What We Can Learn About Running from Barefoot Running

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Barefoot Running

scholarly journals Running barefoot leads to lower running stability compared to shod running - results from a randomized controlled study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karsten Hollander ◽  
Daniel Hamacher ◽  
Astrid Zech
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Treadmill Running ◽  
Measurement Unit ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Local Dynamic ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Random Intercept ◽  
Short Time

AbstractLocal dynamic running stability is the ability of a dynamic system to compensate for small perturbations during running. While the immediate effects of footwear on running biomechanics are frequently investigated, no research has studied the long-term effects of barefoot vs. shod running on local dynamic running stability. In this randomized single-blinded controlled trial, young adults novice to barefoot running were randomly allocated to a barefoot or a cushioned footwear running group. Over an 8-week-period, both groups performed a weekly 15-min treadmill running intervention in the allocated condition at 70% of their VO2 max velocity. During each session, an inertial measurement unit on the tibia recorded kinematic data (angular velocity) which was used to determine the short-time largest Lyapunov exponents as a measure of local dynamic running stability. One hundred running gait cycles at the beginning, middle, and end of each running session were analysed using one mixed linear multilevel random intercept model. Of the 41 included participants (48.8% females), 37 completed the study (drop-out = 9.7%). Participants in the barefoot running group exhibited lower running stability than in the shod running group (p = 0.037) with no changes during the intervention period (p = 0.997). Within a single session, running stability decreased over the course of the 15-min run (p = 0.012) without differences between both groups (p = 0.060). Changing from shod to barefoot running reduces running stability not only in the acute phase but also in the longer term. While running stability is a relatively new concept, it enables further insight into the biomechanical influence of footwear.

scholarly journals Preliminary Evidence That Taping Does Not Optimize Joint Coupling of the Foot and Ankle Joints in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 2029
Author(s):  
Charles Deltour ◽  
Bart Dingenen ◽  
Filip Staes ◽  
Kevin Deschamps ◽  
Giovanni A. Matricali
Keyword(s):  
Cross Correlation ◽  
Ankle Instability ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Chronic Ankle Instability ◽  
Heel Strike ◽  
Segmental Motion ◽  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Ankle Motion ◽  
Joint Coupling

Background: Foot–ankle motion is affected by chronic ankle instability (CAI) in terms of altered kinematics. This study focuses on multisegmental foot–ankle motion and joint coupling in barefoot and taped CAI patients during the three subphases of stance at running. Methods: Foot segmental motion data of 12 controls and 15 CAI participants during running with a heel strike pattern were collected through gait analysis. CAI participants performed running trials in three conditions: barefoot running, and running with high-dye and low-dye taping. Dependent variables were the range of motion (RoM) occurring at the different inter-segment angles as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between predetermined segments. Results: There were no significant RoM differences for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, the first two subphases only showed RoM changes at the midfoot without apparent RoM reduction compared to the barefoot CAI condition. In the last subphase there was limited RoM reduction at the mid- and rearfoot. Cross-correlation coefficients highlighted a tendency towards weaker joint coupling in the barefoot CAI condition compared to the controls. Joint coupling within the taped CAI conditions did not show optimization compared to the barefoot CAI condition. Conclusions: RoM was not significantly changed for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, there was no distinct tendency towards lower mean RoM values due to the mechanical restraints of taping. Joint coupling in CAI patients was not optimized by taping.

Topical Review: Barefoot Running

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 787-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Hsu
Keyword(s):  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Topical Review

scholarly journals Plantar support adaptations in healthy subjects after eight weeks of barefoot running training

PeerJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. e8862
Author(s):  
Celso Sánchez-Ramírez ◽  
Luis M. Alegre
Keyword(s):  
Peak Pressure ◽  
Time Factor ◽  
Flat Foot ◽  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Running Training ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Pressure Peak ◽  
Reaction Forces ◽  
The Moment

