Advertisement
Research Article
Habitual foot strike pattern does not affect simulated triceps surae muscle metabolic energy consumption during running
Wannes Swinnen, Wouter Hoogkamer, Friedl De Groote, Benedicte Vanwanseele
Journal of Experimental Biology 2019 222: jeb212449 doi: 10.1242/jeb.212449 Published 10 December 2019

ABSTRACT

Foot strike pattern affects ankle joint work and triceps surae muscle–tendon dynamics during running. Whether these changes in muscle–tendon dynamics also affect triceps surae muscle energy consumption is still unknown. In addition, as the triceps surae muscle accounts for a substantial amount of the whole-body metabolic energy consumption, changes in triceps surae energy consumption may affect whole-body metabolic energy consumption. However, direct measurements of muscle metabolic energy consumption during dynamic movements is difficult. Model-based approaches can be used to estimate individual muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption based on Hill type muscle models. In this study, we use an integrated experimental and dynamic optimization approach to compute muscle states (muscle forces, lengths, velocities, excitations and activations) of 10 habitual midfoot/forefoot striking and nine habitual rearfoot striking runners while running at 10 and 14 km h−1. The Achilles tendon stiffness of the musculoskeletal model was adapted to fit experimental ultrasound data of the gastrocnemius medialis muscle during ground contact. Next, we calculated triceps surae muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption using four different metabolic energy models provided in the literature. Neither triceps surae metabolic energy consumption (P>0.35) nor whole-body metabolic energy consumption (P>0.14) was different between foot strike patterns, regardless of the energy model used or running speed tested. Our results provide new evidence that midfoot/forefoot and rearfoot strike patterns are metabolically equivalent.

INTRODUCTION

The metabolic energy consumed during submaximal running, often referred to as running economy, is an important factor determining endurance running performance (Jones and Carter, 2000). Reduced energy consumption corresponds to improved running economy and hence superior endurance performance (Hoogkamer et al., 2016; Kipp et al., 2019). As such, researchers try to identify running patterns with minimal metabolic energy consumption (Moore, 2016). One aspect of people's running pattern is foot strike pattern. Although foot strike pattern is a continuum, generally three different foot strike patterns are considered: forefoot strike, midfoot strike and rearfoot strike (Cavanagh and Lafortune, 1980).

List of symbols and abbreviations

Ė
metabolic energy consumption rate
EMG
electromyography
FF
midfoot/forefoot strike
GL
gastrocnemius lateralis
GM
gastrocnemius medialis
ḢA
activation heat rate
ḢM
maintenance heat rate
ḢSL
shortening/lengthening heat rate
MTU
muscle–tendon unit
RF
rearfoot strike
SOL
soleus
Ẇ
mechanical work rate

Although rearfoot striking is the most common running pattern during shod running (Hasegawa et al., 2007; Kasmer et al., 2013; Larson et al., 2011), there seems to be a widespread belief that forefoot striking is more economical than rearfoot striking. This belief is based upon evidence that a greater percentage of midfoot/forefoot strikers appear among the first finishers in long-distance races (de Almeida et al., 2015; Hasegawa et al., 2007), suggesting forefoot striking to be more economical. However, studies comparing metabolic energy consumption between habitual forefoot and habitual rearfoot strikers found no difference in whole-body metabolic energy consumption (Gruber et al., 2013) or even lower energy consumption in rearfoot strikers compared with their forefoot striking colleagues at 11 and 13 km h−1 but not at 15 km h−1 (Ogueta-Alday et al., 2014).

Available analyses of the kinetic and kinematic differences between foot strike patterns do not clearly provide evidence for either differences in or unchanged energy consumption with foot strike patterns. Differences in foot strike patterns induce changes in negative ankle work, with forefoot striking demonstrating greater negative ankle work (Stearne et al., 2014). This ankle work is predominantly absorbed by the muscle–tendon unit (MTU) spanning the ankle joint, i.e. triceps surae muscle and the in-series connected tendinous tissue (series elastic element). Hence, differences in ankle work may affect the MTU and subsequently the energy consumption of this triceps surae muscle. We recently demonstrated that during early stance, one of the triceps surae muscles, the gastrocnemius medialis (GM), produces greater muscle force at lower contraction velocity in midfoot/forefoot strikers compared with rearfoot strikers. Higher muscle force production suggests more muscle activation and thus higher metabolic energy consumption, whereas lower contraction velocities appear to be more force efficient and would therefore reduce muscle activation and thus metabolic energy consumption (Hill, 1922; van der Zee et al., 2019). Hence, we hypothesized that the differences in metabolic energy consumption would counteract each other and no difference in GM metabolic energy consumption would exist (Swinnen et al., 2019). Although it is still unknown whether foot strike pattern induces differences in gastrocnemius lateralis (GL) and soleus (SOL), the other two triceps surae muscles, previous research estimated that the triceps surae accounts for 25 to 40% of the whole-body metabolic energy consumption (Fletcher and MacIntosh, 2017). Consequently, if triceps surae muscle metabolic energy consumption is similar between foot strike patterns, we would expect no differences in whole-body metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns either.

