Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes: Evidence or Conjecture?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Running Barefoot or in
Minimalist Shoes:
Evidence or Conjecture?
Carey Rothschild, PT, DPT, CSCS
Program in Physical Therapy, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida
SUMMARY moccasins (42). Advances in footwear RUNNING GAIT CYCLE
offered improved traction and perfor- Running gait is comprised of 2 basic
RUNNING BAREFOOT OR IN MINI- periods: stance and swing (8). Stance
mance and eventually provided support
MALIST FOOTWEAR HAS BECOME A begins when the foot is in contact with
and cushioning for the foot. Changes in
POPULAR TREND. WHETHER THIS the ground, whereas the swing phase
construction methods and the availabil-
TREND IS SUPPORTED BY EVI- begins as the foot moves into toe-off
ity of new materials allowed for
DENCE OR CONJECTURE HAS YET and prepares to leave the ground.
improved breathability, comfort, and
TO BE DETERMINED. THIS ARTICLE Stance makes up approximately 40%
durability (42). The current selection of
WILL REVIEW THE BIOMECHANICAL of the cycle and swing comprises the
running shoes offers a vast array of
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RUNNING stability and cushioning features from other 60% (7). Running gait is charac-
BAREFOOT AND IN SHOES THAT numerous shoe brands. terized by single-leg support and dou-
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE LIT- ble-leg float periods. During walking,
ERATURE. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE AN Despite the advances in shoe technol- however, one foot is always in contact
EVIDENCE-BASED PREPARATORY
ogy providing for increased cushioning with the ground. The impact landing of
and motion control, there has been one foot from an unsupported position
EXERCISE PROGRAM FOR THE
a recent movement promoting running during running results in transmission of
INDIVIDUAL TRANSITIONING TO THE
barefoot or in light ‘‘minimalist’’ shoes. forces as much as 5 times the body
BAREFOOT STYLE OF RUNNING.
Advocates of barefoot running believe weight throughout the lower limb (3).
that returning to the way our primal The lower extremity must control and
INTRODUCTION ancestors ran may result in fewer absorb these impact forces efficiently to
unning has become an increas- running-related injuries. The Barefoot avoid potential injury.
R ingly popular and efficient way
to achieve fitness and promote
long-term exercise. Running and jog-
Runners Society, founded in the
United States, has nearly 2000 mem-
bers internationally and is growing
The stance period of running gait can
further be divided into initial contact,
midstance, and toe-off. From initial
ging participation in the United States annually. Barefoot running has been
contact to midstance, the lower ex-
has increased 10.3% in the past 2 years, the topic of numerous books, journal tremity actively decelerates the for-
totaling 35.5 million, according to the and magazine articles, as well as news ward-swinging leg and passively
National Sporting Goods Associa- reports. The purpose of this article is to absorbs the shock of ground reaction
tion (www.nsga.org/files/public/2010_ discuss the biomechanical differences forces. In midstance, the foot makes full
Participation_Alphabetically_4Web_ between barefoot and shod (wearing contact with the ground and body
100521.pdf ). Participation varies from shoes) running and to present a pre- weight begins shifting from the rear-
recreational to competitive, with race paratory exercise program for the foot to the forefoot. From midstance to
distances ranging from the 5K to the runner interested in transitioning from toe-off, there is a relative lengthening
marathon. Other people may partici- a traditional running shoe to the of the lower extremity with concentric
pate in running for fun or as a functional barefoot style. Focus will be placed muscle contraction of the hip and knee
part of their lives or occupations (43). on preparing the lower extremity for extensors to prepare the foot for the
Footwear has evolved considerably over the demands required by the biome-
the years humans have been running. chanics of barefoot running. The pro-
KEY WORDS:
Early humans either went barefoot or posed benefits and risks to barefoot
barefoot running; shod running; running
wore protective and insulating foot running will briefly be discussed as will
training; minimalist shoe
coverings in the form of sandals or an appraisal of the available evidence.
8 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012 Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
propulsive push-off, in which the
weight is shifted to the toes and the
foot leaves the ground (3). The swing
period of gait can be further divided
into initial swing, midswing, and ter-
minal swing. During initial swing
and midswing, the foot advances for-
ward in the air and in terminal swing Figure 1. Types of foot strikes.
positions itself for heel strike and
weight acceptance.
