8,153
edits
Changes
m
=Foot strike=
no edit summary
Foot strike is the way the foot lands while running, and the best foot strike pattern is both controversial and unclear. It seems likely that other factors beyond the simplistic classifications of forefoot, midfoot or rear foot strike are important, especially [[Cadence]] and [[Overstriding]]. My suggestion is to focus on optimizing [[Cadence]] and reducing [[Overstriding]] rather than directly trying to change your foot strike pattern.
=Foot strike classifications=
The optimum foot strike is unclear given the available evidence.
* While runners can be categorized as RFS, MFS, FFS, in practice runners vary along a spectrum<ref name="Cavanagh-1980"/>.
* There is no difference in running economy [[Running Economy]] between FFS and RFS<ref name="Perl-2012"/><ref name="Cunningham-2010"/>.
* Runners tend to shift from RFS to MFS or FFS as they run faster, with runners becoming predominantly FFS at faster than 4:30 min/mile and predominantly RFS as 5:15 min/mile or slower<ref name="KellerWeisberger1996"/><ref name="NiggBahlsen1987"/>.
* One study found that habitually barefoot endurance runners are predominantly FFS, with some MFS but fewer RFS, though the pace evaluated was quite fast (5:15-4:30 min/mile)<ref name="LiebermanVenkadesan2010"/>. Another study showed that at endurance running speeds, habitually barefoot runners were 83% RFS, 17% MFS and none were FFS<ref name="LuciaHatala2013"/>. At faster speeds, this changed, and at around 5 min/mile pace there were 43% RFS, 43% MFS and 14% FFS, then above 4 min/mile the breakdown changed again to 40% RFS, 60% MFS, and no FFS<ref name="LuciaHatala2013"/>.
* The foot strike patterns of runners were evaluated at an elite half marathon in Japan, and 74.9% were RFS, 23.7% were MFS and 1.4% were FFS<ref name="Hasegawa-2007"/>. For the fastest 50 runners the foot strikes were 62.0% RFS, 36.0% MFS, and 2.0% FFS. This does not indicate what the best foot strike is, but does give some indicate of what foot strike is used by the best runners.
* A study trained 20 runners in the pose method that uses a FFS along with other modifications to the running form [[Running Form]] including a higher [[Cadence]]<ref name="Arendse-2004"/>. The pose method resulted is less vertical movement, which may be the result of the FFS, the higher cadence, or both. The pose method reduced the eccentric load on the knee, but increased it in the ankle compared with MFS and RFS. This suggests that the pose method may help reduce the stress on the knee, but at the cost of additional stress on the calf and Achilles tendon.
* The evaluation of 52 competitive middle and long distance collegiate athletes found that RFS runners were 2.6 times more likely to have a mild repetitive strain injury and 2.4 times more likely to have a moderate repetitive strain injury than FFS<ref name="Daoud-2012"/>.
** The RFS runners had 2-4x the injury rate for injuries that would be expected to come from a RFS than FFS runners. These injuries were hip pain, knee pain[[Knee Pain]], lower back pain, tibial stress injuries, plantar fasciitis[[Plantar Fasciitis]], and stress fractures of lower limb bones excluding the metatarsal.
** The injuries that were expected to be related to FFS were not actually different between FFS and RFS. These injuries were Achilles tendinopathies, foot pain, and metatarsal stress fractures.
** Note that the sample size was small, and some FFS runners had high injury rates while some RFS runners had low injury rates. The overall injury rate was high, with 75% of runners having at least one moderate or severe repetitive stress injury per year. This high injury rate is probably due to the competitive nature of collegiate sports.
* There is no clear evidence that one strike pattern is better than another, but MFS and FFS seem to have lower impact and injury risk than RFS. However, there is a wide variation in impact and injury rates within RFS, so other factors such as [[Cadence]] or [[Overstriding]] may be the underlying cause.
* Be cautious in changing your foot strike pattern, as there is anecdotal evidence of injury associated with the change.
* For RFS runners, increasing [[Cadence]] and reducing [[Overstriding]] may move the strike further forward without requiring a complete change in running form[[Running Form]].
* If you are having calf or ankle problems and you are a FFS runner who does not touch down with your heel, consider a change so that your weight is taken by your heel at some point during the stance phase of running.
* For [[Starting to run| new runners]], I would suggest doing what comes naturally.
* Listen to the sound your feet make as they land, as this can give an indication of biomechanical problems. See [[Running Form]] for more details.
=References=
<references>