You should NOT always land on your forefoot when running - Running Myths 

100%

I endorse the above statement going from heels to forefeet.

I used to have knee pain while running, despite working out regularly to strength muscles and increase mobility. My pain went away for good when I tried barefoot running shoes and adopted the technique of landing more on the balls of my foot. After a period, I tried the cushioned running shoes again and the pain on my knees came back. So I gave them up and only wear barefoot running shoes, and this is what works for me. Every person is different. However, I can't help but notice that all the runners shown on this video wear those very cushioned running shoes. This is the main reason why they land on their heels. They wouldn't be able to do that if they were running with barefoot shoes.

His argument is just stupid. Majority is not always right.

This is the most sane explanation and if not going for smashing PB one must run on minimalist shoes. I use to run in them then discovered that I need a huge cushion based on my feet type but had post run ache in feet that I never had all those years running on a paper thin shoe. If my feet type called for a cushion shoes I should have got injured running on paper thin shoes

yeh, and you know why? because they are running in minimalist shoes ON PAVEMENT. not because heel strike it's wrong or enefficient.

@@mezmerya5130 oh really? What about our ancestors and tribal people who run barefoot, over rocks and sticks, and hard ground? I bet their feet have no problem heel striking, because as the commenter and PT in the video said: "it is more important where most of the weight impact is on the foot, rather than where the foot lands"

@@etrephesm numbers please. Kenyans still have 72% of heel strikers. Our ancestors had lifespan of 24years, and didn't really care about their joints, by the way

@@mezmerya5130 our ancestors had a way longer lifespan, the average was low because of high infant mortality

Exactly. I switched to minimal shoes about five years ago and just recently looked at my old foot coffin Saucony trainers with the heels completely worn off at the outside edge. Then I realised that the minimal/ barefoot way triggers plantar flexion instead of dorsiflexion. I now understand why I am extremely uncomfortable now in regular shoes, everything feels 'off'. Also I had patellar tendinitis for a long time which was completely fixed by going 'minimal'.

Let your body tell you. As you get stronger running, your form may change. You want to make sure you don't overstride, your arms are at 90 degrees swinging back and near your body - no chicken wings. 🙂 Try not to cross your arms in front of your body. Slight bend forward from your ankles and not your hip. Look straight ahead and try to keep your head aligned with your body, not sticking out in front.

The answer is standard running shoes are designed for heel strike first and foremost. That’s it. An actual interesting analysis would be taking all these runners and make them race barefoot.

I think most of it is down to the longer stride at higher speeds. They touch the ground with the heel, but load the full weight over the full foot. If you load your heels to hard you get problems in the achilles, calves, glutes. If you load your toes too much you get shin splints and knee problems. Modern shoes with good spring damper functions give you more tolerance in that as well.

No, because the Achilles & arch are clearly best utilized when landing ball of foot, just like when running in place. What most miss is that simply freefalling & changing support, so it shouldn’t essentially change when the falling element’s removed or added. We are much springier when we land under our hips on the same pivot point we will rotate forward on.

It makes touching the heel down first easier. But it also makes putting much weight down on the heel "harder." Problem being: IF you are putting in lots of cushion in a shoe sole, which people seem to want, AND you make the cushion entirely flat: It's easy for the body to drive the heel deep into the cushion as you get tired. Which is VERY unnatural, REALLY slows you down, AND passes impact loads up the chain, to knees, hips back and neck. Whereas if you make the "crash cushion" forward leaning: When you initially touch the heel down, you "trip over" it, and by the time your weight is fully over the foot, your foot is angled "properly." The heel then mostly serving as partial support to your achilles tendon/ankle as it tires. Or, at least that's how it's supposed to work..... It's hard to argue running barefoot is not the most natural way to run. Since it, pretty much by definition, is. Shoes, of any kind, are a very recent invention in evolutionary terms. People ran perfectly well without them. Or, at least they ran well enough to catch enough prey to grow to be about the weight of the best of today's marathoners..... At least for running traditional paces, distances and surfaces, barefoot isTHE natural way. However: High stack carbon shoes ARE faster for running 2hr marathons on pavement and concrete slab. As are optimised prosthetic devices. And bicycles, I order of degrees of technical sophistication and removal from "natural" barefoot running. But making a case for "barefoot shoes" are a lot less cut and dry than for actual barefoot running. With ANY shoes, you still lose all proprioception from your foot bed. Hence come crashing down just as hard in "Five Fingers" as in Hokas. And only then reacting. Or, alternatively, you can contort your foot weirdly in some sort of generalised anticipation of the rock hard strike from landing on concrete with only a hard-rubber barrier cushioning the blow. As opposed to actual barefoot running, where you feel the skin touching down before there is any weight applied, and your foot's dozens of subconscious mechanisms real-time micro corrects to adapt to the landing. It's night and day. There were a lot of micro fractures in foot bones, among "barefoot shoe" runners back when that was a fad. Actual barefoot runners, much, much less so. Of course, many people have ran in "barefoot shoes" (what an oxymoron. Kind of like bald hairstyles...) without getting microfractures, and instead do better in them. Getting rid of nagging pains, by running in them. So it's really individual. But Barefoot being more natural than Hokas, does not, a priori, mean that some other shoe is also more natural than Hokas, just because the other shoe is marketed as a "barefoot shoe." It's still a shoe. And shoe vs not-shoe is the biggie. Not whether the shoe has 5 vs 15 vs 35 mm of cushioning, nor 0 vs 4 vs 8 vs 12 mm "drop."

