advertising
-
1
Hall JP, Barton C, Jones PR, et al: The biomechanical differences between barefoot and shod distance running: a systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis. Sports Med 43: 1335, 2012.
-
2
Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, et al: Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531, 2010.
-
3
Divert C, Mornieux G, Baur H, et al: Mechanical comparison of barefoot and shod running. Int J Sports Med 26: 593, 2005.
-
4
Divert C, Mornieux G, Freychat P, et al: Barefoot-shod running differences: shoe or mass effect? Int J Sports Med 29: 512, 2008.
-
5
Wang IL, Graham RB, Bourdon EJP, et al: Biomechanical analysis of running foot strike in shoes of different mass. J Sports Sci Med 19: 130, 2020.
-
6
Tung KD, Franz JR, Kram R: A test of the metabolic cost of cushioning hypothesis during unshod and shod running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46: 324, 2014.
-
7
Franz JR, Wierzbinski CM, Kram R: Metabolic cost of running barefoot versus shod: is lighter better? Med Sci Sports Exerc 44: 1519, 2012.
-
8
Altman AR, Davis IS: Barefoot running: biomechanics and implications for running injuries. Curr Sports Med Rep 11: 244, 2012.
-
9
Kendzierski D, DeCarlo KJ: Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation studies. J Sport Exerc Psychol 13: 50. 1991.
-
10
Rixe JA, Gallo RA, Silvis ML: The barefoot debate: can minimalist shoes reduce running-related injuries? Curr Sports Med Rep 11: 160, 2012.
-
11
Hryvniak D, Dicharry J, Wilder R: Barefoot running survey: evidence from the field. J Sport Health Sci 3: 131, 2014.
-
12
LaPorta JW, Brown LE, Coburn JW, et al: Effects of different footwear on vertical jump and landing parameters. J Strength Cond Res 27: 733, 2013.
-
13
Bandy WD, Rusche KR, Tekulve FY: Reliability and limb symmetry for five unilateral functional tests of the lower extremities. Isokinet Exerc Sci 4: 108, 1994.
-
14
Riemann BL, Schmitz R: The relationship between various modes of single leg postural control assessment. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7: 257, 2012.
-
15
Van Laerhoven H, van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, Derkx BHF: A comparison of Likert scale and visual analogue scales as response options in children's questionnaires. Acta Paediatr 93: 830, 2004.
-
16
Welch A, Camus J, Dalzell N, et al: Broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) of the heel bone and its correlates in men and women in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort: a cross-sectional population-based study. Osteoporos Int 15: 217, 2004.
-
17
Lara B, Salinero JJ, Gutiérrez J, et al: Influence of endurance running on calcaneal bone stiffness in male and female runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 116: 327, 2016.
-
18
Bramble DM, Lieberman DE: Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432: 345, 2004.
-
19
Logan S, Hunter I, Ty Hopkins JTJ, et al: Ground reaction force differences between running shoes, racing flats, and distance spikes in runners. J Sports Sci Med 9: 147, 2010.
-
20
Whitman R: The classic: a study of the weak foot, with reference to its causes, its diagnosis, and its cure; with an analysis of a thousand cases of so-called flat-foot. 1896. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468: 925, 2010.
-
21
Kelly LA, Lichtwark GA, Farris DJ, et al: Shoes alter the spring-like function of the human foot during running. J R Soc Interface 13: 20160174, 2016.
-
22
Zhang X, Delabastita T, Lissens J, et al: The morphology of foot soft tissues is associated with running shoe type in healthy recreational runners. J Sci Med Sport 21: 686, 2018.
-
23
De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P: Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech 33: 269, 2000.
-
24
Robbins SE, Hanna AM, Gouw GJ: Overload protection: avoidance response to heavy plantar surface loading. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20: 85, 1988.
-
25
Robbins S, Gouw GJ, McClaran J, et al: Protective sensation of the plantar aspect of the foot. Foot Ankle 14: 347, 1993.
-
26
Jenkins DW, Cauthon DJ: Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature. JAPMA 101: 231, 2011.
-
27
Devereux-Fitzgerald A, Powell R, Dewhurst A, et al: The acceptability of physical activity interventions to older adults: a systematic review and meta-synthesis. Soc Sci Med 158: 14, 2016.
-
28
Sun X, Lam WK, Zhang X, et al: Systematic review of the role of wootwear constructions in running biomechanics: implications for running-related injury and performance. J Sports Sci Med 19: 20, 2020.
-
29
Samozino P, Rejc E, di Prampero PE, et al: Force-velocity properties’ contribution to bilateral deficit during ballistic push-off. Med Sci Sports Exerc 46: 107, 2014.
-
30
Mayhew JL, Salm PC: Gender differences in anaerobic power tests. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 60: 133, 1990.
-
31
Sam KL: Valgus knee angle during drop landing in female and male physical education major undergraduate students. Asian J Phys Educ Recreat 16: 65, 2010.
-
32
Parfitt G, Rose EA, Burgess WM: The psychological and physiological responses of sedentary individuals to prescribed and preferred intensity exercise. Br J Health Psychol 11: 39, 2006.
-
33
da Silva Azevedo AP, Mezêncio B, Amadio AC, et al: 16 weeks of progressive barefoot running training changes impact force and muscle activation in habitual shod runners. PLoS One 11: e0167234, 2006.
Comparative Acceptability of Weightbearing Physical Activity in Sporting Footwear Versus Barefoot in Habitually Shod Individuals
Search for other papers by Christian A. Than in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Laura A. Seidl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Belinda R. Beck in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: Perceived acceptability of barefoot use has largely been ignored in the literature despite its importance to long-term implementation and behavior change. This study aimed to compare the acceptability of undertaking weightbearing physical activities in regular running shoes versus barefoot in habitually shod individuals.
Methods: Healthy young men and women were recruited from the Gold Coast. Participants completed six activities (ie, lunges, walking, jogging, sidestep, vertical jump, and hop) in shod and barefoot conditions then answered questions pertaining to level and source of discomfort, ease of performance, and acceptability. Indices of bone quality were measured from their dominant calcaneus by quantitative ultrasound.
Results: Seventeen healthy male (n = 8) and female (n = 9) university students participated in the study (age, 26.59 ± 7.26 years; body mass index, 23.08 ± 3.58 kg/m2). Men were taller, heavier, and had higher broadband ultrasound attenuation than women (P < .05). For “no” discomfort, “very easy” ease of performance, and a “good amount” or “very good amount” of acceptability, the shod condition demonstrated response rates of 87.25%, 55.88%, and 72.55%, respectively. The barefoot condition demonstrated rates of those responses of 62.75%, 39.22%, and 48.03%, respectively, and reported more ball-of-foot, forefoot, heel, and plantar skin locations as sources of discomfort during activity than in the shod condition. The group vertical jump height was higher barefoot than shod (44.88 ± 8.44 cm and 43.25 ± 8.76 cm, respectively; P < .05), but no difference was seen for the hop. Men jumped and hopped higher than women under both footwear conditions (P < .05).
Conclusions: Participants initiating barefoot weightbearing exercise may experience slightly greater discomfort and less ease of performance in the initial transition from the shod condition, but may perform better in vertical jump. Whether those differences in experience persist over the long term will require longitudinal studies.
advertising
