Narrative critique of the case for switching from a rearfoot to a mid- or forefoot strike: the authors conclude that the switch does not improve running economy, does not eliminate the impact at foot-ground contact and does not reduce the risk of running-related injury; the rearfoot strike is clearly the more prevalent pattern
The authors take the three usual reasons for converting rearfoot strikers to a mid- or forefoot strike — better economy, a smaller impact peak and loading rate of the vertical ground reaction force, and fewer running-related injuries — critique each, and offer alternative explanations from the literature.
Participants
Narrative review; the number of studies examined is not given in the abstract (n= not stated).
Protocol
Critique of the research literature on the three claimed benefits; no systematic search, inclusion criteria or grading described in the abstract.
Key Results
Changing to a mid- or forefoot strike does not improve running economy, does not eliminate an impact at contact, and does not reduce the risk of running-related injuries (authors' conclusion).
The rearfoot strike is clearly more prevalent; there is little scientific evidence for recommending a change.
The abstract does not state that switching raises injury risk, nor name foot and ankle injuries.
Practical Application
Do not prescribe a foot strike change to a healthy rearfoot striker to gain economy or prevent injury; this review finds neither benefit.
If a runner cites this paper as showing that switching "may increase foot and ankle injuries", correct it: the abstract says the switch does not reduce injury risk, not that it increases it. For a load shift with a minimalist transition see REF-1120 and for injury location by strike pattern see REF-1118.
Inference: a forefoot strike does not remove impact, so "softer landing" cues aimed at impact (see REF-1119) are a different intervention from changing strike pattern.
Limitations
Narrative, two authors, no described search or quality grading; conclusions are the authors' reading of the literature.
The abstract gives no numbers; effect sizes and the studies weighed are not reported there.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
expert narrative review, no search strategy or quality appraisal described in the abstract