Running gait has been described as frequency (cadence) in barefoot run- foot sole (7). It should be noted, how-
a spring-mass system of the leg in ners. These stride differences may ever, that calcaneal and tibial move-
which the joints of the lower extremity possibly reduce initial impact forces ment patterns do not differ substantially
lower the center of mass and absorb by allowing higher preactivation of between barefoot and shod running
energy much like a spring compresses. plantar flexors before braking at im- despite the increased range of motion
This occurs during the stance phase of pact (9). The higher preactivation of seen at the ankle (37).
running. The energy absorption is the gastrocnemius and soleus de- Another key difference found when
quickly followed by energy generation creases impact forces by anticipating running barefoot versus in shoes
as the limb moves into extension, the shock with landing. The foot involves the proprioceptive ability of
similar to the recoil of a spring, allow- switches to a forefoot strike and the foot. Barefoot running allows for
ing for propulsion during the toe-off allows for the ankle plantar flexors direct contact with the ground and for
phase (10,11). The longitudinal arch of to eccentrically lower the body in increased proprioceptive feedback.
the foot has been described as an a more controlled manner (9). Lower The glabrous epithelium of the plantar
‘‘impact dampening structure’’ during peak torques at the hip, knee, and surface of the foot is equipped to
the loading (stance) phase of the gait ankle have also been reported in withstand potential abrasive injuries
cycle (32). With each foot strike, the barefoot versus shod running, most when barefoot because of its higher
lower limb endures significant impact prominently at the hip and knee (2). pain threshold and ability for sensory
force to the musculoskeletal structures. Ultimately, barefoot runners demon- feedback (31). It has been demon-
The impact at landing is created strate decreased ground contact time, strated that approximately 600%
through collision of the shoe, foot, flight time, and stride duration greater abrading loads are required
and lower leg mass. Ground contact because of the higher cadence to reach pain threshold in the plantar
style and cadence also affect the impact (2,7,21,36). This increased cadence skin of the foot when compared with
imposed on the lower extremity at reduces step length, produces less hairy skin of the thigh (26). The
landing. The way in which a runner vertical excursion of the center of sensory feedback from the sole of
absorbs and generates energy at each mass, and reduces braking impulse the foot activates a series of muscle
foot strike differs in barefoot and shod and impact transient forces. In addi- contractions in the intrinsic foot
running because of variations in bio- tion, an increased step rate of less than musculature that allows for shock
mechanics. Knowledge of these key 10% does not alter metabolic costs absorption and diminishes impact
differences will aid the strength and and reduces impact load on the body transmission (32). A well-trained foot
conditioning professional in preparing because of the reduced vertical center disperses pressure to a wider area,
runners interested in transitioning to of mass velocity at landing (16). functionally avoiding injury. Barefoot
barefoot running. running removes the external passive
The flatter foot placement of the
barefoot style at contact results from support of a shoe and replaces it with
BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES
a larger plantar flexion range of motion internal active support by the foot
BETWEEN BAREFOOT AND SHOD
RUNNING at the ankle. This causes a more vertical musculature. However, untrained foot
One primary difference between run- position of the lower leg and results in muscles rely heavily on the support
ning barefoot and in shoes is noted at a larger amount of knee flexion to provided by a shoe.
the foot during the initial contact soften the impact load (7). An overall Running in shoes, however, offers
phase. The barefoot running tech- greater joint excursion at the ankle has several advantages that barefoot run-
nique uses a midfoot to forefoot also been identified when barefoot, ning does not. The shoe functions to
striking pattern when compared with suggesting that the ankle absorbs protect the plantar surface of the foot
a rearfoot heel strike pattern of the impact as well (36). The flatter foot from harmful terrain, extreme weather
shod runner (Figure 1) (7,21,36). This position also limits pressure at the heel, conditions, and infectious agents.
foot striking position results in a short- where sensation of mechanical inputs Additional functions of the shoe
er stride length and a higher step and pain is well established in the include providing for motion control,
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 9
Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes
cushioning, stabilization, shock distri- effects of barefoot running on compet- be implemented when transitioning
bution and traction between foot and itive performance. a runner to the barefoot technique.
the ground (5,26). These shoe design A shod runner may first opt to run in
factors aid in decreasing the high PREPARATORY PROGRAM
a ‘‘minimalist’’ shoe before making the BASICS
impact forces of a rearfoot heel strike full transition to barefoot running. A
at initial contact (5,26). The wearing Various sources have presented transi-
popular minimalist shoe that has been tion to barefoot running programs.
