Should You Change Your Running Cadence or Foot Strike?

Cadence: What the Evidence Shows

Cadence, or step rate, is the number of steps you take per minute. Increasing it slightly, while keeping the same pace, shortens each stride.

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis brought together 37 studies on changing running step rate. It found that increasing step rate produces a range of biomechanical changes, including shorter step length and reductions in some knee and hip loading variables.

What the review could not show was a clear effect on injury. Only two of the included studies looked at injury outcomes. Very limited evidence suggested that increasing step rate was associated with improvements in pain and function in recreational runners with patellofemoral pain, but overall the authors concluded that the evidence was insufficient to determine the effects of changing step rate on injury and performance, particularly as most studies examined immediate rather than longer-term effects.

A higher cadence is not automatically a lower-load strategy overall. Changing cadence redistributes work between the hip, knee and ankle, so whether it is useful depends on which tissues you are trying to influence.

What about 180 steps per minute? There is no evidence that 180 is an ideal target for every runner. Natural cadence varies with height, leg length, speed and experience. Cadence also naturally changes with running speed, so comparing a runner's step rate without considering pace can be misleading. In gait-retraining research, cadence is often adjusted relative to a runner's own preferred step rate, for example by around 5 to 10%, rather than towards a fixed number. That is a common research approach, not a prescription that every runner should follow.

Foot Strike: Is Forefoot Running Really Safer?

A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 53 studies compared rearfoot striking (landing heel first) with non-rearfoot striking (landing on the midfoot or forefoot).

• Injury: Limited evidence from retrospective studies suggested that non-rearfoot strikers reported lower rates of repetitive stress injury, but studies prospectively comparing injury risk between strike patterns were lacking. That means the evidence can't show that changing your strike pattern will lower your risk.
• Running economy: Limited evidence showed no difference in running economy between habitual rearfoot and habitual non-rearfoot runners, and economy was reduced in the short term when a forefoot pattern was imposed on runners who normally land on their heel.
• Where the load goes: Changing strike pattern tends to redistribute load rather than remove it. Moving away from a rearfoot strike generally reduces some knee loading while increasing demand on the ankle and plantar-flexor complex, including the Achilles.

A More Useful Question: Where Do You Want the Load to Go?

Because both cadence and foot strike redistribute load rather than simply reducing it, the same change can suit one runner and not another. For example:

• A runner with anterior knee symptoms: increasing cadence may reduce some knee loading, so it may be a reasonable change to trial.
• A runner with Achilles symptoms: switching to a non-rearfoot strike may increase plantar-flexor demand, which is potentially undesirable.

That is exactly why there is no universally "correct" technique.

So Should You Change Your Technique?

For most healthy runners without a current problem, there is no strong case for deliberately changing cadence or foot strike to prevent injury. Your efforts are usually better spent on how you progress your training, building strength and capacity, and responding early when symptoms change.

Technique changes may have a place when:

• You have a specific running-related problem where changing the loading pattern may be worth trialling, such as some cases of patellofemoral pain
• A clinician has identified something in how you run that is plausibly relevant to your symptoms
• The change is introduced gradually, as part of a broader plan, and its effect on your symptoms is monitored

Changing technique changes how load is distributed, so it should be treated as a change in training exposure rather than a free intervention. A sudden switch to a non-rearfoot strike can substantially increase plantar-flexor demand, so any transition should be gradual and monitored.

How IP Physio Can Help

Where it's relevant, we look at how you run as part of a wider assessment of your training history, previous injuries, strength and capacity. The aim isn't to make everyone run the same way. It's to identify whether any aspect of your running mechanics is plausibly relevant to your symptoms and, if so, whether a targeted and gradual change is worth trialling alongside load management and strength work.

For the full picture on running injury risk, including training load, strength and previous injury, read How to Prevent Running Injuries: Evidence-Based Strategies for Runners.