16/06/2025
It’s often suggested that the “optimal” footstrike pattern to improve performance and reduce running injuries is to land using a mid or forefoot strike.
There is no doubt that there are some runners who benefit from altering their natural footstrike, but which runners and for what reasons need to be examined prior to this change.
The claim that running with a non-rearfoot strike pattern will reduce injury risk currently lacks supporting evidence. So, when considering injury risk and performance, runners need to understand that there are safer and more effective interventions than changing foot strike pattern.
Consistent strength training should be promoted far more amongst runners, as this has been shown to significantly improve maximal sprint speed and time trial performance in endurance runners, as well as reducing the rate of overuse injuries in other athletes.
If you’re curious about the idea, we advise to consult a health professional who has experience working with runners for advice on reducing injury risk specific to their individual circumstances. Uninjured runners considering a transition of strike pattern should do so with the understanding that neither an injury prevention nor performance benefit may result, and those who proceed may face an initial increased injury risk as their body adapts to the change in loading.
In fact, altering your natural running pattern can place stress on tissues not typically used, increasing the risk of secondary injuries. While a midfoot or forefoot strike might help certain individuals, the current evidence suggests it’s generally not advisable for most runners, especially recreational ones.
If it’s something you’ve heard a lot about, but are unsure where to start or who to ask. Click the link in our bio 👣