Model-based approaches have been used to estimate individual muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption based on Hill type muscle models (Bhargava et al., 2004; Miller, 2014; Uchida et al., 2016; Umberger, 2010; Umberger et al., 2003). However, to obtain reliable simulation results, a close match between simulated and experimental data is essential. Here, we used experimental dynamics ultrasound data from the GM to improve our dynamic optimization and, as such, ensure more reliable estimations of muscle metabolic energy consumption. We used four different metabolic energy models (Bhargava et al., 2004; Uchida et al., 2016; Umberger, 2010; Umberger et al., 2003) to calculate triceps surae muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption of habitual midfoot/forefoot and rearfoot strikers running at 10 and 14 km h−1. We hypothesized that neither triceps surae nor whole-body metabolic energy consumption would be different between foot strike patterns. A secondary aim was to assess whether these findings are robust to the metabolic energy models used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

Ten habitual midfoot/forefoot strikers (6 males, 4 females) and nine habitual rearfoot strikers (6 males, 3 females) participated in this study (Table 1). All participants were regular runners with at least 2 years running experience, running 30 km week−1 or more and were able to run 10 km within 45 min. They did not have any Achilles tendon or calf injuries in the last 6 months and had no prior Achilles tendon surgery. Written informed consent, approved by the local ethical committee (Medical Ethical Committee of UZ Leuven), was obtained at the start of the experiment.

View this table:
Table 1.

Participant demographics

Experimental procedure

The experimental procedures have been described in detail in our earlier publication on gastrocnemius medialis muscle–tendon interaction and muscle force production in this group of runners (Swinnen et al., 2019). Briefly, after a 10 min warm-up, participants ran 5 min on a force measuring treadmill (Motekforce Link, Amsterdam, The Netherlands): 2.5 min at 10 and 14 km h−1, in randomized order. We collected kinetic, kinematic, muscle activation and ultrasound data of at least four strides during the last minute of each running speed. All measurements were synchronized through a trigger pulse signal sent from the ultrasound device.

Kinetics, kinematic and foot strike angle

Thirteen infrared cameras (Vicon, Oxford Metrics, UK) captured the motion of an extended plug-in-gait marker set (47 reflective markers; Fig. S1) at a sampling frequency of 150 Hz. We used OpenSim 3.3 (OpenSim, Stanford, CA, USA) to first scale the Hamner musculoskeletal model based on the subject's dimensions (Hamner et al., 2010) and to subsequently compute joint kinematics using a Kalman smoothing algorithm (De Groote et al., 2008). MTU lengths were calculated using OpenSim's Muscle Analysis Tool.

Ground reaction force data, sampled at 900 Hz, were first low-pass filtered with a cut-off frequency of 20 Hz and used to determine ground contact phase adopting a 30 N threshold. We determined foot strike angle using a marker-based method (Altman and Davis, 2012). At initial ground contact, we drew a line through the first metatarsal–phalangeal joint marker and heel marker of the left foot. The angle between this line and the ground was calculated and considered as the foot strike angle. Following Altman and Davis (2012), runners with a foot strike angle greater than 8 deg were considered rearfoot strikers, while runners with a foot strike angle under 8 deg were considered midfoot/forefoot strikers. Foot strike angle was averaged over the strides used for ultrasound analysis. Foot strike type (rearfoot or midfoot/forefoot) was consistent within subjects across running speeds.

We calculated joint torques using OpenSim's Inverse Dynamics Tool based on joint kinematics and ground reaction forces. Joint torques were low-pass filtered using a recursive fourth-order Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 20 Hz.

Dynamic ultrasound imaging

We collected dynamic ultrasound images of the GM muscle fascicles of the left leg with a B-mode ultrasound system (Telemed Echoblaster 128 CEXT system) sampling at 86 Hz. The linear transducer (UAB Telemed, Vilnius, Lithuania, LV 7.5/60/128Z-2) was placed on the mid-belly of the muscle, aligned with the muscle fascicles and attached to the calf with tape and bandages. To analyze the GM muscle fascicle lengths and pennation angles, we used a semi-automatic tracking algorithm (Farris and Lichtwark, 2016). We analyzed at least four strides and calculated fascicle length changes relative to fascicle length at toe-off. All data were splined to 100 data points per ground contact, starting at initial contact.

Muscle activity

We used surface electromyography (EMG) to determine GM and SOL muscle activity of the right leg through a wireless EMG acquisition system (ZeroWire EMG Aurion, Milano, Italy) measuring at 900 Hz. EMG signals were first band-pass filtered (20-400 Hz), rectified and low-pass filtered (20 Hz). For each subject and muscle, EMG waveforms were normalized to maximal activation, determined as the maximal activation of each muscle using a moving average over 10 data points. Owing to technical issues, the EMG data of the GM of one participant (midfoot/forefoot striker) and the SOL of three participants (two midfoot/forefoot strikers and one rearfoot striker) could not be used.

Comparison between experimental EMG and simulated activation of the GM and SOL demonstrated similar trends, yet owing to our optimization criteria (minimization of muscle activation squared), pre-activation is not predicted (Fig. S2).

