ArticleScandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports2025
Influence of Manipulating Running Foot Strike Angle on Internal Loading of the Tibia.
Article in Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Heel-Strike Fallacy and Cadence Beliefs in Distance Running: A Narrative Review.Sports medicine - open · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tibial stress injuries are problematic among runners. Foot strike pattern upon landing may alter internal tibial loading, which could potentially affect the risk of stress injuries during running. The purpose of this study was to quantify internal loading at the distal 1/3 of the tibia during running with imposed rearfoot and forefoot strikes. Nineteen habitual rearfoot strikers were recruited to run with their preferred foot strike and then with imposed rearfoot and forefoot strikes in a randomly assigned order. Force and motion capture data were collected synchronously, and the foot strike in the sagittal plane was identified from the kinematic data. The tibial bending moments were estimated using musculoskeletal modeling and beam theory, and cumulative-weighted tibial impulse per kilometer was derived. Significant differences in peak bending moments were found among foot strike patterns (p < 0.001). Running with an imposed forefoot strike increased tibial loading, especially during early to mid-stance (2%-67% stance, p < 0.001). However, imposed rearfoot striking resulted in lower bending moments than both habitual rearfoot striking (p < 0.001) and forefoot striking (p < 0.001). Additionally, cumulative-weighted impulse per kilometer was significantly greater when running with an imposed forefoot strike compared to both habitual (p = 0.001) and imposed rearfoot strikes (p < 0.001). Running with an imposed nonhabitual forefoot strike results in higher tibial loading than rearfoot striking due to increased mechanical demands placed on the plantar flexors. Transitioning from a habitual rearfoot strike to a forefoot strike may not be advisable for runners aiming to reduce tibial loading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.