“Advantages and disadvantages of barefoot
(BF) running have been of major interest for numerous years, scientifically as well as in the running population. As a consequence of this, there have been numerous concepts and products on the market that mimic specific aspects of BF movement, shape, or feeling, “suggesting that some of the perceived advantages of barefoot running are transferred into a shod condition”.1 Scientifically, publications and discussions about advantages and disadvantages of BF running increased tremendously after a publication by Lieberman et al.2 in Nature. Numerous studies about the interaction between shod and BF kinematic and kinetic outcomes have been published over the last few years and described by Nigg1 and Nigg and Enders.3 Most of these studies were based on the comparison of running in traditional running shoes (TRS) and BF running. Recent AG-014699 nmr studies however lead to the conclusion that the assumed interactions depend mainly on the subjects’ experience with BF walking/running,2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 the preferred running strike pattern,9 and 10 the speed,11 the hardness of the surface,12 the thickness of the midsole material,13 and the runners’ level.10 A few studies4, 5, 6 and 7
have already included minimal running shoes (MRS) into their setup. To systematically analyze suggested “barefoot features” in given DNA Damage inhibitor MRS and compare with the BF situation, it is necessary to take the above-mentioned criteria into account. Therefore, studies should monitor the subjects’ experience in BF walking/running (unexperienced or experienced), the preferred running strike pattern (rearfoot, midfoot, forefoot),
the running speed (typical running speed, depending on runners’ level and gender), the hardness of surface (hardness of BF running surface comparable to midsole hardness of MRS), the thickness of midsole material (one thickness) and the subject’s athletic level (recreational, elite). Further, skin mounted markers should be used14 as shoe-mounted markers are not adequate to assess the in-shoe foot motion, and consequently overestimate its real motion. Although these results have been shown for TRS with stiff heel counters, the flexible heel counter of MRS might have an even greater influence on the resultant rearfoot and ankle kinematics. Resminostat The aim of the present study was to investigate lower leg kinematics of BF running and running in MRS (Nike Free 3.0; Nike Inc., Beaverton, OR, USA) to assess comparability of BF kinematics in both conditions. Furthermore, we aimed to find out if foot strike characteristics remained the same after monitoring the influencing variables described above in our measurement setup. We hypothesized that running in MRS does not alter lower leg kinematics compared to BF running and that foot strike pattern remained the same in both conditions.