## 3 Results  
The data analysis period resulted in the analysis of 13 \(\pm\) 1, 14 \(\pm\) 1 right steps for the heel/midfoot, and forefoot strike patterns, respectively. No distinct initial impact peaks were observed in any foot-strike method for any participant despite there being clear spatial differences, as shown in Figure 4.  
Mean \(\pm\) SD data for total force-derived variables stride duration, ground contact time, swing time, peak impact force, average loading rate, active peak force, and impulse are presented in Table 1. One-way ANOVA found no significant differences for stride duration (F\({}_{(1.76,17.65)}\) = 1.6, \(p\) = 0.230), ground contact time (F\({}_{(1.85,18.47)}\) = 1.05, \(p\) = 0.365), or swing time (F\({}_{(1.85,18.47)}\) = 0.98, \(p\) = 0.389). There were overall significant differences for peak impact force (F\({}_{(1.63,16.25)}\) = 13.58, \(p\) = 0.0006, Table 1) with forefoot impact being less than heel (\(p\) = 0.024) and midfoot (\(p\) = 0.002) strike patterns; average loading rate (F\({}_{(1.75,17.54)}\) = 14.61, \(p\) = 0.0003), with forefoot being less than heel (\(p\) = 0.009) and midfoot (\(p\) = 0.001) strike patterns; active peak force (F\({}_{(1.36,13.55)}\) = 20.32, \(p\) = 0.0002, Table 1) with the heel being less than both midfoot (\(p\) = 0.023) or forefoot (\(p\) = 0.001), and the midfoot less than the forefoot (\(p\) = 0.006); impulse (F\({}_{(1.11,11.05)}\) = 23.9, \(p\) = 0.0004, Table 1) with the heel being less than the midfoot (\(p\) < 0.0001), and the forefoot (\(p\) = 0.0008), while the midfoot was also less than the forefoot (\(p\) = 0.012) strike patterns. Two-way ANOVA for peak impact identified a strike-pattern*Spatial-zone interaction (F\({}_{(4,40)}\) = 91.12, \(p\) < 0.0001, Figure 5) with a main effect for strike pattern (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 14.14, \(p\) = 0.0001) and spatial zone (F\({}_{(2,20)}\) = 13.37, \(p\) = 0.0002). Within each strike pattern multiple post hoc comparisons (Figure 5A, Table 2) presented increased contribution of the posterior zone compared to either the central or anterior zone (\(p\) < 0.0001) during heel striking; increased contribution of the posterior compared to the central or anterior zones (\(p\) < 0.01) during midfoot strikes; while the anterior zone was greater (\(p\) < 0.0001) than \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Strike Pattern**} \\ \hline  & **Heel** & **Mid-Foot** & **Fore-Foot** \\ \hline  & 0.762 \(\pm\) 0.035 & 0.753 \(\pm\) 0.043 & 0.760 \(\pm\) 0.039 \\ \hline  & 0.257 \(\pm\) 0.018 & 0.253 \(\pm\) 0.012 & 0.253 \(\pm\) 0.015 \\ \hline  & 0.505 \(\pm\) 0.049 & 0.500 \(\pm\) 0.052 & 0.508 \(\pm\) 0.050 \\ \hline  & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 1.37 \(\pm\) 0.34 \\ \hline  & 53.7 \(\pm\) 16.1 & 55.3 \(\pm\) 13.2 & 39.11 \(\pm\) 12.6 \\ \hline  & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 3.04 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.26 \\ \hline  & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline \hline  & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean \(\pm\) SD spatiotemporal and kinetic variables generated from total force for each strike pattern. Figure 4: Plantar force traces from participant 10 for total, posterior, central, and anterior zones whilst using (**A**) heel, (**B**) midfoot, and (**C**) forefoot strike pattern. either the central or posterior zones during forefoot strikes. Between strike pattern comparisons for the major zone of force contribution showed that the posterior zone in heel strikes was greater than the posterior in the midfoot or anterior zone in the forefoot strikes (\(p\) < 0.0001). From a contribution perspective, the Mean \(\pm\) SD (%) values for posterior, central and anterior zones were heel strikes--81 \(\pm\) 13, 16 \(\pm\) 11, 3 \(\pm\) 3; midfoot strikes--49 \(\pm\) 19, 29 \(\pm\) 11, 21 \(\pm\) 10; and forefoot strikes--9 \(\pm\) 15, 28 \(\pm\) 9, 63 \(\pm\) 17, respectively (Figure 5C).