Three-Dimensional Biomechanical Analysis of Rearfoot and Forefoot Running

Abstract

Background:In the running community, a forefoot strike (FFS) pattern is increasingly preferred compared with a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern. However, it has not been fully understood which strike pattern may better reduce adverse joint forces within the different joints of the lower extremity.Purpose:To analyze the 3-dimensional (3D) stress pattern in the ankle, knee, and hip joint in runners with either a FFS or RFS pattern.Study Design:Descriptive laboratory study.Methods:In 22 runners (11 habitual rearfoot strikers, 11 habitual forefoot strikers), RFS and FFS patterns were compared at 3.0 m/s (6.7 mph) on a treadmill with integrated force plates and a 3D motion capture analysis system. This combined analysis allowed characterization of the 3D biomechanical forces differentiated for the ankle, knee, and hip joint. The maximum peak force (MPF) and maximum loading rate (LR) were determined in their 3 ordinal components: vertical, anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML).Results:For both strike patterns, the vertical components of the MPF and LR were significantly greater than their AP or ML components. In the vertical axis, FFS was generally associated with a greater MPF but significantly lower LR in all 3 joints. The AP components of MPF and LR were significantly lower for FFS in the knee joint but significantly greater in the ankle and hip joints. The ML components of MPF and LR tended to be greater for FFS but mostly did not reach a level of significance.Conclusion:FFS and RFS were associated with different 3D stress patterns in the ankle, knee, and hip joint, although there was no global advantage of one strike pattern over the other. The multimodal individual assessment for the different anatomic regions demonstrated that FFS seems favorable for patients with unstable knee joints in the AP axis and RFS may be recommended for runners with unstable ankle joints.Clinical Relevance:Different strike patterns show different 3D stress in joints of the lower extremity. Due to either rehabilitation after injuries or training in running sports, rearfoot or forefoot running should be preferred to prevent further damage or injuries caused by inadequate biomechanical load. Runners with a history of knee joint injuries may benefit from FFS whereas RFS may be favorable for runners with a history of ankle joint injuries.

Ground reaction forces intersect above the center of mass even when walking down visible and camouflaged curbs

“…In the 20 cm curb condition, we observed toe landing in 64% of the trials. Toe landing was defined as proposed by Knorz et al (2017).] This could affect the kinetics and kinematics at landing (van Dieën et al, 2007(van Dieën et al, , 2008.…”

Duty factor and foot-strike pattern do not represent similar running pattern at the individual level

“…These FSPs involve different neuromuscular activation patterns 3 and impact attenuation strategies 4 – 7 . They were also shown to induce different loads on the lower limb and different three-dimensional (3D) stress patterns in the ankle, knee, and hip joints 8 – 11 , as well as different sagittal plane joint angles during stance 10 , 12 . Moreover, no differences in running economy have been reported among different FSAs 13 or FSPs 14 – 16 , and changing FSPs is not necessarily recommended for RFS 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 .…”

Effect of Flat Running Shoes on Hip Kinematics in Male Recreational Runners

“…Recently, gait retraining has demonstrated positive effects on clinical and functional outcomes [ 15 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Changes in the biomechanics of the hip and knee joints were also reported with the alternation of strike patterns and running shoes [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”