Overall, a difference can be observed between minimal and cushioned footwear muscle activation resulting in varying elastic energy storage.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.007

• Some level of exposure to running may be necessary to promote MFS or FFS.

• MFS may have been common among hunter-gatherer groups in the past, even for those who did not engage in endurance running - essentially the study promotes 'natural' running.

• The high rate of RFS among Hadza WOMEN (who didn't hunt at all) was also similar to that reported for habitually shod US adults. (reinforcing, less experienced runners = RFS)

• It also suggests caution is needed when drawing conclusions about “average” or “typical” gait in unshod populations.

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.010

• Habitually shod runners tend to keep heel‑striking even when barefoot, though with flatter foot placement.

• Minimal‑shoe running can strengthen foot muscles and stiffen the arch.

• Populations show varied strike patterns influenced by footwear and experience.

• Many runners switch from heel‑striking in shoes to forefoot striking when barefoot.

• Shock absorption patterns differ between rearfoot and forefoot striking.

• After long ultramarathons, even minimalist runners tend to revert to heel‑striking.

• Surveys show most runners who switch to barefoot/minimal running report fewer injuries or no harm.

• Barefoot runners are more likely to forefoot strike than minimally shod runners.

• Gait‑retraining with feedback can reduce impact forces.

• Minimally shod Tarahumara (huaraches):

  • 40% midfoot strikers

  • 30% forefoot strikers

  • 30% rearfoot strikers

• Conventionally shod Tarahumara (modern running shoes):

  • 75% rearfoot strikers

  • 25% midfoot strikers

  • 0% forefoot strikers

Lieberman, D. E. (2014). Strike type variation among Tarahumara Indians in minimal sandals versus conventional running shoes. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 3(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.009

The contrast between minimally shod and conventionally shod Tarahumara therefore supports the general observation that experienced runners who are habitually barefoot or minimally shod tend to land with a flatter foot and RFS less often than runners who habitually use modern running shoes that cushion and elevate the heel

no statistically significant differences in step frequency as well as the angles of the ankle, knee, hip, and trunk between the minimally and conventionally shod individuals, minimally shod Tarahumara had significantly less overstride (as measured by the orientation of the tibia at landing), which means that they typically land with their ankle nearly below the knee.

Previous studies have found that shod runners are more likely to FFS at higher speeds (Lieberman, 2014)

Strike Pattern Changes: 92% of participants used rearfoot strike when shod, but 96% switched to forefoot strike during instructed barefoot running .

Impact Transient Reduction: Impact transients occurred in 98% of shod steps but only 25% of barefoot steps. Notably, 47% of participants eliminated impact transients completely in all eight analyzed steps

Loading Rate Decreases: Both average and maximum instantaneous vertical loading rates were significantly reduced (p < 0.0001), with average reductions of 57% and 51% respectively .

Stiffness Changes: Vertical stiffness during initial loading decreased by 33% in barefoot conditions .

Ground Reaction Forces: Peak lateral forces decreased by 53% and medial forces by 9.7%. Impulses in vertical (6.6%), lateral (44%), and medial (2.4%) directions all significantly decreased .

Gait Parameters: Step rate increased by 6% while step length decreased by 5.5% during barefoot running .