Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?

Is it true to say that foot strike is somewhat misleading when we are looking at the biomechanics of running? In that someone who makes initial contact with the heel might well be taking most impact through the mid or forefoot. Similarly, one who strikes with the forefoot might actually proceed to impact heavily on the heel. Foot strike might tell us which part of the foot contacts the ground first, but not necessarily about where the loads are greatest.
We see runners who land very much on the forefoot and whose heels hardly contact the ground at all, and others who land on the forefoot but very obviously do collapse on to the heel with some force. Both these runners would be categorised as forefoot strikers, but it seems pointless to pair them in this way given that their running actions are so completely different.

 

There are a couple of points I was hoping might come from this question. Firstly vertical ground reaction force is only one component of the "impact" forces.

Secondly, when we think of impact forces we are talking about collisions between objects, in this case the foot/ shoe with ground. In physics collisions are divided into two periods: a period of compression and a period of restitution. Given that after the spike in the impact peak, the centre of mass continues to accelerate downward toward the earth, at what point does the period of compression stop following initial contact? Is it at the spike at the end of the so called "impact peak" or is it at the peak of the vertical GRF? Since forefoot strike running doesn't have a "spike", where should we measure the beginning and end of the compression and/ or "impact" period?

If we take the "impact" period in the left hand graph below to start at time = zero and end at the apex of the spike in the rearfoot strike runner for forefoot strike running too, then actually the magnitude of vertical ground reaction force is pretty much the same in both groups, I'd say the impulse is pretty much the same too. However if we take the impact period to be from time zero until the centre of mass stops accelerating downward toward the ground, then according to this data, both the peak magnitude and impulse of the vertical component of the GRF is greater in forefoot striking runners.

 

Looks like Brooks is now going the way of Skechers and Vibram, making unsupported claims about the health benefits of their shoes. The phrase"helps prevent injury" is very dangerous these days for shoe manufacturers, especially when it has not a shred of research evidence to support it....may cost 'em millions...just like it is going to cost Vibram.:boxing:

 

Just to give you all a little history on this ground reaction force (GRF) vs time curve that is characteristic only of heel striking runners, originally, the initial high frequency spike that represented the contact of the heel of the shoe with the ground early on in the curve was called the "impact peak" (Cavanagh, Peter R. (ed): Biomechanics of Distance Running. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, Illinois, 1990)and second lower frequency curve that represented the center of mass (CoM) passing over the support phase foot from posterior to anterior was called the "propulsive peak" (Clarke TE, Frederick EC, Cooper LB: Effects of shoe cushioning upon ground reaction forces in running. Int J Sports Med, 4(4):247-251,1983) or "thrust peak" (Cavanagh PR, 1990).

Then, in 1981, Benno Nigg and coworkers offered different names for the two peaks. Nigg and coworkers called the initial spike the "passive peak" because they felt that it was happening so soon after ground contact that the central nervous system (CNS) did not have the time to respond. They called the second peak the "active peak" since he felt the CNS had sufficient time to respond to the GRF in order the magnitude and temporal pattern of the GRF curve (Nigg, B. M., Denoth, J. and Neukomm, P. A.: Quantifying the load on the human body: problems and some possible solutions. Biomechanics VII-B, pp. 88-99, 1981).

Therefore, the initial high frequency peak in the heel-striking GRF vs time curve could be called the "impact peak" or the "passive peak", whereas, the second lower frequency peak could be called either the "propulsive peak", "thrust peak" or "active peak". Just thought that you youngsters out there would like to know a little more about the history of the naming of these GRF events during heel-striking running since by labeling the graph "impact peak" and "active peak", this convention was never used back in the 1980s when force plate data on running was first being researched and discussed within the scientific literature.

 

Not had time to read this yet, but FYI:
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewc...RA#search="forefoot rearfoot strike kinetics"

If you scroll to page 15 there's a paper awaiting submission.

 

We discussed some of those issues in the Chi Running thread, especially this picture:
http://biomechanics.byu.edu/footstrikesmens10k.jpg

These are the best of the best ... the elite .... from the mens 10k USA olympic trials ... look at all the different foot strikes and they all running fast.

