This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]

On: 28 March 2013, At: 15:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Foot strike patterns and ground contact times during

high-calibre middle-distance races
a a
Phil Hayes & Nicholas Caplan
a
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria
University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Version of record first published: 02 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Phil Hayes & Nicholas Caplan (2012): Foot strike patterns and ground contact times during high-calibre
middle-distance races, Journal of Sports Sciences, 30:12, 1275-1283

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.707326

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Sports Sciences, August 2012; 30(12): 1275–1283

Foot strike patterns and ground contact times during high-calibre

middle-distance races

PHIL HAYES & NICHOLAS CAPLAN

Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK

(Accepted 25 June 2012)

Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013

Abstract
The aims of this study were to examine ground contact characteristics, their relationship with race performance, and the time
course of any changes in ground contact time during competitive 800 m and 1500 m races. Twenty-two seeded, single-sex
middle-distance races totalling 181 runners were filmed at a competitive athletics meeting. Races were filmed at 100 Hz.
Ground contact time was recorded one step for each athlete, on each lap of their race. Forefoot and midfoot strikers had
significantly shorter ground contact times than heel strikers. Forefoot and midfoot strikers had significantly faster average
race speed than heel strikers. There were strong large correlations between ground contact time and average race speed for
the women’s events and men’s 1500 m (r ¼ 70.521 to 70.623; P 5 0.05), whereas the men’s 800 m displayed only a
moderate relationship (r ¼ 70.361; P ¼ 0.002). For each event, ground contact time for the first lap was significantly
shorter than for the last lap, which might reflect runners becoming fatigued.

Keywords: Running, endurance, locomotion, gait, fatigue

the part of the foot that initiated ground contact and

Introduction
Traditionally, endurance events have been considered
primarily from a metabolic perspective (Di Prampero,
Atchou, Bruckner, & Moia, 1986; Joyner, 1991).
Coyle (1995) proposed a three-tiered hierarchical
model consisting of morphological components,
functional abilities, and performance abilities. Paavo-
lainen and colleagues proposed a model that also
consisted of a number of metabolic factors, as well as
neuromuscular factors (Paavolainen, Hakkinen,
Hamalainen, Nummela, & Rusko, 1999). These
neuromuscular changes encompassed neural control,
muscle force and elasticity, and running mechanics.
Previous biomechanical analyses of running have
failed to find any consistent kinetic or kinematic
variable that determines either running performance
(Elliott & Ackland, 1981; Elliott & Roberts, 1980;
Gazeau, Koralsztein, & Billat, 1997; Siler & Martin,
1991; Williams & Cavanagh, 1987; Williams, Snow,
& Agruss, 1991) or running economy (Anderson,
1996; Kyrolainen, Belli, & Komi, 2001; Saunders,
Pyne, Telford, & Hawley, 2004). Within the running
gait, the ground contact phase is of great importance
because it is the only point at which propulsive force
is applied. Hasegawa and colleagues investigated
the relationship between ground contact time and
finishing position during a competitive, high-calibre,
half marathon (Hasegawa, Yamauchi, & Kraemer,
2007). They found a significant relationship between
ground contact time and finishing position in the race,
with shorter ground contact times associated with a
higher finishing position. Interestingly, forefoot and
midfoot strikers, who comprised 25% of the sample,
had shorter ground contact times than heel strikers.
The findings of Hasegawa et al. (2007) contrast
long standing beliefs about running gait. For several
decades, the ground contact pattern for middle- and
long-distance running has generally been character-
ized by a heel strike. Traditionally, both empirical
evidence (Slocum & James, 1968) and coaching
folklore (Bosch & Klomp, 2005; Humphreys &
Holman, 1985; Watts, Wilson, & Horwill 1972)
have espoused this point of view. More recently, some
coaching manuals have proposed a midfoot landing
(Dreyer, 2003; Romanov, 2002). Many of these views
are opinion based, lacking empirical support.
The few studies that have examined ground
contact times in middle-distance running (Elliot &
Ackland, 1981; Elliot & Roberts, 1980; Williams
et al., 1991) have focused more on the longer

