KINEMATIC DIFFERENCES AMONG ACUTELY BAREFOOT AND TRADITIONALLY SHOD

RUNNERS

Jack Miller, Vaishnavi Kumar

Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, United States of America

This experiment aimed to replicate the well-published findings of differences in running

kinematics present in shod and unshod runners. One participant was asked to run both shod
and unshod on a treadmill at a set speed of 6.5 miles per hour. During this, they were video
recorded and analyzed using Kinovea. The angular values were recorded and measured by
Kinovea so that the conditions could be compared to one another. Angular differences were
found at the ankle at initial contact, which suggests that there is a difference among lower
extremity sagittal kinematics among shod and unshod runners.

KEYWORDS: Kinovea, shod, unshod, angular kinematics, striking patterns, angular values

INTRODUCTION: Over the last few decades, there has been a growing contingent of runners
who have switched over to the practice of running either barefoot or in a minimalist shoe that
mimics barefoot conditions. This has generated considerable interest in research trying to
identify the key differences in kinematics in traditionally shod, simulated unshod, and truly
unshod runners, which has led to speculation as to injury mitigation that these changes could
foster. Squadrone et al. (2018) found a discrepancy in foot strike pattern, present at initial
contact, between runners who ran on a treadmill in traditional shoes, when compared to
minimalist shoes or barefoot runners. These are consistent with what is discussed in a review
by Novacek (1998) who explains that wearing shoes alters the distribution of pressure applied to
the foot when measured by a pressure plate. Due to the trend of runners switching to mimicked
barefoot conditions is continuing, it is important to check the reliability of these findings by
attempting to replicate them. Therefore, we attempted to identify these differences and replicate
previous findings, by measuring and comparing the sagittal plane kinematics in a singular
runner running both shod and unshod.

1
METHODS: Participant: One young male recreational runner (age: 22 years, height: 1.7m,
weight: 79.8kg, body mass index: 27 kg/m2) was tested twice on a treadmill with a one-day
interval between trials Day 1 (D1) and Day 2 (D2). The subject chosen for this case study had
no current or prior history of any lower extremity injury.

Procedure: The runner wore dark-colored shorts, a shirt, which was tied up for a clear view of
hip markers, and his own preferred shoes, which were identical through both test sessions. A
band of athletic tape was wrapped around the right thigh to keep the shorts in place while
running to prevent the marker from oscillating, with a second piece added to the hip on the
second day to prevent additional oscillation of the marker placed on the greater trochanter.
Reflective markers were then placed on the right lateral side of the body at 6 anatomical
landmarks, which are the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), greater trochanter (GT), lateral
femoral epicondyle, lateral malleolus, heel of the foot parallel to floor and 2 nd metatarsal. Aided
by verbal feedback from the two other persons guiding the test, the participant placed the
markers on himself. Black tape was used to cover any reflective material on the participant’s
clothing.

An iPad and a light were set up using a tripod. The iPad was placed perpendicular to the
treadmill with a light placed atop the iPad, facing the same direction, to illuminate the reflective
markers and increase their visibility on the recording. The Beast Cam application was used on
the iPad to record videos of the test sessions. The shutter speed was set to 1/480, at a rate of
120 frames per second (fps), at an HD resolution, to record 30 seconds of treadmill running for
each trial. On day 1, after a warm-up period of 2 minutes at a constant speed of 6.5 mph, the
participant was recorded for approximately 30 seconds to provide sufficient strides for later
analysis. After a brief resting period, the participant then removed his shoes and attached the
markers back onto the anatomical landmarks on his foot, the heel, 2 nd metatarsal and lateral
malleolus. After the reflective markers were reattached another warm-up period, lasting 2
minutes at 6.5 mph, commenced, followed by 30 seconds of video recorded running. For the
retest, the participant repeated the same procedure for the shod conditions listed above on Day
2, with the addition of a piece of black tape at the hip restricting undesired oscillation of the
shorts.

Data Analysis: All 3 videos were analyzed using the 2D video analysis software Kinovea, with
the computer software LabView being used to synchronize the time of initial contact (IC) for
comparing the running kinematics between the trials. A working zone was created in Kinovea for
three strides, starting with the initial contact of the right foot and ending after the fourth recorded

2
IC of the same foot. The standard convention for reporting angles was used to measure angles
in Kinovea, where the angles of hip, knee and ankle were set positive for flexion and negative
for extension. Discrete variables such as foot strike pattern, foot angle at initial contact, stride
angle, knee flexion at IC, overstride angle, and hip vertical displacement were measured using
Kinovea. LabView was used to calculate averages of the 3 joint angles, the ankle, knee, and
hip, from 3 strides of each trial. It also synchronized the times and data between the trials at IC.
The data of average joint angles, measured and refined in Kinovea and LabView, were added to
Excel so that graphs could be generated for data comparison.

RESULTS: The analysis of the participants' right leg, the ankle, and the knee was found to be reliable
in shod running, between day 1 and day 2. Ankle data revealed that dorsi flexion (DF) had a maximum
peak of 20 ±10 degrees in shod D1 and shod D2, at 0.2 seconds, ± 0.15 second time interval, (Figure 1A).
Plantar flexion (PF) was also shown to be consistent across shod D1 and shod D2, with data indicating
that PF was at its peak during late stance with an estimated average of -25 ±8 degrees, at 0.4 seconds,
±0.3 second time interval, which was just before and through toe-off (TO) (Figure 1A.). The
measurements of the knee demonstrated consistency, with knee angle at a minimum of 40 ±3 degrees
during the early swing phase during a 0.2 second time interval for both shod D1 and shod D2 but the
maximum angle was 80 ±10 degrees during the late swing phase at 0.56 second with a ±0.03 second time
interval, (Figure 1B). Knee extension peaked around 15 ±5 degrees at 0.22 seconds, ±0.06 second time
interval, during the early swing phase when running on shod D1 and shod D2 (Figure 1B).

