New Articles on Foot Striking and Pronation Among Runners

New Articles on Foot Striking and Pronation Among Runners

I run in Brooks Adrenaline ASR 9 for my trail shoes, and Brooks GTS 13 for my road shoes. Both are solid shoes, with mild "support" built into the midsole. As Runner's World noted last year, "A classic stability shoe, the GTS 13 sports a medial post that gets progressively firmer toward the inside edge of the shoe and other features that help slow the inward roll of the foot." However, the trend for a lot of people is to either go totally minimal with zero drop shoes, or to go big with some Hokas. I've yet to try either type, simply because I can't figure out if the whole "support" thing is bogus or not. I've read many arguments (written mostly by minimal adopters) about how a forefoot strike pattern and minimal style running biomechanics are the most efficient, and there has been some science to back these arguments up (forefoot striking and lumbar spine range of motion; barefoot running and ground forces; barefoot running and lower extremity movement; meta analysis on barefoot running; barefoot running and running economy). However, none of these articles/studies ever address the whole "support" issue in terms of forefoot striking, minimal shoes, etc. Can I, as a supposed mild pronator adopt this strike pattern, these minimal shoes? As I've been learning to run, I've been very focused on my form and foot strike pattern, constantly working to land fore-mid foot directly under my center of gravity, with a slight lean from the ankles up (as discussed in this video and others by Sage). This I believe has paid off, but I'm still wondering about whether or not I can adopt an even more minimal shoe to help with this (such as a zero drop shoe).

Well, to add confusion to the whole thing, a couple new articles have just been published that 1) say pronation is not necessarily linked to injury risk; 2) wedged insoles can work for those needing support - up to 30 minutes at least; and 3) forefoot striking is better for knee injury prevention, but may lead to more ankle and foot injuries. I find these article interesting for someone in my situation as initially zero drop and minimal shoes had no support version - they were all made the same. Recently, however, zero drop and minimal shoes have begun to include some form of support for those looking to try out this type of shoe but who also want a little something for their pronation. Altra shoes, for example, have begun using a wedged insole in their support model shoes. As the article noted above suggests, this may be a workable alternative, although I have yet to try the shoes out (or even on).

I don't really have a point, other then I am interested in trying out a more zero drop shoe to go along with my form work. However, I have been hesitant because I don't want to cause an unnecessary injury by simply adopting a new shoe type. It is exciting to see the minimal come back a bit to the old school style with the inclusion of support versions. The science seems to continue to back up the importance of foot strike position on running efficiency, and zero drop shoes seem to be the way to go when working on that. Is it time to invest in some Altras or other shoes? Thoughts?

New Research On Barefoot Running Versus Minimalist Shoes

New Research on Barefoot Running Versus Minimalist Shoes


Well, based on this new research, minimalist shoes are just that, minimalist versions of running shoes, and not simulators of barefoot running. In a new article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers looked at the running mechanics of 20 trained runners as they ran barefoot, in minimalist shoes, and in regular running shoes. They found that there was only a significant difference between barefoot running and running in shoes - minimalist or not. The difference occurs in the amount of work done at the knee and ankle joints. So, it appears that there is no real difference between regular running shoes and minimalist shoes, at least in terms of running mechanics, but there is a significant difference in one's running mechanics if they run barefoot. I don't run barefoot, but I have certainly enjoyed slowly moving towards lighter and more "minimal" trail shoes recently. I guess the question is, is running in "minimalist" shoes really a separate category, or is there really only two categories - barefoot or shod?

This super cold weather is slowly getting to me. It was -22F this morning, and I just didn't have the motivation to run (and skiing was out of the question as you can't slide when it is that cold). So, I opted for the 15 x 15 treadmill challenge again. I've done this challenge twice, each time suffering as I banged out only 1.27 miles (PR at 9,000'). As I've cut back on my running here over the last month or so, I was interested in seeing just how much I would suffer. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was not too far down on my fitness, managing 1.21 miles at 9,000'. Looking forward to start ramping up come February.

December 17-23 in Review and Barefoot Running and Running Economy

December 17-23 in Review and Barefoot Running and Running Economy

Monday: 5 hours telemark skiing, ~45,000'

Tuesday: 6 hours telemark skiiing, ~55,000'

Wednesday: X-country skiing in the flats of the valley. 1:42, 500' gain, 9 miles.

Thursday: 5 hours telemark skiing, ~50,000'

Friday: 7 hours standing and walking. Night fartleks on the Winter Park hill course. Worked on both short and longer intervals during the run, mostly on all of the hills really pushed as well as some shorter sprints on a couple flats. 1:04, 1,000' gain, 8 miles.

Saturday: 7 hours standing and walking. Cross training at the gym. Mostly high reps, cross-fit stuff, stretches, etc.

Sunday: 7 hours standing and walking. Night hill run on the WP hill course. :54, 1,000' gain, 8 miles.

