Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine
Comparing foot-strike patterns and kinetics
during barefoot, two minimal shod and a
cushioned shod running condition
Jonathan P L Hall, Christian Barton, Richard Twycross-Lewis, Daminda Attanayake, Roger Woledge, Dylan Morrissey*
Background: It has been claimed that barefoot running may help prevent overuse
injuries because it modifies the runner’s gait. As the first study to compare running
biomechanics of habitually shod runners whist barefoot and in minimal shoes,
results will inform running and sports medicine communities about how differing
minimal shoes compare biomechanically to barefoot or traditional trainers.
Objectives: To compare foot-strike, impact peak force, active peak force, loading
rate and vertical impulse between running barefoot, in two minimal shod and a
cushioned shod condition (control).
Methods: Nine habitually shod rearfoot strike long distance runners each ran on
an instrumented treadmill in four conditions (Fig. 1) in a random order.
a) Barefoot
Results: Footwear had a significant effect on
foot-strike angle (p=0.015) (Table I & Fig. 2). No
significant difference was found between
running conditions for all measured kinetic
outcomes (Fig. 3).
a) Saucony Hattori
Heel Elevation = 0mm
b) Nike Free 3.0 V4
Heel Elevation = 4mm
b) Asics Cumulus 12
Impact Peak Force (BW)
2.50
c) Asics Cumulus 12
2.00
1.50
1.63
1.54
1.50
1.49
1.00
0.50
Heel Elevation = 16mm
0.00
Barefoot
Figure 2: Example stick figures
displaying one participant FFS
whilst barefoot (a) and RFS whilst
in the control shoe (b).
Saucony
Nike
Running Condition
Figure 3: Selected kinetic outcome. Mean impact peak (with standard
deviation) force for running conditions, showing no significant
difference.
Table I: Mean foot-strike angle and foot-strike pattern of participants running in each of the
four footwear conditions.
Footwear
Barefoot
Saucony Hattori
Nike Free 3.0
Control (Asics
Cumulus)
Control
Mean footstrike angle
(degrees)
2.0*
6.3*†
11.0†
11.5†
Foot-strike pattern (%)
RFS
MFS
FFS
33.3
66.6
88.9
100.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Abbreviations: RFS, rearfoot strike; MFS, midfoot strike; FFS, forefoot strike
*Significantly different to control (p<0.05)
†Significantly different to barefoot (p<0.05)
44.4
33.3
11.1
0.0
Figure 1: The two minimal shod
conditions (a & b) and the
cushioned shod condition (c).
Participants also ran barefoot.
Conclusion:
•
Habitually shod runners are less
likely to land with a RFS whilst
barefoot or in Saucony Hattori.
•
Footwear has no significant
immediate effect on impact forces,
loading rate or vertical impulse. The
effects of longer term habituation to
barefoot or minimal footwear should
be examined.
•
Some types of minimal footwear
may be a suitable tool for foot-strike
modification if this is desired.
*Corresponding author
Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, William Harvey Research Institute, Bart's and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Hospital, Bancroft road, London E1 4DG