A few weeks back, this blog ran a feature on running form and how to improve it. It included the oft-repeated advice about avoiding overstriding, which “causes the foot to land too far in front of the knee and encourages heel striking – and increases injury risk”. A reader commented that they’d “like to see a blog on whether heel striking really is a bad thing”, which spurred me to investigate.

Anyone who has read Chris McDougall’s Born to Run will know that the “heel striking is bad” message was writ large. After all, goes the theory, if we were barefoot, and our feet and bodies were not ravaged by years of misuse and disuse, we would run on our forefeet like the Tarahumara Indians. After years of running being about putting one foot in front of the other, form was suddenly everything – and heel striking was the benchmark of poor form.

I didn’t need convincing when McDougall’s book came out. I’d already switched from heel to forefoot striking a few years before, motivated and inspired by numerous coaches and experts I’d encountered in my work as a journalist writing about running. One of the first was Julian Goater, former athlete and now a coach and author. When he first told me to get off my heels, on a running camp in Lanzarote in the 1990s, I thought he was barking mad. But a few years later, I met Malcolm Balk, running coach and Alexander technique teacher, and barefoot aficionado John Woodward, who convinced me that heel striking was inefficient – due to higher braking forces – and hazardous, because the “lump of bone” which is the heel is not designed to accept two to three times body weight – the level of force associated with running.

It took a couple of years before video playback of me running matched what I imagined to be happening. Now, a forefoot strike is second nature to me and I feel like a better runner as a result. Like many coaches, I’ve gone on to encourage others to work on improving their running form – and eliminating a heel strike has been part of that. But recently, I’ve begun to feel a little like someone who was converted to a religion by zealots who have now forsworn their faith – because there’s been a distinct shift away from the “heel striking is evil” preaching of the past few years.

“Heel striking has received more negative press than it deserves,” believes Jessica Leitch, director of the Run3D Clinic in Oxford. “The evidence simply doesn’t support the theory that everyone should run with a midfoot or forefoot strike to avoid injury. Yes, it alters loading mechanics, with joints and tissues stressed differently by different footstrike types, but in doing so, it often shifts the problem from one area to another.”

Mitchell Phillips, director of gait specialsts StrideUK, agrees that a change, rather than a reduction, in injuries is the likely outcome of switching footstrike. “A migration from heel to forefoot running may reduce the number of knee-related injuries but increase the potential for calf-related injuries,” he says.

That said, a retrospective study at Harvard University in 2012 found that, over the course of a competitive season, forefoot strikers on the college running team experienced fewer injuries than heel strikers. Critics argued that the runners involved in the study were “self-selected” forefoot strikers: in other words, it was their natural stride and they hadn’t been forced or coached into changing it. And, as Leitch points out, footstrike is often studied because it’s an easy variable to measure – it doesn’t necessarily link cause with effect.

But Balk believes forefoot running has been oversold. “There are several myths about forefoot landing,” he says. “One is that everyone who runs barefoot lands on the forefoot: not true. Some barefoot runners land flat or on the heel.” (A study of habitually unshod runners demonstrated this.) “Secondly, there’s a belief that all elite runners land on the forefoot, which is completely untrue. And thirdly, there’s a claim that heel landing causes braking while forefoot landing does not – but this isn’t necessarily the case. Other factors, such as the position of the foot on landing, come into play here.”

On the forefoot … a runner in Colorado. Photograph: John P Kelly/Getty Images

While Balk is still a forefoot striker, he doesn’t specifically teach the technique. Why? “For most runners, some form of mild heel strike is probably the best way forward because it is easy to learn and it’s pretty reliable,” he says. However, others believe that the issue isn’t about one footstrike pattern being better than another – it’s about whether changing someone’s existing gait can cause more problems than it solves.

“Changing footstrike certainly works in some cases – I’ve changed mine and have not been injured for a long time,” says Leitch. “But even so, I wouldn’t want to recommend that everyone shift to a midfoot strike. Each person needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.”

