The basic demographics of habitually unshod and shod runners.

<p>Note: Mean±Standard Deviation; BMI-body mass index.</p><p>The basic demographics of habitually unshod and shod runners.</p

A. The peak pressure of bound and normal feet in different anatomical parts (* indicates that significance exists between bound and normal feet, p<0.05.).

<p><b>B. The contact area of bound and normal feet in different anatomical parts</b> (* indicates significance exists between bound and normal feet, p<0.05.). <b>C. The force time integral (impulse) of bound feet and normal feet in different anatomical parts</b> (* indicates significance between bound and normal feet, p<0.05.).</p

The morphology of bound feet (left: bottom view; right: medial view, the two red lines are the loading parts of bound feet during locomotion.)

<p>The morphology of bound feet (left: bottom view; right: medial view, the two red lines are the loading parts of bound feet during locomotion.)</p

The center of pressure (CoP) trajectory of bound feet (left) and normal feet (right) (ICP represents Initial Contact Phase, FFCP represents Forefoot Contact Phase, FFP represents Flat Foot Phase and FFPOP represents Forefoot Push Off Phase; the circle indicates the location of CoP while stance phase.)

<p>The center of pressure (CoP) trajectory of bound feet (left) and normal feet (right) (ICP represents Initial Contact Phase, FFCP represents Forefoot Contact Phase, FFP represents Flat Foot Phase and FFPOP represents Forefoot Push Off Phase; the circle indicates the location of CoP while stance phase.)</p

The CoP progression velocity in anterior-posterior direction and stance time.

<p>Note: * indicates that there is a significant difference.</p><p>The CoP progression velocity in anterior-posterior direction and stance time.</p

A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).

<p>A-The mean value of Hallux Angle (HA = 10.3±5.4 & HA’ = 3.42±3.5) (Fig 3-A), B-minimal Distance (D = 5.98±5.8 & D’ = 21.71±12.1) (Fig 3-B) and C-the correlation between the hallux angle value and the minimal distance with habitually shod feet (R2 = 0.057) and unshod feet (R2 = 0.182) (Fig 3-C).</p

The dorsal view of foot surface data, length (length’), width (width’), minimal distance (distance’) and HA (hallux angle, HA’).

<p>Three landmarks were drawn to connect line A-B (A’-B’) and line B-C (B’-C’), with A (A’) in medial calcaneous, B (B’) in the head of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and C (C’) in the hallux.</p

Table1_Rethinking running biomechanics: a critical review of ground reaction forces, tibial bone loading, and the role of wearable sensors.docx

This study presents a comprehensive review of the correlation between tibial acceleration (TA), ground reaction forces (GRF), and tibial bone loading, emphasizing the critical role of wearable sensor technology in accurately measuring these biomechanical forces in the context of running. This systematic review and meta-analysis searched various electronic databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect) to identify relevant studies. It critically evaluates existing research on GRF and tibial acceleration (TA) as indicators of running-related injuries, revealing mixed findings. Intriguingly, recent empirical data indicate only a marginal link between GRF, TA, and tibial bone stress, thus challenging the conventional understanding in this field. The study also highlights the limitations of current biomechanical models and methodologies, proposing a paradigm shift towards more holistic and integrated approaches. The study underscores wearable sensors’ potential, enhanced by machine learning, in transforming the monitoring, prevention, and rehabilitation of running-related injuries.</p