Correspondence: P. Hayes, Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 8ST,
UK. E-mail: phil.hayes@northumbria.ac.uk
ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.707326
 1276 P. Hayes & N. Caplan
middle-distance races of 3 km or more. These
studies have looked at race performances over a
range of distances, including 10 km (Williams &
Cavanagh, 1987), 5 km (Nummela et al., 2006;
Williams et al., 1991), and 400 m (Bates, Osternig,
& James 1977; Hobara et al., 2010). Most studies
examining ground contact times have shown an
increase in ground contact time during the run.
Gazeau et al. (1997) examined mechanical changes
during a run to exhaustion, at the speed at which
maximum oxygen uptake (V_ O2max) was attained by
their participants, and also found increases in ground
contact time. The only exception to this is Elliott and
Roberts (1980), who employed an even pacing
strategy over 3 km, and found small but non-
significant increases in ground contact time. To
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
date, however, there is no information on ground
contact times or point of contact during either 800 m
or 1500 m races. Furthermore, few studies have
examined the time course of changes in running
mechanics, in particular the ground contact phase.
Gazeau et al. (1997) reported that the ground
contact time was ‘modified in fatigue conditions’, as
it only increased in the latter half of a run to
exhaustion. Kyrolainen et al. (2001) suggested that a
shorter, more rapid stretch of the muscle will elicit a
more effective use of the stored musculo-tendon
elasticity in the concentric action of a stretch–
shortening cycle. Increases in ground contact times
could reduce the effectiveness of the stretch–short-
ening cycle, thereby contributing to fatigue through
increasing the energy cost at any given running
speed. The ground contact phase is a critical point in
the running gait. In long-distance events, a relation-
ship has been shown between ground contact time
and performance. Moreover, during high-intensity
running, changes in ground contact time have been
associated with an inability to maintain performance.
To date, there is a lack of evidence regarding this
aspect of middle-distance running. The aims of this
study, therefore, were to examine ground contact
characteristics, their relationship with race perfor-
mance, and the time course of any changes in ground
contact time during competitive 800 m and 1500 m
races. We hypothesized that (a) midfoot and forefoot
strikers would have shorter ground contact times
than heel strikers, (b) midfoot and forefoot strikers
would have faster average race speeds than heel
strikers, and (c) there would be a relationship
between ground contact time and running speed.
Methods
Design
This field-based study analysed middle-distance
runners at a British Milers’ Club Grand Prix meeting
in Manchester, UK on 19 July 2008. The meeting
consisted of 22 single-sex, seeded races over 800 m
or 1500 m. Each race had a pacemaker and a pre-
determined pace that all athletes were aware of
before the start. All athletes were filmed on each lap
of their race. We defined an event as all the same,
single-sex races conducted over a specific distance
(i.e. women’s 800 m). To examine the ground
contact characteristics of each event, the proportions
of forefoot, midfoot, and heel strikers within each
event and each lap of each event were determined.
The relationship between ground contact time and
performance was determined by correlating ground
contact time with race time (s) and average speed
(m  s71). In addition, the average ground contact
time and average race speed were compared across
forefoot, midfoot, and heel strikers to determine
whether they differed. To assess the time course of
changes, we compared the ground contact time on
each lap of each event, which was further broken
down by forefoot, midfoot, and heel strikers.
Participants
Altogether, 181 runners completed the 800 and
1500 m races; there were 34, 24, 71, and 52 athletes
in the women’s 800 m, women’s 1500 m, men’s
800 m, and men’s 1500 m, respectively. No descrip-
tive data were collected from the athletes, and
runners only competed in one race. The study
received institutional ethics approval. All runners
competing were aware before registration that the
races were being filmed, both for Internet broadcast
and our research.
Data collection
A high-speed video camera (A602fc-2, Basler,
Ahrensburg, Germany) was placed 15 m from the
finishing line on a tripod at a height of 0.15 m. The
camera was positioned at right angles to the track, in
the outside lane (lane 8). The shutter speed was
0.002 s and the filming rate was 100 Hz. The camera
was connected directly to a laptop PC via FireWire,
and all video images were saved in Vicon Motus
software (Vicon, Oxford, UK). A second, hand-held
camera (HVR-A1V, Sony, Tokyo, Japan) was used
to record the athletes on the start line to assist with
matching athletes to their ground contact images.
Data analysis
Each athlete was identifiable on every lap of his or
her race. Only one foot strike per athlete on each lap
was analysed, for a total of 514 foot strikes. Using the
images from the trackside camera and those of the
athletes on the start line, foot strike data and