Estimating muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption

Several models for estimating muscle metabolic energy rate have been proposed, and it is still unclear which model yields the most valid results. Therefore, we used multiple models primarily to assure that our results are independent from the metabolic energy model used. Our goal was not to compare the different energy models as we do not have experimental data of whole-body metabolic energy consumption for comparison (for comparison between metabolic energy models, see Miller, 2014 and Koelewijn et al., 2019). All models required the muscle states (i.e. muscle activations, excitations, lengths, velocities and forces) as inputs. To obtain these muscle states, we solved the muscle redundancy problem using a dynamic optimization algorithm that takes into account muscle–tendon dynamics (i.e. muscle activation and contraction dynamics) of the 43 lower limb muscles of the left leg in our model (De Groote et al., 2009, 2016). Individual muscle moment arms, MTU lengths and muscle properties were extracted from the scaled OpenSim model and were input to the muscle redundancy solver. We scaled maximal isometric muscle force based on the subject's body mass and height (Handsfield et al., 2014). To avoid maximal muscle activations and unrealistically high reserve actuator forces, muscle forces were multiplied by 3 for all participants. The triceps surae muscles, containing the GM, GL and SOL, were modeled as three separate MTUs, with the tendon representing the Achilles tendon. To ensure a close match between experimental GM muscle fascicle length changes and simulated GM muscle fascicle lengths, we adjusted the normalized tendon stiffness, a scaling factor to calculate GM, GL and SOL tendon stiffness based on the ratio between maximal isometric force and tendon slack length, to a value of 5 for all participants. As such, neither average contraction velocity (P>0.24) nor contraction range during ground contact (P>0.19) of our simulated GM muscle fascicle length changes were different from our experimental muscle fascicle length changes (Fig. 1). Gerus et al. (2015) previously stated that the Achilles tendon is more compliant than the generic tendon stiffness as described by Zajac (1989). We tested multiple other values (ranging from 4 to 35), where 5 gave the best match. The normalized stiffness for all other muscles was kept to the default value of 35. Joint torques served as inputs to solve the muscle redundancy problem by minimizing the squared muscle activation. We solved the dynamic optimization problem through direct collocation using GPOP-II software (Patterson and Rao, 2014). Subsequently, the resulting nonlinear equations were solved using ipopt (Wächter and Biegler, 2006). In nine out of the 154 ground contacts analysed, the optimization algorithm failed to find an optimal solution; these strides were excluded.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Simulated (solid) and experimental (dashed) gastrocnemius medialis muscle fascicle length changes during ground contact. Data are for midfoot/forefoot strikers (A,B; n=10) and rearfoot strikers (C,D; n=9) at 10 km h−1 (A,C) and 14 km h−1 (B,D). Muscle fascicle length changes are normalized to muscle fascicle length at toe-off. Shaded area represents standard deviation.

Next, the simulated muscle states were used as input in four models to estimate muscle metabolic energy rate Ė that are consistent with Hill-based muscle dynamics: Umberger et al. (2003), Bhargava et al. (2004), Umberger (2010) and Uchida et al. (2016). All of these models had the same general form to calculate energy expenditure:Embedded Image (1)where ḢA, ḢM and ḢSL are the heat production rates of the muscles for activation, maintenance and shortening/lengthening, respectively, Ẇ is the muscle mechanical work rate where concentric work is defined positively, and c is a weighting factor depending on the type of work (concentric or eccentric). The major differences between the models are how they treat eccentric muscle work and how they weigh muscle lengthening heat rate. In Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016), negative mechanical work (i.e. metabolic energy generation) is incorporated, whereas Bhargava et al. (2004) and Umberger (2010) are restricted to positive mechanical work only, negative mechanical work is excluded and the lengthening heat rate coefficient is adapted. Apart from these differences, the heat rate calculations have similar terms between the models, though the scaling factors used are different. Activation and maintenance heat rates are generally defined by muscle mass/force, length and fiber type composition whereas shortening/lengthening heat rate depends on muscle contraction velocity. Umberger et al. (2003), Umberger (2010) and Uchida et al. (2016) scale these heat rates by muscle activation, whereas Bhargava et al. (2004) does not. We refer to the specific papers for more detailed information on the models.

Muscle metabolic energy rate was integrated over time to obtain metabolic energy consumption during one stance phase, which was then multiplied by 2 to account for both legs, and multiplied by the stride frequency to obtain metabolic energy rate in Watts. The metabolic energy consumed by the triceps surae muscles was normalized to their respective muscle mass. We computed whole-body metabolic energy expenditure as the sum of metabolic energy consumed by all 43 muscles included in the model and added a basal rate of 1.2 W kg−1 (Waters and Mulroy, 1999). Whole-body metabolic energy consumption was normalized to body mass.

Statistics

All data are presented as means±s.d. We categorized our data into four groups: midfoot/forefoot strike at 10 km h−1 (FF10), midfoot/forefoot strike at 14 km h−1 (FF14), rearfoot strike at 10 km h−1 (RF10) and rearfoot strike at 14 km h−1 (RF14). First, normality was checked with the Shapiro–Wilk test. If data from all groups followed a normal distribution, a mixed ANOVA was used to determine interaction and main effects (foot strike pattern and running speed) using SPSS v.24 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, New York, NY, USA). Yet, if not all the data in the groups followed a normal distribution, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was performed to compare foot strike pattern differences at 10 and 14 km h−1 separately. To determine the effect of running speed for these datasets, the data were first grouped according to running speed and again checked upon normality. If both datasets were then normally distributed, a paired t-test was performed; if not, we performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Statistical significance was considered when P<0.05.

RESULTS

Although mean foot strike angle was more than 15 deg different between both foot strike groups (P<0.01; Table 2), triceps surae metabolic energy consumption was not different between foot strike patterns, regardless of speed or metabolic energy model (P>0.35; Fig. 2). Moreover, metabolic energy consumed by the individual triceps surae muscles, i.e. GM, GL and SOL, was not different between foot strike patterns (P>0.10) regardless of the model used or running speed. Furthermore, estimated whole-body metabolic energy consumption was not different between foot strike patterns regardless of the model or running speed tested (P>0.14; Fig. 3). As one would expect, running faster resulted in greater metabolic energy consumption in the triceps surae muscle group (P<0.01) as well as in all three triceps surae muscles individually (P<0.02). Also, whole-body metabolic energy consumption was greater when running at 14 km h−1 compared with 10 km h−1 (P<0.01).

