Barefoot vs common footwear: A systematic review of the kinematic, kinetic and muscle activity differences during walking

Abstract

Habitual footwear use has been reported to influence foot structure with an acute exposure being shown to alter foot position and mechanics. The foot is highly specialised thus these changes in structure/position could influence functionality. This review aims to investigate the effect of footwear on gait, specifically focussing on studies that have assessed kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between walking barefoot and in common footwear. In line with PRISMA and published guidelines, a literature search was completed across six databases comprising Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, AMED, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Fifteen of 466 articles met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All articles were assessed for methodological quality using a modified assessment tool based on the STROBE statement for reporting observational studies and the CASP appraisal tool. Walking barefoot enables increased forefoot spreading under load and habitual barefoot walkers have anatomically wider feet. Spatial-temporal differences including, reduced step/stride length and increased cadence, are observed when barefoot. Flatter foot placement, increased knee flexion and a reduced peak vertical ground reaction force at initial contact are also reported. Habitual barefoot walkers exhibit lower peak plantar pressures and pressure impulses, whereas peak plantar pressures are increased in the habitually shod wearer walking barefoot. Footwear particularly affects the kinematics and kinetics of gait acutely and chronically. Little research has been completed in older age populations (50+ years) and thus further research is required to better understand the effect of footwear on walking across the lifespan.

Sex differences in the patterning of age‐related bone loss in the human hallucal metatarsal in rural and urban populations

“…Both sexes generally showed relatively large amounts of variation in the distribution of cortical bone, indicated through measures of circularity of the periosteal and endosteal margins (Figure ). High variability in metatarsal cross‐sectional shape may be the result of many factors, including differences in gait patterns, foot wear, foot shape and musculature (e.g., arch collapse; Franklin, Grey, Heneghan, Bowen, & Li, ), muscular fatigue threshold (Arndt, Ekenman, Westblad, & Lundberg, ), and the presence of soft tissue pathology such as hallux valgus (Mann & Coughlin, ), all of which may impact biomechanics. Particularly, individuals with metatarsal pronation, diagnosed by an angular shift in position of the inferior tuberosity at the metatarsal base, may show different cross‐sectional shapes, perhaps related to associated biomechanical changes: metatarsal pronation is highly correlated with collapse of the medial longitudinal arch and is known to predispose individuals to hallux valgus (Eustace et al, ).…”

The effects of being habitually barefoot on foot mechanics and motor performance in children and adolescents aged 6–18 years: study protocol for a multicenter cross‐sectional study (Barefoot LIFE project)

“…While this emphasizes the evidence for short-term effects [3, 4], the influence of long-term (habitual) barefoot locomotion on biomechanics, motor performance and injuries remains unclear [Hollander K, Heidt C, Van der Zwaard B, Braumann KM, Zech A. Long-term effects of habitual barefoot running and walking: a systematic review.…”

Early Holocene morphological variation in hunter-gatherer hands and feet

“…Third, there were some overall sex-based patterns in DJD with males exhibiting more knee and hip damage on the left and females exhibiting more severe change on the right (Smith 2008), which might suggest footedness and increased mobility in males with more shock to the feet. Both sexes (37% of individuals) exhibited significant bilateral degeneration of talar-calcaneal articular facets (Smith 2008), which might reflect high mobility and weight-bearing activities (Weiss 2012), possibly running (Franklin et al 2015;Fredericks et al 2015;Hollander et al 2017;Raichlen et al 2011).…”