Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns:
                    Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Manuel Mosqueira-Ouréns; Iker Muñoz-Pérez; José Luis Tuimil; Martín Saleta-Cobos; Adrian Varela-Sanz

doi:10.1055/a-2156-2553

International Journal of Sports Medicine, Table of Contents

Int J Sports Med 2023; 44(14): 1067-1074
DOI: 10.1055/a-2156-2553

Training & Testing

Well-trained Endurance Runners’ Foot Contact Patterns: Barefoot vs. Shod Condition

Authors

Manuel Mosqueira-Ouréns

¹Faculty of Physiotherapy, Podiatry and Occupational Therapy, San Antonio Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
Iker Muñoz-Pérez

²Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain
José Luis Tuimil

³Performance and Health Group, Physical and Sports Education Department, Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruna, Spain
Martín Saleta-Cobos

⁴Hospital Son Llatzer, Hospital Son Llatzer, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Adrian Varela-Sanz

³Performance and Health Group, Physical and Sports Education Department, Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, University of A Coruna, A Coruna, Spain

Abstract

We aimed to investigate the initial foot contact and contact time in experienced endurance runners at individualized speeds, in running shoes and barefoot. Forty-eight participants (33.71±7.49 y, 70.94±8.65 kg, 175.07±7.03 cm, maximum aerobic speed 18.41±1.54 km^.h^-1) were distributed into three groups according to athletic performance: highly-trained runners, middle-trained runners, and control group. An incremental running test until exhaustion was performed for assessing maximum aerobic speed. After≥24 h of recovery participants randomly walked and ran, barefoot and in running shoes, over a pressure plate at ~4.7 km^.h^-1 and 85% of the maximum aerobic speed, respectively. They wore the same model of running shoes with homogeneous lacing pattern. A rearfoot strike was performed by 68.8% and 77.1% of participants when running barefoot and in running shoes, respectively. Considering the tendency to develop a rearfoot strike was lower in the barefoot condition, runners with higher performance may benefit from training in minimalist running shoes because their foot contact pattern could tend towards a non-rearfoot strike. Our results suggest that initial foot contact and contact time are related to running performance and may also be influenced by running shoes.

Key words

Initial foot contact - rearfoot strike - non-rearfoot strike - contact time - running performance