View this table:
Table 2.

Comparison between midfoot/forefoot and rearfoot strikers and between 10 and 14 km h−1

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Triceps surae metabolic energy consumption including individual muscles: soleus (SOL; black), gastrocnemius medialis (GM; dark grey) and gastrocnemius lateralis (GL; light grey) in midfoot/forefoot strikers (FF, n=10) and rearfoot strikers (RF, n=9) at 10 and 14 km h−1. The following models were used: (A) Umberger et al. (2003), (B) Bhargava et al. (2004), (C) Umberger (2010) and (D) Uchida et al. (2016). Mixed ANOVA or Mann–Whitney U-test demonstrated no significant difference in metabolic energy consumed between foot strike patterns, individual triceps surae muscles (P>0.10) or all three muscles together (P>0.35). Mixed ANOVA, paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated significant greater energy consumption at 14 km h−1 compared with 10 km h−1 (P<0.01).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Estimated whole-body metabolic energy consumption for all four metabolic energy models used for midfoot/forefoot strikers at 10 km h−1 (FF10) and 14 km h−1 (FF14) and rearfoot strikers at 10 km h−1 (RF10) and 14 km h−1 (RF14). The following models were used: (A) Umberger et al. (2003), (B) Bhargava et al. (2004), (C) Umberger (2010) and (D) Uchida et al. (2016). Mixed ANOVA or Mann–Whitney U-test demonstrated no significant difference between foot strike patterns (P>0.14). Mixed ANOVA, paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated a significant increase in energy consumption when running at 14 km h−1 compared with 10 km h−1.

The ratio of metabolic energy consumed by the triceps surae relative to whole-body metabolic energy consumption ranged between 22 and 32% across foot strike patterns and running speeds but was not different between foot strike patterns (P>0.19). In contrast, the different models revealed inconsistent results when the effect of speed on this ratio was considered. While Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016) did not show significant differences in this ratio between running speeds (P>0.07), Umberger (2010) showed a significant greater ratio at 14 km h−1 compared with 10 km h−1 (P=0.01), whereas Bhargava et al. (2004) showed a significant smaller ratio at 14 km h−1 than at 10 km h−1 (P=0.02).

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the effect of habitual foot strike pattern on simulated triceps surae muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption. We used a dynamic optimization approach in which the Achilles tendon stiffness of the musculoskeletal model was adapted to better match experimental GM ultrasound data (Fig. 1). Four different metabolic energy models were incorporated to ensure model independency. In line with our hypothesis, none of the individual triceps surae muscles, nor whole-body metabolic energy consumption, demonstrated significant differences between midfoot/forefoot strikers and rearfoot strikers (Figs 2 and 3). Faster running increased both simulated triceps surae muscle and whole-body metabolic energy consumption. These findings were independent of the metabolic energy model used.

Our results provide additional scientific evidence that midfoot/forefoot and rearfoot strike patterns are energetically equivalent. We recently showed that GM muscle force production is greater while muscle contraction velocity is smaller in midfoot/forefoot strikers compared with rearfoot strikers, especially during early ground contact (Swinnen et al., 2019). Here, we provide further evidence that the greater muscle forces in midfoot/forefoot strikers are more economically produced owing to the lower muscle contraction velocities, and hence no difference in GM, GL or SOL metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns exist. Moreover, previous experimental research already demonstrated that differences in whole-body metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns are small (Ogueta-Alday et al., 2014) or even non-existent (Cunningham et al., 2010; Gruber et al., 2013; Lussiana et al., 2017; Perl et al., 2012). Studies investigating the effect of gait retraining from rearfoot to forefoot strike running did not find an effect on the metabolic energy consumption during running when enough training sessions (eight or more) were offered (Ekizos et al., 2018; Roper et al., 2017). However, when only two training sessions were provided, an initial increase in metabolic cost was reported (Ekizos et al., 2018), indicating the need for habituation. Although it remains possible that more training sessions may further reduce metabolic cost once switched, in general, switching foot strike pattern seems to be ineffective from a performance point of view.

The contribution of the triceps surae to the whole-body metabolic energy rate (i.e. ratio) was also not different between foot strike patterns. However, the effect of running speed was less clear. Two models [Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016)] did not find a speed effect, whereas Umberger (2010) and Bhargava et al. (2004) did find a speed effect, but in opposing directions. With faster running, the relative contribution of joint power/work during ground contact seems to gradually shift more towards proximal joints (i.e. hip), especially at running speeds closer to sprinting (Schache et al., 2015). Hence, if a shift in muscle metabolic energy consumption had occurred, a shift in the same direction as joint power would have been expected, implying a decreased relative contribution of the triceps surae with increasing running speed. However, the difference in running speeds tested in this study was small and our fastest speed did not approach sprinting. Therefore, to better understand the effect of running speed on the distribution of muscle metabolic energy consumption across lower extremity muscles, a wider range of running speeds should be investigated. Moreover, by testing a wider range of running speeds, one could also examine whether triceps surae metabolic energy consumption between foot strike patterns remains similar outside our tested range of running speeds. Faster running speeds would be an especially interesting future direction, as with faster running, more people tend to midfoot/forefoot strike (Breine et al., 2014).