Fig. 1A Fig. 1B

The hip was shown to be unreliable when comparing shod running on shod D1 and shod D2,
and unshod running (Figure 1C and Figure 2C).

When comparing the shod versus unshod conditions, there was a significant difference
in ankle angle, with a maximum PF of –30 ±5 degrees during the early and late stance phase

3
around the 0.3 second time interval, and a maximum DF of 8 ±3 degrees at the 0.15-second
interval during early stance when comparing unshod to shod (Figure 2A). The knee had
comparable results with a maximum of 85 ±5 degrees during the late swing phase at 0.56
seconds, ±0.03 second time interval, for both the shod and unshod conditions (Figure 2B). Peak
knee extension was shown to be 10± 2 degrees at 0.22 seconds, ±0.06 second time interval
when running unshod (Figure 2B). When measuring stride rate running shod D1 shod D2
demonstrated a stride rate of ~1.31 strides per sec, whereas when running unshod,
demonstrated a stride rate of ~1.32 strides per sec (Table 1).

Fig. 1C Fig. 2C

Fig. 2A Fig. 2B

Table 1: Stride Rates in running trials

Stride Rate Unshod Shod D1 Shod D2

Number of strides 3 3 3

Seconds 2.258 2.289 2.289

Stride Rate 1.328 1.310 1.310

(strides per sec)

4
DISCUSSION: The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to find whether 2D sagittal video
analysis of running is reliable and (2) to determine whether shod and barefoot (BF) conditions
affect lower extremity running kinematics. 2D sagittal video analysis of running demonstrates
excellent reliability for knee and ankle angles as found in the graph for D1 and D2 shod running
overlaps with each other and shows similar patterns of movement. This is further supported and
confirmed by Dingenen (2018) article. However, the hip angle measurements have shown
unreliability in the results of the current study, which can be explained by the lack of the 2D
Kinovea software’s ability to measure hip angles reliably and accurately for the participant’s
running style. Specifically, when his elbow and forearm cover two markers (ASIS and GT)
during his arm swing and how Kinovea doesn’t account for the errors caused by transverse
plane motions of the hip affecting the measurement of hip angles in the sagittal plane.

The participant had a typical rear foot strike (RFS) pattern during his shod running, which
was explained in Novacek (1998), where approximately 80% of distance runners demonstrated
an RFS pattern. Acutely, changing from shod to barefoot running, the participant changed his
foot strike pattern to a forefoot strike pattern (FSP) at initial contact (IC) in Day 1 trials, as
determined by foot angle measured at initial contact. The change in foot strike pattern result has
been found and supported in the Hollander (2019) study, which has documented the increase in
anterior foot placement via 3D video analysis (foot strike index) for shod runners acutely running
barefoot.

According to Squadrone (2015), a change to barefoot running conditions increases the

stride rate and decreases step length in typical shod runners. However, the participant in this
case study did not show any significant change in stride rate and as the speed was constant
(6.5mph) in both conditions, the stride length would not change either. The step length depends
on stride angle, furthest displacements of lower extremities from the center of mass during
running and other factors. The stride angles from analyzing the participant’s discrete variables
(such as shod day 1 stride angle: 54.5°; and barefoot stride angle: 55.4°) were found to be quite
similar in both BF and shod conditions, which explains the lack of change in step length and
stride rate as well.

Only a limited number of strides were analyzed, which prevented us from having a large
enough data set to draw further conclusions. While steps were taken to minimize sources of
error, the participant's running motion did result in moments where his arms covered the
markers on the hip, providing inaccurate estimations of the hip angle for those times.
Additionally, even when being tracked, the marker on the greater trochanter oscillated with the

5
shorts of the participant on D1, this was corrected for in the D2 trial. Despite the limitations, the
ankle and knee angles were measured reliably in this study, which helped us to draw strong
conclusions.

CONCLUSION: The participant shifted from a RFS pattern to a FFS pattern after removing their
shoes. The participant did not show a significant change in stride rate when they shifted from a
RFS pattern to a FFS pattern. There were also variations in the reliability of certain variables,
the ankle and knee angles were reliable as they were free of obstructions during the entirety of
the recordings, although the hip angle was found to be unreliably due to the running form of the
participant.

6
 References
Dingenen, B., Barton, C., Janssen, T., Benoit, A., & Malliaras, P. (2018). Test-retest reliability of
two-dimensional video analysis during running. Physical Therapy in Sport, 33, 40–47.
Hollander, K., Liebl, D., Meining, S., Mattes, K., Willwacher, S., & Zech, A. (2019). Adaptation of
running biomechanics to repeated barefoot running: Response. The American Journal of
Sports Medicine, 47(8), 1975–1983.
Novacheck, T. F. (1998). The biomechanics of running. Gait and Posture, 7, 77–95.
Squadrone, R., Rodano, R., Hamill, J., & Preatoni, E. (2015). Acute effect of different minimalist
shoes on foot strike pattern and kinematics in rearfoot strikers during running. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 33(11), 1196–1204

7
8
9