One article on PainSci cites Udofa 2019: Does barefoot running prevent injuries?
PainSci commentary on Udofa 2019: ?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided wherever possible.
This study showed that Lieberman’s famous 2010 study of heel-strike reaction forces was probably misleading. Those “force curves” showed a damning spike at heel strike, which seemed to disappear with barefoot/forefoot running. In the course of validating a new (and much more cost effective) way of measuring ground reaction forces, Udofa et al. demonstrate that the heel-strike spike doesn’t really “disappear” with barefoot running, and it’s not caused by which part of the foot hits the ground first: the spike is always there, but whether it is separated from the main curve is mostly just a function of speed and an artifact of measurement methodology.
The paper is complex and technical and does not obviously lead to this conclusion, so I will direct you to Alex Hutchinson’s excellent explanation.
~ Paul Ingraham
original abstract †Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
Although running shoes alter foot-ground reaction forces, particularly during impact, how they do so is incompletely understood. Here, we hypothesized that footwear effects on running ground reaction force-time patterns can be accurately predicted from the motion of two components of the body's mass (mb): the contacting lower-limb (m1 = 0.08mb) and the remainder (m2 = 0.92mb). Simultaneous motion and vertical ground reaction force-time data were acquired at 1,000 Hz from eight uninstructed subjects running on a force-instrumented treadmill at 4.0 and 7.0 m/s under four footwear conditions: barefoot, minimal sole, thin sole, and thick sole. Vertical ground reaction force-time patterns were generated from the two-mass model using body mass and footfall-specific measures of contact time, aerial time, and lower-limb impact deceleration. Model force-time patterns generated using the empirical inputs acquired for each footfall matched the measured patterns closely across the four footwear conditions at both protocol speeds (r2 = 0.96 ± 0.004; root mean squared error = 0.17 ± 0.01 body-weight units; n = 275 total footfalls). Foot landing angles (θF) were inversely related to footwear thickness; more positive or plantar-flexed landing angles coincided with longer-impact durations and force-time patterns lacking distinct rising-edge force peaks. Our results support three conclusions: 1) running ground reaction force-time patterns across footwear conditions can be accurately predicted using our two-mass, two-impulse model, 2) impact forces, regardless of foot strike mechanics, can be accurately quantified from lower-limb motion and a fixed anatomical mass (0.08mb), and 3) runners maintain similar loading rates (ΔFvertical/Δtime) across footwear conditions by altering foot strike angle to regulate the duration of impact. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Here, we validate a two-mass, two-impulse model of running vertical ground reaction forces across four footwear thickness conditions (barefoot, minimal, thin, thick). Our model allows the impact portion of the impulse to be extracted from measured total ground reaction force-time patterns using motion data from the ankle. The gait adjustments observed across footwear conditions revealed that runners maintained similar loading rates across footwear conditions by altering foot strike angles to regulate the duration of impact.
- “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners,” Daniel E Lieberman, Madhusudhan Venkadesan, William A Werbel, Adam I Daoud, Susan D’Andrea, Irene S Davis, Robert Ojiambo Mang'eni, and Yannis Pitsiladis, Nature, 2010.
Specifically regarding Udofa 2019:
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A double-blinded randomised controlled study of the value of sequential intravenous and oral magnesium therapy in patients with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. Yousef 2013 Anaesthesia.
- Is Neck Posture Subgroup in Late Adolescence a Risk Factor for Persistent Neck Pain in Young Adults? A Prospective Study. Richards 2021 Phys Ther.
- Photobiomodulation therapy is not better than placebo in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Guimarães 2021 Pain.
- No effect of creatine monohydrate supplementation on inflammatory and cartilage degradation biomarkers in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Cornish 2018 Nutr Res.
- The CANBACK trial: a randomised, controlled clinical trial of oral cannabidiol for people presenting to the emergency department with acute low back pain. Bebee 2021 Med J Aust.