Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Comparison of intrinsic foot muscle morphology and isometric strength among runners with different strike patterns

  • Zhen Wei,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Jingjing Liao,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology

    Affiliation Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Xiaomei Hu,

    Roles Data curation, Methodology

    Affiliation Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Pan Li,

    Roles Data curation, Methodology

    Affiliation Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China

    ⨯
  • Lin Wang

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision

    wanglin@sus.edu.cn

    Affiliation Key Laboratory of Exercise and Health Sciences, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China

    ⨯

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the intrinsic foot muscle (IFM) morphology and isometric strength among runners with habitual rearfoot strike (RFS) and non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) patterns. A total of 70 recreational male runners were included in this study (32 RFS and 38 NRFS), an ultrasound device and hand-held dynamometry were used to measure IFM morphology and isometric strength. Results indicated that the RFS runners had significantly thicker tibialis anterior (P = 0.01, ES = 0.64, 95% CI [0.01–0.07]) in IFMs morphology and higher Toe2345 flexion strength in IFMs strength (P = 0.04, ES = 0.50, 95% CI [0.01–0.27]) than NRFS runners, the cross-sectional area of flexor digitorum brevis was positively correlated with T2345 flexion strength (r = 0.33, p = 0.04), T12345 (r = 0.37, p = 0.02) and Doming (r = 0.36, p = 0.03) for runners with NRFS. IFMs morphology and isometric strength were associated with foot strike pattern, preliminary findings provide new perspectives for NRFS runners through the simple measurement of IFMs morphological characteristics predicting IFMs strength, future studies could adopt IFMs training to compensate the muscle strength defects and prevent foot-related injuries.

Citation: Wei Z, Liao J, Hu X, Li P, Wang L (2023) Comparison of intrinsic foot muscle morphology and isometric strength among runners with different strike patterns. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645

Editor: Roxana Ramona Onofrei, Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Victor Babes din Timisoara, ROMANIA

Received: February 5, 2023; Accepted: May 22, 2023; Published: June 2, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Wei et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: We would like to express our gratitude to the Scientific Research Program of Shanghai University of Sport [2022XJ003], which helped us during study design, data collection, analysis and preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Running is one of the most popular and inexpensive form of recreational physical activities. Unfortunately, up to 79.3% of runners experience lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries [1]. Among the factors contributing to running-related injuries, foot strike patterns (FSPs) are essential factors which have been studied in recent years.

FSP is defined according to the location of the centre of pressure when the foot initially touches the ground. Studies have reported that 75% of FSP are rearfoot strike (RFS), 23% are midfoot strike (MFS) and 2% are forefoot strike (FFS) in long-distance runners [2]. In runners with different FSPs, ground reaction force is regulated through the active modulation of the activities of lower limb muscles during running [3, 4]. FFS runners have higher electromyographic (EMG) amplitudes of the medial and lateral gastrocnemii and lower EMG amplitude of the tibialis anterior because of the ankle in plantarflexion when the heel comes into contact with the ground [5]. RFS runners have higher EMG amplitudes of the tibialis anterior because of ankle in dorsiflexion when the heel comes into contact with the ground [6]. For the lower limbs muscle morphology and strength, Gonzales et al [3, 7] revealed that RFS runners have smaller plantar flexion moment, lower tibialis anterior echo intensity, larger tibialis anterior pennation angle and smaller lateral gastrocnemius pennation angle, they established that FSP is associated with lower limb muscle function and architecture.

However, current studies exploring the mechanism contributing to lower extremity injuries have mainly focused on thigh and calf muscles, and knowledge of the role of intrinsic foot muscles (IFMs) is limited [8, 9]. IFMs, categorised as active subsystems in the foot core system, play an important role in running activities, mainly including abductor halluces (ABH), flexor digitorum brevis (FDB), flexor hallucis brevis (FHB) and quadratus plantae (QP). IFMs originate from and are inserted on the foot and consist of four layers of muscles deep to the plantar aponeurosis and may thus act as important shock absorbers, weight support structures and locomotive effectors [8, 10] to support foot arch activity. In addition, IFMs are load dependent, synergistic and modulating, acting like a spring and providing foot stability and flexibility [11, 12].

