I just going to leave this one there with no commentary…
Is changing footstrike pattern beneficial to runners?
Joseph Hamill & Allison H. Gruber
Journal of Sport and Health Science; 28 February 2017
Some researchers, running instructors, and coaches have suggested that the “optimal” footstrike pattern to improve performance and reduce running injuries is land using a mid/forefoot strike. Thus, it has been recommended that runners, who use a rearfoot strike, would benefit by changing their footstrike although there is little scientific evidence for suggesting such a change. The rearfoot strike is clearly more prevalent. The major reasons often given for changing to a mid/forefoot strike are: 1) it is more economical; 2) there is a reduction in the impact peak and loading rate of the vertical component of the ground reaction force; and 3) there is a reduction in the risk of a running-related injuries. In this paper, we critique these 3 suggestions and provide alternate explanations that may provide contradictory evidence for altering one’s footstrike pattern. We have concluded, based on examining the research literature, that changing to a mid/forefoot strike does not improve running economy, does not eliminate an impact at the foot-ground contact, and does not reduce the risk of running-related injuries.
As always, I go where the evidence takes me until convinced otherwise …. and that evidence shows: “that changing to a mid/forefoot strike does not improve running economy, does not eliminate an impact at the foot-ground contact, and does not reduce the risk of running-related injuries.”
Hamill, J., & Gruber, A. (2017). Is changing footstrike pattern beneficial to runners? Journal of Sport and Health Science DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.02.004