New barefoot running study demonstrates positive findings.
A new study published by The Journal of Applied Physiology is again being touted as a negative study in the media. Specifically the New York Times Well Blog published its comments advising that runners who adapt a forefoot running pattern are utilizing more oxygen consumption thus resulting in decreased efficiency. The reason being is that when comparing a forefoot strike to a rearfoot strike one does recruit more musculature, specifically the calf, when landing on the forefoot. This is due to the muscles being recruited to gradually lower the heel to the ground and absorb the impact. Although it requires more energy consumption, there is less force generated to the lower extremity as demonstrated by the lack of a transient impact force occurring. Harvard’s Dan Leiberman popularized this several years ago in his ground breaking data published in Nature. Basically the calf musculature, and Achilles’ tendon, will adapt to the stress over time becoming stronger and absorbing the force. So although more energy requiring initially, overtime the adaptation will lead to a more natural gait with an equivalent oxygen consumption if you follow Wolff’s law. Consider the only shock absorption with a heel strike gait pattern is the heel’s fat pad and a cushioned running shoe. With a forefoot strike pattern, the foot’s multiple joints and muscles are acting concomitantly to absorb shock and reduce force to the lower extremity functioning like a spring. Yes, you may be consuming more oxygen to active the musculature, but over time adaptation will occur and negate these energy requirements.
So despite what the media is reporting, by gradually adapting to a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern, a runner can make improvements in shock absorptive capabilities which can reduce injury in the long run.
Related Posts
-
Transitioning to Minimalism
No Comments | May 28, 2012 -
Maximal Cushioning Running Shoes, Minimalism, and The New York Times.
3 Comments | Feb 19, 2015 -
Nike Free 1.0 First Look | The Future of Barefoot: How the shoe giant is now jumping on board with minimalist shoes.
No Comments | Jul 24, 2015 -
New Study Demonstrates “Traditional” Running Shoes Influence Incorrect Form?
1 Comment | Jan 10, 2013
About The Author
Dr. Nick Campitelli
Dr. Campitelli is a podiatrist in Akron, OH specializing in foot and ankle surgery with an interest and enthusiasm for running as well as helping runners with injuries. For the past several years he has been treating running injuries in patients by fixing their form and transitioning them to minimalist shoes. Having treated runners with all types of injuries through conservative measures with orthotics and shoe gear changes to reconstructive foot and ankle surgery, Dr. Campitelli has brought what works best and is most current to his practice as well as the Akron and Cleveland running communities.
I have data from my motion tracking device that clear demonstrates increased foot/ankle mobility in barefoot running shoes. logic and global body analysis suggests that increase foot mobility will allow other joint structures to move freely and efficiently subsequently reducing stress on the body..good news 🙂
Sorry, but I just don’t buy your assumptions, and that is what most of your opinion is based on. With normal running, the foot is a mobile pronated adapter, and thus, able to absorb shock. In forefoot running, your foot is already under tension, leaving less of the foot’s mechanics able to absorb shock. Further, to be a forefoot striker requires the calf muscle, by way of the Achilles tendon, to keep the heel off the ground. This is not only highly inefficient, it makes a “bungy cord” out of the Achilles tendon and requires a shorter stride.
Very true. The Achilles acts as a spring. Remember, the Achilles will adapt via the gastrocsoleous hypertrophying. By becoming stronger it will become the efficient shock absorber of the lower extremity. Unlike the fat pad of the heel and inferior cushion used in traditional running shoes. We have adapted to run in traditional running shoes as they are now termed. Shoes should allow us to run not enable us to run.
And yes, very correct. The stride will shorten. Studies have demonstrated less force with a shorter stride to the lower extremity.
As someone who has run almost exclusively barefoot (skin on ground) for almost 5 years now, including 2 half marathons, I get very disappointed in the lack of understanding by the medical community.
The KEY is that most of the research and discussion is based on very short timeframes with runners that have not slowly and fully transitioned to BFR. It takes many months or years to accomplish the transition. Any research or testing of runners who have not done this are not valid subjects for evaluation of BFR performance/injuries/edema, etc.
I strongly believe and have experienced that once I patiently transitioned, allowing all of the tissues to adjust, I am more efficient. And the chronic knee and hamstring problems that suffered with for 20 years have gone completely away. My legs are stronger all around, I have better balance, and at age 54 I am now ready to run my first marathon.
I really wish the research would include subjects that are truly BFRs.
I think thats what I was saying..so great to hear an actual runner back it up!
You could qualify for a government-sponsored policy through pregnancy test your town, county, your state or the federal government that
can help in the prevention of stretch marks. This test kit is used to provide comfort from
different kind of problems. We found little discrepancy
between expert sayings, wearing supportive arches can, in fact try as much as you
can without overdoing it a gentle walk for example. Evidence is showing that a yeast infection during pregnancy.
It’s very trouble-free to find out any topic on web as compared to books, as I found this article
at this web site.
Hi my loved one! I wish to say that this article is amazing,
nice written and come with almost all vital infos. I’d like to look more posts
like this .