Take home message: there is no one best way to run or foot strike.

 

Is this strictly true? I'd suggest that there may be caveats to this. For example, the best way to run the 100m is more than likely with a forefoot strike pattern. We can probably say the same for the 200M and maybe the 400M. But as distance increases and speed decreases the grey area seems to arrive. Thus, it's as metabolic efficiency becomes increasingly important that we see variation in foot strike.

An interesting review here should be to examine all of the world records at all running events and determine strike pattern, although this is just one variable within the complexity.

Or, do we mean best for the individual or best in terms of performance (of that individual)? How do you reckon Bolt would get on if he ran the 100M heel-striking?

What about running environment? For example, uphill versus running downhill? How does the surface angulation influence strike pattern optimisation? Do we reach a certain incline where everyone would forefoot strike going uphill and/ or everyone would rearfoot strike going downhill?

P.S. Get in there Peter Higgs- you are legend.

 

Another caveat would be the issue of overstriding ...

The point I trying to make re that picture of heel strikes is the nonsensical claim that gets made that the better runners forefoot/midfoot strike, so this is the best way to run ...... in that fast 10k, there are plenty of heel strikers running very fast.

I can not run 100m at the speed that they running in that 10km .... even I surprised that anyone in the race was heel striking at that speed, but it clear they were!

 

Does anybody else out there get a wee bit overwhelmed with all the interesting information out there (of which you know you should read) yet struggle to find the time to do so?

I'm struggling! ​

i.e. ...

 

Funny you should mention that. I been looking at that issue today! (there was this thread in which I (as Admin) noted that under Newsbot's username we post an average of 3 bits of new research every day for the day 5 years!) Let alone keeping up with other new content, such as You Tube (did you see the slow mo video's I posted on the USA Olympic trials), whats happening with Twitter etc etc; let alone the social groups that have developed at places like Linkedin etc; let alone .... ... it can get a bit overwhelming....

A new buzzword that is creeping into academia is 'content curation', ie curating the content that is being produced rather than provide the content .... as the content is becoming so great and is becoming overwhelming.

I looking at what options we have to better curate the content, so it is more useful to people, more timely, and NOT overwhelming.

 

Thanks for revealing yet more info... mind boggling. Those U.S Olympic Trails footage was very interesting.

Interesting... I think there is a need for it. After all, as the saying goes... "all work & no play makes Jack a dull boy" (or something like that)... & me thinks I'm becoming dull.

Anyway, my brain is starting to hurt, even my computer is starting to slow down... which makes my brain hurt even more. Hope I don't have a "toomah"...



I need a walk... better still, a run - so I can at least mull over the above material (principles in practice) as well as get some training in.

 

Indeed, this emphasises the point that I was making about the unhelpful categorisation of runners by what part of their foot hits the ground first.
The running media seems to want to decide which is best and consequently runners think they need to know which is best. But there is no best. And even if a study declared that a particular foot strike was better than another, who would that apply to? The study might produce a graphical representation of impact forces that were measured during the study and say this is what happens when you run. But, it's a genralisation; it might apply to the runners in the study, but not necessarily be accurate for even one runner in that study.

What if a study said that 70% of runners are less injury prone if they run forefoot (or heel). The media would report that forefoot (or heel) was better. It's like saying that women are less prone to injury than men therefore everyone should run like women; whatever that means.
But it's not just that either, foot strike does not have neat dividing lines, but it's often treated as if it does. A runner with a marginal heel strike is going to be running rather differently to the runner who's reaching out and landing knee-extended heavily on their heel; yet they are both heel strikers. The latter runner might be reassured to read that heel striking is perfectly ok. Conversely, the runners who believe much of the current reporting that forefoot is best, go out and change from their instinctive style to one that they think is better; then they get Achilles and calf injury.

Returning to the original question of the thread: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best? Whilst it's interesting to examine in various situations, any definitive answer is going to be rather limited in application and misleading for most people.

 

I am staggered at the whole discussion on drop and minimalism to be quite honest.