Numerous studies that have explored significant differences in biomechanics among runners with different FSPs have shown difference in IFMs in transmitting ground reaction force and lever the arms to propel the body during running [13, 14]. Unfortunately, no investigation has compared IFM morphology and isometric strength among runners with different strike patterns and the relationship between morphology and isometric strength. Therefore, the present study aims to explore and compare IFMs morphology and isometric strength between habitual RFS and FFS runners and then to investigate correlation between morphology and strength. We hypothesise that FFS runners would have greater IFMs morphology and isometric strength than RFS pattern and plantar IFM morphology correlated with isometric flexor strength.

Materials & methods

Participants

A total of 70 healthy adult males with no diagnosed history of lower limb musculoskeletal injury or other medical problems in the previous six months volunteered to participate in the study [15, 16]. All participants were long-distance male runners and ran regularly for at least 10 miles per week [3]. Each participant was right-leg dominant (the dominant leg was defined as one’s preferred leg when kicking a ball). A written informed consent was obtained from every participant before the experiments, and this study was approved by the Human Ethics Committee of the Shanghai University of Sport (102772021RT130).

Data collection

Before the test, participants’ height and body mass were measured. We recorded their self-reported running age. A participant’s FSP was verified utilising a video camera according to published articles [17, 18]. Owing to the low occurrence rates of MFS and FFS, we grouped MFS and FFS as non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) [15, 16, 19].

The participants were asked to lie and place their dominant ankle in the neutral position. The morphological properties of the IFMs were assessed with an ultrasound device (Diagnostic Ultrasound System, M7 Super, Mindary, China), which was verified to be reliable in quantifying muscle structures and better understand their contributions to foot function [20]. After applied ultrasound gel on the head of an ML6-15-D probe (10 MHz maximum frequency), we measure the morphological properties of the IFMs according to our previous studies [21]: 1) place the probe at the medial calcaneal tuberosity toward the navicular tuberosity to measure the thickest part of ABH, 2) align the probe longitudinally on the line from the medial tubercle of the calcaneus to the third toe to scan the thickest part of FDB, 3) place the probe longitudinally along the muscle fibers at the talocalcaneonavicular joint to locate the thickest part of QP, 4) marked the first metatarsal, and then place the probe longitudinally along the shaft to capture the thickest part of the FHB, 5) marked 50% of the line connecting fibular head and the inferior border of the lateral malleolus, place the probe longitudinally to capture thickest part of the peroneus longus and brevis (PER), 6) place the probe longitudinally in front of the calf over 20% of the distance between the fibular head and the inferior border of the lateral malleolus to obtain thickest part of the tibialis anterior (TA). For the CSA of selected muscles, based on the location of selected muscles thickness, we rotated probe at 90° to obtain cross-sectional images. Due to the scanning range of the probe, the CSA of the TA cannot be captured completely. Three pictures of each muscle were obtained for statistical analysis. The detailed testing protocol have been published in our previously measurement protocol [21].

In the IFMs isometric strength test, micro hand-held dynamometry (Hoggan health industries, Draper, UT, USA) with a digital reading of peak force ranging from 3.6 N to 1334.5 N in 0.4N increments was utilised [22, 23]. This tool has been verified to have good to excellent reliability and validity for most measures of isometric lower limb strength and power in a healthy population, particularly for proximal muscle groups [22–25]. After participants performed a 5-minute warm-up on a treadmill at a comfortable and self-selected pace, they were instructed to sit in a chair with 90° flexion of the knee and neutral ankle position to performed the IFMs isometric strength test. Doming test, also known as the short-foot exercise, we placed the dynamometer against the navicular tuberosity, and then instruct the participant to slide the forefoot toward the heel and raise the arch as much as possible without lifting or curling the toes. For the toe flexion strength test (Toe1, Toe2345, Toe12345), the dynamometer was fixed to the front side of the wooden frame, connect the toe to the dynamometer by carabiner, then the participants were encouraged to remain stable and pull as hard as possible for 3 s and then relax the grip according to our published studies [21]. Three successful muscle strength test results were averaged for further statistical analysis.

