaken muscles?
Muscle Strength and Arch Height

BEN-HUR · May 27, 2011

Thanks NewsBot for the update on these issues. Look forward to more research on these areas.

That Amby Burfoot blog is quite interesting...

Barefoot Runners Run Like Shod Runners With a Midfoot Strike: Another study by Davis, et al. This one involved runners who had been going barefoot or using FiveFingers for at least a month. They were then asked to run on an instrumented treadmill under four different conditions: barefoot, shod (type of shoes not mentioned) with a forefoot strike, shod/midfoot, shod/rearfoot. In an analysis of load rates and stride lengths, the barefoot and shod/midfoot conditions looked almost identical. The big outlier was the shod/forefoot condition, which resulted in significantly lower load rates (the shod/rearfoot produced the highest load rates.)

Bottom line: Here, it appears that where/how you land is more important than what's on your feet (or not).
Click to expand...

I suspected this - putting aside the fact that I certainly wouldn't run in some types or running shoes that are on the market... look forward to more.

Forefoot Running Shoe Doesn't Improve Economy: Dutch researchers used 16 competitive distance runners to test a shoe designed to "mimic a foot strike pattern as seen in forefoot running." They assumed this would decrease the braking effect of their subjects' strides, thereby increasing their running economy. It didn't work.

Bottom line (from the researchers): "Contrary to assumed, the new shoe concept did not produce an increase in running economy."
Click to expand...

Interesting... I would have suspected it would be more economical - then again, I don't know what shoe they used for this (some variable factors involved). Look forward to more research here as well.

But Shorter Strides Do: A team from the Univ of Buffalo and Univ of New Hampshire recruited local women runners with best 5K times of 17 to 22 minutes. Only those with a stride rate lower than 176/min were used in the trial. These women spent 10 days running with a metronome to increase their stride rates to 180/minute. After this training period, they performed several submax running tests with a lower heart rate and lower oxygen consumption (that is, increased running economy) than before the training.

Bottom line: Another indication that distance runners can benefit from modestly higher stride rates. There may be both performance and injury-prevention benefits.
Click to expand...

Interesting results... "they performed several submax running tests with a lower heart rate and lower oxygen consumption".

Minimalist Shoes Don't Improve Arch Strength: A team from Louisiana and Alabama figured that wearing minimalist shoes for 6 months should increase an arch strength measure called Arch Rigidity Index...

Bottom line: Fans of "evolutionary running," and I count myself one of them (to a point)...)
Click to expand...

So do I (I think :confused:)... but this choice of running is surely not really known by that term ("evolutionary running") :eek:. Why can't I be seen as just a runner? :rolleyes:

Anyways, research to look forward to in the future.

pod29 · Jun 2, 2011

NewsBot said: ↑

Here is the abstract:
Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Arch Rigidity Index
Cory E. Etheredge et al

Here is another from the same group:
Effect of Minimalist Footwear on Medial Arch Height
Justin F. Shroyer et al
Click to expand...

Whilst I don't find these results at all surprising, as we have all discussed this issue at length previously. I do think we need to question the validity of the measure they have used. Arch height index, or the modified arch rigidity index seem to be more a measure the the stiffness of the passive structures within the foot such as the plantar fascia and spring ligaments. Given that the plantar intrinsic foot muscles display only minimal amounts of activity in static bipedal stance, it appears somewhat redundant to use a measure of foot posture in this position to address a hypothesis based around progressive strengthening of these muscles. These foot measures were never going to change from 6 months of running in these minimalist shoes unless the shoes could also miraculously increase the stiffness of the plantar fascia. :confused:

Anyway, I'm at ACSM right now, so I guess I'll have to ask them that question tomorrow....

NewsBot · Jun 3, 2012

From this yrs ACSM mtg (2012):
Magnetic Resonance Analysis of Intrinsic Foot Musculature during Running in Shod and Barefoot Conditions
D. S. Blaise Williams, III, Brian W. Wurzinger, Richard L. Segal, C. Ryan Steinbaker, Olivia M. Ratcliff

Barefoot running has recently gained popularity with proponents suggesting there is potential strengthening of the intrinsic foot muscles. While mechanical support of the medial longitudinal arch by these muscles is present, there have been no definitive studies estimating the activation of intrinsic foot muscles during running in shod or barefoot conditions.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intrinsic foot muscle activity after running in barefoot and shod conditions.

METHODS: The study included 4 recreational runners (ages 21-41 years). Each subject underwent a T2 weighted MRI of the right foot. Following this initial MRI, each subject ran 1 mile on a treadmill (6.67 mph) in a barefoot or shod condition. Shoe condition order was randomly determined. A second MRI scan was completed immediately after running. The protocol was repeated 48 hours later with the second shoe condition. InteleViewer imaging software was used to measure mean signal intensity of the abductor hallucis brevis muscle. Signal intensities from the images were fit to a monoexponential time curve to extract T2 time values. T2 times were converted to percentage change from pre-exercise values in order to normalize between subjects. Mean percentage change in signal intensity was calculated for each region of interest for all subjects and conditions. 95% confidence intervals for each variable were compared between conditions. RESULTS: Across all subjects, there was a 7.7% (CI=-9.77% to 25.31%) increase in mean signal intensity between pre and post running in the barefoot condition and 13.9% (CI=-9.47% to 37.20%) increase in the shod condition. There was a 2.1% (CI=-4.86% to 0.57%) increase in T2 timing between pre and post running in the barefoot condition and a 3.2% (-6.75% to 0.38%) increase when running shod.

CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, running 1 mile on a treadmill does not result in significant activation of the intrinsic foot muscles. Further, barefoot running does not result in greater activation in these muscles compared to running shod. This suggests that barefoot running may not result in strengthening of the foot intrinsic muscles. Passive structures and extrinsic foot muscles may play a greater role in controlling foot motion than intrinsic foot muscles during running.
Click to expand...

Kevin Kirby · Jun 3, 2012

NewsBot said: ↑

From this yrs ACSM mtg (2012):
Magnetic Resonance Analysis of Intrinsic Foot Musculature during Running in Shod and Barefoot Conditions
D. S. Blaise Williams, III, Brian W. Wurzinger, Richard L. Segal, C. Ryan Steinbaker, Olivia M. Ratcliff
Click to expand...

InteleViewer imaging software was used to measure mean signal intensity of the abductor hallucis brevis muscle. Signal intensities from the images were fit to a monoexponential time curve to extract T2 time values.
Click to expand...

Where is the "abductor hallucis brevis muscle" in the foot?

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

pod29 Active Member

NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

Kevin Kirby MVP

Minimalist running shoes for hallux valgus

Minimalist running shoes now only make up 0.3% of the market

Injuires in maximalist vs minimalist running shoes may depend on body weight

Adherence to a minimalist/barefoot running program

Effects of minimalist and traditional running shoes on injury rates

Chronic Peroneal Tendonitis following running injury in minimalist shoes

Foot photos before and after minimalist running for 2 yrs

Share This Page