Dynamic optimization allowed us to account for muscle–tendon interactions when estimating muscle states. A good match between experimental and predicted muscle states is crucial for good estimations of muscle metabolic energy. We found that it was important to adapt Achilles tendon stiffness to obtain a close match between simulated and measured GM fiber lengths. Using a generic normalized tendon stiffness value of 35 resulted in negligible length changes of the tendinous tissues and, as a consequence, muscle fascicle length changes were no longer uncoupled from length changes of the entire MTU (Fig. S3). Nevertheless, there is ample experimental evidence that the tendinous tissue interacts with the triceps surae muscles, uncoupling the muscle fascicle length changes from the length changes of the entire MTU (Fukunaga et al., 2002; Lai et al., 2015; Lichtwark and Wilson, 2008), allowing the muscle fascicles to contract at much slower – more force-efficient – velocities, implying lower metabolic energy consumption (Hill, 1922; van der Zee et al., 2019). As a result, predicted triceps surae muscle metabolic energy consumption with the generic stiff tendon was on average 80% higher compared with the adapted Achilles tendon stiffness (Fig. S4). Also, estimated whole-body metabolic energy consumption was on average 23% higher compared with the adapted Achilles tendon stiffness (Fig. S5). The discrepancy between the results based on the generic and adapted tendon stiffness values illustrates the importance of a good match between computed and experimental muscle states to obtain reliable results of muscle metabolic energy consumption. Moreover, the increased metabolic energy consumption associated with the stiff tendon emphasizes the importance of the MTU interaction on the metabolic energy consumption during running.

Although our conclusions are independent of the metabolic energy model used, the wide variability in absolute energy rates between the metabolic energy models is remarkable. Whereas Bhargava et al. (2004) and Umberger (2010) predict whole-body metabolic energy consumption rather close to that from experimental data, whole-body metabolic energy consumption predicted by Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016) is almost twice as high as that experimentally observed (Batliner et al., 2018; Kipp et al., 2018). The major difference is that the Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016) models neglect eccentric work whereas the Bhargava et al. (2004) and Umberger (2010) models account for eccentric work. Instead of accounting for negative work, Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016) reduce the lengthening heat rate coefficient. Our results [lower energy rates with the Umberger et al. (2003) and Uchida et al. (2016) models] illustrate that the reduction of the lengthening heat rate more than offsets the exclusion of eccentric muscle work. Although we seem to have a good understanding of the energy cost of isometric and concentric muscle contractions, the energy cost during eccentric or stretch–shortening muscle contraction is more debatable. It is clear that eccentric muscle work is more efficiently produced compared with concentric muscle work (Hill, 1960), and therefore it appears reasonable to allow eccentric muscle work and muscle lengthening to reduce the metabolic energy consumption rate of a muscle; however, a clear consensus on how to treat eccentric work is still lacking. Also, the energy cost associated with the stretch–shortening of a muscle is still controversial (Holt et al., 2014; van der Zee et al., 2019). Nevertheless, in contrast to the absolute differences, the relative increase in metabolic energy consumption based on all muscle metabolic models when running faster corresponds quite well with the experimental data. Experimental data indicate that increasing the running speed from 10 to 14 km h−1 would correspond with an increase in whole-body metabolic energy consumption of approximately 40 to 45% (Batliner et al., 2018; Kipp et al., 2018). The energy models predict similar increases of 40% (Umberger et al., 2003), 41% (Bhargava et al., 2004), 49% (Umberger, 2010) and 45% (Uchida et al., 2016). In summary, although metabolic energy models do a good job of predicting relative changes, absolute values are not in accordance with experimental data. Therefore, experimental muscle research on how to account for the energy cost of eccentric and stretch–shortening muscle contractions is necessary before recommendations on how to implement these contractions in metabolic energy models can be made.

Our study has some limitations. First, we did not measure Achilles tendon stiffness from our participants and assumed equal normalized Achilles tendon stiffness for all subjects. Kubo et al. (2015) found no difference in Achilles tendon stiffness between foot strike patterns and thus, on average, we can assume equal normalized Achilles tendon stiffness. Midfoot/forefoot strikers are reported to activate their gastrocnemii muscles earlier (Ahn et al., 2014; Swinnen et al., 2019); however, owing to our optimization criteria (i.e. minimization of muscle activation squared), pre-activation of the triceps surae muscles is not predicted. Still, our simulations demonstrate a slightly earlier triceps surae muscle activation in midfoot/forefoot strikers than rearfoot strikers (Fig. S2). Furthermore, musculoskeletal modelling simplifies human anatomy and functionality. For example, our musculoskeletal model lacks a midfoot arch, which has been shown to store and release energy and subsequently reduce the metabolic rate during running (Ker et al., 1987; Stearne et al., 2016). Model parameters describing muscle properties are often derived from cadaver studies and as such may not represent actual muscle properties in healthy men or women. We model the Achilles tendon moment arm as a function of the ankle angle; however, Rasske et al. (2017) demonstrated that Achilles tendon moment arm is also load dependent. Moreover, we only took metabolic energy expenditure during ground contact into account; according to Arellano and Kram (2014), only considering ground contact would lead to an underestimation of 7% of the net metabolic energy expenditure. We used ultrasound data to validate our simulations, and a well-known limitation of ultrasound data is that these 2D images represents a 3D muscle structure, possibly resulting in underestimation of muscle fascicle length changes when there is out of plane muscle movement. Although we seem to have equally trained runners in both groups (Table 1), we did not collect running performance metrics or whole-body metabolic energy consumption and therefore it remains possible that whole-body energy consumption or running performance was still different between our groups.

