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.

Variation in Foot Strike Patterns during Running among Habitually Barefoot Populations

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by NewsBot, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    There may or may not be: the problem with skeletal collections is that one had little or no knowledge of their individual life styles. What I can tell you is that there is HUGE differences in trabecular morphology between species with differing locomotor strategies. Examples are the thoraco-lumbar veterbrae of orangs Vs humans; femoral head morphology in humans vs eg the Sloth. Essentially the ruling words are "biology: form and function". If one extrapolates this down to a minor human difference in locomotor strategies, I expect it will be there. Certainly in our work, we have found notable differences in tarsal morphology in ethnic subgroups that are sometimes based upon function. Try these for starters, Rob
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  2. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Does any of this change the general approach to treating symptoms? When someone comes in with pain, will the treatment of a forefoot striker differ from that of a rear foot striker? Or is the same recipe used for everyone?
     
  3. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    The article starts out stating that people buy minimal shoes on the premise that people ran barefoot and did it with a forefoot strike. You can add that to the pile of BS. I wear VFF and minimal shoes mostly because of the terrain I run on, not because of some expectation of how my ancestors ran. You just don't need a lot of shoe when running on soft, natural surfaces.
     
  4. Depends on the individual runner and their pathology. So, in answer to your second question: no.
     
  5. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Just about to reply the same. Something along the lines of; treatment plans are centred around the individual patient and their presenting complaint.

    I know runners who fore/midfoot strike and have no pathology (Joseph Hamill being one) and `rearfoot strikers`who do....and vice versa. All requiring tailor made tx plans, IF intervention is required.

    We`re all individuals... We're all different...
     
  6. Last year I spoke with two internationally known biomechanics researchers about Lieberman and what they thought about him. Here is what they both said:

    1. He is not a biomechanics researcher and doesn't understand biomechanics well.
    2. He changes his story depending on the crowd he is talking to. With laypeople he makes quite remarkable claims about barefoot running that he then denies when biomechanics researchers are in the audience.

    I've also heard this sort of thing from others who have heard Lieberman speak, even though I have never met or heard the man talk in the flesh.

    Very interesting if this is true....
     
  7. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    This is precisely my experience with the man..at UKSEM in London late 2011 he arrive an hour late to the debating panelists briefing session which was very rude. He then arrogantly proclaimed he did not attend, 'because he had been out on a run.. barefoot of course".
    He pays lip service to the value of variability in choice during his lectures, but scorns that position in private.
    He will not allow questions after his lectures, because his understanding of biomechanics is poor, and he will not, as the rest of us must, subject himself to interrogation by his peers. He certainly will tailor his position dependant upon to whom he is speaking. :sinking:
     
  8. drsha

    drsha Banned

    Great work Rob.

    Two diverting questions:
    1. Are these morphological changes unique to the tarsus or do they exist in the mid and metatarsus as well (Why your focus on the tarsus)?

    2. In your opinion, if remodeling and morphological changes are impacted by changes in function or lifestyle over time, can similar changes be affected by taking architectural subgroups of feet and then apply interventions that repose them (with a binding or orthotic) in order to create moments opposing the pathological forces of gravity and functional life long and strong enough to cause changes in their tubercular morphology so as to improve their structure ?

    Disclaimer: I have huge economic bias as I am the U.S. Patent holder of a foot typing method that serves as a starting platform to allow just that IMHO.

    Dennis:
     
  9. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    One at a time
    First, My focus on the tarsus is simply because it is my life's work; I have spent the last 25 years studying patterns of morphological variation in the extant and extinct hominin/oid tarsus.

    To follow, My ex PhD student, Bernie Zipfel (Wits, South Africa) would, I have no doubt, tell you the the same was true of the metatarsus.

    That was in answer to 1)

    As for 2), then YES, but subtle. I have never measured any, but I am quite sure that it is this that muddies the waters for those looking at skeletal collections for deformity studies (eg HAV). As a manner of asking: are changes in metatarsal head morphology the cause of HAV, caused by HAV, or neither? My Son-in-Law's grandma had bound feet. She died perhaps a decade ago. I never had the balls to ask to see her feet - it would have caused her so much trauma. But yes, and I don't think this is rocket science; trabecula morphology will change in response to altering mechanical situations. I am always reminded of my Prof and mentor who went on a course at Salford university in engineering. All the others turned up with their box girder bridges; he turned up with a bag of butcher's bones.

    We need to go back to basics: Davis and Wolf. Bone is no different, just the time scale is longer.

