A new study, perhaps the best yet in a growing field, has found no difference in the running economy of habitual forefoot/midfoot runners vs. rearfoot runners. This would indicate that there’s no reason to switch from a rearfoot stride (common to roughly 80% of shoe-wearing runners) to a forefoot stride, as some have argued in the last few years. At least there’s no reason in terms of improved running economy, which is nearly synonymous with faster race times.



The study results would seem to add credence to the old theory that the body naturally finds its most efficient way of covering ground. For some, that involves a forefoot strike; for most, it takes a rearfoot stride. (But keep reading to discover an unexpected twist in this tale.)



The experiment was performed at Joe Hamill’s highly regarded running biomechanics lab at the University of Massachusetts, and published in the online version of the Journal of Applied Physiology. It stands out from many similar experiment for using a unique methodology. Rather than taking a group of runners and having them run first in one way, and then in another, the UMass study started with two groups of veteran runners (a habitual forefoot group, and a habitual rearfoot group), and simply said: Run as you normally do.



The groups were much alike in age, weight, weekly training mileage (about 30 miles/week) and typical running pace (about 7:25 per mile). And when they ran the way they normally do, with their different foot strikes, there was no difference in running economy between the groups.



However, head researcher Allison Gruber believes her study indicates that most runners would run more economically with a rearfoot stride. Here’s why: Her design also asked both groups to run the other way: forefooters on their rearfeet, and rearfooters on their forefeet.



Most of the rearfooters became less economical when they transitioned to their forefeet. However, this was not true for most of the habitual forefooters. Notes Gruber: “More than half of the [forefoot] runners had a lower VO2 when they ran with a [rearfoot] pattern.” In other words, they became more economical, even though this wasn’t their normal way of running.



The following table present a view into the running economy for both groups, each with 16 runners, when they ran with different footstrikes at 6:52/mile pace. The numbers in the table show the “more economical” approach. That is, 12 of the 16 forefoot runners were more economical when landing on their rearfeet. All runners completed all trials while wearing neutral New Balance racing flats.

Rearfoot Group Forefoot Group More economical w/ rearfoot strike 11 of 16 12 of 16 More economical w/ forefoot strike 5 of 16 4 of 16





The rearfoot-beats-forefoot finding raises an interesting and somewhat ironic note. Heel landing may be economical because it makes use of the much-maligned rearfoot cushioning of many running shoes. The cushioning presumably does “work” the leg muscles don’t have to do.



Most running shoes have less forefoot cushioning than rearfoot cushioning. Would forefoot running be more economical if shoes had more forefoot cushioning? It’s possible. Of course, most barefoot/forefoot/minimalist runners believe that less cushioning is more, and better.



Gruber raises one more point about rearfoot running. Her study shows that it appears to burn less carbohydrate than forefoot running. Since carbohydrate-sparing is the name of the game in long-distance races like the marathon, she believes rearfoot running could lead to improved marathon times.



Bottom-line: “Running with a [rearfoot] pattern might confer benefits in endurance events in both habitual [rearfoot] and [forefoot] runners,” writes Gruber.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io