individual athlete race performance were matched.
Foot strikes were classified as heel strikes, midfoot
strikes or forefoot strikes, according to previously
used definitions (Hasegawa et al., 2007). Heel
strikers were classified based on the heel of the
shoe contacting the ground first. Midfoot strikers
were classified by both the heel and forefoot
contacting the ground at the same time, and forefoot
strikers by the forefoot contacting the ground first.
To establish the reliability of the identification of
ground contact times, a runner completed a short
run on a treadmill during which 50 consecutive foot
contacts were filmed using the same camera and
capture rate as during the study. The runner was
filmed at 4.72 and 6.39 m  s71, from a distance of
7 m. Each foot strike was analysed twice, the tech-
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
nical error of measurement for 4.72 and 6.39 m  s71
was 0.02 ms and 0.04 ms, respectively. When
runners changed foot strike point during the race,
the predominant position was used to classify them.
If there were an equal number of laps with different
foot strike positions, the predominant position was
determined from their first lap contact. Ground
contact time was determined by recording the
number of frames of video data where the foot was
in contact with the ground. From knowledge of the
frame rate, each frame equated to 0.01 s.
Statistical analysis
Before statistical analysis, average race speed and
average ground contact times were checked for
normal distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test and Q-Q plots and deemed to be normally
distributed. All values are expressed as means and
standard deviations. Statistical analyses were per-
formed using SPSS version 16.0 for Windows (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL). A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare mean ground
contact times for the three different foot strike
patterns in each event. Where significant differences
occurred, a Tukey post-hoc test was employed.
Differences in ground contact time between laps
were determined by a paired samples t-test for the
800 m races (two foot strikes) and a one-way
ANOVA with repeated measures for the 1500 m
races (four foot strikes). Where significant differ-
ences occurred for the 1500 m races, a Bonferroni
post-hoc test was employed. Pearson’s product–
moment correlations were used to establish the
relationships between average race speed and average
ground contact time. Statistical significance was set
at P  0.05. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated using
the method of Cohen (1998) and interpreted using
the scale of Lipsey (1990). The interpretation of
correlation coefficients was performed using the
scale of Hopkins (2006).
Ground contact times in middle-distance races 1277
Results
Race performance
The women completed the 800 m and 1500 m in
132.84 + 4.43 s and 272.04 + 10.63 s, respectively;
the times of the men for these distances were
115.21 + 3.41 s and 236.91 + 8.83 s, respectively.
A similar level of homogeneity existed across all
events, with coefficients of variation of 3.3%, 3.9%,
3.0%, and 3.7% for women’s 800 m, women’s
1500 m, men’s 800 m, and men’s 1500 m races,
respectively. The average race speeds were 6.03 +
0.20 m  s71, 5.52 + 0.21 m  s71, 6.95 + 0.21 m 
s71, and 6.36 + 0.23 m  s71 for women’s 800 m,
women’s 1500 m, men’s 800 m, and men’s 1500 m
races, respectively. Average race speeds for each event
were different from all other events (F3,177 ¼ 330.037;
P  0.001). The average 1500 m speed was the same
proportion of the average speed in the 800 m (91.5%)
for both males and females, suggesting that runners in
both events were of a comparable standard.
Ground contact characteristics
Thirty-one percent of all male and female runners
were forefoot strikers, 42% midfoot strikers, and 27%
heel strikers. Table I shows the values for each
individual event. There was less variation between the
races for the females. Chi-square analysis revealed no
significant differences between events and within
events the only significant difference was the low
proportion of heel strikers in the men’s 800 m.
The mean ground contact times (see Table II) were
171 + 16 ms, 180 + 14 ms, 162 + 12 ms, and
173 + 16 ms for women’s 800 m, women’s
1500 m, men’s 800 m, and men’s 1500 m races,
respectively. The men’s 800 m had shorter ground
contact times than all other events (F3,177 ¼ 16.174;
P 5 0.001), while the women’s 800 m was different
from the women’s 1500 m. No difference was evident
between the men’s 1500 m and women’s 800 m.
Analysis of variance revealed that when all runners
were combined, both forefoot and midfoot strikers
had shorter average ground contact times than heel
strikers (F2,178 ¼ 25.933; P 5 0.001). Furthermore,
these differences were of a large magnitude (heel
strikers vs. forefoot strikers, ES ¼ 1.3; heel strikers
Table I. Proportions of forefoot, midfoot, and heel strikers during
men’s and women’s middle-distance races.
Event Forefoot Midfoot Heel
Women’s 800 m (n ¼ 34) 27 41 32
Women’s 1500 m (n ¼ 24) 25 42 33
Men’s 800 m (n ¼ 71) 35 50 15
Men’s 1500 m (n ¼ 52) 37 37 26
All runners (N ¼ 181) 31 42 27
 1278 P. Hayes & N. Caplan

