Backgound:Barefoot(BF) running has recently increased in popularity with claims that it is more natural and may result in fewer injuries due to a reduction in impact loading.However,novice BF runners do not necessaril...Backgound:Barefoot(BF) running has recently increased in popularity with claims that it is more natural and may result in fewer injuries due to a reduction in impact loading.However,novice BF runners do not necessarily immediately switch to a forefoot strike pattern.This may increase mechanical parameters such as loading rate,which has heen associated with certain running-related injuries,specifically,tibial stress fractures.patellofemoral pain,and plantar iasciitis.The purpose of this study was to examine changes in loading parameters between typical shod running and instructed BF running with real-time force feedback.Methods:Forty-nine patients seeking treatment for a lower extremity injury ran on a force-sensing treadmill in their typical shod condition and then BF at the same speed.While BF they received verbal instruction and real-time feedback of vertical ground reaction forces.Results:While 92%of subjects(n = 45) demonstrated a rearfoot strike pattern when shod,only 2%(n = 1) did during the instructed BF run.Additionally,while BF 47%(n = 23) eliminated the vertical impact transient in all eight steps analyzed.All loading variables of interest were significantly reduced from the shod to instructed BF condition.These included maximum instantaneous and average vertical loading rates of the ground reaction force(p 【 0.0001),stiffness during initial loading(p 【 0.0001).and peak medial(p = 0.001) and lateral(p 【 0.0001) ground reaction forces and impulses in the vertical(p 【 0.0001).medial(p = 0.047),and lateral(p 【 0.0001) directions.Conclusion:As impact loading has been associated with certain running-related injuries,instruction and feedback on the proper forefoot strike pattern may help reduce the injury risk associated with transitioning to BF running.展开更多
Some researchers, running instructors, and coaches have suggested that the "optimal" footstrike pattern to improve performance and reduce running injuries is to land using a mid-or forefoot strike. Thus, it ...Some researchers, running instructors, and coaches have suggested that the "optimal" footstrike pattern to improve performance and reduce running injuries is to land using a mid-or forefoot strike. Thus, it has been recommended that runners who use a rearfoot strike would benefit by changing their footstrike although there is little scientific evidence for suggesting such a change. The rearfoot strike is clearly more prevalent. The major reasons often given for changing to a mid-or forefoot strike are(1) it is more economical;(2) there is a reduction in the impact peak and loading rate of the vertical component of the ground reaction force; and(3) there is a reduction in the risk of a running-related injuries. In this paper,we critique these 3 suggestions and provide alternate explanations that may provide contradictory evidence for altering one's footstrike pattern.We have concluded, based on examining the research literature, that changing to a mid-or forefoot strike does not improve running economy, does not eliminate an impact at the foot-ground contact, and does not reduce the risk of running-related injuries.展开更多
文摘Backgound:Barefoot(BF) running has recently increased in popularity with claims that it is more natural and may result in fewer injuries due to a reduction in impact loading.However,novice BF runners do not necessarily immediately switch to a forefoot strike pattern.This may increase mechanical parameters such as loading rate,which has heen associated with certain running-related injuries,specifically,tibial stress fractures.patellofemoral pain,and plantar iasciitis.The purpose of this study was to examine changes in loading parameters between typical shod running and instructed BF running with real-time force feedback.Methods:Forty-nine patients seeking treatment for a lower extremity injury ran on a force-sensing treadmill in their typical shod condition and then BF at the same speed.While BF they received verbal instruction and real-time feedback of vertical ground reaction forces.Results:While 92%of subjects(n = 45) demonstrated a rearfoot strike pattern when shod,only 2%(n = 1) did during the instructed BF run.Additionally,while BF 47%(n = 23) eliminated the vertical impact transient in all eight steps analyzed.All loading variables of interest were significantly reduced from the shod to instructed BF condition.These included maximum instantaneous and average vertical loading rates of the ground reaction force(p 【 0.0001),stiffness during initial loading(p 【 0.0001).and peak medial(p = 0.001) and lateral(p 【 0.0001) ground reaction forces and impulses in the vertical(p 【 0.0001).medial(p = 0.047),and lateral(p 【 0.0001) directions.Conclusion:As impact loading has been associated with certain running-related injuries,instruction and feedback on the proper forefoot strike pattern may help reduce the injury risk associated with transitioning to BF running.
文摘Some researchers, running instructors, and coaches have suggested that the "optimal" footstrike pattern to improve performance and reduce running injuries is to land using a mid-or forefoot strike. Thus, it has been recommended that runners who use a rearfoot strike would benefit by changing their footstrike although there is little scientific evidence for suggesting such a change. The rearfoot strike is clearly more prevalent. The major reasons often given for changing to a mid-or forefoot strike are(1) it is more economical;(2) there is a reduction in the impact peak and loading rate of the vertical component of the ground reaction force; and(3) there is a reduction in the risk of a running-related injuries. In this paper,we critique these 3 suggestions and provide alternate explanations that may provide contradictory evidence for altering one's footstrike pattern.We have concluded, based on examining the research literature, that changing to a mid-or forefoot strike does not improve running economy, does not eliminate an impact at the foot-ground contact, and does not reduce the risk of running-related injuries.
