The influence of minimalist footwear and stride length reduction on lower-extremity running mechanics and cumulative loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of shoe type and stride length reduction on lower-extremity running mechanics and cumulative loading. DESIGN: Within-subject with four conditions: (1) control shoe at preferred stride length; (2) control shoe at 90% preferred stride length; (3) minimalist shoe at preferred stride length; (4) minimalist shoe at 90% preferred stride length. METHODS: Fourteen young healthy males ran overground at their preferred speed while motion capture, force platform, and plantar pressure data were collected. Peak moments, impulse, mechanical work, and cumulative impulse were calculated at the metatarsophalangeal, ankle, and knee joint, and compared between conditions using a 2×2 factor repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: In general, running in minimalist footwear increased measures of loading at the metatarsophalangeal joint and ankle joint (mean increases of 7.3% and 5.9%, respectively), but decreased measures of loading at the knee (mean decrease of 7.3%). Conversely, running with reduced stride length decreased single-stance measures of loading at the ankle and knee joint (ranging from -0.9% to -20.5%), though cumulative impulse was higher at the ankle and lower at the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Running in minimalist shoes increased loads at the metatarsophalangeal and ankle joint, which may explain some of the incidence of overuse injuries observed in minimalist shoe users. Decreased ankle loads at 90% preferred stride length were not necessarily sufficient to reduce cumulative loads when impulse and loading cycles were weighted equally. Knee loads decreased more when running at 90% preferred stride length (16.2% mean reduction) versus running in a minimalist shoe (7.3% mean reduction), but both load reduction mechanisms appeared to have an additive effect (22.2% mean reduction).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".