Research into barefoot versus shod running or its near twin, forefoot versus rearfoot striking, continues to flood the scientific journals. That doesn’t mean that all reach startling conclusions. Science moves slowly, in fits and starts and even reversals.

Ways to Make Running This Winter More Enjoyable, published in How to Adjust Your Run Schedule After a Big Race, sought to determine if a change in footstrike might help those who suffer from lower back pain, a major health issue for runners and nonrunners alike. The researchers hypothesized that a change from rearfooting to forefooting might decrease lumbar lordosis, a potential pain trigger. It didn’t, at least not enough for them to support their hypothesis. Forefooting “did not make a difference in the amount of flexion or extension in which the lumbar spine was positioned,” they wrote.

Rearfooting did produce more shock throughout the body, possibly due to the longer stride often used by rearfoot runners. (The paper did not report stride lengths of its subjects.) Nonetheless, the subjects reported that they felt more comfortable when running on their heels than on the forefeet. This wasn’t a surprise; 84 percent of the 43 subjects (weekly mileage: 10-15 miles) were rearfooters by habit. And what you’re accustomed to almost always feels more comfortable than something new.

In the experiment, subjects ran barefoot on a treadmill at a self-selected pace after receiving instruction in both rearfoot and forefoot running. They wore instruments that measured shock absorption through the body and movements of the lower spine. They were told to run on their rearfeet or their forefeet, in a randomized order.

The researchers noted that lumbar lordosis is a natural, shock-absorbing mechanism of the human body. “With more lordosis, there is a greater ability to absorb shock,” the wrote. At the same time, “it may be beneficial from an injury-prevention aspect if less impact has to be absorbed.”

As a result, they still believe forefoot running “could help prevent or delay degenerative changes” of the lower back. This paper simply didn’t supply enough data to support or reject that proposition.