Table II. Effect size, mean difference between, and 95% confidence interval of, the differences for ground contact time between differing
points of ground contact.

All runners Women’s 800 m Women’s 1500 m Men’s 800 m Men’s 1500 m

FF vs. MF Effect size 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4

Mean difference (ms) 2 1 1 1 5
95% CI (ms) 75, 0 74, 7 76, 7 74, 1 79, 71
FF vs. HS Effect size 1.3 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.9
Mean difference (ms) 719 11 11 16 26
95% CI (ms) 722, 716 716, 75 721, 72 720, 712 731, 721
MF vs. HS Effect size 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.8
Mean difference (ms) 717 12 12 15 21
95% CI (ms) 720, 714 717, 77 720, 75 718, 711 725, 717

Note: FF ¼ forefoot strikers; MF ¼ midfoot strikers; HS ¼ heel strikers.

vs. midfoot strikers, ES ¼ 1.2; forefoot strikers vs.

Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013

midfoot strikers, ES ¼ 0.1). Figure 1 shows average

ground contact time as a function of foot strike
position for the 800 m, while Figure 2 highlights this
for the men’s and women’s 1500 m. In both the
men’s 800 m and 1500 m, forefoot and midfoot
strikers had shorter average ground contact times
(P  0.035) than heel strikers. The women’s 800 m
and 1500 m showed a similar pattern for average
ground contact time, but unlike the men’s events
these differences were non-significant, although still
of a large magnitude.

