Nanaimo Chiropractor ~ 4 Reasons Why Forefoot Running is Rubbish

If you pick up any running magazine these days, you’re bound to come across one of the latest trends: forefoot running. Several methods have been created around this concept, Chi Running, Pose Running and the Evolution Method to name the more popular incarnations. Although slightly different in their methodology, the basic concept is the same, namely that when running you strike with the forefoot instead of the more conventional heel strike.

Many supporters claim that is method is the best method for running, saying that it has less injuries and is more efficient. I think we should look at these claims.

1. Ok, so forefoot strike running is supposed to be the best. Logic would then tell us that the majority of elite runners would use this method, correct? Research done at Sapporro International Half Marathon  found that of 283 runners, 75% did a heel strike, roughly 25% had a mid-foot strike and roughly 1 % (4 out of 283 runners) did a forefoot strike. None of the forefoot strikers were in the top 4 positions. Do all those elite runners have it wrong? Hmmm… makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

2. Many proponents of forefoot running claim that there are less injuries with their method. Let’s be clear on this, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RESEARCH THAT SHOWS FOREFOOT RUNNING TO HAVE LESS INJURIES. End of discussion. If anything, I see an increase in difficult-to-treat forefoot joint problems in forefoot runners in my chiropractic clinic in Nanaimo.

3. Let’s look at how you naturally run. If I asked you to sprint across the parking lot, you’d run on your forefoot. If I asked you to run to the neighbouring town, you’d run with a heel strike. What makes us think we can improve on what our bodies naturally want to do? Yes, there is some research that says that barefoot runners tend to run more on their mid or forefoot, but barefoot running is a whole other discussion (perhaps a future blog post).

4. Finally, let’s look at anatomy. There are a series of bones in the ankle. The bones at would absorb impact with a heel strike (the talus and calcaneous) are big and dense. Those that absorb impact with forefoot running (the cuboid and cuneiforms) are much smaller, roughly the size of an ice cube. Doesn’t it make sense that the larger stronger bones are the ones designed for impact?

Don’t follow the trend, follow your brain.

If forefoot running works for you, great, keep doing it. If you’re thinking about changing your running style, think long and hard. Those promises of faster times and less injuries may be unfulfilled. Let’s not try to re-invent running. I know this is a controversial topic. Leave a post below and let’s have a discussion. If you have a running injury, why not contact us at Pure Chiropractic, Nanaimo, 250-585-8866.

Dr. Jason Hare
Nanaimo Chiropractor

Photo credit:

10 Responses to “Nanaimo Chiropractor ~ 4 Reasons Why Forefoot Running is Rubbish”

  1. That’s a great point Ramin. Ryan is more of a mid-foot striker, than a forefoot striker. That said, you will always an exception to the rule. If 75% of the elite runners do a heels strike, most of which finish at the head of the field, I’d go with the majority.

  2. The argument here is why not wear protection(shoes) instead of nothing at all(Barefoot). Common sense will lead you to the answer.

  3. Running puts great stress on our bodies, even when we do it right. That is why stretching, strengthening and cross training are so important to remaining in balance.
    Regular chiropractic care can help you run longer and more efficiently by addressing musculoskeletal, and nutritional issues prior to the onset of injury.

  4. On your 4th point…
    The bones of the heel are meant for weight bearing, not shock absorption. The arches of the foot, ankle and knee positioning are intended to absorb shock. Hence the entire rational for why forefoot/ mid foot strike patters may be the better biomechanical gait pattern.

    Yes, there is very, very little research done to compare the risks/ benefits between the gait patterns… But at least get those facts right…

  5. Hi Dan, thanks for posting. I appreciate having differing opinions on here. I would say however, that the subtalar joint is widely considered a shock absorbing joint. The calcaneal fat pad, found under the heel, is also widely regarded as a shock absorber. In fact, I’m sure a quick Google search would reveal the studies done in the shock absorptive properties of each.

    The heel used for weght bearing? Sure. But they are also used in absorbing the impacts of foot strike. The structures of the arch are more for energy transfer.

    Thanks again,