At what point in time are we.. remembering I work for an athletic footwear company, going to put our collective hands up and ask the question 'how much can shoes do?" And answer honestly..." not much really".
Dang people, footwear is being endowed with magical and mythical properties they simply do not possess. Shoes will not make you a better runner.. not will going barefoot. Shoes will not necessarily change your footstrike pattern.. nor will going barefoot ( and I have the data to support that statement). Running forefoot or midfoot is NOT better than running rearfoot, and vice versa. None of this matters.
is it just me or are other people seeing the disconnect in this.. will one become a better golfer solely by changing ones clubs.. certainly not. One will become much better by practising and getting coaching.
To be a better runner is to practice and to get coaching. It is to develop strength and hone the SKILL of running. it is to learn which muscles are responsible for getting better and faster and it is to develop the aerobic capacity to go further. It may be that moving further forward on the foot helps this, or it may make no difference whatsoever.
Shoes are not a significant part of this at all.
Shoes protect from external dangers, and no matter what Chris McWhistle says, they do exist.
Shoes provide the platform from which the foot must achieve its extraordinary cycle at each step, and are therefore important and necessary.
Shoes probably help to reduce many of the loading patterns and stresses that we assume to be involved in injury. the selection of the appropriate shoe to achieve this end is a case by case assessment.
The only issue of drop is weight, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to show me the data.
Barefoot a cyclic fad, with the next cycle due to commence in 2034
Minimalism has been with us for 100 years under the guise of a different category... 'racing'.
In answer to Graham's question, rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?
the answer is simple.. none.. because it is different for the athlete, the event. And at the end of the day.. where you run, the surface the terrain, how well trained you are, and how well you understand the sport and what makes one an better runner ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, is far more important than foot strike or what shoe one wears..

rant concluded

 

Very glad that Bouche and I finally got you talking like a Yankee....now I can understand you! Please say hi to Rich for me.....you.....you....Tarsal Coalition....:drinks

 

Thanks Simon for putting what I call "logic" to the discussion. And this from someone involved in the footwear industry - some would say you would have a biased opinion (maybe you do) but what you have said here is what I consider the facts and not just anecdotal rubbish

 

Thanks, this is an interesting post.
Firstly, it wasn't my question (rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?), I was just quoting the thread's title and making the point that it's impossible to give a definitive answer because of the variables involved and that any answer is going to misguide plenty of people. I think there other components of running form that are probably more worthwhile addressing for many people who run.

The golf analogy is surprising. The implication that the golf club will not affect the playing standard of the golfer. If the quality of the golfer is measured by the number of shots taken during a round, then certainly the clubs used will affect the quality of the golfer. Different clubs will suit different players just like different shoes will suit different runners.
If I go running in shoes that hurt me, or make my running feel 'wrong', then I'll run slower and probably less. I'll train less, enjoy it less and subsequently, possibly, not even run at all. So shoes do have a massive affect on my running.
The Asics company line seems to be a little different and tells us that aspects of Asics shoes will help improve our running efficiency and assist our feet in propelling us forward.

I'm a little confused about the statement that drop (and I'm assuming this means the height differential between heel and forefoot) is only an issue of weight.
I know that if I select a shoe with a lower drop than normal I will be more likely to feel fatigue and even pain in my calf muscles after a hard run. I don't need data to tell me this because I can feel it; often for days afterwards. I would therefore think that the degree of drop has quite a marked affect on the way the muscles work during running. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the statement, so some clarification would be useful because I do appreciate your expertise and experience.

 

I don't agree with Bartold on this one. Heel height differential isn't only about shoe mass. It also affects the geometry of the shoe and the internal forces acting throughout the foot and lower extremity during running and walking. All one needs to do is look at the kinematic studies of how changes in shoe heel height differential affect gait patterns to make the logical next step in reasoning that even slight changes in shoe heel-height differential can have very significant changes in the kinematics and kinetics of gait.

 

you are missing my point.. a change in drop will not make you forefoot or rearfoot striker.
Nor will a conventional heel elevation necessarily make you a rearfoot striker.
this is what the main proponents of this argument assert.
it is not true.. the main advantage is weight reduction.
As for golf.. if one take a novice golfer and hands him or her the best clubs in the world, it is unlike to improve their game. If they practice and have lessons it is.

