Barefoot

About: Barefoot is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 597 publications have been published within this topic receiving 15110 citations.

Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners

Abstract: 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.

Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners.

Abstract: ®Aim. The first aim of this study was to assess how changes in the mechanical characteristics of the foot/shoe-ground interface affect spatio-temporal variables, ground pressure distribution, sagittal plane kinematics, and running economy in 8 experienced barefoot runners. The second aim was to assess if a special lightweight shoe (Vibram Fivefingers) was effective in mimic the experience of barefoot running. Methods. By using an instrumented treadmill, barefoot running, running with the Fivefingers, and running with standard running shoe were compared, analyzing a large numbers of consecutive steps. Foot/shoe-ground interface pressure distribution, lower limb kinematics, V . O 2 and heart rate data were simultaneously collected. Results. Compared to the standard shod condition when running barefoot the athletes landed in more plantarflexion at the ankle. This caused reduced impact forces and changes in stride kinematics. In particular, significantly shorter stride length and contact times and higher stride frequency were observed (P<0.05). Compared to standard shod condition, V . O2 and peak impact forces were significantly lower with Fivefingers (P<0.05) and much closer to barefoot running. Lower limb kinematics with Fivefingers was similar to barefoot running with a foot position which was significantly more plantarflexed than in control shoe (P<0.05). Conclusion. The data of this study support the assumption that changes in the foot-ground interface led to changes in running pattern in a group of experienced barefoot runners. The Fivefingers model seems to be effective in imitating the barefoot conditions while providing a small amount of protection.

Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy.

Abstract: PERL, D. P., A. I. DAOUD, and D. E. LIEBERMAN. Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 44, No. 7, pp. 1335‐1343, 2012. Purpose: This study tests if running economy differs in minimal shoes versus standard running shoes with cushioned elevated heels and arch supports and in forefoot versus rearfoot strike gaits. Methods: We measured the cost of transport (mL O2Ikg j1 Im j1 ) in subjects who habitually run in minimal shoes or barefoot while they were running at 3.0 mIs j1 on a treadmill during forefoot and rearfoot striking while wearing minimal and standard shoes, controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. Force and kinematic data were collected when subjects were shod and barefoot to quantify differences in knee flexion, arch strain, plantar flexor force production, and Achilles tendon‐triceps surae strain. Results: After controlling for stride frequency and shoe mass, runners were 2.41% more economical in the minimal-shoe condition when forefoot striking and 3.32% more economical in the minimal-shoe condition when rearfoot striking (P G 0.05). In contrast, forefoot and rearfoot striking did not differ significantly in cost for either minimal- or standard-shoe running. Arch strain was not measured in the shod condition but was significantly greater during forefoot than rearfoot striking when barefoot. Plantar flexor force output was significantly higher in forefoot than in rearfoot striking and in barefoot than in shod running. Achilles tendon‐triceps surae strain and knee flexion were also lower in barefoot than in standardshoe running. Conclusions: Minimally shod runners are modestly but significantly more economical than traditionally shod runners regardless of strike type, after controlling for shoe mass and stride frequency. The likely cause of this difference is more elastic energy

Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running.

Abstract: In order to further compare shod versus barefoot running, 35 subjects ran two bouts of 4 minutes at 3.33 m x s(-1) on a treadmill dynamometer. Parameters were measured on about 60 consecutive steps. Barefoot showed mainly lower contact and flight time (p < 0.05), lower passive peak (1.48 versus 1.70 body weight, p < 0.05), higher braking and pushing impulses (p < 0.05), and higher pre-activation of triceps surae muscles (p < 0.05) than shod. It was concluded that when performed on a sufficient number of steps, barefoot running leads to a reduction of impact peak in order to reduce the high mechanical stress occurring during repetitive steps. This neural-mechanical adaptation could also enhance the storage and restitution of elastic energy at ankle extensors level.