Background:In the running community, a forefoot strike (FFS) pattern is increasingly preferred compared with a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern. However, it has not been fully understood which strike pattern may better reduce adverse joint forces within the different joints of the lower extremity.Purpose:To analyze the 3-dimensional (3D) stress pattern in the ankle, knee, and hip joint in runners with either a FFS or RFS pattern.Study Design:Descriptive laboratory study.Methods:In 22 runners (11 habitual rearfoot strikers, 11 habitual forefoot strikers), RFS and FFS patterns were compared at 3.0 m/s (6.7 mph) on a treadmill with integrated force plates and a 3D motion capture analysis system. This combined analysis allowed characterization of the 3D biomechanical forces differentiated for the ankle, knee, and hip joint. The maximum peak force (MPF) and maximum loading rate (LR) were determined in their 3 ordinal components: vertical, anterior-posterior (AP), and medial-lateral (ML).Results:For both strike patterns, the vertical components of the MPF and LR were significantly greater than their AP or ML components. In the vertical axis, FFS was generally associated with a greater MPF but significantly lower LR in all 3 joints. The AP components of MPF and LR were significantly lower for FFS in the knee joint but significantly greater in the ankle and hip joints. The ML components of MPF and LR tended to be greater for FFS but mostly did not reach a level of significance.Conclusion:FFS and RFS were associated with different 3D stress patterns in the ankle, knee, and hip joint, although there was no global advantage of one strike pattern over the other. The multimodal individual assessment for the different anatomic regions demonstrated that FFS seems favorable for patients with unstable knee joints in the AP axis and RFS may be recommended for runners with unstable ankle joints.Clinical Relevance:Different strike patterns show different 3D stress in joints of the lower extremity. Due to either rehabilitation after injuries or training in running sports, rearfoot or forefoot running should be preferred to prevent further damage or injuries caused by inadequate biomechanical load. Runners with a history of knee joint injuries may benefit from FFS whereas RFS may be favorable for runners with a history of ankle joint injuries.

No abstract