Why forefoot striking in minimal shoes might positively change the course of running injuries

Abstract

It is believed that human ancestors evolved the ability to run bipedally approximately 2 million years ago. This form of locomotion may have been important to our survival and likely has influenced the evolution of our body form. As our bodies have adapted to run, it seems unusual that up to 79% of modern day runners are injured annually. The etiology of these injuries is clearly multifactorial. However, 1 aspect of running that has significantly changed over the past 50 years is the footwear we use. Modern running shoes have become increasingly cushioned and supportive, and have changed the way we run. In particular, they have altered our footstrike pattern from a predominantly forefoot strike (FFS) landing to a predominantly rearfoot strike (RFS) landing. This change alters the way in which the body is loaded and may be contributing to the high rate of injuries runners experience while engaged in an activity for which they were adapted. In this paper, we will examine the benefits of barefoot running (typically an FFS pattern), and compare the lower extremity mechanics between FFS and RFS. The implications of these mechanical differences, in terms of injury, will be discussed. We will then provide evidence to support our contention that FFS provides an optimal mechanical environment for specific foot and ankle structures, such as the heel pad, the plantar fascia, and the Achilles tendon. The importance of footwear will then be addressed, highlighting its interaction with strike pattern on mechanics. This analysis will underscore why footwear matters when assessing mechanics. Finally, proper preparation and safe transition to an FFS pattern in minimal shoes will be emphasized. Through the discussion of the current literature, we will develop a justification for returning to running in the way for which we were adapted to reduce running-related injuries.

Short- and long-term effects of altered point of ground reaction force application on human running energetics

“…smaller EMA for the ankle and greater EMA for the knee joint) and in this way a metabolically less costly force generation. There is indeed evidence in the literature for a redistribution of the muscular output in the lower extremities when runners move the PFA towards the fore of the foot (Davis et al, 2017;Hamill and Gruber, 2017). A greater demand on the plantar flexor muscles and a lower demand of the knee extensor muscles is observed in runners who employ an FFS compared to runners who employ an RFS (Kulmala et al, 2013;Stearne et al, 2014;Kuhman et al, 2016).…”

Twelve-Week Gait Retraining Reduced Patellofemoral Joint Stress during Running in Male Recreational Runners

“…In FFS, the ankle was more plantarflexed at initial contact than in RFS. The foot went through greater dorsiflexion range of motion during stance in FFS during running because of the increased plantarflexion [12]. Such change allowed shock absorption by the muscles and ligaments of the foot, which decreased loading rates and work at the knee compared with running with a rearfoot strike pattern [13][14][15].…”

“…The improvement in the loading ability of the Achilles tendon is beneficial to the calf to play a greater role in the impact phase. Lower vGRF and increased loads on the ankle using forefoot strike may cause lower peak knee extension moment [12].…”

Multi-Segmental Motion in Foot during Counter-Movement Jump with Toe Manipulation

“…Sci. 2020, 10, 1893 2 of 12 produce more tactile contact forces [8][9][10][11]. Further, the forefoot strike pattern in the barefoot condition showed a stronger longitudinal arch and intrinsic foot muscle, thus functionally improving the mass-spring mechanics of running by storing and releasing elastic energy during locomotion [8,12,13].…”