When i land forefoot on trails i catch my toes on roots and fall on my face.

he could probably land on his heal in barefootshoes and run slightly slower on a marathon, like the guy behind him in the example, but it doesnt mean that he should

depends on your activity. If your going to do sports in not natural situations, like when you play basketball, you need the extra stiffness and stability these shoes, altra, can provide. But If your just going to run you should be fine in good barefoot shoes pluss they will train your muscles in a better and different way wich in turn can provide better performance when you choose to wear altras. But altras are probably the second best option.@@ebooboo69

Before 1970, it was basically only athletes and young, strong people who ran as exercise. What ended up starting in the 1980s was that ordinary, normal people suddenly started running. And they also started running marathons even though they weighed quite a lot and hadn't exercised much earlier in life. In addition, the population's BMI was extremely much lower compared to now and people moved extremely much more in everyday life than in the last 25 years. And where do you have the studies that say runners before 1970 had less knee problems than people today, all else equal in terms of training background, how they live, what they eat, what they weigh and so on. It could be as you say. But right now your theory is just a guess which also happens to be in line with the way you have chosen to run, i.e. barefoot. And the thing about everything that is "natural" being better, I really don't agree. If you need to get to the next city, it will be much more efficient to take the bike or the car than to walk or run. It could be that people have invented aids that are more effective than what evolution has created. Like choosing to use an airline between the US and France instead of swimming, which is the most natural way. Apologies if you think I'm lecturing you. I sound a lot angrier than I am. I've just heard those arguments so many times but very rarely anyone who can back it up with evidence. Feel free to lecture me back. 😃

@@SpringSnabbare I wasn't always a barefoot runner. I also start with a lot of cushioning, insoles. I was a heel striker etc. Than the injuries starts. Heel pain, hip pain, pain in my shins. In an angry moment, I just removed in my run the insoles, which gives me more space in my shoes and more feeling of the ground and.... my kneepain was less. Here was my interest started. I wondered why I was running so much effortless when I practice running indoors on my socks, while outdoors wearing my shoes, I completely loss this feeling. So my interest in barefoot running (with fivefingers) was born. I did also make a lot of mistakes here, but I was stoked about the whole feeling and after a year or so, I learned and just feel how the body was reacting. You feel how to activate that spring and how to run feather light without to much effort. I 100% think that a body is designed to move in a certain way. Like a fish using his fins, we human are built to run. But shoe companies just focuses on making money with fancy cushion shoes, carbon stiff soles etc. while in fact your own feet are the most advanced running "shoes" out there. But almost nobody believes this, because the strong marketing around shoes. Everyone must make their own decision of course and you really not heaving to be a barefoot runner, but I think it really helps if you know how the biomechanics works while running before just start to run. Advicing that a heel landing is okay, is just crazy. If I do that barefoot on concrete, I will ruine my complete feet without a doubt. Please no hard feelings here. Enjoy your running👍🏻

5:04

@@bogart7498 the heel surely touches or "kisses" the ground but afterwards, you first have to land flat-mid to fore foot.. if you land directly on the heel even if you try to re-direct the weight forefoot it's too late.. part of the impact goes right to your knee, back etc.. so avoiding primary heel strike at any cost is crucial