of shoes and shoe inserts while studied in the literature is the Vibram
running has also been associated with Certainly, the transition should be
FiveFinger (Vibram SpA, Albizzate, gradual and over a period of no less
reduced impact loading rate and Italy). Research reports that the min-
reduced latency between the maxi- than 4–8 weeks because muscular
imalist shoe may offer similar bio- adaptation to training accounting for
mum external force and internal forces mechanics as running barefoot,
of the lumbar musculature (27). Thus, strength gains requires this period
including a forefoot striking pattern, (23,33). In addition to strengthening
going barefoot may result in both an lower ground contact time, higher step
increase in puncture wounds to the exercises for core and hip musculature,
rate, and lower peak impact forces an evidence-based preparation program
foot as well as overuse of muscles,
compared with the traditional running should consist of activities and exercises
tendons, and ligaments throughout
shoe (36). The minimalist shoe effec- that target the key biomechanical differ-
the lower extremity and low back.
tively mimics barefoot conditions ences the barefoot runner will experi-
The additional cumulative loading
while providing small amount of pro- ence when compared with being shod
that results from the increased step
tection, yet still sits between foot and (Table 1). These key differences include:
rate and forefoot striking pattern
the ground and may desensitize and plantar sensitivity adaptation, foot
when barefoot could also be consid-
weaken the foot intrinsics (36). The use strike pattern and related changes in
ered as a potential source for injury,
of minimalist shoes, however, has been stride rate and length, lower extremity
such as metatarsal strains and stress
considered a possible causative factor proprioceptive ability, ankle joint flexi-
fractures (22). Although case reports
for stress injury to the metatarsals. This bility, intrinsic foot strength, and ecc-
cannot be generalized, 2 cases of
may be because of the need for gait entric strength of the lower limb to
metatarsal stress fracture have been
alterations from a heel strike pattern to control impact forces. Learning the
documented in runners who have
a midfoot striking pattern when run- barefoot style, namely, a reduced heel
adopted training in footwear simulat-
ning in the minimalist shoes (14). strike, is fundamental in the transition to
ing the barefoot condition (14).
Nevertheless, use of the minimalist barefoot running.
shoe may prove to be useful in the
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PLANTAR SENSITIVITY
overall transition to barefoot running.
Running performance may be impa- ADAPTATION
cted by the wearing of shoes versus It should be noted that not all runners Because of the high concentration of
running barefoot. Heart rate and relative may be candidates for the barefoot sensory receptors on the plantar sur-
perceived exertion have been found to running technique. Numerous anatom- face of the foot, sensitivity adaptation
be significantly lower in the barefoot ical factors have been associated with in the form of increased barefoot
condition (15). When running barefoot running injury, including cavus (high- activity should be the first component
over ground or on a treadmill, the arch) foot, leg length discrepancy, and of the transition to a barefoot running
associated oxygen cost has been found muscle weakness (4,20,25,38). Specifi- program. Suggested mechanisms to
to be 5.7% lower than while running cally, weakness of the hip abductors facilitate the foot’s adaptation include
shod (15). It has been found that at 70% and hip flexors has been associated increasing total barefoot activity, walk-
of V_ O2max pace barefoot running is with running-related injury, including ing both indoors and outdoors with
more economical than running shod, iliotibial band syndrome (12,25). Struc- bare feet, running indoors with bare
both overground and on a treadmill tural abnormalities in the lower feet, and eventually running barefoot
(15). Additional studies have found extremity may lead to biomechanical outdoors on soft surfaces followed by
maximum oxygen uptake values to be problems during the running gait cycle. harder surfaces (32). Adaptations to
1.3% lower when running barefoot than Additionally, runners with diminished the plantar skin will take 3–4 weeks of
when running in shoes (36). More than sensation in the foot as seen in peri- barefoot running at 30 minutes daily
a 10% increase in step rate has been pheral neuropathy are not good can- before an increased velocity in running
associated with an increased relative didates for barefoot activity because of speed will be tolerated (31).