    As to improve structure - I leave that to others.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2013
  10. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    I look forward to when the issue of footstrike patterns has been resolved and we all agree how people ran a million years ago and we all agree on how people run now. I look forward to when the issue of minimal vs traditional shoes have been resolved and we all agree on when it is best and for who it is best to wear a certain type of shoe. I look forward to when the dust settles and we realize that even after learning about footstike patterns and running shoe types that people who run will still frequently get injured. Maybe at that point everyone's attention will shift to some other variable that might help explain why some who run suffer chronic injury while others remain healthy. Maybe there is some magic combination of foot strike patterns, running shoe type, training plan and could running on pavement or concrete possibly have something to do with it?

    It seems with all of this debate about foot strike and minimal shoes, very little is discussed about running surfaces. People have gone out, bought and read the book Born to Run. They have become inspired, gotten off the couch went out and bought a pair of VFF, then what do they do? They go and run too many miles on PAVEMENT!

    Maybe the message that should have registered from the book is that fact that all of the running that was being discussed was accomplished on the trails of Leadville, Colorado or the Sierra Madre mtns in Mexico. The Tarahumara, Micah True (when he was alive), Scott Jurek, Ted McDonald, Jen Shelton and her friend all ran on dirt trails!

    I am frankly surprised with all of this debating that has gone on over the past 3 yrs why so little has been discussed about getting people off of the pounding of pavement and on to something softer and more forgiving to the body such as simple dirt trails. Is that just too simple and obvious?

    The surface in the attached photo is made of what is called crusher fines. It is crushed rock that moderately packs but remains quite compliant. There is plenty of traction yet is also very forgiving to run on. Because of that, I'm not sure it really matters how you land on your feet, what your stride rate is or what shoes you are wearing. The photo was taken along my running route that I do every day. The trail winds behind my house and goes on for 50 miles.

    Makes me wonder if people had access to run on a surface like this if it would help keep down the running injury rate.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. The reality is that some people run exclusively on roads and some of these get injured. Moreover, some people get injured even when they run exclusively off-road. Some people run some of their miles on road and some of their miles off road and get injured. I don't know if the injury rate is lower in one of theses groups than the others, do you Dana?
     
  12. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, no I don't and the reason for bringing it up. It would be interesting to learn the relationship if any between the compliance of running surfaces and injury rate.

    It seems that the foot strike and running shoe type issues have been beaten to death. I'm not sure if all of the discussions, debates, lectures and papers have changed running injury rates one bit. I just find it curious how little there has been about running on concrete or asphalt vs running on dirt and gravel.
     
  13. Well, it seems girls are more likely to get injured than boys when they perform in cross-country running. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10798792

    We do know that McMahon claimed that their was an optimal range of surface stiffness which reduced injury rate. It seems to me, at the risk of repeating myself, that the CNS modulates leg stiffness based upon surface stiffness, i.e. environment + shoes + insoles etc., in order to maintain a preferred displacement pathway for the centre of mass; the lower limb has a range of optimal stiffness which it can perform multiple cycles within, over a prolonged period and number of cycles. When the lower limb is exposed to surfaces of a net stiffness which force the lower limb to function either above or below it's optimal stiffness for a prolonged period or number of cycles, then over-use injury of the lower limb will ensue.
     
  14. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    When I ran cross country in High School, just about all of our training was done on pavement with meets held generally on trails or grass but it was not uncommon to have meets on asphalt or concrete. The meets my school held were 90% on pavement.

    The abstract states "Injuries resulting from running in a cross country practice or meet." I suspect the data wasn't sorted by type of surface, I don't know. The injury rates of 16.7/1000 for girls and 10.9/1000 for boys translates into a rate of one injury every two months for girls and one injury every 3 months for boys assuming they trained or raced once/day. Ouch, that is really high for boys and excessive for girls. Makes you wonder how you can even get in good enough shape if you are down with an injury every 8 or 9 weeks.
     
  15. Agreed, just shows you how bad for your health running can be. And BTW, just because your meets were 90% pavement running, doesn't mean that the runners in this study were exposed to the same conditions as you- right, Dana? Sometimes, you need to disconnect from your own experiences; with regard to reviewing this study, your experiences are meaningless. Unless of course: you attended any of the high school's included in this study and competed as part of their cross-country team during the period of the study- did you? Now, in all likely-hood, the majority of the individuals included as subjects within this study carried out their running on a variety of surfaces, as the majority of runners do.
     
  16. drsha

    drsha Banned

    I would think that the injury rate would be judged by many factors including weight, intensity of training, frequency of training, functional foot type, training technique, health state and not just road surface.

