ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Physiol.
Sec. Integrative Physiology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1660803
This article is part of the Research TopicMechanical Forces in Health and Disease: A Mechanobiological PerspectiveView all 8 articles
Pressure-Pain Thresholds of the Plantar Foot reflect Relative Tissue Thickness and are Systematically Higher in Active Runners than Non-Runners
Provisionally accepted- 1Podiatry Professionals, Canberra, Australia
- 2Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia
- 3QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia
- 4Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- 5Universitatsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: This study evaluated topographical pressure-pain sensitivity maps of the plantar foot in competitive distance runners and non-runners, and explored the relationship between pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) and skin and subcutaneous tissue morphology. Methods: Mechanical PPTs were measured in 23 competitive distance runners (age, 39.7±12.0 years) and an equivalent number of healthy non-runners (age, 36.6±10.1 years). PPTs were determined, bilaterally, at the plantar calcaneal area (PCA), Abductor Hallucis muscle belly (ABH), plantar metatarsal area of the first (1MH), third (3MH), and fifth (5MH) metatarsal heads, Abductor Digiti Minimi muscle belly (ADM), and the Abductor Pollicis Brevis muscle belly (THE) of the corresponding hand. Skin and subcutaneous tissue thickness at each site was measured using B-mode ultrasound. Between-group differences in PPT and tissue thickness were assessed using three-way repeated-measures ANOVA. Relationships between PPTs and tissue thickness were explored using nonlinear regression, with tissue thickness as the independent variable. Akiake's Information Criterion was used to assess logit and polynomial fits (linear, quadratic and cubic). Results: Mean PPT values in runners were 24% higher than those of non-runners across all sites (F=4.6, P=.038). Pain sensitivity varied across the plantar surface of the foot in both groups (F=82.5, P<.001). PPTs at the PCA were higher (range, 18.6–31.7 kPa) and the ABH lower (range, -31.7−-6.2 kPa) than those at all other foot sites (P<.05). Similarly, mean PPT measured at the THE was significantly lower than all foot sites (range, -36.9 − -5.1 kPa). Runners presented with significantly thinner tissues than non-runners (F=14.1, P=.016) at the PCA (-1.5mm [-2.8,-0.2], P<.05), 1MH (-1.0mm [-2.0,-0.1], P<.05), and ADM (-1.4mm [-2.6,-0.2], P<.05). The relationship between PPT and tissue thickness was best described by a logit function in runners and non-runners (R2, 88-95%). Normalization of PPT values to the THE, mitigated the bias in PPTs between groups without altering the shape of the logit function. Conclusion: Endurance runners present with lower sensitivity to mechanical pain than non-runners, despite thinner plantar tissues. Topographical variation in PPTs across the foot sole can be effectively modeled as a function of relative tissue thickness. The hypoalgesic bias in runners likely reflects differences in centrally-mediated pathways.
Keywords: Dolorimetry, algometer, pain sensitivity, Foot Sole, Perception, TissueThickness, somatosensory
Received: 06 Jul 2025; Accepted: 25 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Game, Walsh, Stevenson, Klingler and Wearing. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Scott Wearing, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.