Rearfoot, Midfoot, and Forefoot Motion in Naturally Forefoot and Rearfoot Strike Runners during Treadmill Running

Abstract

Different location and incidence of lower extremity injuries have been reported in rearfoot strike (RFS) and forefoot strike (FFS) recreational runners. These might be related to functional differences between the two footstrike patterns affecting foot kinematics and thus the incidence of running injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the kinematic patterns of foot joints between naturally RFS and FFS runners. A validated multi-segment foot model was used to measure 24 foot kinematic variables in long-distance recreational runners while running on a treadmill. These variables included the three-dimensional relative motion between rearfoot, midfoot, and forefoot segments. The footstrike pattern was identified using kinematic data and slow-motion videos. Functional analysis of variance was used to compare the time series of these variables between RFS (n = 49) and FFS (n = 25) runners. In FFS runners, the metatarsal bones were less tilted with respect to the ground, and the metatarsus was less adducted with respect to the calcaneus during stance. In early stance, the calcaneus was more dorsiflexed with respect to the shank and returned to a more plantarflexed position at push-off. FFS runners showed a more adducted calcaneus with respect to the shank and a less inverted midfoot to the calcaneus. The present study has showed that the footstrike angle characterizes foot kinematics in running. These data may help shed more light on the relationship between foot function and running-related injuries.

Subgroups of Foot-Ankle Movement Patterns Can Influence the Responsiveness to a Foot-Core Exercise Program: A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

“…There was a greater proportion of forefoot strikers in cluster 2, but both subgroups still included runners with both strike patterns, and the kinematic differences between clusters seem to be unrelated to this factor. Midfoot and forefoot strikers have been described to present greater plantar flexion, inversion and adduction of Sha-Cal ( Bruening et al, 2018 ; Deschamps et al, 2019 ), and more plantar flexion and less inversion of Cal-Mid ( Deschamps et al, 2019 ; Matias et al, 2020 ). Given that the main between-cluster differences occurred in the transverse plane, other aspects of FA kinematics were probably more determinant for cluster identification and responses to the intervention.…”

“…The footstrike angle was defined as the sagittal-plane foot angle relative to the ground at foot contact. Positive foot angles were classified as rearfoot strike pattern and negative angles as forefoot strike pattern ( Matias et al, 2020 ).…”

The effects of knee ligament loading during running in different foot strike patterns

“…To date, it is expected that the foot strike angle (FSA) will directly affect lower limb positioning and the load on the knee ligament. [24,25]. However, despite signi cant efforts in analyzing foot strike patterns, relationships among foot strike patterns, internal joint loading, and running-related injuries still need to be clari ed [7,24,26,27].…”

Biomechanical Analysis of Foot–Ankle Complex during Jogging with Rearfoot Strike versus Forefoot Strike

“…Thus, an increasing number of runners attempt to modify the foot strike pattern for achieving a softer landing skill [3]. As two common foot strike patterns, forefoot strike (FFS) and rearfoot strike (RFS) have different biomechanical performances, such as foot-ground interaction impact, kinetic and kinematic characteristics, internal loads in bones and tissue, Matias et al [4].…”