## 4 Discussion
The results obtained of greater relative strength in the forefoot vs. rearfoot stride pattern in MS (CI \(-\)15.01, \(-\)2.21; \(p\) = 0.009) could be due to the increase in pressure that occurs in this type of runner together with the decrease in the contact area observed. [PERSON] et al. [45] observed this phenomenon in minimalist runners, and [PERSON] et al. [51] observed it in non-minimalist runners, although they did not observe statistically significant differences between loading in forefoot and rearfoot runners, both agree that forefoot runners have increased strength in this segment of the foot, leading to a risk of injurysuch as metatarsal fractures. Other authors have found contrary situations, including [PERSON] and [PERSON] [34], who explained how contact time and the percentage of relative force applied were closely related, and a decrease in relative force in forefoot runners (and especially in MS) may be related to a possible reduction in stride length and increase in stride frequency [8]. The work of [PERSON] et al. [4] shows that the load was decreased in barefoot forefoot runners compared to those who ran barefoot and rearfoot, allowing for a decrease in the discomfort and mechanical stress that this type of running produces. The use of MS associated with a training programme to change the rearfoot pattern to a forefoot pattern may be effective in reducing a high loading rate, as proposed by [PERSON] et al. [52]. In this sense, the work of [PERSON] et al. [53] also postulates that although the loading rate was higher in the MS vs. CS condition, the combination of this type of footwear (MS) with a specific training programme to change the running pattern over 6 weeks reduces this loading as a tactic to attenuate the high impacts that occur in this type of footwear compared to CS. Based in these authors, runners who want to start in minimalist running should associate the footwear change with specific exercises to avoid increasing the foot load and thus increasing running injuries. Regarding the effect of time during prolonged running, without considering the foot strike pattern, a reduction in peak pressure and an increase in contact area were observed, similar to what has been previously reported by other studies [54; 55]. Most studies that analyse plantar pressure under fatigue conditions observed a change in its distribution between different foot segments, increasing especially in the metatarsal area [54] and in forefoot runners [33; 34; 56], becoming a risk factor for injuries such as metatarsal fractures. If we consider the time\"shoe interaction, the results show a higher magnitude of peak plantar pressure, shorter time, and lower contact area at the end of the run in MS vs. CS. Furthermore, if we take into account that MS also showed higher mean and peak pressure values with a forefoot pattern compared to midfoot/reafoot, it seems that the conjunction of MS and forefoot pattern may justify the incidence of metatarsal injuries in this type of running. However, the literature studying the behaviour of plantar pressure under fatigue and MS conditions is practically non-existent. [PERSON] et al. [36] obtained different results in relation to plantar pressure with MS, finding a reduction in plantar pressure with this shoe, although it seems that these results were due to the effect of the slope inclination on the running surface. More research is needed in minimalist running shoes to observe the behaviour of these shoes during running fatigue. Among the limitations of this study, it could be considered that only runners adapted to running with MS were analysed, so a comparison with runners with no experience in MS could provide relevant information on the effect of adaptation to this footwear type. In relation to the footwear used, this was not standardised, as participants ran with their own (both CS and MS) in order to contribute to the ecological validity of the study and to interfere as little as possible with the running technique [57; 58].