Data reduction and statistical analysis

LabVIEW software was used in analysing the original strength data (CSV files). For the toe flexion strength (Toe1, Toe2345, Toe12345), the automatic calculation option in the calculation list was used in calculating the peak strength. As for the doming strength, the manual calculation option was selected, then the movable 0.5 s window in the shape of a plateau was manually adjusted for the calculation of the average force. To minimise the effects of different body built, IFMs morphology and isometric strength were all normalised by body weight [26].

All dependent variables were presented as mean and standard deviation (SD). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test the normal distribution. Independent T-tests was used to compare IFM morphology and isometric strength in runners with different foot strike patterns. We then calculated 95% confidence interval (CI) and Cohen’s d. Pearson correlation were used in calculating the correlation between the cross-sectional area of IFM and isometric strength [27]. With regard to the correlation coefficient, |r| < 0.3 implies weak correlation, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5 suggests low correlation, 0.5 ≤|r| < 0.8 denotes moderate correlation and |r| ≥0.8 indicates high correlation. Significance was set at alpha of <0.05. All statistics were performed using SPSS 22 software (IBM, Armonk, NY).

Results

Of the participants included in our study, 32 participants were verified as habitual RFS (age of 21.8 ± 2.4 years; body height of 177.0 ± 5.5 cm; body mass of 69.8 ± 10.5 kg; running age of 8.0 ± 3.3 years; weekly running mileage of 13.3 ± 6.0 km), and 38 participants were verified as habitual NRFS (age of 20.9 ± 1.7 years; body height of 178.9 ± 6.6 cm; body mass of 73.6 ± 7.9; running age of 5.4 ± 3.8 years; weekly running mileage of 19.7 ± 14.4 km).

On the thickness and cross-sectional area of IFMs, although no significant difference was found for the ABH, FDB, QP and FHB, we found RFS runners had significantly thicker tibialis anterior (p = 0.01, ES = 0.64, 95% CI [0.01–0.07]) (Table 1). The results of the muscle strength test revealed that RFS runners had significant higher toe flexion strength in Toe2345 (p = 0.04, ES = 0.50, 95% CI [0.01–0.27]). No significant differences in Toe1, Toe12345 and doming test were found (Table 2).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Comparison of the IFMs morphology of RFS and NRFS runners.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Comparison of the IFMs isometric strength of RFS and NRFS runners.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645.t002

No significant correlation was found between the IFMs cross-sectional area and isometric strength in RFS runners. However, in runners with NRFS patterns, the cross-sectional area of the FDB was positively correlated with Toe2345 flexion strength (r = 0.33, p = 0.04), Toe12345 (r = 0.37, p = 0.02) and doming test (r = 0.36, p = 0.03; Fig 1; Table 3).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Correlation coefficient of FDB CSA and IFMs strength for NRFS runners.

FDB: flexor hallucis brevis; CSA: cross-sectional area; IFMs: intrinsic foot muscles; T2345: Toe2345 flexion strength; T12345: Toe12345 flexion strength.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Correlation coefficient of IFMs cross-sectional area and isometric strength.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645.t003

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare IFM morphology and isometric strength between habitual RFS and NRFS runners and then to investigate the correlation between morphology and isometric strength. In partial support of the hypothesis, our study found IFMs morphology and isometric strength are correlated and associated with foot strike pattern.

In the current study, although we did not observe any difference in plantar muscles, we found that the tibialis anterior in RFS runners was significantly thicker than that in NRFS runners. Given that the ankle was in dorsiflexion when the heel comes into contact with the ground in RFS runners [5], the EMG amplitudes of the dorsiflexor muscles, such as the tibialis anterior, were higher to absorb impact force than those in NRFS runners [6], the biomechanical characteristics of RFS runners may explain their thicker tibialis anterior. As for other anatomy parameters, our findings were inconsistent with those presented by Gonzales et al [3], who reported no differences in the fascicle length, cross-sectional area and subcutaneous fat thickness of the tibialis anterior among runners with different foot strike patterns. On plantar muscle morphology, the thickness and cross-sectional area of IFMs were smaller than those of the thigh and calf muscles, and the IFMs were covered by plantar fascia, which prevented ultrasound devices from detecting slight changes in foot muscles [9, 28]. Further, Taddei et al [29, 30] proposed that the ABH, FDB and FHB have various origins and insertions, and four layers of IFMs as local stabilisers increase the difficulty of distinguishing them.

