Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open

Table 1 Analysis of included studies

From: Foot Strike Patterns During Overground Distance Running: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study: country

Sample (total N, location, athlete level)

Study Design

Distance (total)

Distance (checkpoint) (km)

RFS (%)

NRFS (%)

MFS (%)

FFS (%)

Asymmetrical

Performance (NRFS vs RFS)

Change in foot strike pattern between first and last checkpoints (NRFS to RFS or RFS to NRFS)c

Bovalino et al. [1]: Australia

N = 459 participants at the 2017 Melbourne City to Sea recreational running event (recreational)

Cross sectional

15 km

3

76.9

22.0

N/A

N/A

N/A

NRFS faster than RFS

N = 67/459 (14.6%) changed foot strike

N = 64/67 (95.5%) changed from NRFS to RFS

N = 3/67 (4.5%) changed from RFS to NRFS

13

91.0

8.7

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hanley et al. [19]: UKd

N = 12 participants at the 2017 IAAF World Championships men’s 10,000 m final (elite)

Cross sectional

10 km

4.18

0

100

42

50

8%

N/Ad

N = 0/12 changed foot strike (0%)d

5.78

0

100

50

42

8%

7.78

0

100

50

33

17%

Hebert-Losier et al. [21]: Singapore

N = 350 participants at the 2015 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon (recreational)

Cross sectional

42.2 km

10

65

24

21

3

11%

NRFS NOT faster than RFS

N/A

39

77

16

15

1

8%

Hanley et al. [14]: UK

N = 149 participants at the 2017 IAAF World Championships marathon event (elite)

Cross sectional

42.2 km

8.5

60

40

36

4

N/A

NRFS NOT faster than RFS for men

NRFS faster than RFS for women

N = 30/149 (20.1%) changed foot strike

N = 24/30 (80%) changed from NRFS to RFS

N = 6/30 (20%) changed from RFS to NRFS

19

64

35

31

4

N/A

29.5

65

35

32

3

N/A

40

70

30

27

3

N/A

Hasegawa et al. [2]: Japan

N = 283 participants at the 2004 47th Sapporo International Half Marathon (elite)

Cross Sectional

21.1 km

15

74.9

25.1

23.7

1.4

N/A

NRFS faster than RFS

N/A

Kasmer et al. [22]: USA

N = 161 participants at the 2012 Ice Age Trail 50 km race (recreational)

Cross sectional

50 km

8.1

85.1

13.7

13.7

0

1.2%

NRFS NOT faster than RFS

N/A

Kasmer et al.[20]: USA

N = 1,991 participants at the 2011 Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon (recreational)

Cross sectional

42.2 km

8.1

93.7

5.6

5.1

0.6

0.7%

NRFS faster than RFS

N/A

Kasmer et al. [23]: USAa

N = 316 participants at the 161.1 km Western States Endurance Run (recreational)

Cross sectional

161.1 km

16.5

79.9

11.1

7.8

0.3

N/A

NRFS NOT faster than RFS

N = 23/316 (7.3%) changed foot strike pattern

N = 17/23 (73.9%) changed from NRFS to RFS

N = 6/23 (26.1%)) changed from RFS to NRFS

90.3

89

6.8

3.2

1.1

N/A

Latorre-Roman et al. [24] Spaine

N = 542 athletes who participated in the 2011 XVII International Half Marathon of Cordoba (recreational)

Cross sectional

21.1 km

15

95.4

4.6

3.5

1.1

25.9%

NRFS faster than RFS

N/A

Larson et al. [3]: USAb

N = 286 participants in the 2009 Manchester City Marathon (recreational)

Cross sectional

42.2 km

10

87.8

4.5

3.1

1.4

7.7%

NRFS NOT faster than RFS

N = 30/286 (10.5%) changed foot strike pattern

N = 23/30 (76.7%) changed from NRFS to RFS

N = 7/30 (23.3%) changed foot strike from RFS to NRFS

32

93

3.5

3.5

0

3.5%

N = 650 participants of the marathon relay and half marathon 2009 Manchester City Marathon (recreational)

Cross sectional

21.1 km marathon relay and half marathon cohort

10

89.4

5.5

3.5

2

5.1%

NRFS NOT faster than RFS

N/A

Murray et al. [25]: New Zealand

N = 24 recreationally competitive runners (recreational)

Cross sectional

12 km

3

96

4

4

0

N/A

N/A

N = 1/24 (4%) changed foot strike pattern

N = 1/1 (100%) changed from NRFS to RFS

N = 0/1 (0%) changed from RFS to NRFS

10

100

0

0

0

N/A

Patoz et al. [26]: Singapore

N = 940 participants of the 2015 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon (recreational)

Cross sectional

42.2 km

10

71.1

18.3

16.6

1.7

10.6%

NRFS faster than RFS

N/A

  1. FFS forefoot strike, MFS midfoot strike, NRFS non-rearfoot strike, N number of subjects, RFS rearfoot strike
  2. aKasmer et al. [23] four checkpoints included in study, but final checkpoint removed as it violated exclusion criteria of being within 1 km of finish line. Checkpoint at 90.7 km removed as it was downhill and deemed likely to impact foot landing position. Values do not add up to 100% due to different methods of foot strike categorisation used which could not always be adapted to fit table
  3. bLarson et al. [3] Relay marathon and half marathon cohort table has been adapted from raw data within study by subtracting the pure marathon runner cohort 10 km data (n = 286) from the combined marathon/relay and half marathon 10 km data (n = 936) to create a novel dataset of N = 650 10 km data for relay marathon and half marathon combined. “Change” foot strike data were adapted from the raw data set provided by original author which contained both left and right individual foot strike data between checkpoints. These data were re-categorised to accept change between checkpoints in either left or right foot, to be deemed as change in general to ensure data were congruent with other studies. In cases where different foot strike patterns were observed between feet, but this pattern did not change between checkpoints, a NO change categorisation was given
  4. c% and N = values will not always correlate with values offered in publication due to constraints on available data. Relevant text or tables within the paper used to produce congruent and applicable values for the purposes of this review. Direction of foot strike pattern change only recorded as either NRFS to RFS or RFS to NRFS. Data not included if studies reported further sub-categorisation of FFS or MFS
  5. dHanley et al. [19] = 6 checkpoints included in study, first two checkpoints removed due to violating exclusion criteria of being within 2 km of start line and final checkpoint removed as it violated exclusion criteria of being within 1 km of finish line. Performance data considered to be N/A as no competitors recorded as RFS for comparison. Under the definition given of changed foot strike contained within the methods of this study, no participants were seen to change from NRFS to RFS (please note original paper did observe sub-category change between FFS and MFS)
  6. eLatorre-Roman et al. [24] values were re-categorised from individual foot strike patterns. Asymmetry value % not offered in context of other foot strike patterns in paper
Back to article page