Background:Previous studies of foot strike patterns of distance runners in road races have typically found that the overwhelming majority of shod runners initially contact the ground on the rearfoot.However,none of th...Background:Previous studies of foot strike patterns of distance runners in road races have typically found that the overwhelming majority of shod runners initially contact the ground on the rearfoot.However,none of these studies has attempted to quantify foot strike patterns of barefoot or minimally shod runners.This study classifies foot strike patterns of barefoot and minimally shod runners in a recreational road race.Methods:High-speed video footage was obtained of 169 barefoot and 42 minimally shod distance runners at the 2011 New York City Barefoot Run.Foot strike patterns were classified for each runner,and frequencies of forefoot,midfoot,and rearfoot striking were compared between the barefoot and minimally shod groups.Results:A total of 59.2%of barefoot runners were forefoot strikers,20.1%were midfoot strikers,and 20.7%were rearfoot strikers.For minimally shod runners,33.3%were forefoot strikers,19.1%were midfoot strikers,and 47.6%were rearfoot strikers.Foot strike distributions for barefoot and minimally shod runners were significantly different both from one another and from previously reported foot strike distributions of shod road racers.Conclusion:Foot strike patterns differ between barefoot and minimally shod runners,with forefoot striking being more common,and rearfoot striking less common in the barefoot group.展开更多
Background:Numerous studies about the interaction between footwear(and barefoot) and kinematic and kinetic outcomes have been published over the last few years.Recent studies however lead to the conclusion that the as...Background:Numerous studies about the interaction between footwear(and barefoot) and kinematic and kinetic outcomes have been published over the last few years.Recent studies however lead to the conclusion that the assumed interactions depend mainly on the subjects" experience of barefoot(BF) walking/running,the preferred running strike pattern,the speed,the hardness of the surface,the thickness of the midsole material,and the runners’ level of ability.The aim of the present study was to investigate lower leg kinematics o\’ BF running and running in minimal running shoes(MRS) to assess comparability of BF kinematics in both conditions.To systematically compare both conditions we monitored the influencing variables described above in our measurement setup.We hypothesized that running in MRS does not alter lower leg kinematics compared to BF running.Methods:Thirty-seven subjects,injury-free and active in sports,ran BF on an EVA foam runway,and also ran shod wearing Nike Free 3.0 on a tartan indoor track.Lower-leg 3D kinematics was measured to quantify rearfoot and ankle movements.Skin markers were used in both shod and BF running.Results:All runners revealed rearfoot strike pattern when running barefoot.Differences between BF and MRS running occurred particularly during the initial stance phase of running,both in the sagittal and the frontal planes.BF running revealed a flatter foot placement,a more plantar flexed ankle joint and less inverted rearfoot at touchdown compared to MRS running.Conclusion:BF running does not change the landing automatically to forefoot running,especially after a systematic exclusion of surface and other influencing factors.The Nike Free 3.0 mimics some BF features.Nevertheless,changes in design of the Nike Free should be considered in order to mimic BF movement even more closely.展开更多
文摘Background:Previous studies of foot strike patterns of distance runners in road races have typically found that the overwhelming majority of shod runners initially contact the ground on the rearfoot.However,none of these studies has attempted to quantify foot strike patterns of barefoot or minimally shod runners.This study classifies foot strike patterns of barefoot and minimally shod runners in a recreational road race.Methods:High-speed video footage was obtained of 169 barefoot and 42 minimally shod distance runners at the 2011 New York City Barefoot Run.Foot strike patterns were classified for each runner,and frequencies of forefoot,midfoot,and rearfoot striking were compared between the barefoot and minimally shod groups.Results:A total of 59.2%of barefoot runners were forefoot strikers,20.1%were midfoot strikers,and 20.7%were rearfoot strikers.For minimally shod runners,33.3%were forefoot strikers,19.1%were midfoot strikers,and 47.6%were rearfoot strikers.Foot strike distributions for barefoot and minimally shod runners were significantly different both from one another and from previously reported foot strike distributions of shod road racers.Conclusion:Foot strike patterns differ between barefoot and minimally shod runners,with forefoot striking being more common,and rearfoot striking less common in the barefoot group.
文摘Background:Numerous studies about the interaction between footwear(and barefoot) and kinematic and kinetic outcomes have been published over the last few years.Recent studies however lead to the conclusion that the assumed interactions depend mainly on the subjects" experience of barefoot(BF) walking/running,the preferred running strike pattern,the speed,the hardness of the surface,the thickness of the midsole material,and the runners’ level of ability.The aim of the present study was to investigate lower leg kinematics o\’ BF running and running in minimal running shoes(MRS) to assess comparability of BF kinematics in both conditions.To systematically compare both conditions we monitored the influencing variables described above in our measurement setup.We hypothesized that running in MRS does not alter lower leg kinematics compared to BF running.Methods:Thirty-seven subjects,injury-free and active in sports,ran BF on an EVA foam runway,and also ran shod wearing Nike Free 3.0 on a tartan indoor track.Lower-leg 3D kinematics was measured to quantify rearfoot and ankle movements.Skin markers were used in both shod and BF running.Results:All runners revealed rearfoot strike pattern when running barefoot.Differences between BF and MRS running occurred particularly during the initial stance phase of running,both in the sagittal and the frontal planes.BF running revealed a flatter foot placement,a more plantar flexed ankle joint and less inverted rearfoot at touchdown compared to MRS running.Conclusion:BF running does not change the landing automatically to forefoot running,especially after a systematic exclusion of surface and other influencing factors.The Nike Free 3.0 mimics some BF features.Nevertheless,changes in design of the Nike Free should be considered in order to mimic BF movement even more closely.