Balk says that he’s not arguing against the idea of converting per se. “It’s not a bad or wrong thing to do,” he says. “But the question is whether most people have the dedication, interest, motivation and tools to go through that process, or whether their time might be better spent training a bit more, doing more strength work or stretching. If the desire and resources are there, go for it. Otherwise, focus on something else.”

Running coach Mark Esteban Protheroe, who works at barefoot shoe company Vivo Barefoot, believes part of the reason runners attempting to change their form frequently come a cropper is that there’s been too much focus on footstrike. “The message has been that the only part of technique that matters is what part of your foot you land on,” he says. “But that’s not the case. I would only very rarely give coaching cues related to foot contact.”

Then what should we focusing on? “Good posture,” he says. “And working towards a quicker rhythm or cadence. Both of these will help reduce overstriding.” (These points, I might add, were factors flagged up by the coach who featured in the original Running Blog article.)

Gareth Cole, head of education at The Third Space, agrees. “I see people who’ve switched from a heel strike to a forefoot strike, but they haven’t changed anything else,” he says. “So they are still overstriding, or collapsing in the hips – and they still get injured.”

Again and again, overstriding gets mentioned as the villain of the piece. It’s often linked to heel striking, but as both Cole and Esteban Protheroe point out, it’s perfectly possible to overstride and land on the forefoot. In other words, switching to the forefoot does not automatically turn you into a better runner. But reducing overstride does. “There are degrees of overstride,” says Esteban Protheroe. “A slight overstride is better than a big one, just as a slight heel landing is better than a ‘toes in the air’ one with the knee joint locked out.”

He worries that not only has footstrike become the sole focus with regards to running technique, but that technique itself has become the sole focus of improving your running. “Technique has hijacked the whole running conversation,” he says. “If you want to improve, you need to look at your whole form, not just footstrike, alongside your general conditioning, training and lifestyle.”

Phillips agrees that footstrike cannot be considered the be-all and end-all of decent running. “If there was solid truth behind forefoot striking being performance-enhancing, wouldn’t you expect every elite ‘heel’ runner to seriously consider migrating?” he asks. “Speak to any elite runner, and you’ll find that foot placement is very rarely considered. Mention strength and conditioning, however, and you’ll hit on a topic that does not go in and out of fashion.”

Regardless of what people think runners should do, the vast majority heel strike. A US study looking at runners at the five-mile stage of a marathon found that more than 93% were heel striking – although when they divided people up by ability, fewer of the faster runners landed on their heels.

For Esteban, this raises an important point. “Footstrike is dependent on speed and surface,” he says. “At a 10-minute mile, the forces are low and it doesn’t matter all that much whether you land on your heel or forefoot. But at faster speeds, nature would make the decision for you to move on to your forefoot.” At least, it would if you had enough sensory feedback from your feet to realise that crash landing on your heel with high force isn’t ideal – which is one of the arguments for barefoot running.

We’re not going there here, I promise. But it is worth pointing out that in the study showing that some habitually unshod runners landed on their heels, it was also observed that when they sped up from an “endurance running” pace, they tended to land further forward on their feet. The researchers noted that running speed and distance were likely factors determining footstrike pattern. Distance is relevant because the longer you go, the more tired you get and the more tired you get, the harder it is to retain good form.

Perhaps it would be better if we were to think about footstrike in terms of description, rather than classification. An “ing”, rather than an “er”. It’s soft grass and I’m jogging so I’m heelstriking. I’m on the home straight of Parkrun, gunning for a personal best and I’m forefoot striking. I’m nearing the end of a marathon and my graceful form has turned into a heelstriking shuffle …

So look: being “caught” heelstriking is not a punishable offence. And being a forefoot striker doesn’t make you superior. But I for one am still glad I made the switch. For one thing, I ran my fastest ever 5km and 10km last autumn – and anyway, it makes for a prettier race-finish photo.