# Forefoot Centre of Pressure Patterns in Black Male African Recreational Runners with Pes Planus

## TL;DR

This study examines how pes planus affects foot pressure patterns in Black African male runners, finding unexpected lateral pressure shifts that challenge traditional assumptions.

## Contribution

The study provides novel insights into the biomechanics of pes planus in Black African recreational runners, challenging conventional views of overpronation.

## Key findings

- Lateral displacement of the center of pressure was observed in most participants' right and left forefeet.
- Flexible pes planus was significantly more common than rigid pes planus among participants.
- Load distribution patterns differed between the right and left feet, with distinct preferences for medial and lateral regions.

## Abstract

Background: Pes planus is a condition where the arch of the foot collapses, resulting in the entire sole contacting the ground. The biomechanical implications of pes planus on gait have been widely studied; however, research specific to Black African populations, particularly recreational runners, is scarce. Aim: This study aimed to describe the forefoot centre of pressure (CoP) trajectory during the barefoot gait cycle among Black African recreational runners with pes planus. Methods: A prospective explorative and quantitative study design was employed. Participants included Black African male recreational runners aged 18 to 45 years diagnosed with pes planus. A Freemed™ 6050 force plate was used to collect gait data. Statistical analysis included cross-tabulations to identify patterns. Results: This study included 104 male participants across seven weight categories, with the majority in the 70-to-79 kg range (34.6%, n = 36). Most participants with pes planus showed a neutral foot posture (74.0%, n = 77) on the foot posture index 6 (FPI-6) scale. Flexible pes planus (94.2%, n = 98) was much more common than rigid pes planus (5.8%, n = 6). Lateral displacement of the CoP was observed in the right forefoot (90.4%, n = 94) and left forefoot (57.7%, n = 60). Load distribution patterns differed between feet, with the right foot favouring the medial heel, arch, and metatarsal heads, while the left foot favoured the lateral heel, medial heel, and lateral arch. No statistical significance was found in the cross-tabulations, but notable lateral CoP displacement in the forefoot was observed. Conclusions: The findings challenge the traditional view of pes planus causing overpronation and highlight the need for clinicians to reconsider standard diagnostic and management approaches. Further research is needed to explore the implications of these findings for injury prevention and management in this population.