Forefoot–rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running

Eslami, Mansour; Begon, Mickaël; Farahpour, Nader; Allard, Paul

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.08.002

« Previous Next »Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 22, Issue 1 , Pages 74-80, January 2007

Forefoot–rearfoot coupling patterns and tibial internal rotation during stance phase of barefoot versus shod running

Mansour Eslami
- Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Que., Canada
- Laboratoire d’Étude du Mouvement, Centre de Recherche, Hopital Sainte-Justine, P.O. Box 3175, Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Que., Canada H3T 1C5
- Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Iran
- Corresponding author. Address: Laboratoire d’Étude du Mouvement, Centre de Recherche, Hopital Sainte-Justine, P.O. Box 3175, Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Que., Canada H3T 1C5.
Mickaël Begon
- Laboratoire de Mécanique des Solides, UMR 6610, Faculté des Sciences de l’Université de Poitiers SP2MI, Téléport 2, Boulevard Marie et Pierre Curie, BP 30179, 86962 Futuroscope, Chasseneuil Cedex, France
Nader Farahpour
- Bu Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
Paul Allard
- Department of Kinesiology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Que., Canada
- Laboratoire d’Étude du Mouvement, Centre de Recherche, Hopital Sainte-Justine, P.O. Box 3175, Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Que., Canada H3T 1C5

Received 13 June 2006; accepted 14 August 2006. published online 20 October 2006.

Abstract

Background

Based on twisted plate and mitered hinge models of the foot and ankle, forefoot–rearfoot coupling motion patterns can contribute to the amount of tibial rotation. The present study determined the differences of forefoot–rearfoot coupling patterns as well as excessive excursion of tibial internal rotation in shod versus barefoot conditions during running.

Methods

Sixteen male subjects ran 10 times at 170 steps per minute under the barefoot and shod conditions. Forefoot–rearfoot coupling motions were assessed by measuring mean relative phase angle during five intervals of stance phase for the main effect of five time intervals and two conditions (ANOVA, P<0.05). Tibial internal rotation excursion was compared between the shod and barefoot conditions over the first 50% of stance phase using paired t-test, (P<0.05).

Findings

Forefoot adduction/abduction and rearfoot eversion/inversion coupling motion patterns were significantly different between the conditions and among the intervals (P<0.05; effect size=0.47). The mean absolute relative angle was significantly modified to 37° in-phase relationship at the heel-strike of running with shoe wears. No significant differences were noted in the tibial internal rotation excursion between shod and barefoot conditions.

Interpretation

Significant variations in the forefoot adduction/abduction and rearfoot eversion/inversion coupling patterns could have little effect on the amount of tibial internal rotation excursion. Yet it remains to be determined whether changes in the frontal plane forefoot–rearfoot coupling patterns influence the tibia kinematics for different shoe wears or foot orthotic interventions. The findings question the rational for the prophylactic use of forefoot posting in foot orthoses.

Keywords: Forefoot, Rearfoot, Relative phase angle, Tibia internal rotation