Trying to keep a good base for when spring rolls around, but right now simply getting in lots and lots of vert skiing. Really works the legs, requires some good endurance, and is a nice break from the pounding of running. I think I will be much better off then last spring, when I didn't start running until April 1. I have a couple FKT's that I want to do this summer, as well as continue to dabble in racing, and keeping a base over the winter will really help when I start to ramp up the miles, unlike last spring when I took a crash course in racing and running.

I've posted several times on new articles on barefoot running (on forefoot striking and lumbar spine range of motion; on barefoot running and ground forces; on barefoot running and lower extremity movement; and a meta analysis on barefoot running). Well, now another study has been published on barefoot running and running economy. Based on this single experiment with fifteen runners over four weeks, barefoot running or running with a forefoot striking patterns is better for running economy then classical heel striking. The difference is significant, but the study fails to examine the longer-term effects, as well as whether the four week period is long enough to really change running economy over an athletes career. Still, another study that emphasizes the benefits of forefoot striking compared to heel striking in terms of running economy, ground forces, lumbar spine range of motion, among other things.

Update, Foot Strike, Low Back Posture, Comfort, And Fatigue And Vertical Ground Reaction Force

Update, Foot Strike, Low Back Posture, and Comfort, and Fatigue and Vertical Ground Reaction Force


Friday: Off - 6 hours standing and walking.

Saturday: Off - 6 hours standing and walking.

Sunday: 11 miles, 1,400' gain, 1:21. A solid effort on the Creekside-Leland-Zoom-Chainsaw loop. There was still a little snow, but most of the sketchy ice has melted.

Monday: 9 miles, 1,700' gain, 1:21. Deadhorse climb. Funny how I did the exact same time both yesterday and today, but the mileage was different.

Planning on having a mellow week before this weekends race. Hopefully I can make it, as right now I don't have any way of getting to the race.

Two more studies have been published. The first, entitled "Effects of Foot Strike on Low Back Posture, Shock Attenuation, and Comfort in Running" looked at the differences between rearfoot and forefoot strike and biomechanical changes, specifically within terms of barefoot running. The authors wanted to know if the change from a rearfoot to a forefoot strike pattern as a result of switching to barefoot running also had an impact on lumbar spine range of motion. Surprisingly, the authors found that there was a decrease in the range of motion of the lumbar spine when runners switched to a forefoot strike pattern. However, this decrease in the range of motion did not make a difference in the flexion or the extension in which the lumbar spine is positioned, and that the rearfoot strike pattern was perceived to be a more comfortable running pattern. Of course, the study was limited to a single experiment, and over time barefoot running may be perceived as being similarly comfortable once a runner has become accustomed to it. As noted previously, the science on barefoot running is still out, but a rearfoot strike pattern does result in higher ground reaction forces, despite being perceived as being more comfortable. 

Interestingly, the second study conducted a meta-analysis of these ground reaction forces and muscle fatigue in the legs. Entitled "The effects of lower extremity muscle fatigue on the vertical ground reaction force: a meta-analysis" the authors found that over the course of running, the ground reaction force impact peak did not change as muscles became fatigued. Basically, the impact of the foot striking the ground during running did not change - it is the same whether you are tired or not. So, even when you are tired and your feet are dragging during the last stages of a long run or ultra, remember, the impact force is the same, it just feels like it is more. Here again then is a study showing that for the long runs and races, the mind plays almost a more important role then the body. Hopefully I can remember that next time I get tired and want to just walk - everything is really the same as when I started the run, I just think it is harder.

Update, More On Barefoot Running, And Common Leg Injuries

Update, More on Barefoot Running, and Common Leg Injuries

Tuesday: Another lap on the Elk Creek, D2, Zoom loop. Same time as last time, 1:08 for 12K and 1,400'

Wednesday: 15K up Creekside, Leland, Fools Creek and back down Flume. 1:21 - lots of snow and ice on the trail from the storm the previous night. A little tricky running on the ice, but fun, cold, and quiet.

Thursday: 12K up Zoom and then along the secret trail. Followed it for a ways, then dropped onto an old road and took that back to Leland, then down Sunken. The beginning of the secret trail is hard to find as they logged the first 200 feet or so, but the rest of the trail is solid and fun. Ran past Jack's Zig Zag and some other cool trail features. 1:11 at a casual pace.

Some new studies were just published. Both are meta studies, and don't really offer any new data or conclusions. The first looked for evidence of a forefoot strike pattern among barefoot runners. After a meta search they found that there is just not enough scientific evidence on barefoot running at this point to make any conclusions. However, they did find that there are data lending support to the argument that runners should use a forefoot strike pattern in lieu of a heel strike pattern to reduce ground reaction forces, ground contact time, and step length.

The second study looked at common running injuries in the legs of long-distance runners (anything over 3,000m).  They found that leg pain due to bone, musculotendinous, and vascular causes are common among long-distance runners, and that tibial stress fractures and medial tibial stress syndrome can sometimes be prevented and/or treated by correcting biomechanical abnormalities. On the other hand, exertional compartment syndrome and popliteal artery entrapment syndrome are caused by anatomic abnormalities and are much more difficult to treat without surgical correction.