Habitual rearfoot and forefoot strikers at 4.5 m/s did the same total lower-limb work and average power; the load sat at the knee in rearfoot and at the ankle in forefoot running, and rearfoot strikers switched to an imposed forefoot strike raised the ankle internal rotation moment by 33%, kept knee abduction moments 48.5% above habitual forefoot strikers and raised total positive limb power by 17%
Runners who habitually land rearfoot (RFS) or forefoot (FFS) each ran with their usual technique and with the imposed (opposite) one at 4.5 m/s on an instrumented treadmill, with force and kinematic data recorded, to see what differs between the patterns and what switching does to joint loading.
Participants
n= not given in the abstract; two groups, habitual RFS and habitual FFS runners (sex and training level not stated).
Protocol
Both RFS and FFS techniques at 4.5 m/s on an instrumented treadmill; ankle, knee and hip moments, work and power during stance.
Key Results
Habitual RFS and habitual FFS runners did not differ in total lower-limb work or average power (ankle + knee + hip summed).
During stance, RFS loaded the knee more and FFS loaded the ankle more, in terms of negative work, moments, and both instantaneous and average negative power.
RFS runners on an imposed FFS replicated habitual-FFS sagittal mechanics, but the ankle internal rotation moment rose by 33%, knee abduction moments stayed 48.5% higher than habitual FFS, and total positive and negative limb average power rose by 17% and 9%.
FFS runners on an imposed RFS matched habitual RFS mechanics except knee abduction moments (38% lower than habitual RFS) and a 10.5% lower total positive limb average power.
Authors' conclusion: no clear overall mechanical advantage of either habitual pattern; adopting an imposed RFS may be the most beneficial.
Practical Application
A habitual heel striker gains no clear overall mechanical advantage by switching to forefoot: total limb work is the same, load moves from knee to ankle, and in the immediate term limb power rises 17% (positive) and knee abduction moments are not reduced.
Inference: an athlete with a knee complaint and healthy calves/Achilles is the case where moving load to the ankle might be a trade worth testing; this paper measured mechanics, not symptoms.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: try a cadence change first REF-620 before rebuilding strike pattern.
Limitations
Sample size, sex and training level not given in the abstract.
One speed (4.5 m/s); imposed technique tested immediately, without adaptation time.
Mechanics only; no injury or oxygen-cost outcome.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
controlled lab crossover of both techniques in both groups, but a single speed, immediate switch only, and sample size not given in the abstract