Recognition of Foot Strike Pattern in Asian Recreational Runners

Measurement and reporting of footwear characteristics in running biomechanics: A systematic search and narrative synthesis of contemporary research methods

This review aimed to synthesise the methods for assessing and reporting footwear characteristics among studies evaluating the effect of footwear on running biomechanics. Electronic searches of Scopus®, EBSCO, PubMed®, ScienceDirect®, and Web of Science® were performed to identify original research articles of the effect of running footwear on running biomechanics published from 1^st January 2015 to 7^th October 2020. Risk of bias among included studies was not assessed. Results were presented via narrative synthesis. Eligible studies compared the effect of two or more footwear conditions in adult runners on a biomechanical parameter. Eighty-seven articles were included and data from 242 individual footwear were extracted. Predominantly, studies reported footwear taxonomy (i.e., classification) and manufacturer information, however omitted detail regarding the technical specifications of running footwear and did not use validated footwear reporting tools. There is inconsistency among contemporary studies in the methods by which footwear characteristics are assessed and reported. These findings point towards a need for consensus regarding the reporting of these characteristics within biomechanical studies to facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the effect of running footwear on running biomechanics.

Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units measurements for running kinematics in different foot strike pattern runners

This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the three-dimensional joint kinematic outcomes obtained by the inertial measurement units (IMUs) for runners with rearfoot strike pattern (RFS) and non-rearfoot strike pattern (NRFS). The IMUs system and optical motion capture system were used to simultaneous collect 3D kinematic of lower extremity joint data from participants running at 12 km/h. The joint angle waveforms showed a high correlation between the two systems after the offset correction in the sagittal plane (NRFS: coefficient of multiple correlation (CMC) = 0.924-0.968, root mean square error (RMSE) = 4.6^°-13.7^°; RFS: CMC = 0.930-0.965, RMSE = 3.1^°-7.7^°), but revealed high variability in the frontal and transverse planes (NRFS: CMC = 0.924-0.968, RMSE = 4.6°-13.7°; RFS: CMC = 0.930-0.965, RMSE = 3.1°-7.7°). The between-rater and between-day reliability were shown to be very good to excellent in the sagittal plane (between-rater: NRFS: CMC = 0.967-0.975, RMSE = 1.9°-2.9°, RFS: CMC = 0.922-0.989, RMSE = 1.0°-2.5°; between-day: NRFS: CMC = 0.950-0.978, RMSE = 1.6°-2.7°, RFS: CMC = 0.920-0.989, RMSE = 1.7°-2.2°), whereas the reliability was weak to very good (between-rater: NRFS: CMC = 0.480-0.947, RMSE = 1.1°-2.7°, RFS: CMC = 0.646-0.873, RMSE = 0.7°-2.4°; between-day: NRFS: CMC = 0.666-0.867, RMSE = 0.7°-2.8°, RFS: CMC = 0.321-0.805, RMSE = 0.9°-5.0°) in the frontal and transverse planes across all joints in both types of runners. The IMUs system was a feasible tool for measuring lower extremity joint kinematics in the sagittal plane during running, especially for RFS runners. However, the joint kinematics data in frontal and transverse planes derived by the IMUs system need to be used with caution.

Kinematics of recreational male runners in "super", minimalist and habitual shoes

We conducted an exploratory analysis to compare running kinematics of 16 male recreational runners wearing Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4), Saucony Endorphin racing flat (FLAT), and their habitual (OWN) footwear. We also explored potential relationships between kinematic and physiological changes. Runners (age: 33 ± 12 y, V˙ O_2peak: 55.2 ± 4.3 ml · kg^-1·min^-1) attended 3 sessions after completing an V˙ O_2peak test in which sagittal plane 3D kinematics at submaximal running speeds (60%, 70% and 80% ʋ V˙ O_2peak) were collected alongside economy measures. Kinematics were compared using notched boxplots, and between-shoe kinematic differences were plotted against between-shoe economy differences. Across intensities, VP4 involved longer flight times (6.7 to 10.0 ms) and lower stance hip range of motion (~3°), and greater vertical pelvis displacement than FLAT (~0.4 cm). Peak dorsiflexion angles (~2°), ankle range of motion (1.0° to 3.9°), and plantarflexion velocities (11.3 to 89.0 deg · sec^-1) were greatest in FLAT and lowest in VP4. Foot-ground angles were smaller in FLAT (2.5° to 3.6°). Select kinematic variables were moderately related to economy, with higher step frequencies and shorter step lengths in VP4 and FLAT associated with improved economy versus OWN. Footwear changes from OWN altered running kinematics. The most pronounced differences were observed in ankle, spatiotemporal, and foot-ground angle variables.