perceived exertion; however, no signif- the loss of protective sensation. A
icant increase in oxygen consumption thorough evaluation of lower extremity RUNNING FORM DRILLS
or heart rate ensued (16). These findings strength and gait biomechanics should Because the foot strike pattern of the
suggest that running barefoot is more be conducted before transitioning to barefoot technique is located more at
efficient than shod running. Future the barefoot style of running. Careful the forefoot to midfoot, drills should be
research is needed to determine the preparation and a gradual pace should incorporated to enhance and learn the
10 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
Table 1
Preparatory activities for barefoot running
Barefoot activity Barefoot walking indoors
Barefoot walking outdoors
Barefoot running indoors
Barefoot running outdoors—progress from grass to asphalt
Running form drills (Figure 2) Forefoot striking
Increased cadence
Shorter step length
Proprioceptive exercises (Figures 3, 4) Single-leg stance
Single-leg stance on ankle disc/wobble board
Single-leg stance with resistive band
Flexibility exercises (Figure 5) Calf stretching against wall
Calf stretching off the edge of a step
PNF calf stretching
Strengthening exercises (Figures 6, 7) Foot intrinsics
Plyometric activities (Figures 8–10) Hops (single-leg forward hops, single-leg hurdle hops)
Jumps (squat jumps, split scissor jumps, depth jumps, double/single-leg hurdle jumps)
Bounding in horizontal and vertical planes (double-leg bounds, alternate leg bounds)
proper landing techniques and to improve lower limb proprioception for 30 seconds and repeated 3–5 times
reinforce the resulting increase in stride include: ankle range of motion exer- for each leg. Additionally, propri-
frequency with subsequent shorter step cises on fixed surfaces followed by oceptive neuromuscular facilitation
length (36). Barefoot running drills done wobble board with eyes opened and techniques, including contract–relax
in the grass using a metronome at a 5– closed; single-leg stance activities using and agonist-contract stretching, have
10% faster cadence could be beneficial an ankle disc (Figure 3) (34), balance been found to be a useful training
in training a runner for the demand of board (41), or mini-trampoline (19); modality for increasing ankle joint
increased stride rate when barefoot (16). and static kicks using resistive bands range of motion (29).
Drills should focus on the increased step (1) (Figure 4). Performance of these
frequency combined with a shorter step activities with increased weight-
length while maintaining a forefoot bearing through the forefoot should
landing (Figure 2). The author recom- train the foot more specifically for the
mends aiming for a cadence close to forefoot loading used in barefoot
180 steps per minute in accordance with running.
the high step rate found in the barefoot
technique. ANKLE FLEXIBILITY EXERCISES
As an increased ankle joint excursion
LOWER EXTREMITY is required by the barefoot runner,
PROPRIOCEPTIVE EXERCISES flexibility exercises to improve ankle
Because of the increased neuromus- range of motion should be performed.
cular control required by the lower Traditional calf stretching against
limb in controlling impact forces, a wall or off the edge of a step may
proprioceptive exercises should be be performed (Figure 5). Focus should
incorporated into the preparatory be placed on maintaining a neutral Figure 2. Running form drill. Skipping
transition program. Exercises that arch throughout the duration of the with a focus on forefoot
have been cited in the literature to stretch. The stretch is typically held landing.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 11
Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes
Figure 5. Standing calf stretch.
Figure 4. Single-leg stance propriocep-
tive exercise with opposite
lower extremity kicks using
resistive band.
eccentric lower extremity training,
however, the runner should have
be superior to the traditional toe curl sufficient strength in the core and
exercise in activating the abductor hip musculature to provide proximal
hallucis, the largest foot intrinsic mus- stability for the distal extremity.
cle found most medial within the first Although the recommended plyo-
layer of the foot intrinsic muscles metric exercises have been studied
(Figure 6) (18). This muscle contributes in shoes, the authors recommend that
to increased arch height and helps to the activities be done barefoot to
control pronation when activated. The better prepare for barefoot running.
Figure 3. Single-leg stance propriocep- Beginning these exercises on a mini-
muscle had been found to be more
tive exercise while standing trampoline allows for the stretch-
on an ankle disc.
activated while performing the short-
foot exercise in the 1-legged standing shortening cycle mechanism to pro-
position versus seated (18). To effec- duce greater maximum leg power and
tively perform this exercise, the patient acts to reduce the impact forces on
INTRINSIC FOOT attempts to draw the heads of the the body during jump training, thus
STRENGTHENING EXERCISES metatarsals toward the calcaneus while reducing the potential for injury (6).
