It doesn't change the conclusion that forefoot striking is better for short distance sprint (i.e. speed), but that midfoot
might be more suited for long distances.
When the researchers divided the finishers into groups of 50, they started to see something of a change in mid-foot landing as you moved further down the list. In otherwords, there was a higher percentage of midfoot strikers in the first 50 runners than in the second, and then third, and so on.
...
In otherwords, you naturally shift your contact point with the ground further forward when you run faster. The average speed, incidentally, of the first 50 runners was 3 minutes 3 seconds per kilometer. The second group of 50 runners averaged 3 minutes 10 seconds per kilometer. Hardly a big difference, but given the range (the 50th runner is at least a minute behind the 1st runner), is it possible that groups of 50 is too big, and that all this "finding" represents is a speed effect on footstrike?
The point is, this study does not allow you to differentiate between three possibilities:
Faster runners are midfoot strikers (could be co-incidence or some other cause); or
Midfoot strikers are faster runners (and therefore we should all change our running style and land on the front part of the foot more); or
All runners would eventually be midfoot strikers, if they just ran fast enough!
This is another classic example of how a scientific result can be taken out of context and applied to give advice that may not be 100% correct.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.htmlWhat gives? The media tries to make things simple. They say that “mid-foot” or “forefoot” is better than rearfoot. I love reading running forums where people with way too much time on their hands armchair quarterback running styles. They look at a picture or video of a contact pattern of some guy running across the screen and say “wow – nice midfoot strike –that runner is efficient.” They don’t know who the runner is, or what his time was for the race. They just saw a foot strike and proclaimed him efficient. Then they’ll scroll down and see some picture or video of some guy heel striking and proclaim that he/she is an “in-efficient” runner based on the heel strike. This “in-efficient” runner might be an in-efficient runner. Or it might be Meb Keflezighi (a runner who is just a bit faster and more efficient and than most of your reading this post). You see, these arm chair-quarterbacks aren’t very good at identifying efficient gait. Fancy force plates are. I do this for a living and still need data from my lab to give me the answer because no one can actually see forces. So what have we learned from these fancy force plates? Its NOT rear-foot or midfoot or forefoot that matters – its where the foot contacts in relation to the body’s center of mass.
As I stated above, I picked some outliers just to make a point. It is true that for MOST runners, adopting a midfoot or forefoot gait style will lead to decreased loading rates. However, its not because the foot lands differently, its because a rear-foot style typically allows you to land with the foot farther in front of the body’s center of mass (over-striding). Switching to a contact style that moves the foot closer to the body’s center of mass usually means that we land closer to the font of the foot. But not always.
http://uvaendurosport.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/loading-rate-part-2-forefoot-midfoot-rearfoot%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6-who-cares/