Non-South East Asians have a better running economy and different anthropometrics and biomechanics than South East Asians

Running biomechanics and ethnicity can influence running economy (RE), which is a critical factor of running performance. Our aim was to compare RE of South East Asian (SEA) and non-South East Asian (non-SEA) runners at several endurance running speeds (10-14 km/h) matched for on-road racing performance and sex. Secondly, we explored anthropometric characteristics and relationships between RE and anthropometric and biomechanical variables. SEA were 6% less economical (p = 0.04) than non-SEA. SEA were lighter and shorter than non-SEA, and had lower body mass indexes and leg lengths (p ≤ 0.01). In terms of biomechanics, a higher prevalence of forefoot strikers in SEA than non-SEA was seen at each speed tested (p ≤ 0.04). Furthermore, SEA had a significantly higher step frequency (p = 0.02), shorter contact time (p = 0.04), smaller footstrike angle (p < 0.001), and less knee extension at toe-off (p = 0.03) than non-SEA. Amongst these variables, only mass was positively correlated to RE for both SEA (12 km/h) and non-SEA (all speeds); step frequency, negatively correlated to RE for both SEA (10 km/h) and non-SEA (12 km/h); and contact time, positively correlated to RE for SEA (12 km/h). Despite the observed anthropometric and biomechanical differences between cohorts, these data were limited in underpinning the observed RE differences at a group level. This exploratory study provides preliminary indications of potential differences between SEA and non-SEA runners warranting further consideration. Altogether, these findings suggest caution when generalizing from non-SEA running studies to SEA runners.

Foot Strike Patterns During Overground Distance Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Investigations of foot strike patterns during overground distance running have foci on prevalence, performance and change in foot strike pattern with increased distance. To date, synthesised analyses of these findings are scarce.

Objective

The key objectives of this review were to quantify the prevalence of foot strike patterns, assess the impact of increased running distance on foot strike pattern change and investigate the potential impact of foot strike pattern on performance.

Methods

Relevant peer-reviewed literature was obtained by searching EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus (inception-2021) for studies investigating foot strike patterns in overground distance running settings (> 10 km). Random effects meta-analyses of prevalence data were performed where possible.

Results

The initial search identified 2210 unique articles. After removal of duplicates and excluded articles, 12 articles were included in the review. Meta-analysis of prevalence data revealed that 79% of long-distance overground runners rearfoot strike early, with prevalence rising to 86% with increased distance. In total, 11% of runners changed foot strike pattern with increased distance and of those, the vast majority (84%) do so in one direction, being non-rearfoot strike to rearfoot strike. Analysis of the relationship between foot strike pattern and performance revealed that 5 studies reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike, 1 study reported a performance benefit to non-rearfoot strike in women but not men, 4 studies reported no benefit to non-rearfoot strike or rearfoot strike, and no studies reported a performance benefit of rearfoot strike over non-rearfoot strike.

Conclusion

Most overground distance runners rearfoot strike early, and the prevalence of this pattern increases with distance. Of those that do change foot strike pattern, the majority transition from non-rearfoot to rearfoot. The current literature provides inconclusive evidence of a competitive advantage being associated with long-distance runners who use a non-rearfoot strike pattern in favour of a rearfoot strike pattern.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00369-9.

Gait Retraining With Visual Biofeedback Reduces Rearfoot Pressure and Foot Pronation in Recreational Runners

CONTEXT

Running is a popular sport globally. Previous studies have used a gait retraining program to successfully lower impact loading, which has been associated with lower injury rates in recreational runners. However, there is an absence of studies on the effect of this training program on the plantar pressure distribution pattern during running.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the short-term effect of a gait retraining strategy that uses visual biofeedback on the plantar pressure distribution pattern and foot posture in recreational runners.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Biomechanics laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four recreational runners were evaluated (n = 12 gait retraining group and n = 12 control group).

INTERVENTION

Those in the gait retraining group underwent a 2-week program (4 sessions/wk, 30 min/session, and 8 sessions). The participants in the control group were also invited to the laboratory (8 times in 2 wk), but no feedback on their running biomechanics was provided.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were plantar pressure distribution and plantar arch index using a pressure platform. The secondary outcome measure was the foot posture index.

RESULTS

The gait retraining program with visual biofeedback was effective in reducing medial and lateral rearfoot plantar pressure after intervention and when compared with the control group. In the static condition, the pressure peak and maximum force on the forefoot and midfoot were reduced, and arch index was increased after intervention. After static training intervention, the foot posture index showed a decrease in the foot pronation.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-week gait retraining program with visual biofeedback was effective in lowering rearfoot plantar pressure, favoring better support of the arch index in recreational runners. In addition, static training was effective in reducing foot pronation. Most importantly, these observations will help healthcare professionals understand the importance of a gait retraining program with visual biofeedback to improve plantar loading and pronation during rehabilitation.

Change in foot strike patterns and performance in recreational runners during a road race: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To characterise foot strike and observe change in foot strike patterns with increasing distance during a 15km recreational running road race. To assess the impact of foot strike on running performance.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Foot strike patterns were determined at the 3km and 13km checkpoints for 459 participants during the 2017 Melbourne City to Sea recreational running event. Foot strike patterns were categorised as either rearfoot strike (RFS) or non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) at both checkpoints and analyses were conducted on intra-individual change in foot strike as well as relationship to finishing time.

RESULTS

The most prevalent foot strike pattern at 3km and 13km was RFS with 76.9% (95% CI: 73.2%-80.5%) and 91.0% (95% CI: 88.7%-93.1%) using this pattern, respectively. Of the 105 participants who ran with a NRFS at 3km, 61% changed to RFS at 13km. Race completion time differed by foot strike pattern, where mean time for consistent NRFS (62.64±11.20min) was significantly faster than consistent RFS (72.58±10.84min; p<0.001) and those who changed from NRFS to RFS between checkpoints (67.93±10.60min; p=0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of recreational distance runners RFS within race settings, the fastest runners were those who consistently ran with a NRFS. In runners that use a NRFS early, a large proportion change to RFS as distance increases. Further research is warranted to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing muscular fatigue can attenuate this change and enhance running performance.