Because of the apparent weakening of avoiding extraneous motion. Tactile Plyometric training exercises include
the foot intrinsics that occurs in the input can be provided by the clinician hops, jumps, bounding in horizontal
habitually shod runner, strengthening and verbal reinforcement to avoid toe and vertical planes, squat jumps
of these muscles is a critical component curling (Figure 7). (Figures 8, 9), split scissor jumps,
of a transitional training program. double-leg bounds, alternate leg
Traditional exercises, such as towel ECCENTRIC STRENGTHENING OF bounds (Figure 10), single-leg for-
curls, picking up objects, single-limb THE LOWER LIMB WITH ward hops, depth jumps, double-leg
balance activities, and the short-foot PLYOMETRICS hurdle jumps, and single-leg hurdle
exercise, have been used to strengthen As the knee and ankle become more hops. These specific plyometric ac-
the intrinsic foot musculature (18,24). responsible for controlling the impact tivities have been found to improve
The towel curl exercise is used to loading during barefoot striking, distance running performance
strengthen the flexor digitorum longus lower extremity plyometric exercises (28,35). The athlete may progress to
and brevis, lumbricales, and flexor should be incorporated into the performing these activities on field
hallucis longus (18). The short-foot training program to prepare the lower grass and progressively harder surfa-
exercise, however, has been found to limb for this activity. Before beginning ces. General progression guidelines
12 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
running no more than a quarter mile
to 1 mile every other day during the
first week of barefoot running. This
may be performed independently or
added onto a regular training run. For
example, a runner may do 3 miles of
shod running on the road and then
a quarter mile barefoot on a grassy
field. When increasing the training
distance, it is recommended to in-
crease barefoot running by no more
than 10% per week (Table 2). Should
muscles remain sore, mileage should
not be increased but rather main-
tained instead for an additional week.
Figure 6. Short-foot exercise. Drawing the heads of the metatarsals toward the In our experience, sore and tired
calcaneus without curling the toes. muscles are to be expected; however,
careful attention should be paid to
bone, joint, or soft tissue injury
for plyometric activities should be and continue to run in shoes for because this may signal the presence
followed while monitoring for muscle training runs. Ultimately, the runner of injury. A grassy field or a rubber-
soreness and skin integrity of the bare will need to decide what his or her ized track may be the preferred
foot. goals are for implementing barefoot surfaces to begin running barefoot
training. or in minimalist shoes. This could
BAREFOOT RUNNING PROGRAM No studies to date have demonstrated then be followed by smooth paved
PROGRESSION the safest or most effective method trails and roads while paying careful
Once a runner has prepared the lower for implementing a barefoot running attention to debris when going bare-
extremity for the demands of barefoot program (17). General recommenda- foot. Patience will be required be-
running through preparatory exercises, tions advise for a very gradual in- cause it may take months to make the
the runner should be ready to increase crease in barefoot running activity for transition to a full-time barefoot
mileage while barefoot or in minimalist successful implementation to allow runner.
shoes. Some runners may exclusively for musculoskeletal and cutaneous
run barefoot or in minimalist shoes, adaptation (17). The barefoot running DISCUSSION
whereas others may opt to train transition program begins with bare- Several key biomechanical differences
barefoot only for certain types of runs foot activity including daily walking between barefoot and shod running
and shod for others. Some may choose and the aforementioned preparatory have been identified in the literature
only to perform running drills barefoot exercises. The author recommends (Table 3). These differences are pri-
marily found during the stance phase
of gait and directly impact the step
length and step frequency of the
running cycle. Running barefoot uses
a forefoot to midfoot landing and,
thus, creates a shortened step length
with resulting increase in step fre-
quency. In contrast, initial contact
while shod is at the heel and results
in a longer step length and reduced
step frequency. Additionally, the pro-
prioceptive ability of the foot is greater
when barefoot because the foot makes
direct contact with the ground. This
may allow the foot musculature to
react to the ground impact forces and
to control shock absorption. How-
ever, the shoe allows for the pro-
Figure 7. Tactile cueing for the short-foot exercise. tection, cushioning, stabilization, and
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 13
Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes
Figure 9. Squat jump, end position.
