The debate about running shod vs. barefoot rages on.
However, midfoot-forefoot striking is more effective and less liable to cause injuries. When you shorten your stride and increase your cadence (turnover), your feet tend to land closer in line with your body rather than way out in front as they would with an extreme heel strike. As your footstrike becomes closer in line with your body, it is more natural to midfoot-forefoot strike and toe-off.
The main benefits of midfoot-forefoot striking are increased propulsion and efficiency (you don't lose as much kinetic energy as you do when you heel strike and rock forward), and less risk of injury, since impacts are less forceful.
I have personally modified my running style to become more of a mid-foot striker, with increased toe-off. Though I have reduced heel-striking, I haven't eliminated it completely (I can tell by looking at wear patterns on my old shoes).
That said, (minimal) shoes are the best way to go. There are many surfaces (gravel, asphalt, etc.) which are simply too harsh/sharp/hard to run barefoot on, though I agree that running barefoot on softer surfaces can be ok.
The most elite runners in the world still wear running shoes, and many of them still have a slight heel-strike. The day I see barefoot runners winning major marathons in close to 2 hours is the day I'll change over.
Check out the photo on this book cover - at least 4 of the runners are heel-striking to some degree:
![]()
Also, the heel strike doesn't send that much force through your legs.
Yeah, at least not off of my own driveway or walkway on my property. I at least know that that won't be littered with broken glass, or other unpleasantries, and I know where to watch for gravel or stones.No surprise here.
But yeah, i don't see how i can benefit from this as there's no way in hell i'm stepping outside w/o shoes.
Way too many ways for me to puncture my feet in a hurry w/o 'em
A lot of distance runners heel strike though. I never really understood this part. I'm talking like marathon. I don't typically heel strike but all I've done are 5ks. So I can't really comment, but even watching the iron man competition, they heel strike too.
I believe heel striking is less tiring in the long run for distance runs as mid/forefoot striking really starts to tire up your calves later on.
Also, the heel strike doesn't send that much force through your legs. It depends how heavy you hit I suppose. A lot of analysis I heard says that it's actually a softer roll. If you roll from a moderate heel strike to your forefoot, you're transferring energy by rolling your feet. It's not just the fact that your feet aren't springing as much as a forefoot strike. The forces are different.
I read somewhere that up to 80% of runners heel-strike.
It totally depends on the angle you heel-strike though. A sharper angle will produce a lot more impact and lose more energy - you're correct in that a softer angle allows some kinetic energy to be transferred as the foot rolls forward.
Comparing my 2 marathons, my calves were obliterated by the end of the first one (run in trainers). My calves were slightly tight but infinitely better in the second one (which I ran in lightweight racing flats). So I'm not sure if it was the shoes, or the increased training, or both, which made my calves feel better in the second marathon.