 

Graham.. it pains me to say this.. but perhaps i should once more.. for hopefully the last time, point out that i post on Podiatry Arena as a podiatrist and independent researcher with the Universities of Melbourne and Staffordshire.
I have not, and never will, be a representative of ASICS on this forum. The views i post are my own personal view and not in any way related to the company I derive a portion of my income from
If anyone feels I have a conflict of interest which would negatively effect the academic nature of the Arena, please let me know and naturally I shall withdraw from further postings.

best
Simon

 

Simon:

I believe that the heel height differential of the running shoe will influence footstrike location (i.e. heel-, midfoot- or forefoot-striker). We many times see a runner who is a clear heel-striker in traditional running shoes (i.e. 10-12 mm heel height differential) become more of a midfoot striker in a shoe with a low heel height differential.

Of course, heel height differential of the running shoe does not solely determine footstrike location but certainly having a higher heel shoe will tend to make a runner more of a heel-striker and having a lower heel shoe will tend to move their footstrike position more anteriorly on the running shoe.

 

Kevin.. that is not what is being said, although of course I broadly agree with you.

If I take Newton as an example, one is supposedly encouraged to FF strike in this shoe, yet I have a photo of the NY state Newton rep happily heel striking his way around Central Park.

We all know the science behind running shoes.. but we do not make extravagant claims..(for the most part!!) .. the point I am trying to make, and I will not labour it.. is that shoes are being blamed/praised across the board for much more than they deserve

 

Running Shoes do not contribute to injury risk

 

]

I do not agree.. it is completely variable and non systematic. It is totally athlete dependent. Spend some time at the end of a marathon or Ironman looking at this and you will see what I mean...there will be literally hundreds of quality athletes heel striking across the finish line in racing flats. And the question is.. so what? Does this make them a better runner? Is RF MF or FF strike better? According to Hasagawa and more recently Larson.. those athletes that start a race as MF/FF runners finish as RF strikers 'presumably due to fatigue".
So who is to say that MF or FF striking is the gold standard or better. it is not.

it is, as with everything, as case by case event..

 

Simon, apologies for jumping to conclusions.
I think perhaps changing your home page url on your profile might avoid confusion.

 

Simon:

I believe that possibly we are talking around each other here. My point is that the heel-height differential (HHD) of a running shoe will, for each individual runner, have both a kinematic and kinetic effect on their running biomechanics. This means that, all other things being equal, if the runner has a traditional running shoe of 12 mm HHD then they will more likely be a heel-striker while running at a 7:00 minute/mile pace than if this same runner was to wear a running shoe with only a 2 mm HHD and then run at a 7:00 minute/mile pace.

This effect of HHD on footstrike pattern is independent of the effects of fatigue during a race (as you noted) on running kinematics and kinetics and is also independent of the other many factors that contribute to footstrike pattern (e.g. running velocity, ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed, midsole thickness and cushioning and running surface characteristics to name a few).

I think you and I both agree that what determines running footstrike patterns in each runner at each running velocity is multifactorial and is not solely due to shoe HHD geometry. However, I have long believed that shoe HHD is an important factor that clinicians should consider when treating both their athletic and non-athletic patients with foot and/or lower extremity mechanical pathologies since, both from a biomechanical modelling perspective and my clinical observations over many years, shoe HHD can mean the difference between being injured and injury free for many individuals.

 

I have attached a Precision Intricast newsletter that I wrote over 25 years ago where I first introduced the term "heel height differential" in March 1987. The newsletter was subsequently published in my first book (Kirby KA.: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, AZ, 1997). I don't believe the term "heel height differential" had been used within the medical literature before that time.

The March 1987 newsletter was only the fourth Precision Intricast newsletter that I had ever written. The newsletter discusses many important shoe-related design parameters that may affect the biomechanics of the foot and lower extremity. These topics are an important topic of conversation even today. It is interesting to see the terms "oblique midtarsal joint" and "pronation torque" being used in those early days...much has changed in the last quarter century...but much also still remains the same.

 

Yeah, and that avatar of yours could lead some us to believe that you`re running for president

I seriously doubt that any podiatrists here are confused by a link to the ASICS website.