Background Although the studies of barefoot running have intensified, it is still missing longitudinal work analyzing the effects of barefoot running on the phases of plantar support. The objective of this research was to analyze the modifications undergone by the Total Foot Contact (TFC) phase and its Flat Foot Phase (FFP) in subjects beginning the practice of barefoot running, in its acute and chronic effects. Methods A total of 28 subjects were divided into the Barefoot Group (BFGr) (n = 16) and the Shod Group (SHGr) (n = 12), evaluated before (Baseline) and after running for 20 min at 3.05 m·s−1 (Post 20 min Running), and at the end of a running training protocol with an 8-week long progressive volume (Post-8-week Training). The dynamic plantar support was measured with a baropodoscope. The duration of TFC (ms), the moment at which the FFP occurred, the maximum surface of TFC (MSTFC) (cm2), the FFP surface (SFFP) (cm2), the peak pressure of TFC (PP°TFC) (kg·cm−2), and the peak pressure of FFP (PP°FFP) (kg·cm−2) were recorded. The 3 × 2 ANOVA analysis was made to determine the effects and interactions that the condition produced (Shod/Barefoot), and the time factor (Baseline/Post 20 min Running/Post-8-week Training). Results The condition factor caused more significant effects than the time factor in all the variables. Duration of TFC in BFGr showed significant differences between the Baseline and Post-8-week Training (p = 0.000) and between Post-20-min Running and Post-8-week Training (p = 0.000), with an increasing trend. In the moment at which the FFP occurred a significant increase (p = 0.029) increase was found in Post-20 min Running (48.5%) compared to the Baseline (42.9%). In MSTFC, BFGr showed in Post-8-week Training values significantly higher than the Baseline (p = 0.000) and than Post-20-min Running (p = 0.000). SHGr presented a significant difference between the Baseline and Post-8-week Training (p = 0.040). SFFP in BFGr modified its values with an increasing trend (p = 0.000). PP°TFC in BFGr showed a significant decrease (p = 0.003) in Post-8-week Training (1.9 kg·cm−2) compared to the Baseline (2.4 kg·cm−2). In PP°FFP significant decreases were recorded in BFGr and between Post-8-week Training and Baseline (p = 0.000), and Post-8-week Training and Post 20 min Running (p = 0.035). Conclusions The adaptation took place after the 8-week training. The adaptations to running barefoot were characterized by causing an increase of the foot’s plantar support in TFC and in FFP, as well as a decrease of the plantar pressure peak in both phases. Also, there is an increased duration of the TFC and FFP, which may be related to an acquired strategy to attenuate the impacts of the ground’s reaction forces.

scholarly journals BIOMECHANICS OF SHOD AND BAREFOOT RUNNING: A LITERATURE REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 551-557
Author(s):  
Vitória da Silveira Jahn ◽  
Clara Knierim Correia ◽  
Elisa Dell’Antonio ◽  
Luis Mochizuki ◽  
Caroline Ruschel
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Plantar Flexion ◽  
Reaction Force ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Medial Gastrocnemius ◽  
Vertical Ground Reaction Force ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Foot Strike ◽  
General Studies

ABSTRACT This study aims to analyze and summarize the biomechanical (kinematics, kinetics and neuromuscular) differences between shod and barefoot running, through a literature review. Searches were conducted for complete articles published between 2013 and November 2018 in the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTdiscus databases. The search terms used were Biomechanics, Kinetics, Kinematics, Electromyography, “Surface Electromyography”; and Unshod, Barefoot, Barefeet and Running. The search resulted in 687 articles; after excluding duplicates and selecting by title, abstract and full text, 40 articles were included in the review. The results show that there are important differences in the biomechanics of running when shod or barefoot. In general, studies indicate that in barefoot running: a) individuals present forefoot or midfoot foot strike patterns, while in shod running the typical pattern is the rearfoot strike; (b) greater cadence and shorter stride length are observed; and (c) there is greater knee flexion, lower peak vertical ground reaction force and greater activation of the medial gastrocnemius. In addition, barefoot runners contact the ground with greater plantar flexion, possibly as a strategy to reduce impact when stepping without footwear. These differences, as well as runners’ individual characteristics, should be considered in the prescription of the barefoot running, in order to minimize injuries resulting from the practice. Level of Evidence II; Review.

scholarly journals Adaptation of Running Biomechanics to Repeated Barefoot Running: Letter to the Editor

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. NP5-NP6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Francis ◽  
Catherine B. Tucker ◽  
Cassie Oddy ◽  
Mark I. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Running Biomechanics

Barefoot Running Claims and Controversies

2011 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Jenkins ◽  
David J. Cauthon
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Training Method ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Barefoot Running ◽  
Running Shoes ◽  
Improved Performance ◽  
Anecdotal Information

Background: Barefoot running is slowly gaining a dedicated following. Proponents of barefoot running claim many benefits, such as improved performance and reduced injuries, whereas detractors warn of the imminent risks involved. Methods: Multiple publications were reviewed using key words. Results: A review of the literature uncovered many studies that have looked at the barefoot condition and found notable differences in gait and other parameters. These findings, along with much anecdotal information, can lead one to extrapolate that barefoot runners should have fewer injuries, better performance, or both. Several athletic shoe companies have designed running shoes that attempt to mimic the barefoot condition and, thus, garner the purported benefits of barefoot running. Conclusions: Although there is no evidence that either confirms or refutes improved performance and reduced injuries in barefoot runners, many of the claimed disadvantages to barefoot running are not supported by the literature. Nonetheless, it seems that barefoot running may be an acceptable training method for athletes and coaches who understand and can minimize the risks. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 101(3): 231–246, 2011)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document