Foot Strike Pattern

Respected running technique specialist Fredrik Zillén recently posted a video on his YouTube channel titled Stop Your Forefoot Fantasies About Running stating “there are many people who still have strange forefoot fantasies that don't match the studies and statistics on the subject. This video is for them.”

As a proponent of mid/forefoot striking I had to click! I was keen to see which of my beliefs were unrestricted by reality, in other words, fantasies.

Fredrik was responding to an online running coach/influencer who had posted some content stating you should NEVER heel strike. He goes on to discuss:

• Do good runners never heel strike?

• What do the best runners in the world do?

• Does a forefoot strike reduce the risk of injury?

• Is no one a heel striker if they run barefoot?

• What about the habitual barefoot populations?

The trouble with the debate is that it creates a false dichotomy by framing it as right vs wrong and true vs false, even though more nuanced possibilities exist.

I can understand the online coach/influencer making a broad generalization to make a point on running technique, and there is also truth to the selected evidence that Fredrik addresses, but apart from a big “it depends”, the video did not add clarity. For the record, Fredrik himself is a forefoot striker. Let’s explore further.

Fredrik points out that in the elite marathon field, there are a considerable number of heel strikers. He is careful to point out that this is the point of contact between the foot and the surface and not necessarily where the foot is loaded. He also acknowledges that “when you run sprint or middle distance everyone is a forefoot striker”. So if you narrow the question down to - do you need to be a mid- or forefoot striker to be a good runner at distances above 5000m, the answer is clearly no. But that isn’t very helpful to a recreational athlete looking to improve their run form. It takes one variable, foot strike, and makes it “if they do it, then you can do it” logic. 

If you are a heel striker it's one of the only things you have in common with those elite marathoners. So many other things go into the running equation that using foot strike as a single proxy for running form is just sloppy. How do you match up on cadence, stride length, hip extension, ground contact time, flight time, knee drive, pelvic stability, arm swing, ankle dorsiflexion, vertical oscillation, leg stiffness, heel recovery, and postural alignment? The way the foot is loaded is also very different at those paces than how it is loaded whilst “jogging” - which brings in a more nuanced view of what is overstriding.

My contention is that most recreational athletes would benefit from mid- or forefoot striking because, within the holistic and complex system of running movement, this pattern is most likely to encourage proper posture, enhance stability, reduce braking forces, improve energy transfer, and limit overstriding, in other words, promote better run form.

Great runners can “afford” to heel strike at (for them) slower relative paces, but most recreational runners can not. Take my 2-year-old granddaughter. If I ask her to pick something off the floor she will do a perfect squat and pick up the object with a straight back. If I ask an adult, they will gauge the weight of the object and if light enough, bend 90 degrees at the waist. They are strong enough and experienced enough to cheat. Take this principle to running, I like my runners to develop technique as if they were middle-distance runners (or 2-year-olds) - only when they have this form and experience, then they will be in a position to “cheat”.

Heel strikers begin to appear with increasing frequency in races beyond 10K, particularly in marathons, where efficiency and endurance dominate the biomechanics of running. They “cheat” by using heel striking to allow for slightly longer stride length, which can conserve energy over longer distances. The vertical impact forces are reduced at these slower speeds (relative to sprint and middle-distance), making heel-striking less risky for the knees and joints.

However, this does not suggest that one pattern is inherently superior; rather, elite athletes optimize their form based on their individual biomechanics and the demands of their event.

On the question of injury risks the research shows that the distribution is similar although the heel strikers get injured at the knee and above, whereas the mid/forefoot gang gets injured below the knee. It is not clear to me how these statistical populations are derived. In the cleanest samples, it would be people who have always been one or the other. We know that changing from heel striking to non-heel striking is not without risk as the individual is starting at a point where the foot and lower legs have become detrained and weak.

So how about barefoot running? He counters the coach/influencer’s claim that “all people” mid- or forefoot strike when they take their shoes off by showing videos of those who don’t. But again, isn’t this just countering a reasonable generalization? Most people do change to mid-forefoot strike patterns. Similar to the discussion on habitual barefoot populations. You can use the quoted paper Variation in foot strike patterns among habitually barefoot populations (2013) to focus on the exceptions - it is true that not all habitually barefoot runners exclusively use a forefoot strike. This study found variability depending on factors such as the speed of running, terrain, and individual biomechanics in particular showing that slow jogging or walking barefoot still involved some degree of heel contact. We should note that the quoted 72% heel strikers were observed specifically among individuals running at slower speeds, typically associated with day-to-day activities rather than those engaged with recreational or competitive running.

Rather than showing exceptions, I could equally use multiple studies to draw out general trends:

• Habitually barefoot runners are more likely to use a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern compared to shod runners, who often use a heel-strike pattern.

• This adaptation reduces the impact forces experienced during running, as the forefoot or midfoot strike helps dissipate energy more effectively through the arch and muscles of the foot and lower leg.

• Among populations that regularly run barefoot (e.g., some groups in Africa or South America), forefoot striking is common. This has been observed in studies examining groups such as the Tarahumara of Mexico or rural Kenyan runners.

• The surfaces they run on (hard, uneven ground) may also encourage a forefoot or midfoot strike to minimize impact and enhance stability.

• Forefoot striking leads to a more elastic recoil through the Achilles tendon and other structures, contributing to efficiency and injury prevention.

• Barefoot runners often have a shorter stride length and a higher cadence, both of which are consistent with forefoot or midfoot striking.

People in habitually barefoot populations tend to land on their forefoot or midfoot when running barefoot. Research suggests that this landing pattern is a natural adaptation to barefoot running and is likely influenced by the absence of cushioning from modern running shoes.

So are my beliefs on foot strike strange fantasies? I would say not. I can fall into the trap of over-generalization but the alternative of starting every sentence with “it depends” becomes a little tiresome.

The debate on foot strike patterns highlights the complexity of running mechanics and the risks of over-generalizing. While mid- or forefoot striking can offer biomechanical benefits for many recreational runners, it's clear that there isn't a universal "correct" way to run. Elite runners, habitually barefoot populations, and recreational athletes all showcase variability influenced by speed, terrain, biomechanics, and skill. 

Rather than framing the issue as right or wrong, the focus should shift toward understanding individual needs, adapting running form holistically, and progressing gradually. Ultimately, the best approach is one that minimizes injury risk, maximizes efficiency, and aligns with the runner's goals and physical capacities—acknowledging that nuance, not dogma, is key to developing as a runner (and for that matter, a human being!).