    If you could eliminate all the other variables as in play for a given subject group and then run them on the same course, with running shoes, barefooted, then with minimalistic shoes and then follow all of them for lets say three years to note their injury rate and location we could determine whether ground condition variability would be better to run on than concrete.

    Then all we need to do is build a road or track as you have in Colorado in every town and require all runners to use it if the results favor you.

    Here in NYC, we have an urban answer to reducing the injury rate and eliminating the discussions, debates, lectures and the need for research on this subject in those who wish an injury free workout.

    We call it a swimming pool. Cheaper to build, almost injury free, readily available but hardly used. But Why?

    Maybe the pain and injury is a necessary hominid part of exercise? Maybe we have to push to pain to feel accomplished? Maybe without pain and injury we would end natural selection. Maybe without pain and injury our race would not survive the fittest. Maybe we are biological and not robotic. Maybe we follow illogical rational? Maybe we have free thought and random expression as opposed to robots.

    That would make a lot of the research and statistics and drawings and evidence and much of the 1,700,000 pages on The Arena clinically moot and less powerful. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.:rolleyes:

    Dennis
     
  17. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    A few more thoughts. This is initial thread is about "Running among Habitually Barefoot Populations" I have to assume that populations that are habitually barefoot probably live in areas where the roads and trails are predominantly dirt. Probably not a lot of paved highways running through the towns and villages of habitually barefoot populations. While the variable being studied was foot strike, what about the ground surface they are running on?

    My next thought came from thinking back about when I ran cross country in High School. As much as I loved running the meets on natural surfaces, the reality was that I did not have easy access to trails and natural surfaces. It did not matter whether I preferred running on dirt, I didn't have a choice so I ran on pavement. Regardless of what might be concluded about running surfaces, the reality is that pavement might be the only accessible option. If you want to run, you need to pound the pavement and take what comes with it.
     
  18. What is the stiffness of African parched dirt which has been compacted over many generations of feet?
     
  19. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I was just using an example to point out that running cross country does not imply running on natural surfaces. I should have just said that and that the study does not help us understand if there is a correlation between injury rates and running surface.

    Unfortunately we don't know what the majority of the individuals included as subjects within this study ran on. We also don't know what the majority of runners not in the study run on. Maybe a survey has been taken about what runners run on and if included injury rates based on surface type, that would be really interesting.
     
  20. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I agree that running can be really bad for the health of some people. Maybe there are things that can be changed to correct that, maybe not. For those able to escape injury, it can be a tremendous contributor to good health through improved cardiovascular conditioning, muscle strengthening and weight management. After all of that, it can also simply be an enjoyable past time and recreation.
     
  21. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    I don't know. What is the stiffness of a concrete sidewalk that runs adjacent to an urban roadway?
     
  22. Indeed, see if you can find one. The best one I can provide which links injury rate to surface stiffness is: McMahon TA and Greene PR. The influence of track compliance on running. J Biomech 12: 893 – 904, 1979.
     
  23. The Young's modulus for high strength concrete has been reported to be in the order of 30 10>9 N/m>2, but it will depend upon the water to cement ratio, the type and proportion of aggregate. You could go out and measure it though, if you are really interested. Young's moduli for various soils are reported here: http://www.geotechnicalinfo.com/youngs_modulus.html but obviously the degree of compaction will have influence upon this. Some data for a compacted "sandy soil" suggest a modulus of around 68 megapascals. The indoor track designed by McMahon and Greene had a modulus of 190 kN/m allowing for a 9-mm deflection for a 75-kg runner (assuming a runner exerts roughly 2.3 times body weight at midstance). What amazes me, is that the running shoe companies haven't designed a shoe for running on concrete which provides a net surface stiffness for concrete + shoe to be within McMahon's range. I should have thought this would be pretty easy for the boy's at Asics, then produce a range of shoes for different body-weight ranges- right Simon?
     
  24. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I went back and re-read the McMahon and Greene study. Interesting article about track compliance and enhancing a runner's speed. Unfortunately, for this discussion it doesn't help us understand the relationship between compliance and injury rate if there is one.

    As far as a natural surface such as a trail, compliance varies. You could measure compliance at a given spot on a trail but in three steps, the compliance could change greatly. Another obvious variable introduced by natural surfaces is that in addition to variation in compliance, there also can be tremendous variation in surface angles.