Nah, you are wrong

@@davidrosenthal5795 so run on your heels and have fun 👏🔝

I agree with YEAAH on this one. The still image let people think Bekele's going to land on his heel, he clearly does not on the previous steps. That's what I don't like on those "wrong" " right" type of comparison with still image they don't convey the whole info. In addition to that, forefoot was never really the hype, midfoot was and a lot of those "rear footer" are actuelly midfooters that slightly touch the ground with their heel but who (btw like the guy in the video says) applies the max damping on the midfoot part. That's basically midfoot landing. The video is slightly clickbaity. It presents an antagonism that doesn't really exist. The so called "forefoot" hype was actually a midfoot hype. And, as said by himself, most "rear footer" (not all obviously) are mainly midfooters that slighlty touch the ground with their heal. This latter is by the way also a consequence of the new shoe types launched by Nike and copied by others, which have an deeper heel section with more spring effect.

apparently it also depends on the hardness of the surface underneath

I think you are taking the wrong message from this video. Do not use this as an excuse that heel striking is best. Are you running at top 8 finisher speeds? The quicker the pace, the more you can lead with your foot, which makes having your heel as first point of contact more natural... You absolutely should not be loading your weight at the heel. Keep experimenting with technique and slow it down while you are doing so.

Heel striking it totally fine as long as you are not over striding .

Lemme guess, barefoot runner?

Have you seen the video? I have statistics from the 2017 World Marathon Championships that say about 70 percent of runners landed on their heels. All male medalists, gold, silver, bronze, landed on their heels at all measuring stations. Also the runner who came in fourth place. I have included film of Brigid Kosgei from the race when she broke the marathon world record that still stands where she is a clear heel striker. I have film of Kenenisa Bekele putting the heel down first. I have research, statistics and pictures and videos of some of the world's best long distance runners landing on their heels. Not even Eliud Kipchoge is a midfoot striker. He clearly runs almost exclusively on the forefoot. And yet you claim that all good runners are midfoot strikers. Must feel good to have decided how things are completely regardless of what all the facts say.

@@SpringSnabbare might be that the heel is a pivotal point and with a relaxed ankle in milliseconds, the midfoot and forefoot take over the load. so the impact is acceptable for some top athletes. The modern shoe design also invites this way of running, with the ever increasing soft foam stack heights in the heel.

Do you know who doesn't think it's a silly question? Those who have been told by their friends or coaches that they have to land on their forefoot and then suffered various types of injuries and become less effective runners. So I do nothing else all day at work but talk to runners about effective running technique. That you MUST, without exception, land on the forefoot is something I hear very often.

If you have switched to midfoot landing and got rid of injuries, I am very happy for you. Well done! I'm not saying that midfoot or forefoot landing is bad. I am saying that those who claim that it is always bad to put the heel down first or that elite runners never do it are wrong. Also remember that it may not be which part of the foot you put down first that has made a difference in your running. It absolutely can. But it's not entirely certain. By consciously trying to move towards a more midfoot landing, you may also have changed how your foot moves on the way forward, how it moves just before it touches the ground and where you land in relation to your centre of mass. If you had changed those parts but still touched the ground with your heel first, you might have had the same effect. Or not. What do I know? Well, one thing I do know is that the biomechanics of running are complicated and you should be careful not to say "This is how it works for me and this is always the case for all runners at all paces".

Kipchoge did not run like that and very few in the statistics shown. You did watch the video you commented on?

There are many things I don't address in this video, which doesn't mean I don't know about them. For example, I could possibly have been clearer about how it works at different paces even though I actually say: "The faster you run, the further in front of your body it's okay to put your foot down, which is part of the reason why the vast majority of the runners at the World Championships did put their heels down first." However, the purpose of this video is NOT to say exactly what is best for different runners at different paces. The only point I want to make is that people who say "All elite runners run on the forefoot" or "It's always bad to put your heel down first so no runner should do that" are wrong. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Why would landing on your heel automatically be detrimental? Have you seen the video? Do you think all the men's medalists at the world marathon championships would be heel strikers if it was bad? What is bad is landing too far in front of the hip/center of mass which a lot of people do who put their heel down first when they run. But it also not good at all to land too far in front of you even if you put your forefoot down first. The forces will shift depending on how you land which will change the location of injury risk depending on which part of the foot you put down first. But both ways are bad. What matters is where your foot is when you put weight on it, how it moves just before hitting the ground, etc. But to answer your question: it is not at all certain that highly cushioned shoe reduces the injury risk for heel strikers in any way. I also know several people who run barefoot or in FiveFingers who clearly put their heel down first with no injury problems. If you are now landing on your heel when your foot is too far in front of you, I suggest you try to improve your technique for a landing more below the body than getting the highly cushioned shoe.