 

OK, heres what you need to do: first build a qualitative model which predicts strike position (SP) and includes all of the variables we think might influence SP. So, for example:

SP = a function of: heel height differential + velocity + a.n.other variable + nth variable

When you've done that you can measure these variables in a population and turn the qualitative model into a quantitative one- simples. The quantitative model will tell you just how important HHD is when all the other variables are taken into consideration.

Lets make a start with the qualitative model. What variables do we believe may influence strike position?

SP= a function of...?

 

At best you probably should have worded the above differently if you didn't want to imply what it appears to state. At worse - if... "the only issue of drop is weight"... then I suppose this would be now the third reasoning so far as for the apparent logic behind the implementation for heel pitch/differential in running shoes... & this reasoning (i.e. weight) would have to be the most moronic of the three.

I agree with Dr Kirby's views on the significance of heel height differential for running shoes... & I'll state further to say that it has been an adverse influence! We do not need it. It is about time it is eventually got rid of - at least to the most, say 4mm (for those who like a figure ).

 

Blinda.. to tell you the truth.. I had no idea there WAS a link.. I sure did not put it there!

 

Mathew:

Saying that, in regards to running shoes with a heel height differential (HHD)of 10-12 mm, "we do not need it" is simply silly. This is no better than saying that we don't need running shoes with, say a 4 mm HHD. Some runners will simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe. Have these traditional HHD running shoes been an adverse influence? I certainly don't think traditional running shoes with a 10-12 mm HHD have been any more adverse influence than any of the "minimalist shoes" with a 0-4 mm HHD. Do you have any research evidence that shows that minimalist shoes are less of an "adverse influence" than are traditional running shoes?

Moving along now....our next goal in problem-solving regarding what makes the best HHD for running shoes should be to find the clinical parameters that allows us to recommend the best running shoes for each of our patients whether it is a 0 mm HHD, a 4 mm HHD or a 12 mm HHD running shoe.

 

Simon:

I know you secretly put the Asics website in your profile hoping that it would influence everyone on Podiatry Arena to buy Asics shoes every time they logged onto Podiatry Arena....another of your Jedi Mind Tricks!!!

 

We do not need it. It is about time it is eventually got rid of - at least to the most, say 4mm (for those who like a figure ).[/QUOTE]



moronic is a pretty strong word Matthew.. do believe people are not allowed to have an opinion if it does not fit with your views?

I agree Kevin, dunno why we are having this infantile discussion on what is better and what is not. What I have been saying.. like a broken record, all along is that some people will do very well with a small HHD and some will do very well with a large HHD. The shoe, however is NOt the primary determinant of how one runs..

In relation to your suggestion.. it is great in theory, but gee it would be hard to put into practice... I know that for example a company called ASICS.. no relation to me, has done a study looking at identical footwear with 0, 5 and 10mm heel differentials. They looked at the most common kinetic (acceleration, pressure, GRF and ,moment calculation) and kinematic parameters.
it was a small cohort of 10 runners, but in this group, the only significant findings were a very large increase (about 4x) in ground reaction force and with fourier transformation this equates to a large high frequency force from a non cushioned impact in the 0mm group. No surprises here. High frequency loads have been implicated in injury. Also, a small decrease in the EKAM with the 0mm shoe, and a large increase in the external ankle joint moment in the 0 and 5mm shoes. The major kinematic finding was at the ankle and not surprisingly showed increased plantarflexion of the ankle in the 0 and 5mm shoes.

 

Hi Simon,

Yes, it would be a strong word (& inappropriate) if the phrase was directed at you personally. Let me assure you it wasn’t. It was used in relation to the reasoning behind the need for an elevated heel pitch – that is on the basis of... "the only issue of drop is weight". This is... well, to use Kevin’s terminology... “simply silly”... as for a reason to elevate the heel. And yes, I am interested in your opinion on this topic... despite it being different to mine (in some areas). I value your educated input but will still question it to obtain a greater understanding of the issues involved.

I have asked in this thread as to the origin of the elevated heel pitch/differential in running shoes...
I have submitted:
- “accommodating for ankle equinus” (read this quite a while ago – not sure where).