In conclusion, we demonstrated that – in contrast with the widespread belief in the running community – none of the foot strike patterns induce a reduction in metabolic energy consumption of the triceps surae muscle while running. In agreement with previous experimental research, simulated whole-body metabolic energy consumption was also similar between foot strike patterns. Hence, we conclude that none of the foot strike patterns can be associated with a superior running energetics. However, we looked into differences in metabolic rate during sub-maximal running, an important performance parameter in distance running. It should be noted that for sprinting, energy rate is not as important owing to the short distance/time.

Acknowledgements

We thank Li-Ning for providing the running shoes.

FOOTNOTES

  • Competing interests

    The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

  • Author contributions

    Conceptualization: W.S., B.V.; Methodology: W.S., W.H., F.D.G., B.V.; Formal analysis: W.S., W.H., F.D.G., B.V.; Investigation: W.S.; Writing - original draft: W.S.; Writing - review & editing: W.S., W.H., F.D.G., B.V.; Visualization: W.S.; Supervision: W.H., F.D.G., B.V.; Funding acquisition: W.S.

  • Funding

    W.S. is funded by a PhD fellowship from the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (11E3919N).

  • Supplementary information

    Supplementary information available online at http://jeb.biologists.org/lookup/doi/10.1242/jeb.212449.supplemental