Landing on your heel is unnatural and is only able to be done because of cushioned shoes. Try running barefoot and see if you heal strike.

@@dreswan1 It's hard to say this in a delicate way, but you're wrong! The biomechanics of running is my full-time job and has been for many years. I have met and helped many thousands of runners and I have met many runners who run barefoot or in FiveFingers who put their heels down first without suffering any injuries. Even on tarmac. All of them have been convinced that they land on their forefoot. It's a myth that everyone who runs barefoot always lands on their forefoot and it's a topic that will get its own video where I describe how it works. But until then, you can watch this video from my instagram account showing a runner who told me that she started running barefoot because she used to land on her heel too far in front of her body, but since she took off her shoes she always lands on her forefoot right under her body. And that's obviously not the case. The video was taken while she was running on tarmac. instagram.com/tv/CdY-X_GDt7u/? And I've met many more like her.

​@@SpringSnabbare That looks like it will hurt. I hope you are not advocating running barefoot with a heel landing.

@@davidlynch9049 No, it didn't hurt at all. She had been running like that for a very long time and never had any injuries. She was also completely convinced that she landed on her forefoot. And don't worry, I'm not advocating that you SHOULD land heavily on your heel when running barefoot. The whole point of my films is that I am so incredibly tired of all the claims about running that are not true at all. "Elite runners take 180 steps per minute", "Elite runners have 90 degrees at the elbow", "Elite runners always put the forefoot down first", "Those who run barefoot or in barefoot shoes naturally get an efficient running stride and never land on their heels". None of this is true and there are lots of studies that back up my claims. I'm not saying "You should land on your heel" just because some barefoot runners do it (and run injury-free) and many world record runners do it. I am saying that those who claim that "Elite runners always put the forefoot down first" and "Barefoot runners never put the heel down first" are wrong. Biomechanics is not as black and white as many would have you believe.

If heel landing is "the norm" why are all the running-drills on the forefoot?

"Many pro runners have changed to heel strike", what are you basing that on? Do you have any numbers or studies to refer to or is it mostly your gut feeling? And where did you get that you get a greater effect from the new shoes if you land on your heel? What studies have you read about this? Or is it your gut feeling talking again? The data I'm referring to is from the 2017 World Championships. Prototypes of the Vaperfly made their championship debut at the 2016 Rio Olympics. The first time the finished model was used was at 'Breaking 2' in May 2017. This means that during the World Championships in August, only some Nike-sponsored runners had access to shoes with the new type of midsole and a carbon fibre plate. The rest did not. But still, about 70 per cent of them put their heel down first at the measuring station I refer to.

​@@SpringSnabbare No studies, just my gut reaction from watching marathons from back in the 80s til now. Im very suprised that such a high percentage of pros are heel strikers. Be interesting to see new data from a recent marathon with the new super shoes as maybe even a higher percentage would be heel strikers due to the higher stack and all that cusion 🤔

@@kirbster1977 So zero evidence, lol. How to tell us you're a republican without saying you're a republican.

This is correct. The coach in the video is extremely lean, with almost zero muscle. He looks sick. But, that is just how elite endurance runners look. I am not really into that emaciated look. But to each their own.

​@@SWTORDREKKIN only way to get faster though

Dan Fors, Fredrik shows thru video that people think they are running one way but actually running the opposite..you need to film yourself to he sure. You are probably still heel striking! 🤣🙋🙏

@@SWTORDREKKIN He's not trying to attract you, you homosexual! 🤣🙋🙏

@@Londonfacts Tell that to Usain Bolt you dork🤣🙋🙏

Okay, don't watch my videos then. By the way, you know what I find obnoxious and unappealing? All the runners and running coaches who firmly claim lots of things that are not true. For example, that it's always bad if the heel touches the ground first and that elite runners always run on the forefoot. I think it's okay to make fun of them since they have been lying to so many people for so many years. But apparently you can think differently about that.

Thank you for inviting us to comment. Thank you for allowing us to think our own thoughts. Thank you for being such a good sport while receiving our comments.