Although hand-held dynamometry was verified to have high reliability and validity in assessing IFM strength [31–33], few studies have explored difference in IFM isometric strength among runners with different foot strike patterns. Given that FFS runners have a higher mean MVC plantarflexion strength than RFS runners in stochastic cluster analysis [34], FFS runners have significantly lower RMS activity in the tibialis anterior during the terminal swing phase and significantly greater RMS activity in the terminal swing phase [6]. Hence, we speculated that NRFS runners have larger IFM isometric strength than RFS runners. Unfortunately, the results of IFM isometric strength seem to contradict our research hypothesis. We found that RFS runners had significant higher toe flexion strength in Toe2345 than NRFS runners. A possible interpretation for this conflicting result is that NRFS runners mainly absorb and buffer a larger ground reaction force through their stronger calf muscles when their feet touch the ground, relatively small adaptation in IFMs seem insufficient to result in significant difference. For RFS runners, the strength of the tibialis anterior muscle is insufficient, runners need IFMs to produce propulsion force, push the body forward and increase the spring effect of the foot arch [12, 35, 36]. Owing to the absence of related studies, this assumption still needs to be confirmed by more rigorous study in the future.

According to the results of correlation between IFMs cross-sectional area and toe flexor strength, we speculated FDB may act as an important muscle positively correlated to Toe2345, Toe12345 and Doming among NRFS runners when their feet touch on the ground. The results are consistent with previous studies, which have reported that foot morphological characteristics can effectively predict foot muscle strength [37] and suggested the use of specific foot muscle training sessions to improve foot ability and prevent foot injury. The FDB is the most superficial among the plantar muscles [8, 11], and thus it has become the main focus in the fields of sports science and rehabilitation. Jacob et al [38] combined anthropometrical and plantar pressure data and revealed that FDB muscles can exert a force approximately 13% of body weight during the propulsive phase of walking. A similar EMG study has reported a small amount of activity in abductor hallucis and FDB during relaxed standing and significant increase in activity at increased postural demands [39]. Mann et al [40] demonstrated that the abductor hallucis and FDB are active during the stance phase of gait and continued until toe off. Our previous systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that IFM training can exert positive biomechanical effects on the medial longitudinal arch and improve dynamic postural balance. Combing with the results of correlation between FDB size and strength among NRFS runners in the current study, we suggest that sports enthusiasts, especially NRFS runners, could adopt IFM strength exercises to increase the function of FDB shock absorbers and locomotive effectors.

The present study has several limitations. First, owing to the scanning range of the probe, the CSA of the TA cannot be captured completely. Second, although the participants were instructed to sit in standard position during isometric strength test, which seem hardly to eliminate the contribution of extrinsic muscles in the plantar region. Additionally, only male population was included in our study, future studies should also employ female and utilizing advanced technology to gain more insights into the musculature and strength of the foot.

Conclusions

IFMs morphology and isometric strength were associated with foot strike pattern, preliminary findings provide new perspectives for NRFS runners through the simple measurement of IFMs morphological characteristics predicting IFMs strength, future studies could adopt IFMs training to compensate the muscle strength defects and prevent foot-related injuries.

Supporting information

S1 File. Raw data of main figures and tables used in this study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286645.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the kind participation of all the subjects.