    On a concrete sidewalk, you not only have a somewhat constant compliance which happens to be very hard, but you also have a fairly constant level surface. In comparison, a natural surface has varying compliance and varying surface angles. I wouldn't dare give my opinion about what I think is healthier for a runner on this forum. I'll let Simon Bartold weigh in on this if he feels like it. I know he has a fairly strong opinion about it.
     
  25. Why not? My understanding is that by manipulating surface stiffness, these workers have claimed a reduction in injury rates in the order of 50%. On that basis alone, I should think a discussion of the influence of surface stiffness upon injury rate should start with a discussion of McMahon and Greene (see http://biomech.media.mit.edu/publications/Ground_Stiffness_Metabolism.pdf). So, why in your opinion does this not help us understand the relationship between surface stiffness and injury rate? In your esteemed opinion can you point to another study which has claimed such a reduction in running related injury rate simply by manipulating surface stiffness? Is it because you don't run on tracks and you are only interested in things that relate directly to you?
     
  26. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, do you really want me to answer that? I think I'll spare the both of us further anguish. My question/thought was about the relationship between injury rate and running surfaces such as pavement vs natural trails. That's all. You stated you didn't know, I also stated I didn't know, do we really need to say more?
     
  27. No... I know more than enough about you already, Dana.
     
  28. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    [QUOTE I should have thought this would be pretty easy for the boy's at Asics, then produce a range of shoes for different body-weight ranges- right Simon?[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely Simon.. but the problem is always the bottom line.. it is very expensive to to customise footwear to this degree. In an ideal world, we could do all sorts of things, but the reality is that for most companies, footwear needs to be built to a number of theoretical human models, because that keeps the cost to the consumer real. Individualising footwear is possible right now, but incredibly expensive (tooling factories, mould costs etc)and that is the reason that right now i am looking at materials that possess Non Newtonian fluid characteristics, and the potential of piezo technology to interact with materials (in particular ceramics) to create a less or more stiff midsole dependent upon input signal.. note.. nothing like the adidas 1
     
  29. Anything like this? http://christophbehlingdesign.com/case-studies/reebok-1/

    I should think an input signal could be linked to a pressure sensitive piezoelectric element which could be used to put a charge across a magneto-rheologic fluid contained within a "gel-sac" too. Just a different way of skinning the cat. Let me know if you need any help on this project ;-)
     
  30. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    I didn't realize you went back in and edited your post. My whole point in steering the discussion from foot strike and shoe type to pavement vs natural surfaces was partly to talk about the relationship between surface stiffness and injury rate. It is also had to do the the relationship of varying surface stiffness and varying surface angles. It doesn't matter to me whether you agree with my point of view or not. Ground softness and variation are extremely important when it comes to injury prevention. This also is not to be confused about what might be a faster surface to run on.

    I just about lived on a track for 8 yrs of my life during High School and College. I trained and competed on many outdoor and indoor tracks composed of many surfaces that had different levels of stiffness. It wasn't until grad school that I really took to pounding the pavement while training for and running 10K's and marathons. During that time, I continued to do speed work on the track once/week to maintain my speed and form. Finally in the early 90's when I moved up to running 100 mile trail runs I shifted from running mostly on asphalt and concrete to dirt, gravel, sand, mud and rocky surfaces. Through all of these years, I've also had my share of treadmill running.

    I can't think of many surfaces or shoe types I haven't run many miles on or in. Unlike you, I can tell you what it is like to run on a given surface in a given shoe type whether it is for an hour or six hours. Since you are not a runner, never have been one, never will be one, you really don't know what it is like to run on a given surface, varying surfaces or in a certain shoe. Reading studies and then imagining what it is like, doesn't qualify you to talk about running. So when it comes to talking about running, you just don't have the practical experience in your background to really be able to talk about it. Because of that, I really can't take your opinion seriously, you just don't know.

    Ironically, many of the people on this forum in spite of spending so much time with runners and running shoes, know very little about running. If anyone really wants to help their running patients regarding injury, go ahead prescribe what you think will help but most important, prescribe that they get off of the asphalt and concrete and run on softer surfaces.
     
  31. "Mirror, mirror on the wall
    Tell me, mirror, what is wrong?
    Can it be my De La clothes
    Or is it just my de la song?"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3kgjzUsDeg
     
  32. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I was not aware of this Simon.. thanks.

    I most definitely would value your input!
     
  33. drdebrule

    drdebrule Active Member

    How much of this result could be explained by targeting when subject steps across force plate? I have seen this in my clinic with severe heel pain patients will avoid heel strike when walking. However, ask them to walk over a force plate and the heel strike returns.:wacko:
     
Loading...

Share This Page