Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

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



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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Vertical ground reaction forces and foot kinematics for three foot strikes at 3.5 m s -1 in the same runner.
Figure 2: Variation in impact transients.
Figure 3: Differences during impact between shod RFS runners (group 1) and barefoot FFS runners (group 3) at approximately 4 m s-1.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Bramble, D. M. & Lieberman, D. E. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo . Nature 432, 345–352 (2004)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bobbert, M. F., Schamhardt, H. C. & Nigg, B. M. Calculation of vertical ground reaction force estimates during running from positional data. J. Biomech. 24, 1095–1105 (1991)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Milner, C. E., Ferber, R., Pollard, C. D., Hamill, J. & Davis, I. S. Biomechanical factors associated with tibial stress fractures in female runners. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 38, 323–328 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pohl, M. B., Hamill, J. & Davis, I. S. Biomechanical and anatomical factors associated with a history of plantar fasciitis in female runners. Clin. J. Sport Med. 19, 372–376 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van Gent, R. N. 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)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nigg, B. R. The Biomechanics of Running Shoes (Human Kinetics, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ker, R. F., Bennett, M. B., Alexander, R. M. & Kester, R. C. Foot strike and the properties of the human heel pad. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 203, 191–196 (1989)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. De Clercq, D., Aerts, P. & Kunnen, M. The mechanical characteristics of the human heel pad during foot strike in running: an in vivo cineradiographic study. J. Biomech. 27, 1213–1222 (1994)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. De Wit, B., De Clercq, D. & Aerts, P. Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J. Biomech. 33, 269–278 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Divert, C., Mornieux, G., Baur, H., Mayer, F. & Belli, A. Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. Int. J. Sports Med. 26, 593–598 (2005)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Eslami, M., Begon, M., Farahpour, N. & Allard, P. Forefoot-rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running. Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon) 22, 74–80 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Onywera, V. O., Scott, R. A., Boit, M. K. & Pitsiladis, Y. P. Demographic characteristics of elite Kenyan runners. J. Sports Sci. 24, 415–422 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dickinson, J. A., Cook, S. D. & Leinhardt, T. M. The measurement of shock waves following heel strike while running. J. Biomech. 18, 415–422 (1985)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams, D. S., McClay, I. S. & Manal, K. T. Lower extremity mechanics in runners with a converted forefoot strike pattern. J. Appl. Biomech. 16, 210–218 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Dempster, W. T. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dixon, S. J., Collop, A. C. & Batt, M. E. Surface effects on ground reaction forces and lower extremity kinematics in running. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32, 1919–1926 (2000)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ker, R. F., Bennett, M. B., Bibby, S. R., Kester, R. C. & Alexander, R. M. The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature 325, 147–149 (1987)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  28. Richards, C. E., Magin, P. J. & Calister, R. Is your prescription of distance running shoes evidence-based? Br. J. Sports Med. 43, 159–162 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Robbins, S. E. & Hanna, A. M. Running-related injury prevention through barefoot adaptations. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 19, 148–156 (1987)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


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

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Lieberman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

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

Supplementary information

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. (PDF 835 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin female, habitually barefoot, unshod condition (forefoot strike). (AVI 4876 kb)

Supplementary Movie 2

This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin male, habitually barefoot, unshod condition (forefoot strike). (AVI 4790 kb)

Supplementary Movie 3

This movie shows an adult Kalenjin runner, habitually barefoot until adolescence, unshod condition (forefoot strike). (AVI 4856 kb)

Supplementary Movie 4

This movie shows an adult Kalenjin runner, habitually barefoot until adolescence, shod condition (midfoot strike). (AVI 4863 kb)

Supplementary Movie 5

This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin student, habitually shod, shod condition (rearfoot strike). (AVI 5199 kb)

Supplementary Movie 6

This movie shows an adolescent Kalenjin student, habitually shod, unshod condition (rearfoot strike). (AVI 4620 kb)

Supplementary Movie 7

In this we see a pressure pad movie of forefoot strike (toe-heel-toe running). (AVI 4066 kb)

Supplementary Movie 8

In this file we see a pressure pad movie of rearfoot strike (heel-toe running). (AVI 4063 kb)

Supplementary Movie 9

In this file we see a pressure pad movie of midfoot strike. (AVI 4066 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lieberman, D., Venkadesan, M., Werbel, W. et al. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463, 531–535 (2010).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing