Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy
This study evaluated the effect of running shoes and foot-strike patterns on running economy. The advent of barefoot and minimalist shoes has promoted a forefoot strike (FFS), whereas traditional running shoes with an elevated heel, arch supports, and stiff midsoles encourage a rearfoot strike (RFS). The researchers predicted that barefoot or minimalist running shoes and FFS would have a better running economy when respectively compared with standard shoes and RFS. After controlling for stride frequency and shoe mass, the biomechanics and running economy for 15 experienced runners (13 men, 2 women) were analyzed using standard shoes and minimalist shoes, each of which were tested with FFS and RFS running strides. As participants ran on a treadmill at constant pace, the researchers calculated running economy by measuring oxygen consumption and distance traveled.
The researchers found that the footwear condition (standard vs minimal shoes) affected running economy. Runners using minimalist shoes were 2.41% more economical with FFS and 3.32% more economical with RFS (P < .05). The type of foot strike (RFS vs FFS) did not significantly affect running economy. The investigators proposed that the improved running economy from minimalist shoes may be attributable to increased foot arch elasticity or less knee excursion during foot impact; however, they deem that further research is necessary. Study limitations include the inability to accurately measure foot arch strain or Achilles tendon lengthening.
(Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(7):1335–1343). DP Perl, AI Daoud, DE Lieberman
Prepared by Matthew Stewart, MD, University of Utah Emergency Medicine Resident, Salt Lake City, UT, USA