A recent study conducted at Harvard led by professor Daniel Lieberman evaluated the performance of minimal, or “barefoot,” shoes in running. It looked at the effects minimal shoes versus traditional shoes had on running economy, and found that minimal shoes have the edge.
The study collected data on knee flexion, platnarflexor force production, and strain on the arch and the Achilles tendon-triceps surae. It found that runners wearing minimal shoes were 2.41 percent more economical if they landed with the front part of their foot, and 3.32 percent more economical if they plant the back of the foot.
Plantarflexor force output was higher in barefoot running, and strains on the knee and the Achilles tendon-triceps surae were lower with the minimal footwear.
The study hypothesized that the reason for the higher running economy for barefoot runners is “more elastic energy storage and release in the lower extremity during minimal shoe running.”
Another study that ran in conjunction with the first one looked at injury rates in endurance runners with regard to whether they struck with the front of their foot or the back of their foot. It found that cross-country runners, who generally adopt a rearfoot strike, have twice the injury rate of runners who plant the front of their foot.
Researchers measured the strike characteristics of 52 middle- and long-distance runners on a college cross-country team. Thirty-six of them used a rearfoot strike, and 16 primarily used a forefoot strike. Almost three-quarters of them had had a moderate or severe injury each year, but the rearfoot strikers' rate was twice that of the others. There was no difference between the two groups' rates of traumatic injury.
Both studies were published in last month's issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, the official journal of the American College of Sports Medicine.