Craig T has suggested:
- “protection for heel strikers.” In fact I did submit the following (at post # 18) in response to this reasoning with...

*** Yes, I should have made a similar opening statement to the above when responding to you (sorry).

Then you have associated it with:
- "the only issue of drop is weight".

I personally find all the above as poor reasoning (with the reasoning of weight to be the silliest of the three) to add a heel – forefoot differential (as much as 12-14mm) to running shoes... present across the market range of footwear companies & models... directed to the masses. Racing flats still had/has it (usually to lesser degree). The question is – why? As I’ve stated before (post # 46)...

I could see “infantile” being a strong word - particularly when I have a strong interest (& some would say a strong view) on the topic. But, hey... this is Podiatry Arena... & we have both been associated with some pretty passionate discussions in the past on this forum. However, I am a little surprised you would see the issue of heel to forefoot pitch being of such little worth of discussion – particularly a person in your position... but then maybe this position could be an influencing factor on your view (that said, I take your statement of your association with Asics & your contribution to this forum as being an honest/sincere one).

I also agree with your view within the last sentence... “The shoe, however is not the primary determinant of how one runs”... as well as other views you expressed in association with the limited significance of footwear on performance. These are potentially multifactorial... as solid hard work/educated programs/consistent training/nutrition etc... will get an athlete the desired world class performance. That said, I see footwear as an influencing factor in association with the issue of consistency in training (i.e. affecting injury threshold – time off training).

Hi Kevin,

I’ll admit it was a bold statement & did put my neck out there on it (it was an inevitable statement based on my previous views so far on this thread). However, I don’t think it qualifies as being “silly”. The thing is that this 12mm HHD has been with us for many years now & generations of runners have become accustomed to it. They pretty much know nothing else (that is until fairly recently).The 8-10mm+HHD has virtually been the standard norm among the traditional training shoe. Hence, how do we know for sure that some runners will... “simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe”. The majority have been running in a high HHD for many years... & may have accumulated some injuries in the past associated with this. I know – it is hard to distinguish the HHD being an influencing factor – hence part of my point in ridding this potential influencing factor which goes against the primordial design & (dare I say “natural”) foot function of the human foot.

I want to look at it quickly from another angle (I know this post is getting long). There was obviously some sort of consensus as to this elevated HHD in running shoes. Like I’ve said – I don’t know how & where it came from (& it would seem others don’t either)... but somehow it made its way into the standard design of running shoes across the board. If there was a round table of sorts with footwear researchers at some point in the 1970’s deciding on what structures to implement into running shoe design & someone (or group) came up with the idea to raise the heel to forefoot pitch based on either or all of the three stated reasons thus far... I would raise my hand at state... “that is simply silly” (or something to that effect)... & probably give my reasons along a similar tune like the following...

I do believe that a 12mm HHD has certainly been a potential adverse influence on the general running public. As for the 0-4mm HHD influence – well this wouldn’t be an appropriate assessment at this point in time as this is a relative newly available concept (in a general sense) with relatively small percentage that has gravitated to it... as well as the residual influence of the transition from the accustomed 12mm HHD (to 0-4mm) which could potentially sway results i.e. excess Triceps Surae/Achilles issues/stress.

As for “research evidence”... no, none at hand – I think we are all awaiting for further developments in this area... hence I resonate with both the following views for further clinical insights...

 

Simon. Is it possible to get a copy of that photo of the guy heel striking in Newtons? I'm giving a talk later this year to a tri club and there are a lot of Newton wearers in the club. Thought it may interest a few of them. Also the offer for a mountain bike ride and a pint of Badger is still on when you're over for the Olympics

Cheers
Phil
pjtodd70@hotmail.com

 

Jeezz Matthew.. now I am gonna nominate you for the longest post.. ever I think, although maybe Craig got you by a nose.. I shall have to measure.
Some good points and lots of questions.. let me reread and digest and see if i have a worthy response!
best
S

 

sure.. got an email address I can send it to/

 

Is there anything else you need Phil?.. the Badgers and ride sounds good. I hit London on the 23rd, so let me know how I can get in touch