Walking and running are distinct forms of human locomotion and have recently gained widespread popularity as physical activities for health and fitness [1,2]. They are natural and accessible movements suitable for all individuals [3,4]. According to the 2024 Korea Wellness Report, walking and strolling were the most frequently performed physical activities, accounting for 59.1% of responses [4,5]. Outdoor activities such as running, jogging, and hiking ranked third at 33.7%, closely following home training (33.8%). Walking and running are not trends restricted to specific groups or time periods, but are universal activities transcending generations and nations [4,6].

These activities require the coordination of over one hundred skeletal muscles and multiple joints in both the upper and lower limbs, as well as synchronization with other physiological functions such as breathing and cardiac activity [3,7]. Particularly, the method of foot contact with the ground, whether heel, midfoot, or forefoot, affects muscle usage and the magnitude of ground reaction forces. Difference in these footfall patterns during walking and running influence biomechanical responses, yet research focusing on these factors outside of performance contexts remains limited.

This study investigates differences in lower limb joint ROM, muscle activation, and plantar pressure during walking and running according to footfall method. IMU sensors, Paddle pressure sensors, and EMG were used to analyze joint movement and muscle contraction, and to measure foot pressure for assessing weight distribution. Despite the limited sample size, the findings provide insights into biomechanical differences induced by various footfall strategies.

The present findings demonstrate that distinct footfall patterns in walking and running are associated with differing biomechanical characteristics in terms of muscle activation, joint range of motion, and plantar pressure. Although no statistical analyses were conducted, descriptive comparisons suggest that forefoot contact in running results in consistently elevated activation of the tibialis anterior compared to other conditions. This pattern aligns with previous research emphasizing the role of dorsiflexor muscles in decelerating foot contact and controlling ankle kinematics during dynamic locomotion [2,3]. Given that the tibialis anterior is particularly engaged during the initial contact and loading phases of gait, its elevated activation under forefoot conditions likely reflects increased neuromuscular demand required to manage rapid ground contact and propulsion.

Differences in plantar pressure across conditions also reflect variations in load distribution strategies. Heel contact during walking and forefoot contact during running both showed higher peak plantar forces, suggesting a more forceful interaction with the ground surface. These results are consistent with prior work showing that impact transients tend to be greater in heel and forefoot striking than in midfoot contact, potentially increasing the risk of repetitive stress injuries in those regions [7]. In contrast, midfoot contact produced more evenly distributed plantar pressure, which may be associated with greater gait stability and shock attenuation, factors that could be advantageous in rehabilitation settings or for individuals with compromised joint integrity [1].

In terms of joint kinematics, ROM values were generally greater during running than walking across hip, knee, and ankle joints. The increases were most prominent in the sagittal plane, reflecting the biomechanical demands of longer stride lengths, greater ground clearance, and enhanced forward propulsion during running. In particular, ankle dorsiflexion ROM during running reached levels indicative of greater elastic loading potential, which is consistent with running biomechanics that emphasize the stretch-shortening cycle for energy efficiency [8]. Increased motion in the transverse plane, especially in hip rotation and ankle eversion, further indicates the need for multiplanar stability during high-velocity gait.

It is important to contextualize these observations within the limitations of the study. The sample size was small and restricted to a homogenous population of female university students, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, without inferential statistics, conclusions should remain descriptive. Future research should incorporate larger, more diverse cohorts and include kinetic and kinematic modeling to more precisely quantify differences across footfall strategies. Additionally, longterm studies examining adaptations to habitual footfall changes would clarify the implications for performance enhancement, injury prevention, and rehabilitation.

This study examined biomechanical differences in lower limb joint range of motion, muscle activation, and plantar pressure associated with various footfall patterns during walking and running. Descriptive data indicated that heel contact in walking and forefoot contact in running were associated with higher plantar forces. Tibialis anterior showed consistently high activation across conditions, especially during running, reflecting its role in dorsiflexion control during dynamic gait. Joint range of motion was greater in running than walking, particularly in the sagittal and transverse planes, suggesting increased mechanical demands under faster locomotor conditions.

Although the results point to clear differences across footfall types, these observations are exploratory and should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size and absence of statistical testing. Nevertheless, the patterns observed may inform future research on gait retraining, footwear design, and rehabilitation strategies. Continued investigation with broader participant demographics and statistical modeling will be necessary to more definitively determine how specific footfall patterns affect performance and injury risk in different populations.