Letter

Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years1, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:

    $199

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    & Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432, 345–352 (2004)

  2. 2.

    , , & in Proc. Int. Symp. Biomech. Aspects Sports Shoes Playing Surf. (eds Nigg, B. M. & Kerr, B. A.) 135–142 (Calgary Univ. Press, 1983)

  3. 3.

    , & Foot strike patterns of runners at 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21, 888–893 (2007)

  4. 4.

    , & Calculation of vertical ground reaction force estimates during running from positional data. J. Biomech. 24, 1095–1105 (1991)

  5. 5.

    & Mechanical energy and effective foot mass during impact loading of walking and running. J. Biomech. 38, 1387–1395 (2005)

  6. 6.

    , , , & Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fractures in female runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 38, 323–328 (2006)

  7. 7.

    , & Biomechanical and anatomical factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners. Clin. J. Sport Med. 19, 372–376 (2009)

  8. 8.

    et al. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 41, 469–480 (2007)

  9. 9.

    The Biomechanics of Running Shoes (Human Kinetics, 1986)

  10. 10.

    , , & Foot strike and the properties of the human heel pad. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 203, 191–196 (1989)

  11. 11.

    , & The mechanical characteristics of the human heel pad during foot strike in running: an in vivo cineradiographic study. J. Biomech. 27, 1213–1222 (1994)

  12. 12.

    , & Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J. Biomech. 33, 269–278 (2000)

  13. 13.

    , , , & Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. Int. J. Sports Med. 26, 593–598 (2005)

  14. 14.

    , , & Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 22, 74–80 (2007)

  15. 15.

    & Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 49, 6–13 (2009)

  16. 16.

    , , & Demographic characteristics of elite Kenyan runners. J. Sports Sci. 24, 415–422 (2006)

  17. 17.

    , & The measurement of shock waves following heel strike while running. J. Biomech. 18, 415–422 (1985)

  18. 18.

    , & Lower extremity mechanics in runners with a converted forefoot strike pattern. J. Appl. Biomech. 16, 210–218 (2000)

  19. 19.

    , & Effect of strike pattern and orthotic intervention on tibial shock during running. J. Appl. Biomech. 19, 153–168 (2003)

  20. 20.

    & Small slope implies low speed for McGeers’ passive walking machines. Dyn. Syst. 15, 139–157 (2000)

  21. 21.

    Space Requirements of the Seated Operator: Geometrical, Kinematic, and Mechanical Aspects of the Body, with Special Reference to the Limbs. WADC Technical Report 55-159 (United States Air Force, 1955)

  22. 22.

    , & Surface effects on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32, 1919–1926 (2000)

  23. 23.

    & The calcaneus of Australopithecus afarensis and its implications for the evolution of bipedality. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 78, 369–386 (1989)

  24. 24.

    et al. The foot of Homo floresiensis. Nature 459, 81–84 (2009)

  25. 25.

    , , , & The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature 325, 147–149 (1987)

  26. 26.

    et al. Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect. Int. J. Sports Med. 29, 512–518 (2008)

  27. 27.

    in The Shoe in Sport (ed. Segesser, B.) 256–265 (Yearbook Medical, 1989)

  28. 28.

    , & Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br. J. Sports Med. 43, 159–162 (2009)

  29. 29.

    Running injuries: a review of the epidemiological literature. Sports Med. 14, 320–335 (1992)

  30. 30.

    & Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 19, 148–156 (1987)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the many volunteer runners who donated their time and patience. For help in Kenya, we thank M. Sang; E. Anjilla; Moi University Medical School; E. Maritim; and the students and teachers of Pemja, Union and AIC Chebisaas schools, in Kenya. For laboratory assistance in Cambridge, we thank A. Biewener, S. Chester, C. M. Eng, K. Duncan, C. Moreno, P. Mulvaney, N. T. Roach, C. P. Rolian, I. Ros, K. Whitcome and S. Wright. We are grateful to A. Biewener, D. Bramble, J. Hamill, H. Herr, L. Mahadevan and D. Raichlen for discussions and comments. Funding was provided by the US National Science Foundation, the American School of Prehistoric Research, The Goelet Fund, Harvard University and Vibram USA.

Author Contributions D.E.L. wrote the paper with substantial contributions from M.V., A.I.D., W.A.W., I.S.D., R.O.M. and Y.P. Collision modelling was done by M.V. and D.E.L.; US experimental data were collected by A.I.D., W.A.W. and D.E.L., with help from S.D’A. Kenyan data were collected by D.E.L., A.I.D., W.A.W., Y.P. and R.O.M. Analyses were done by A.I.D., D.E.L., M.V. and W.A.W.

Author information

Author notes

    • Madhusudhan Venkadesan
    • , William A. Werbel
    •  & Adam I. Daoud

    These authors contributed equally to this work.

Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, 11 Divinity Avenue,

    • Daniel E. Lieberman
    • , Madhusudhan Venkadesan
    •  & Adam I. Daoud
  2. School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

    • Madhusudhan Venkadesan
  3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA

    • William A. Werbel
  4. Center for Restorative and Regenerative Medicine, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island 02906, USA

    • Susan D’Andrea
  5. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA

    • Irene S. Davis
  6. Department of Medical Physiology, Moi University Medical School, PO Box 4606, 30100 Eldoret, Kenya

    • Robert Ojiambo Mang’Eni
    •  & Yannis Pitsiladis
  7. Faculty of Biomedical & Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK

    • Robert Ojiambo Mang’Eni
    •  & Yannis Pitsiladis

Authors

  1. Search for Daniel E. Lieberman in:

  2. Search for Madhusudhan Venkadesan in:

  3. Search for William A. Werbel in:

  4. Search for Adam I. Daoud in:

  5. Search for Susan D’Andrea in:

  6. Search for Irene S. Davis in:

  7. Search for Robert Ojiambo Mang’Eni in:

  8. Search for Yannis Pitsiladis in:

Competing interests

This work has been partially funded by a gift from Vibram USA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Lieberman.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Data with Supplementary Tables 1-2 and Supplementary Figures S2 & S4 with Legends, Supplementary References and Supplementary Movie Legends and Notes.

Videos

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Movie 1

    This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin female, habitually barefoot, unshod condition (forefoot strike).

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Movie 2

    This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin male, habitually barefoot, unshod condition (forefoot strike).

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Movie 3

    This movie shows an adult Kalenjin runner, habitually barefoot until adolescence, unshod condition (forefoot strike).

  4. 4.

    Supplementary Movie 4

    This movie shows an adult Kalenjin runner, habitually barefoot until adolescence, shod condition (midfoot strike).

  5. 5.

    Supplementary Movie 5

    This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin student, habitually shod, shod condition (rearfoot strike).

  6. 6.

    Supplementary Movie 6

    This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin student, habitually shod, unshod condition (rearfoot strike).

  7. 7.

    Supplementary Movie 7

    In this we see a pressure pad movie of forefoot strike (toe-heel-toe running).

  8. 8.

    Supplementary Movie 8

    In this file we see a pressure pad movie of rearfoot strike (heel-toe running).

  9. 9.

    Supplementary Movie 9

    In this file we see a pressure pad movie of midfoot strike.