muscles. Frequently reported The recent resurgence of barefoot
running injuries include ankle sprain, running may be a result of the growing
plantar fasciitis, tibial stress syndrome/ belief that barefoot running is better
Figure 8. Squat jump, start position. shin splints, iliotibial band tendinitis, for the body than using supportive
Achilles tendinitis, and peripatellar pain footwear. The expectation is that injury
(13,39). Runners are particularly inter- rates will decrease as runners encoun-
ested in learning ways to reduce the ter lower impact-related forces when
shock absorption that barefoot run-
possibility of injury. Barefoot activity barefoot. To date, most supportive
ning does not. The forefoot contact,
has been found to spare the plantar reports for barefoot running have been
reduced step length, increased step
fascia from impact forces as the foot anecdotal. Future research is indicated
frequency, and increased propriocep-
intrinsic muscles activate to control to examine the effects of barefoot
tion while running barefoot may
impact loads (32). In addition, where running on both injury reduction and
contribute to reduced impact forces
shod and unshod populations coexist, performance.
and decreased injury rates in the lower
the injury rate is higher in the shod
extremity.
population (32). Unshod lifestyles are CONCLUSION
Despite the lack of research studies also associated with a lower frequency Numerous studies demonstrate the
comparing injury rates in barefoot of lower extremity osteological pathol- profound biomechanical gait differ-
versus shod populations in devel- ogy, such as bony lesion, osteophyte ences seen in those running bare-
oped countries, it is proposed that formation, and fracture (44). foot compared with shod individuals.
runners using the barefoot running
style will encounter less impact-re-
lated injuries. Yearly incidence of
long-distance running injuries in
recreational and competitive runners
is high with variability ranging from
19.4 to 79.3% (39). Two of the most
recent studies found incidence rates
of 54.85 and 59%, more than half of
runners (30,40). Injury rates are as
high as 90% in runners training for
a marathon (13). Higher training
mileage per week in male runners
and a history of previous running
injury have been identified as risk
factors for injury (39). Running
injuries typically manifest in the
lower extremity and can affect the
bone, ligaments, tendons, and Figure 10. Alternate leg bounding.
14 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
Table 2
Sample barefoot running progression program
Weeks 1–4 Lower extremity preparatory exercises: 2–3 times per week
Barefoot activity including walking: 30 minutes daily
Weeks 5–6 Barefoot running ¼ mile–1 mile: 2–3 times per week
On a surface such as a grassy field or rubberized track
Weeks 7–8 Barefoot running increase by 10% to 1/3 mile–1¼ miles: 2–3 times per week*
On a surface such as a grassy field or rubberized track
Weeks 9 and beyond Barefoot running increase by an additional 10% to ½ mile–1½ miles: 2–3 times per week
Progress to smooth paved surfaces if desired
*Do not progress mileage if soreness persists.
These differences should be accounted rates and performance. Although an prepare the runner for the new
for in preparing a runner for the absence of evidence does not imply an demands placed on the barefoot
barefoot style of running. Several evidence of absence, those individuals lower extremity and should minimize
studies support the use of barefoot involved in exercise prescription must adverse effects during the transitional
running for the proposed advantages recognize the difference between period. Sufficient patience and time
of improved sensory feedback and evidence-based information and that may be required to adapt to the new
proprioception and reduced impact which is based on an ad novitatum style because pain or discomfort may
forces; however, no evidence exists premise. be present due to running in a com-
that these factors result in reduced Nevertheless, runners may be curious pletely different way. New barefoot
injuries or improved performance. to experiment with the barefoot style runners should be prepared to ini-
Some evidence exists for improved of running for the purported benefits tially run slower while barefoot
foot intrinsic strength in the foot of injury reduction and performance because of the change in running
musculature and improved physiolog- enhancement. Making the transition form and increased need for atten-
ical economy when running barefoot, from shod to barefoot running tion to the ground. Continued super-
but no evidence is linked to injury should be gradual and ideally super- vision and guidance from the
reduction or improved performance. vised by a knowledgeable strength strength and conditioning pro-
Clearly, much more research is and conditioning professional. Carefully fessional may aid the runner in
needed on barefoot running, espe- selected training exercises, such as a successful transition to the bare-
cially in the areas relating to injury those outlined in this article, may foot style.
Table 3
Key differences between barefoot and shod running
Barefoot running Shod running
Initial contact Midfoot to forefoot strike Rearfoot (heel) strike
Step length Shorter Longer
Step frequency Higher Lower
Proprioception Increased due to direct foot contact Decreased due to barrier of the shoe
Foot protection No Yes
Foot control Intrinsic via musculature Extrinsic via shoe features for stabilization
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 15
Running Barefoot or in Minimalist Shoes
syndrome. Clin J Sport Med 10: 169–175, 26. Nigg BM and Segesser B. Biomechanical
Carey 2000. and orthopedic concepts in sport shoe
Rothschild is construction. Med Sci Sports Exerc 24:
13. Fredericson M and Misra AK. Epidemiology
a Physical Thera- and aetiology of marathon running injuries.
595–602, 1992.
pist and Instructor Sports Med 37: 437–439, 2007. 27. Ogon M, Aleksiev AR, Spratt KF, Pop MH,
in the Program in 14. Giuliani J, Masini B, Alitz C, and Owens BD.
and Saltzman CL. Footwear affects the
Physical Therapy Barefoot-stimulating footwear associated
behavior of low back muscles when jogging.
at the University Int J Sports Med 22: 414–419, 2001.
with metatarsal stress injury in 2 runners.
of Central Florida. Orthopedics 34: e320–e323, 2011. 28. Paavolainen L, Häkkinen K, Hamalainen I,
Nummela A, and Rusko H. Explosive-
15. Hanson NJ, Berg K, Deka P, Meendering
strength training improves 5-km running
JR, and Ryan C. Oxygen cost of running
time by improving running economy and
REFERENCES barefoot vs. running shod. Int J Sports Med
muscle power. J Appl Physiol 86:
1. Baltaci G and Kohl HW. Does 32: 401–406, 2011.
1527–1533, 1999.
proprioceptive training during knee and 16. Heiderscheit BC, Chumanov ES,
ankle rehabilitation improve outcome? 29. Rees SS, Murphy AJ, Watsford ML,
Michalski MP, Wille CM, and Ryan MB.
Phys Ther Rev 8: 5–16, 2003. McLachlan KA, and Coutts AJ. Effects of
Effects of step rate manipulation on joint
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
2. Braunstein B, Arampatzis A, Eysel P, and mechanics during running. Med Sci Sports
stretching on stiffness and force-producing
Bruggemann GP. Footwear affects the Exerc 43: 296–302, 2011.
characteristics of the ankle in active
gearing at the ankle and knee joints during 17. Jenkins DW and Cauthon DJ. Barefoot women. J Strength Cond Res 21:
running. J Biomech 43: 2120–2125, running claims and controversies: A review 572–577, 2007.
2010. of the literature. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc
30. Ristolainen L, Heinonen A, Turunen H,
3. Brotzman S and Wilk KE. Clinical 101: 231–246, 2011.
Mannström H, Waller B, Kettunen JA, and
Orthopedic Rehabilitation. Philadelphia, 18. Jung DY, Kim MH, Koh EK, Kwon OY, Kujala UM. Type of sport is related to injury
PA: Mosby, 2003. pp. 513. Cynn HS, and Lee WH. A comparison in profile: A study on cross country skiers,
4. Brunet ME, Cook SD, Brinker MR, and the muscle activity of the abductor hallucis swimmers, long-distance runners and
Dickenson JA. A survey of running injuries and the medial longitudinal arch angle soccer players. A retrospective 12-month
in 1501 competitive and recreational during toe curl and short foot exercises. study. Scan J Med Sci Sports 20:
runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 30: Phys Ther Sport 12: 30–35, 2011. 384–393, 2010.
307–315, 1990.
19. Kidgell DJ, Horvath DM, Jackson BM, and 31. Robbins S, Gouw GJ, McClaran J, and
5. Butler RJ, Hamill J, and Davis I. Effect of Seymour PJ. Effect of six weeks of dura Waked E. Protective sensation of the
footwear on high and low arched runners’ disc and mini-trampoline balance training plantar aspect of the foot. Foot Ankle 14:
mechanics during a prolonged run. Gait on postural sway in athletes with functional 347–352, 1993.