References

  1. 1. van Gent RN, Siem D, van Middelkoop M, van Os AG, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Koes BW. Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: A systematic review. Br J Sports Med, 2007; 41(8): 469–480. pmid:17473005
  2. 2. Hasegawa H, Yamauchi T, Kraemer WJ. 2007. Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J Strength Cond Res, 2007; 21(3): 888–893. pmid:17685722
  3. 3. Gonzales JM, Galpin AJ, Montgomery MM, Pamukoff DN. Comparison of lower limb muscle architecture and geometry in distance runners with rearfoot and forefoot strike pattern. J Sport Sci, 2019; 37(19): 2184–2190. pmid:31170885.
  4. 4. Ceyssens L, Vanelderen R, Barton C, Malliaras P, Dingenen B. Biomechanical risk factors associated with running-related injuries: a systematic review. Sports Med, 2019; 49(7), 1095–1115. pmid:31028658.
  5. 5. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M., Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D’Andrea S Davis IS, et al. 2010. Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature, 2010; 463(7280): 531–535. pmid:20111000.
  6. 6. Yong JR, Silder A, Delp SL. Differences in muscle activity between natural forefoot and rearfoot strikers during running. J Biomech, 2014; 47(15): 3593–3597. PMC4301610. pmid:25458201
  7. 7. Lieberman DE. What we can learn about running from barefoot running: An evolutionary medical perspective. Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 2012; 40(2): 63–72. pmid:22257937.
  8. 8. McKeon PO, Hertel J, Bramble D, Davis I. The foot core system: A new paradigm for understanding intrinsic foot muscle function. Br J Sports Med, 2015; 49(5): 290–290. pmid:24659509.
  9. 9. Wei Z, Zeng Z, Liu M, Wang L. Effect of intrinsic foot muscles training on foot function and dynamic postural balance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One, 2022; 17(4): e0266525. pmid:35442981.
  10. 10. McKeon PO, Fourchet F. Freeing the foot: integrating the foot core system into rehabilitation for lower extremity injuries. Clin Sport Med, 2015; 34(2), 347–361. pmid:25818718.
  11. 11. Soysa A, Hiller C, Refshauge K, Burns J. Importance and challenges of measuring intrinsic foot muscle strength. J Foot Ankle Res, 2012; 5(1): 29. pmid:23181771
  12. 12. Holowka NB, Richards A, Sibson BE, Lieberman DE. The human foot functions like a spring of adjustable stiffness during running. J Exp Biol, 2021; 224(Pt 1). pmid:33199449.
  13. 13. Seneli RM, Beschorner KE, O’Connor KM, Keenan KG, Earl-Boehm JE, Cobb SC. Foot joint coupling variability differences between habitual rearfoot and forefoot runners prior to and following an exhaustive run. J Electromyogr Kines, 2021: 102514. pmid:33476861
  14. 14. Welte L, Kelly LA, Lichtwark GA, Rainbow M J. Influence of the windlass mechanism on arch-spring mechanics during dynamic foot arch deformation. J R Soc Interface, 2018; 15(145): 20180270. pmid:30111662
  15. 15. Wei Z, Li JX, Fu W, Wang L. Plantar load characteristics among runners with different strike patterns during preferred speed. J Exerc Sci Fit, 2020; 18(2): 89–93. pmid:32636890
  16. 16. Wei Z, Zhang Z, Jiang J, Zhang Y, Wang L. Comparison of plantar loads among runners with different strike patterns. J Sports Sci, 2019; 37(18): 2152–2158. pmid:31138012
  17. 17. Cheung R, An WW, Au I, Zhang JH, Chan Z, Man A, et al. Measurement agreement between a newly developed sensing insole and traditional laboratory-based method for footstrike pattern detection in runners. Plos One, 2017; 12(6): e0175724. pmid:28599003
  18. 18. Lai YJ, Chou W, Chu IH, Wang YL, Lin YJ, Tu SJ, et al. Will the foot strike pattern change at different running speeds with or without wearing shoes? Int J Environ Res, 2020; 17(17): 6044. pmid:32825222
  19. 19. Rooney BD, Derrick TR. Joint contact loading in forefoot and rearfoot strike patterns during running. J Biomech, 2013, 46(13): 2201–2206. pmid:23910541
  20. 20. Crofts G, Angin S, Mickle KJ, Hill S, Nester CJ. Reliability of ultrasound for measurement of selected foot structures. Gait Posture, 2014, 39(1): 35–39. pmid:23791782
  21. 21. Lai ZQ, Hu XY, Xu L, Dong K, Wang L. Evaluating the function of the foot core system in the elderly. J Vis Exp, 2022, 181. pmid:35343964
