[Craig Kleinberg is an Exercise Physiology master’s student at the University of North Carolina and is an Athletic Development Intern at Athletic Lab.]

Among recent allegations, running shoe company Vibram has found itself in some hot water making claims without any scientific evidence. Prior the minimalist boom starting in the late 2000’s, it was believed that a high heel cushion and more arch support was needed for running shoes. Once the marketing for minimalist shoes gained traction the thought was less is better. Now the Vibram lawsuit creates more confusion than ever. Outside of fads and litigations, I believe a large piece of the puzzle has been forgotten the forefoot strike.

Before delving into the forefoot strike, let’s clear up some of the confusion on barefoot, toe shoe, fully clad, etc running preferences. While still requiring more research, actual barefoot conditions have shown to improve static balance (Shinohara and Gribble, 2009), dynamic balance (Rose et al., 2011), and decreased vertical ground reaction forces (De Wit et al. 2000). One type of minimalist shoe did show an increase in area of some foot and ankle (Brugemann et. al., 2005) while another found no drop in arch height and attributed that to the increase in foot musculature (Shroyer et al., 2011). This sums up to mean that barefoot running potentially leads to decreases in injury due to improved balance and efficiency while decreasing the repetitive pounding on the body.

It is important to keep in mind that most studies are done in barefoot conditions, and this does not have a direct translation to all minimalist and toe shoes. Something even as thin as 5-toed socks act as a sensory filter, thereby decreasing overall balance (Shinohara and Gribble, 2009). This means something as thick as a toe shoe will also decrease that sensory input.

There is hope for the minimalist movement though, and the key is forefoot striking. Forefoot striking in toe shoes has shown a small but significant improvement in efficiency over traditional cushioned running shoes (Perl et al., 2011). Reduced leg stiffness for softer landings account for the decrease in impact forces of forefoot running as well (De Wit et al., 2000).

Even if barefoot running is not your cup of tea, transitioning to the forefoot running form can make running more enjoyable for recreational runners. Keep in mind that any exercise program takes a minimum of 6-8 weeks to see significant changes; the same goes for transitioning to the forefoot strike. This transition should be done slowly. When starting, forefoot running should consist of no more than mile and increase by no more than 10% a week.

The following link is a quality resource for forefoot striking provide by the Skeletal Biology Lab from Harvard University:

References:

Brugemann GP, Potthast W, Braunstein B, Niehoff A. Effect of increased mechanical stimuli on foot muscles functional capacity. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Biomechanics, Cleveland (OH). 2005.

De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P. Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech. 2000; 33:269 78.

Perl DP, Daoud AI, Lieberman DE. Effects of footware and strike type on running economy.

Rose W, Bowser BJ, McGrath R, et al. Effect of footwear on balance. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Biomechanics, Long Beach (CA). 2011. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2012; 1335-1343

Shinohara J, Gribble P. Five-toed socks decrease static postural control among healthy individuals as measured with time-to-boundary analysis. American Society of Biomechanics Annual Meeting. 2009.

Shroyer JF, Etheredge CE, Weimar WH. Effect of minimalist footwear on medial arch height. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43:313.