Posture 26: 219–225, 2007. ankle instability. J Strength Cond Res 21: 32. Robbins SE and Hanna AM. Running-
6. Crowther RG, Spinks WL, Leicht AS, and 466–469, 2007. related injury prevention through barefoot
Spinks CD. Kinematic responses to 20. Korpelainen R, Orava S, Karpakka J, Sirra adaptations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 19:
plyometric exercises conducted on P, and Hulkko A. Risk factors for recurrent 148–156, 1987.
compliant and noncompliant surfaces. stress fractures in athletes. Am J Sports 33. Sale DG. Neural adaptation to resistance
J Strength Cond Res 21: 460–465, 2007. Med 29: 304–310, 2001. training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20:
7. De Wit B, De Clercq D, and Aerts P. 21. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, S135–S145, 1988.
Biomechanical analysis of the stance Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D’Andrea S, 34. Sheth P, An K-N, Laskowski ER, and Yu B.
phase during barefoot and shod running. Davis IS, Mang’eni RO, and Pitsiladis Y. Ankle disk training influences reaction times
J Biomech 33: 269–278, 2000. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in of selected muscles in a simulated ankle
8. Dicharry J. Kinematics and kinetics of gait: habitually barefoot versus shod runners. sprain. Am J Sports Med 25: 538, 1997.
From lab to clinic. Clin Sports Med 29: Nature 463: 531–535, 2010.
35. Spurrs RW, Murphy AJ, and Watsford ML.
347–364, 2010. 22. Milgrom C, Finestone A, Sharkey N, and The effect of plyometric training on
9. Divert C, Mornieux G, Baur H, Mayer F, and Hamel A. Metatarsal strains are sufficient to distance running performance. Eur J Appl
Belli A. Mechanical comparison of barefoot cause fatigue during cyclic overloading. Physiol 89: 1–7, 2003.
and shod running. Int J Sports Med 26: Foot and Ankle 23: 230–235, 2002.
36. Squadrone R and Gallozzi C. Biomechanical
593–598, 2005. 23. Moritani T and deVries HA. Neural factors and physiological comparison of barefoot
10. Farley CT, Glasheen J, and McMahon TA. versus hypertrophy in the time course of and two shod conditions in experienced
Running springs: Speed and animal size. muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58: barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
J Exp Biol 185: 71–86, 1993. 115–130, 1979. 49: 6–13, 2009.
11. Farley CT and Gonzalez O. Leg stiffness 24. Newsham KR. Strengthening the intrinsic 37. Stacoff A, Nigg BM, Reinschmidt C,
and stride frequency in human running. foot muscles. Athl Ther Today 15: 32–35, van den Bogert AJ, and Lundberg A.
J Biomech 29: 181–186, 1996. 2010. Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot
12. Fredericson M, Cookingham CL, 25. Niemuth PE, Johnson RJ, Myers MJ, and versus shod running. J Biomech 33:
Chaudhari AM, Dowdell BC, Oestreicher N, Thieman TJ. Hip muscle weakness and 1387–1395, 2000.
and Sahrmann SA. Hip abductor weakness overuse injuries in recreational runners. 38. Thijs Y, Tiggelen DV, Roosen P, De Clercq
in distance runners with iliotibial band Clin J Sport Med 15: 14–21, 2005. D, and Witvrouw E. A prospective study on
16 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 2 | APRIL 2012
gait-related intrinsic risk factors for
patellofemoral pain. Clin J Sport Med 17:
437–445, 2007.
39. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M,
van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, and
Koes BW. Incidence and determinants of
lower extremity running injuries in long
distance runners: A systematic review. Br J
Sports Med 41: 469, 2007.
40. Van Middelkoop M, Kolkman J,
Van Ochten J, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA,
and Koes B. Prevalence and incidence of
lower extremity injuries in male marathon
runners. Scan J Med Sci Sports 18:
140–144, 2008.
41. Verhagen E, Bahr R, Bouter L, Twisk J,
van der Beek A, and van Mechelen W.
The effect of a proprioceptive balance
board training program for the prevention
of ankle sprains: A prospective
controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 32:
1385, 2004.
42. Werd MB and Knight EL. Athletic
Footwear and Orthoses in Sports
Medicine. New York, NY: Springer, 2010.
pp. 3–4.
43. Wilk BR, Muniz A, and Nau S. An
evidence-based approach to the
orthopaedic physical therapy:
Management of functional running
injuries. Orthop Phys Ther Pract 22:
213–216, 2010.
44. Zipfel B and Berger LR. Shod versus
unshod: The emergence of forefoot
pathology in modern humans? Foot 17:
205–213, 2007.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org 17You can also read
