Is Midfoot Striking Really Better?
Since the explosion of the minimalist movement and Born to Run in 2009, a message has become deeply ingrained in running culture: heel striking is « bad », and running on the balls of your feet is « natural ». Midfoot striking is often presented as the ideal compromise. But what do the studies actually say? I've delved into the question.
The Three Types of Foot Strikes
When discussing running form, we generally distinguish three foot strike patterns:
- Heel Strike (rearfoot strike) — the heel makes first contact with the ground. This is the pattern for 75 to 90% of recreational runners
- Midfoot Strike — the foot lands flat, with weight distributed evenly between the front and back
- Forefoot Strike — the ball of the foot (or toes) lands first. Common among sprinters and barefoot runners
Why Heel Striking Got a Bad Rap
The Impact Peak
The primary argument: is that when the heel strikes the ground, an « impact peak » occurs in the first milliseconds. Some researchers, notably Daniel Lieberman of Harvard, have suggested that this peak could contribute to injuries like stress fractures or shin splints.
The Barefoot Runner Model
Studies on populations accustomed to running barefoot (Kenyan runners, Mexican populations) show that they naturally adopt a forefoot or midfoot strike. The hypothesis is that humans « evolved » to run this way, and modern shoes with a high drop may have altered our natural running form. It's a compelling idea, but is it that simple ?
What the Studies Really Say
No Consensus on Injuries
And here's the surprise: prospective studies have failed to establish a clear link between foot strike type and overall injury rates. A large study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (2019) found no significant difference between heel strikers and others.
What changes, however, is the location of injuries. Heel striking = more stress on knees/shins. Forefoot striking = more stress on calves/Achilles/metatarsals. You don't eliminate the forces — you just shift them. This is a point I wish I had known earlier.
Running Economy
Some studies show a slight advantage in running economy for midfoot or forefoot striking at high speeds. But at endurance pace, the difference fades. And forcing a change in foot strike can temporarily degrade your running economy while your body adapts.
Arguments for Midfoot Striking
- More even distribution of forces
- Foot strike observed in elite competitors
- May reduce stress on the knees
- Consistent with low-drop shoes
Arguments for Not Changing Your Form
- No proven reduction in overall injury rates
- Risky transition (Achilles tendon, calves)
- Heel striking is efficient at slower paces
- Foot strike naturally adapts to speed
Your Foot Strike Changes With Speed
Something often overlooked: is that most runners naturally adjust their foot strike based on speed. Your easy jog with a heel strike? Perfectly functional. Start a high-intensity interval session at your VO2 max pace, and you'll spontaneously shift to a midfoot or forefoot strike. It's a natural adaptation mechanism, not a flaw to correct.
« People shouldn't be asked to run on their toes when they're doing their Sunday jog at a 6 min/km pace. Your foot strike should match your pace, not a theory. »
— Adapted from observations by biomechanics researchers (University of Colorado)Should You Try to Change Your Foot Strike?
My take: caution is key. If you're running without recurring injuries, there's little reason to alter your foot strike. If, however, you suffer from chronic knee or shin pain, exploring a gradual transition to a midfoot strike — guided by a professional — might be worth it.
The transition should be very gradual: over several months, with reduced volume initially, and ideally accompanied by strengthening exercises for the calves and Achilles tendon. Changing your foot strike overnight is the quickest way to get injured. I speak from experience.
What Truly Matters
Rather than focusing on foot strike, work on parameters that have a more measurable impact: cadence (steps per minute), foot alignment under your center of gravity, and overall strength training. A runner with 160 steps/min who lands far in front of their hips has an issue with overstriding — regardless of whether they're heel striking or midfoot striking.
The impact of running shoes on foot strike is also a topic in itself: high-drop models favor heel striking, while minimalist shoes encourage a more forward foot placement. Shoes and foot strike are intimately linked.
My Takeaway: There's no universally « better » foot strike. Midfoot striking might suit certain profiles, but it's neither a guarantee of performance nor protection against injuries. What truly matters is running efficiently and without pain, regardless of which part of your foot hits the ground first.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should you change your running form to run better?
Not necessarily. Studies show that the body naturally optimizes its running form with experience. A forced change can be counterproductive and increase the risk of injury.
Is heel striking bad?
No, 75 to 90% of runners land on their heel, and many experience no injuries. It's the combination of cadence, overstriding, and load that matters, not the point of impact alone.
How can you tell if your running form is efficient?
Key indicators include cadence (ideally > 170 steps/min), absence of overstriding (foot landing far in front of the body), and an upright posture with the foot landing under your center of gravity.