  • Received August 15, 2019.
  • Accepted November 2, 2019.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ahn, A. N.,
    2. Brayton, C.,
    3. Bhatia, T. and
    4. Martin, P.
    (2014). Muscle activity and kinematics of forefoot and rearfoot strike runners. J. Sport Heal. Sci. 3, 102-112. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2014.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Altman, A. R. and
    2. Davis, I. S.
    (2012). A kinematic method for footstrike pattern detection in barefoot and shod runners. Gait Posture 35, 298-300. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.09.104
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Arellano, C. J. and
    2. Kram, R.
    (2014). Partitioning the metabolic cost of human running: a task-by-task approach. Integr. Comp. Biol. 54, 1084-1098. doi:10.1093/icb/icu033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Batliner, M. E.,
    2. Kipp, S.,
    3. Grabowski, A. M.,
    4. Kram, R.,
    5. Byrnes, W. C.,
    6. Physiology, I. and
    7. States, U.
    (2018). Does metabolic rate increase linearly with running speed in all distance runners? Sports Med. Int. Open 2, E1-E8. doi:10.1055/s-0043-122068
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Bhargava, L. J.,
    2. Pandy, M. G. and
    3. Anderson, F. C.
    (2004). A phenomenological model for estimating metabolic energy consumption in muscle contraction. J. Biomech. 37, 81-88. doi:10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00239-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Breine, B.,
    2. Malcolm, P.,
    3. Frederick, E. C. and
    4. De Clercq, D.
    (2014). Relationship between running speed and initial foot contact patterns. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 46, 1595-1603. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000267
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Cavanagh, P. R. and
    2. Lafortune, M. A.
    (1980). Ground reaction forces in distance running. J. Biomech. 13, 397-406. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(80)90033-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Cunningham, C. B.,
    2. Schilling, N.,
    3. Anders, C. and
    4. Carrier, D. R.
    (2010). The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 790-797. doi:10.1242/jeb.038984
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. de Almeida, M. O.,
    2. Saragiotto, B. T.,
    3. Yamato, T. P. and
    4. Lopes, A. D.
    (2015). Is the rearfoot pattern the most frequently foot strike pattern among recreational shod distance runners? Phys. Ther. Sport 16, 29-33. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.02.005
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. De Groote, F.,
    2. De Laet, T.,
    3. Jonkers, I. and
    4. De Schutter, J.
    (2008). Kalman smoothing improves the estimation of joint kinematics and kinetics in marker-based human gait analysis. J. Biomech. 41, 3390-3398. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.09.035
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. De Groote, F.,
    2. Pipeleers, G.,
    3. Jonkers, I.,
    4. Demeulenaere, B.,
    5. Patten, C.,
    6. Swevers, J. and
    7. De Schutter, J.
    (2009). A physiology based inverse dynamic analysis of human gait: potential and perspectives. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 12, 563-574. doi:10.1080/10255840902788587
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. De Groote, F.,
    2. Kinney, A. L.,
    3. Rao, A. V. and
    4. Fregly, B. J.
    (2016). Evaluation of direct collocation optimal control problem formulations for solving the muscle redundancy problem. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 44, 2922-2936. doi:10.1007/s10439-016-1591-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ekizos, A.,
    2. Santuz, A. and
    3. Arampatzis, A.
    (2018). Short- and long-term effects of altered point of ground reaction force application on human running energetics. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb176719. doi:10.1242/jeb.176719
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Farris, D. J. and
    2. Lichtwark, G. A.
    (2016). UltraTrack: software for semi-automated tracking of muscle fascicles in sequences of B-mode ultrasound images. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 128, 111-118. doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.02.016
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Fletcher, J. R. and
    2. MacIntosh, B. R.
    (2017). Running economy from a muscle energetics perspective. Front. Physiol. 8, 433. doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00433
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Fukunaga, T.,
    2. Kawakami, Y.,
    3. Kubo, K. and
    4. Kanehisa, H.
    (2002). Muscle and tendon interaction during human movements. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 30, 106-110. doi:10.1097/00003677-200207000-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Gerus, P.,
    2. Rao, G. and
    3. Berton, E.
    (2015). Ultrasound-based subject-specific parameters improve fascicle behaviour estimation in hill-type muscle model. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 18, 116-123. doi:10.1080/10255842.2013.780047
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Gruber, A. H.,
    2. Umberger, B. R.,
    3. Braun, B. and
    4. Hamill, J.
    (2013). Economy and rate of carbohydrate oxidation during running with rearfoot and forefoot strike patterns. J. Appl. Physiol. 115, 194-201. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01437.2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Hamner, S. R.,
    2. Seth, A. and
    3. Delp, S. L.
    (2010). Muscle contributions to propulsion and support during running. J. Biomech. 43, 2709-2716. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.06.025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Handsfield, G. G.,
    2. Meyer, C. H.,
    3. Hart, J. M.,
    4. Abel, M. F. and
    5. Blemker, S. S.
    (2014). Relationships of 35 lower limb muscles to height and body mass quantified using MRI. J. Biomech. 47, 631-638. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.12.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Hasegawa, H.,
    2. Yamauchi, T. and
    3. Kraemer, W.
    (2007). Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21, 888-893. doi:10.1519/00124278-200708000-00040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Hill, A. V.
    (1922). The maximum work and mechanical efficiency of human muscles, and their most economical speed. J. Physiol. 56, 19-41. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1922.sp001989
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hill, A. V.
    (1960). Production and absorption of work by muscle. Science 131, 897-903. doi:10.1126/science.131.3404.897
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Holt, N. C.,
    2. Roberts, T. J. and
    3. Askew, G. N.
    (2014). The energetic benefits of tendon springs in running: is the reduction of muscle work important? J. Exp. Biol. 217, 4365-4371. doi:10.1242/jeb.112813
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Hoogkamer, W.,
    2. Kipp, S.,
    3. Spiering, B. A. and
    4. Kram, R.
    (2016). Altered running economy directly translates to altered distance-running performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 48, 2175-2180. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Jones, A. M. and
    2. Carter, H.
    (2000). The effect of endurance training on parameters of aerobic fitness. Sports Med. 29, 373-386. doi:10.2165/00007256-200029060-00001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Kasmer, M. E.,
    2. Liu, X.-C.,
    3. Roberts, K. G. and
    4. Valadao, J. M.
    (2013). Foot-strike pattern and performance in a marathon. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 8, 286-292. doi:10.1123/ijspp.8.3.286
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Ker, R. F.,
    2. Bennett, M. B.,
    3. Bibby, S. R.,
    4. Kester, R. C. and
    5. Alexander, R. M. N.
    (1987). The spring in the arch of the human foot. Nature 325, 147-149. doi:10.1038/325147a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Kipp, S.,
    2. Grabowski, A. M. and
    3. Kram, R.
    (2018). What determines the metabolic cost of human running across a wide range of velocities? J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb184218. doi:10.1242/jeb.184218
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Kipp, S.,
    2. Kram, R. and
    3. Hoogkamer, W.
    (2019). Extrapolating metabolic savings in running: implications for performance predictions. Front. Physiol. 10, 79. doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.00079
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. ↵
    1. Koelewijn, A. D.,
    2. Heinrich, D. and
    3. van den Bogert, A. J.
    (2019). Metabolic cost calculations of gait using musculoskeletal energy models, a comparison study. PLoS ONE 14, e0222037. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222037
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Kubo, K.,
    2. Miyazaki, D.,
    3. Tanaka, S.,
    4. Shimoju, S. and
    5. Tsunoda, N.
    (2015). Relationship between Achilles tendon properties and foot strike patterns in long-distance runners. J. Sports Sci. 33, 665-669. doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.962576
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Lai, A.,
    2. Lichtwark, G. A.,
    3. Schache, A. G.,
    4. Lin, Y.-C.,
    5. Brown, N. A. T. and
    6. Pandy, M. G.
    (2015). In vivo behavior of the human soleus muscle with increasing walking and running speeds. J. Appl. Physiol. 118, 1266-1275. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00128.2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Larson, P.,
    2. Higgins, E.,
    3. Kaminski, J.,
    4. Decker, T.,
    5. Preble, J.,
    6. Lyons, D.,
    7. McIntyre, K. and
    8. Normile, A.
    (2011). Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race. J. Sports Sci. 29, 1665-1673. doi:10.1080/02640414.2011.610347
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Lichtwark, G. A. and
    2. Wilson, A. M.
    (2008). Optimal muscle fascicle length and tendon stiffness for maximising gastrocnemius efficiency during human walking and running. J. Theor. Biol. 252, 662-673. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.01.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Lussiana, T.,
    2. Gindre, C.,
    3. Hébert-Losier, K.,
    4. Sagawa, Y.,
    5. Gimenez, P. and
    6. Mourot, L.
    (2017). Similar running economy with different running patterns along the aerial-terrestrial continuum. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 12, 481-489. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0107
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Miller, R. H.
    (2014). A comparison of muscle energy models for simulating human walking in three dimensions. J. Biomech. 47, 1373-1381. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.01.049
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Moore, I. S.
    (2016). Is there an economical running technique? a review of modifiable biomechanical factors affecting running economy. Sport. Med. 46, 793-807. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0474-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Ogueta-Alday, A.,
    2. Rodríguez-Marroyo, J. A. and
    3. García-López, J.
    (2014). Rearfoot striking runners are more economical than midfoot strikers. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 46, 580-585. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000139
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Patterson, M. A. and
    2. Rao, A. V.
    (2014). GPOPS-II. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 41, 1-37. doi:10.1145/2558904
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Perl, D. P.,
    2. Daoud, A. I. and
    3. Lieberman, D. E.
    (2012). Effects of footwear and strike type on running economy. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 44, 1335-1343. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318247989e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Rasske, K.,
    2. Thelen, D. G. and
    3. Franz, J. R.
    (2017). Variation in the human Achilles tendon moment arm during walking. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 20, 201-205. doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1213818
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  43. ↵
    1. Roper, J.,
    2. Doerfler, D.,
    3. Kravitz, L.,
    4. Dufek, J. and
    5. Mermier, C.
    (2017). Gait retraining from rearfoot strike to forefoot strike does not change running economy. Int. J. Sports Med. 38, 1076-1082. doi:10.1055/s-0043-110225
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Schache, A. G.,
    2. Brown, N. A. T. and
    3. Pandy, M. G.
    (2015). Modulation of work and power by the human lower-limb joints with increasing steady-state locomotion speed. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 2472-2481. doi:10.1242/jeb.119156
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Stearne, S. M.,
    2. Alderson, J. A.,
    3. Green, B. A.,
    4. Donnelly, C. J. and
    5. Rubenson, J.
    (2014). Joint kinetics in rearfoot versus forefoot running: implications of switching technique. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 46, 1578-1587. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000254
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Stearne, S. M.,
    2. McDonald, K. A.,
    3. Alderson, J. A.,
    4. North, I.,
    5. Oxnard, C. E. and
    6. Rubenson, J.
    (2016). The foot's arch and the energetics of human locomotion. Sci. Rep. 6, 19403. doi:10.1038/srep19403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Swinnen, W.,
    2. Hoogkamer, W.,
    3. Delabastita, T.,
    4. Aeles, J.,
    5. De Groote, F. and
    6. Vanwanseele, B.
    (2019). Effect of habitual foot-strike pattern on the gastrocnemius medialis muscle-tendon interaction and muscle force production during running. J. Appl. Physiol. 126, 708-716. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00768.2018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. ↵
    1. Uchida, T. K.,
    2. Hicks, J. L.,
    3. Dembia, C. L. and
    4. Delp, S. L.
    (2016). Stretching your energetic budget: how tendon compliance affects the metabolic cost of running. PLoS ONE 11, e0150378. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Umberger, B. R.
    (2010). Stance and swing phase costs in human walking. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 1329-1340. doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    1. Umberger, B. R.,
    2. Gerritsen, K. G. M. and
    3. Martin, P. E.
    (2003). A model of human muscle energy expenditure. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Engin. 6, 99-111. doi:10.1080/1025584031000091678
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. van der Zee, T. J.,
    2. Lemaire, K. K. and
    3. van Soest, A. J.
    (2019). The metabolic cost of in vivo constant muscle force production at zero net mechanical work. J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb199158. doi:10.1242/jeb.199158
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Wächter, A. and
    2. Biegler, L. T.
    (2006). On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Math. Program. 106, 25-57. doi:10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  53. ↵
    1. Waters, R. L. and
    2. Mulroy, S.
    (1999). The energy expenditure of normal and pathologic gait. Gait Posture 9, 207-231. doi:10.1016/S0966-6362(99)00009-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  54. ↵
    1. Zajac, F. E.
    (1989). Muscle and tendon: properties, models, scaling, and application to biomechanics and motor control. Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 17, 359-411.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
Back to top