Full Text

References

References
1 Anderson LM, Bonanno DR, Hart HF. et al. What are the benefits and risks associated with changing foot strike pattern during running? A systematic review and meta-analysis of injury, running economy, and biomechanics. Sports Med 2020; 50: 885-917
2 Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD. et al. Factors affecting running economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med 2004; 34: 465-485
3 Almeida MO, Davis IS, Lopes AD. Biomechanical differences of foot-strike patterns during running: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2015; 45: 738-755
4 Breine B, Malcolm P, Van Caekenberghe I. et al. Initial foot contact and related kinematics affect impact loading rate in running. J Sports Sci 2017; 35: 1556-1564
5 Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE. et al. Variation in foot strike patterns during running among habitually barefoot populations. PloS One 2013; 8: e52548
6 Lieberman DE, Castillo ER, Otarola-Castillo E. et al. Variation in foot strike patterns among habitually barefoot and shod runners in Kenya. PloS One 2015; 10: e0131354
7 Cheung RTH, Wong RYL, Chung TKW. et al. Relationship between foot strike pattern, running speed, and footwear condition in recreational distance runners. Sports Biomech 2017; 16: 238-247
8 Fuller JT, Bellenger CR, Thewlis D. et al. The effect of footwear on running performance and running economy in distance runners. Sports Med 2015; 45: 411-422
9 Ruiz-Alias SA, Molina-Molina A, Soto-Hermoso VM. et al. A systematic review of the effect of running shoes on running economy, performance and biomechanics: Analysis by brand and model. Sports Biomech 2022; 1-22
10 Coetzee DR, Albertus Y, Tam N. et al. Conceptualizing minimalist footwear: An objective definition. J Sports Sci 2018; 36: 949-954
11 Alexander JLN, Willy RW, Napier C. et al. Infographic. Running myth: switching to a non-rearfoot strike reduces injury risk and improves running economy. Br J Sports Med 2021; 55: 175-176
12 Bertelsen ML, Jensen JF, Nielsen MH. et al. Footstrike patterns among novice runners wearing a conventional, neutral running shoe. Gait Posture 2013; 38: 354-356
13 Bovalino SP, Cunningham NJ, Zordan RD. et al. Change in foot strike patterns and performance in recreational runners during a road race: a cross-sectional study. J Sci Med Sport 2020; 23: 621-624
14 Bovalino SP, Kingsley MIC. Foot strike patterns during overground distance running: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med Open 2021; 7: 82
15 Breine B, Malcolm P, Frederick EC. et al. Relationship between running speed and initial foot contact patterns. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014; 46: 1595-1603
16 Hasegawa H, Yamauchi T, Kraemer WJ. Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 888-893
17 Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA. et al. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 2010; 463: 531-535
18 Sun X, Yang Y, Wang L. et al. Do strike patterns or shoe conditions have a predominant influence on foot loading?. J Hum Kinet 2018; 64: 13-23
19 Albracht K, Arampatzis A. Exercise-induced changes in triceps surae tendon stiffness and muscle strength affect running economy in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013; 113: 1605-1615
20 Fukunaga T, Kubo K, Kawakami Y. et al. In vivo behaviour of human muscle tendon during walking. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2001; 268: 229-233
21 Lorimer AV, Hume PA. Stiffness as a risk factor for Achilles tendon injury in running athletes. Sports Med 2016; 46: 1921-1938
22 Ceyssens L, Vanelderen R, Barton C. et al. Biomechanical risk factors associated with running-related injuries: A systematic review. Sports Med 2019; 49: 1095-1115
23 Videbæk S, Bueno AM, Nielsen RO. et al. Incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h of running in different types of runners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2015; 45: 1017-1026
24 Relph N, Greaves H, Armstrong R. et al Running shoes for preventing lower limb running injuries in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 8 CD013368
25 Léger L, Boucher R. An indirect continuous running multistage field test: the Université de Montréal track test. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1980; 5: 77-84
26 Varela-Sanz A, Tuimil JL, Abreu L. et al. Does concurrent training intensity distribution matter?. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31: 181-195
27 Midgley AW, McNaughton LR, Polman R. et al. Criteria for determination of maximal oxygen uptake: A brief critique and recommendations for future research. Sports Med 2007; 37: 1019-1028
28 Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 153-156
29 Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not what, but how one feels: the measurement of affect during exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1989; 11: 304-317
30 Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P. et al. Energy cost of running. J Appl Physiol 1963; 18: 367-370
31 Hagen M, Hennig EM. Effects of different shoe-lacing patterns on the biomechanics of running shoes. J Sports Sci 2009; 27: 267-275
32 Ellis PD. The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010
33 Almeida MO, Saragiotto BT, Yamato TP. et al. Is the rearfoot pattern the most frequently foot strike pattern among recreational shod distance runners?. Phys Ther Sport 2015; 16: 29-33
34 Hunter I, McLeod A, Valentine D. et al. Running economy, mechanics, and marathon racing shoes. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2367-2373
35 Jones AM, Kirby BS, Clark IE. et al. Physiological demands of running at 2-hour marathon race pace. J Appl Physiol 2021; 130: 369-379
36 Dyer B. A pragmatic approach to resolving technological unfairness: the case of Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly running footwear. Sports Med Open 2020; 6: 21
37 Senefeld JW, Haischer MH, Jones AM. et al. Technological advances in elite marathon performance. J Appl Physiol 2021; 130: 2002-2008
38 Knopp M, Muñiz-Pardos B, Wackerhage H. et al. Variability in running economy of Kenyan world-class and European amateur male runners with advanced footwear running technology: experimental and meta-analysis results. Sports Med 2023; 53: 1255-1271
39 Hébert-Losier K, Finlayson SJ, Driller MW. et al. Metabolic and performance responses of male runners wearing 3 types of footwear: Nike Vaporfly 4%, Saucony Endorphin racing flats, and their own shoes. J Sport Health Sci 2022; 11: 275-284
40 Nielsen A, Franch J, Heyde C. et al. Carbon plate shoes improve metabolic power and performance in recreational runners. Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 804-810
41 Healey LA, Hoogkamer W. Longitudinal bending stiffness does not affect running economy in Nike Vaporfly Shoes. J Sport Health Sci 2022; 11: 285-292
42 Casado A, Tuimil JL, Iglesias X. et al. Maximum aerobic speed, maximum oxygen consumption, and running spatiotemporal parameters during an incremental test among middle- and long-distance runners and endurance non-running athletes. PeerJ 2022; 10: e14035
43 Mooses M, Haile DW, Ojiambo R. et al. Shorter ground contact time and better running economy: evidence from female Kenyan runners. J Strength Cond Res 2021; 35: 481-486
44 Tam N, Tucker R, Santos-Concejero J. et al. Running economy: neuromuscular and joint stiffness contributions in trained runners. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2018; 1-22