Changes in Lower Extremity Movement and Power Absorption During Forefoot Striking and Barefoot Running

Overview

Journal Int J Sports Phys Ther

Specialty Rehabilitation Medicine

Date 2012 Oct 24

PMID 23091785

Citations 25

Authors

D S Blaise Williams 3rd

Douglas H Green

Brian Wurzinger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose/background: Both forefoot strike shod (FFS) and barefoot (BF) running styles result in different mechanics when compared to rearfoot strike (RFS) shod running. Additionally, running mechanics of FFS and BF running are similar to one another. Comparing the mechanical changes occurring in each of these patterns is necessary to understand potential benefits and risks of these running styles. The authors hypothesized that FFS and BF conditions would result in increased sagittal plane joint angles at initial contact and that FFS and BF conditions would demonstrate a shift in sagittal plane joint power from the knee to the ankle when compared to the RFS condition. Finally, total lower extremity power absorption will be least in BF and greatest in the RFS shod condition.

Methods: The study included 10 male and 10 female RFS runners who completed 3-dimensional running analysis in 3 conditions: shod with RFS, shod with FFS, and BF. Variables were the angles of plantarflexion, knee flexion, and hip flexion at initial contact and peak sagittal plane joint power at the hip, knee, and ankle during stance phase.

Results: Running with a FFS pattern and BF resulted in significantly greater plantarflexion and significantly less negative knee power (absorption) when compared to shod RFS condition. FFS condition runners landed in the most plantarflexion and demonstrated the most peak ankle power absorption and lowest knee power absorption between the 3 conditions. BF and FFS conditions demonstrated decreased total lower extremity power absorption compared to the shod RFS condition but did not differ from one another.

Conclusions: BF and FFS running result in reduced total lower extremity power, hip power and knee power and a shift of power absorption from the knee to the ankle.

Clinical Relevance: Alterations associated with BF running patterns are present in a FFS pattern when wearing shoes. Additionally, both patterns result in increased demand at the foot and ankle as compared to the knee.

Citing Articles

The role of footwear in improving running economy: a systematic review with meta-analysis of controlled trials.

Xu L, Wang Y, Wen X Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):3963.

PMID: 39893208 PMC: 11787295. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88271-2.

The Influence of Quadriceps Strength and Rate of Torque Development on the Recovery of Knee Biomechanics During Running After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Knurr K, Cobian D, Kliethermes S, Stiffler-Joachim M, Heiderscheit B Am J Sports Med. 2023; 51(12):3171-3178.

PMID: 37681433 PMC: 10985737. DOI: 10.1177/03635465231194617.

Changes of the kinematics of the human medial longitudinal foot arch, first metatarsophalangeal joint, and the length of plantar fascia in different running patterns.

Sun X, Su W, Zhang F, Ye D, Wang S, Zhang S Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:959807.

PMID: 36524051 PMC: 9745187. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.959807.

Effects of a 12-week gait retraining program combined with foot core exercise on morphology, muscle strength, and kinematics of the arch: A randomized controlled trial.

Shen B, Zhang S, Cui K, Zhang X, Fu W Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:1022910.

PMID: 36299287 PMC: 9589891. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1022910.

Differences in Physical Characteristics of the Lower Extremity and Running Biomechanics Between Different Age Groups.

Kim J, Park S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(7).

PMID: 35410001 PMC: 8998726. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19074320.

References

De Cock A, Vanrenterghem J, Willems T, Witvrouw E, De Clercq D . The trajectory of the centre of pressure during barefoot running as a potential measure for foot function. Gait Posture. 2007; 27(4):669-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.08.013. View

Braunstein B, Arampatzis A, Eysel P, Bruggemann G . Footwear affects the gearing at the ankle and knee joints during running. J Biomech. 2010; 43(11):2120-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.04.001. View

Whittle M . Generation and attenuation of transient impulsive forces beneath the foot: a review. Gait Posture. 1999; 10(3):264-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0966-6362(99)00041-7. View

Shakoor N, Block J . Walking barefoot decreases loading on the lower extremity joints in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54(9):2923-7. DOI: 10.1002/art.22123. View

Eslami M, Begon M, Farahpour N, Allard P . Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2006; 22(1):74-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.002. View

Divert C, Mornieux G, Freychat P, Baly L, Mayer F, Belli A . Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect?. Int J Sports Med. 2007; 29(6):512-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-989233. View

Maiwald C, Grau S, Krauss I, Mauch M, Axmann D, Horstmann T . Reproducibility of plantar pressure distribution data in barefoot running. J Appl Biomech. 2008; 24(1):14-23. DOI: 10.1123/jab.24.1.14. View

Murley G, Buldt A, Trump P, Wickham J . Tibialis posterior EMG activity during barefoot walking in people with neutral foot posture. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2007; 19(2):e69-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2007.10.002. View

Lieberman D, Venkadesan M, Werbel W, Daoud A, DAndrea S, Davis I . Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature. 2010; 463(7280):531-5. DOI: 10.1038/nature08723. View

10.

Oakley T, Pratt D . Skeletal transients during heel and toe strike running and the effectiveness of some materials in their attenuation. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2013; 3(3):159-65. DOI: 10.1016/0268-0033(88)90062-9. View

11.

Winegard K, Hicks A, Vandervoort A . An evaluation of the length-tension relationship in elderly human plantarflexor muscles. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1997; 52(6):B337-43. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/52a.6.b337. View

12.

Divert C, Mornieux G, Baur H, Mayer F, Belli A . Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. Int J Sports Med. 2005; 26(7):593-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-821327. View

13.

von Tscharner V, Goepfert B, Nigg B . Changes in EMG signals for the muscle tibialis anterior while running barefoot or with shoes resolved by non-linearly scaled wavelets. J Biomech. 2003; 36(8):1169-76. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00086-1. View

14.

De Cock A, De Clercq D, Willems T, Witvrouw E . Temporal characteristics of foot roll-over during barefoot jogging: reference data for young adults. Gait Posture. 2005; 21(4):432-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.05.004. View

15.

Heiderscheit B, Chumanov E, Michalski M, Wille C, Ryan M . Effects of step rate manipulation on joint mechanics during running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010; 43(2):296-302. PMC: 3022995. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ebedf4. View

16.

Horita T, Komi P, Nicol C, Kyrolainen H . Effect of exhausting stretch-shortening cycle exercise on the time course of mechanical behaviour in the drop jump: possible role of muscle damage. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1999; 79(2):160-7. DOI: 10.1007/s004210050490. View

17.

de Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P . Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech. 2000; 33(3):269-78. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00192-x. View

18.

Squadrone R, Gallozzi C . Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2009; 49(1):6-13. View

19.

Stacoff A, Nigg B, Reinschmidt C, van den Bogert A, Lundberg A . Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot versus shod running. J Biomech. 2000; 33(11):1387-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(00)00116-0. View

20.

Butler R, Davis I, Hamill J . Interaction of arch type and footwear on running mechanics. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(12):1998-2005. DOI: 10.1177/0363546506290401. View