Keywords

 Download PDF

Email
Research Article
Habitual foot strike pattern does not affect simulated triceps surae muscle metabolic energy consumption during running
Wannes Swinnen, Wouter Hoogkamer, Friedl De Groote, Benedicte Vanwanseele
Journal of Experimental Biology 2019 222: jeb212449 doi: 10.1242/jeb.212449 Published 10 December 2019
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Alerts

Article navigation

Subject collections

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Advertisement

The Company of Biologists commits to the Transformative Journal approach

The Company of Biologists is the first not-for-profit publisher to commit to this approach. The Company's three hybrid journals - Development, Journal of Cell Science and Journal of Experimental Biology - have chosen the 'transformative' route towards Open Access. Find out more in this interview with Claire Moulton, Publisher at The Company of Biologists and on our dedicated Transformative Journals page.

Handing over the reins

Photo of Hans Hoppeler and Craig Franklin

The start of August signals a change for Journal of Experimental Biology as we say a fond farewell to Editor-in-Chief of 25 years Hans Hoppeler and extend a warm welcome to his successor, Craig Franklin.

Minute mecysmaucheniid spider triggers fastest trap-jaws

Research by Hannah Wood shows that Zearchaea spiders use a spring loaded catapult mechanism to slam closed the fastest spider jaws on the planet, at an astonishing speed of 18.2 m s−1.

In the field: an interview with Sandra Binning and Dominique Roche

Photo of Sarah Binning and Dominique Roche

Together, Sandra Binning and Dominique Roche investigate how animals respond to environmental stress. In an interview, they talk about taking their children into the field and keeping safe while working in marine locations.

Surviving anoxia: the maintenance of energy production and tissue integrity during anoxia and reoxygenation

In their Review, Georgina Cox and Todd Gillis use knowledge gained from studies of anoxia-tolerant species to identify common strategies and novel solutions for the challenges of anoxia exposure.