REF-714 · Lieberman, Venkadesan, Werbel, Daoud, D'Andrea, Davis, Mang'Eni & Pitsiladis, 2010 · Nature, 2010 Jan 28;463 · Paper · PubMed
The paper that started the barefoot movement measured collision forces, NOT injuries: habitually barefoot forefoot strikers generate a smaller impact peak than shod rearfoot strikers
The injury claim attached to it was never tested here
Key Findings
Habitually barefoot runners tend to land on the fore-foot or mid-foot; habitually shod runners typically land rear-foot first.
Barefoot fore-foot strikers generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. The mechanism is mechanical: a more plantarflexed foot at landing plus more ankle compliance during impact reduces the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground, which flattens or removes the impact transient — the sharp force spike in early stance.
The authors' own injury statement is explicitly conditional: fore-foot and mid-foot patterns "may protect" the feet and lower limbs from some impact-related injuries.
Practical Application
In habitually barefoot versus habitually shod endurance runners, barefoot fore-foot strikers generated smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers, even on hard surfaces — through a more plantarflexed foot and more ankle compliance at landing. No injuries were measured. Cite this paper for what it measured — ground-reaction forces and foot kinematics — and for nothing else; its injury statement is a conditional "may protect".
A smaller impact transient is not a smaller injury risk. Impact peaks have not been established as the dominant cause of running injury. Not from this paper: the evidence that load progression matters is itself limited (REF-565 — a systematic review of 4 studies calling it "very limited"; REF-619 — a non-significant trend in novice runners).
When an athlete brings this study up as a reason to switch shoes, the useful reply is that the injury question is answered elsewhere — a Cochrane review found neutral/cushioned versus minimalist shoes may make little or no difference to injury, on low-certainty evidence (REF-716).
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: changing strike pattern is best treated as redistributing load rather than removing it — relevant when choosing between a knee problem and an Achilles/calf/metatarsal problem, not when chasing a general injury reduction.
Limitations
No injury outcome of any kind was measured. Cross-sectional force plates and kinematics; no prospective follow-up, no injury rates.
Sample sizes are not given in the abstract. Habitual barefoot and habitual shod groups differ in far more than footwear (surface, terrain, running history, body composition, culture) — confounding cannot be separated out in this design.
Foot strike in habitually barefoot runners is a tendency, not a rule; the paper does not license "barefoot equals forefoot" as a universal.
How this entry was checked and changed
Content correction 2026-09-27
Lead rewritten as the paper's actual finding (smaller collision forces in barefoot fore-foot strikers; no injury outcome).
Cochrane summary "no reduction" -> "may make little or no difference, low-certainty evidence"; REF-621 cross-reference "no footwear winner" corrected (hard midsoles raised risk there).
"Changing strike pattern redistributes load" relabelled as the base's own practice; "small samples" removed (the abstract gives no n).