  22. 22. Jackson SM, Cheng MS, Smith AR, Kolber MJ. Intrarater reliability of hand held dynamometry in measuring lower extremity isometric strength using a portable stabilization device. Musculoskel Sci Prac, 2017; 27:137–141. pmid:27476066
  23. 23. Mentiplay BF, Perraton LG, Bower KJ, Adair B, Pua YH, Williams GP, et al. Assessment of lower limb muscle strength and power using hand-held and fixed dynamometry: a reliability and validity study. Plos One, 2015: 10(10): e0140822. pmid:26509265
  24. 24. Ridge ST, Myrer JW, Olsen MT, Jurgensmeier K, Johnson AW. Reliability of doming and toe flexion testing to quantify foot muscle strength. J Foot Ankle Res, 2017: 10(1): 55. pmid:29234467
  25. 25. Spink M J, Fotoohabadi MR, Menz HB. Foot and ankle strength assessment using hand-held dynamometry: Reliability and age-related differences. Gerontology, 2010: 56(6): 525–532. pmid:19955706
  26. 26. Okamura K, Egawa K, Ikeda T, Fukuda K, Kanai S. Relationship between foot muscle morphology and severity of pronated foot deformity and foot kinematics during gait: A preliminary study. Gait Posture, 2021: 86:273–277. pmid:33831742
  27. 27. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J. Muscle strength and cross-sectional area in man: a comparison of strength-trained and untrained subjects. Br J Sports Med, 1984, 18(3): 149–157. pmid:6487941
  28. 28. Okamura K, Fukuda K, Oki S, Ono T, Tanaka S, Kanai S. Effects of plantar intrinsic foot muscle strengthening exercise on static and dynamic foot kinematics: a pilot randomized controlled single-blind trial in individuals with pes planus. Gait Posture, 2020, 75: 40–45. pmid:31590069
  29. 29. Taddei UT, Matias AB, Ribeiro F, Bus SA, Sacco I. Effects of a therapeutic foot exercise program on injury incidence, foot functionality and biomechanics in long-distance runners: Feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther Sport, 2018, 34: 216–226. pmid:30388670
  30. 30. Taddei UT, Matias AB, Ribeiro F, Inoue RS, Bus SA, Sacco I. Effects of a foot strengthening program on foot muscle morphology and running mechanics: A proof-of-concept, single-blind randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther Sport, 2020, 42: 107–115. pmid:31962191
  31. 31. Tourillon R, Gojanovic B, Fourchet F. How to evaluate and improve foot strength in athletes: an update. Front Sports Act Liv, 2019, 1, 46. pmid:33344969
  32. 32. Arnold JB, Halstead J, Grainger AJ, Keenan AM., Hill CL, Redmond AC. Foot and leg muscle weakness in people with midfoot osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res, 2021, 73(6): 772–780. pmid:32170831
  33. 33. Spink MJ, Fotoohabadi MR, Wee E, Hill KD, Lord SR, Menz HB. Foot and ankle strength, range of motion, posture, and deformity are associated with balance and functional ability in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehab, 2011, 92(1): 68–75. pmid:21187207
  34. 34. Liebl D, Willwacher S, Hamill J, Brüggemann GP. Ankle plantarflexion strength in rearfoot and forefoot runners: A novel clusteranalytic approach. Hum Movement Sci, 2014, 35:104–120. pmid:24746605
  35. 35. Riddick R, Farris DJ, Kelly LA. The foot is more than a spring: human foot muscles perform work to adapt to the energetic requirements of locomotion. J R Soc Interface, 2019, 16(150): 20180680. pmid:30958152
  36. 36. Farris DJ, Birch J, Kelly L. Foot stiffening during the push-off phase of human walking is linked to active muscle contraction, and not the windlass mechanism. J R Soc Interface, 2020, 17(168): 20200208. pmid:32674708
  37. 37. Xiao S, Zhang X, Deng L, Zhang S, Cui K, Fu W. Relationships between foot morphology and foot muscle strength in healthy adults. Int J Environ Res, 2020, 17(4): 1274 pmid:32079188
  38. 38. Jacob HA. Forces acting in the forefoot during normal gait—An estimate. Clin Biomech, 2001, 16(9): 783–792. pmid:11714556
  39. 39. Kelly LA, Kuitunen S, Racinais S, Cresswell AG. Recruitment of the plantar intrinsic foot muscles with increasing postural demand. Clin Biomech, 2012, 27(1): 46–51. pmid:21864955
  40. 40. Mann R, Inman VT. Phasic activity of intrinsic muscles of the foot. J Bone Joint Surg, 1964, 46: 469–481. pmid:14131426