3 This is supported by studies showing that foot positioning at contact in runners wearing

minimal footwear is more similar to the barefoot condition than to the conventional shoe condition even if they continue to contact first on the heel.11 and 13 It is thus possible that running form varies between footwear conditions in subtle ways that were not measured here, and future studies that attempt to undertake finer scale measurement of kinematic variables in the field are needed. The results of this study provide insight into the role of footwear in determining foot Antidiabetic Compound Library clinical trial strike pattern. They indicate that the majority of barefoot runners tend to contact the ground on the midfoot or forefoot when running on an asphalt road. This contrasts with the typical rearfoot striking pattern observed in conventionally shod runners on hard surfaces. Results also show that a minimally cushioned running shoe may not perfectly simulate barefoot running, with frequency of midfoot and forefoot striking being approximately equal to rearfoot striking. “
“Barefoot (BF) running has recently increased in popularity among runners with a perception that it is more natural and may result in fewer injuries. In fact, the top reason runners report for choosing to transition to BF or minimal

running is the notion of injury prevention.1 The potential for a lower risk of injury Stem Cells inhibitor is postulated based on strengthening of the foot,2 and changes in loading parameters due to alterations in running pattern associated with BF running.3 It has been documented that up to 89% of traditionally shod runners land on their heels or with a rearfoot strike (RFS).4 and 5 This strike pattern is associated

with an impact transient in the vertical ground reaction force (VGRF), followed by a propulsive peak. The impact transient appears as a distinct change in the positive slope of the VGRF trace, sometimes characterized by a local maximum or impact peak (VIP). The rate of development of the VGRF is referred to as the loading rate (Fig. 1A). High loading rates and impact transients have been associated with a number of common running-related injuries such as tibial stress not fractures,6 patellofemoral pain,7 and plantar fasciitis.8 Most habitual BF runners land on the ball of their foot, referred to as a forefoot strike (FFS) with their foot in a relatively flat orientation.9 This pattern typically has a single propulsive peak in the VGRF, lacking a distinct vertical impact transient.10 Elimination of this impact transient is accomplished by reducing vertical stiffness of the body. Vertical stiffness can be assessed using a simple mass spring model11 and 12 which works well for an FFS pattern. However, when impact transients are present, a dual stiffness model, such as described by Hunter,13 should be used. The influence of strike pattern on the medial and lateral components of the ground reaction force (GRF) is not well established.