Time course of changes in ground contact time

Ground contact times increased during each event
(P 5 0.001) (Figure 3), with lap 1 being shorter than
all other laps, except lap 2 of the women’s 1500 m.
The magnitude of the difference in ground contact
time between successive laps was more marked in the
800 m (women’s 800 m: d ¼ 15 ms, 95% CI [14,
17], ES ¼ 1.1; men’s 800 m: d ¼ 12 ms, 95% CI
[10, 14], ES ¼ 0.9). In the men’s 1500 m, while
there was an overall increase in ground contact time
(P 5 0.001; lap 1 vs. lap 4: d ¼ 9 ms, 95% CI [7,
10], ES ¼ 0.5) beyond the change between laps 1
and 2 (d ¼ 5 ms, 95% CI [4, 6], ES ¼ 0.3), all other
changes were non-significant and of a small magni-
tude (lap 2 vs. lap 3: d ¼ 3 ms, 95% CI [2, 4], Figure 1. (a) Ground contact times during the first and second lap
ES ¼ 0.2; lap 3 vs. lap 4: d ¼ 1 ms, 95% CI [–1, 2], of the women’s 800 m. (b) Ground contact times during the first
ES ¼ 0.0). For the women’s 1500 m, there was a and second lap of the men’s 800 m. FF ¼ forefoot strikers;
progressive slowing, with ground contact time on lap MF ¼ midfoot strikers; HS ¼ heel strikers.
1 shorter than on lap 3 (d ¼ 14 ms, 95% CI [12, 17],
ES ¼ 1.0) and lap 4 (d ¼ 13 ms, 95% CI [10, 16],
ES ¼ 0.8), with laps 2 and 3 also different (d ¼ 8 ms, P ¼ 0.007) average race speeds than heel strikers
95% CI [5, 11], ES ¼ 0.5). (forefoot strikers vs. heel strikers: d ¼ 0.34 m  s71,
95% CI [0.08, 0.59], ES ¼ 0.7; midfoot strikers vs.
heel strikers: d ¼ 0.24 m  s71, 95% CI [70.07,
The relationship between ground contact time and race
0.48], ES ¼ 0.5). In the men’s 1500 m, midfoot
performance
strikers were faster than heel strikers (F2,49 ¼ 3.595;
When all the runners were combined, forefoot and P ¼ 0.035); for all other events, there were no
midfoot strikers had faster (F2,178 ¼ 5.066; significant differences in average race speed for the

different foot strike positions. A consistent pattern
was found for the differences across each event: both
midfoot and forefoot strikers showed a difference of
at least 0.11 m  s71 compared with heel strikers,
while there was a difference of less than 0.04 m  s71
between midfoot and forefoot strikers. For all events,
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
Figure 2. (a) Ground contact times during the first and las lap of
the women’s 1500 m. (b) Ground contact times during the first
and last lap of the men’s 1500 m. FF ¼ forefoot strikers; MF ¼
midfoot strikers; HS ¼ heel strikers.
Figure 3. Average ground contact times during each lap. M800 ¼
men’s 800 m; W800 ¼ women’s 800 m; M1500 m ¼ men’s
1500 m; W1500 ¼ women’s 1500 m.
Ground contact times in middle-distance races 1279
the effect sizes for comparisons between midfoot and
forefoot strikers were small (ES 5 0.2). However,
the effect sizes comparing forefoot with heel strikers
were all moderate, ranging from 0.6 (women’s
800 m, women’s 1500 m, men’s 800 m) to 0.8
(men’s 1500 m). The comparisons for midfoot and
heel strikers were more variable, ranging from 0.3 for
the women’s 1500 m to 0.8 for the men’s 1500 m.
Significant relationships were found between
ground contact time and average race speed for
each event, and all runners combined (see Table III).
Figure 4 shows the relationship between ground
contact time and average race speed for all runners
combined. It is notable that similar correlations were
achieved for all analyses with the exception of the
men’s 800 m, for which a moderate correlation was
attained.
Discussion
The main findings were that runners made initial
ground contact with predominantly either their
forefoot or midfoot, with heel strikers constituting
just over a quarter of runners. As hypothesized, the
forefoot and midfoot strikers had shorter ground
contact times than heel strikers, which was to some
extent reflected in faster race times. There were
large, negative relationships between average ground
contact times and average race speed across events.
Changes in ground contact times were evident with
increases between the first and last lap in each event.
Table III. Relationships between ground contact time and average
race speed in middle-distance races.
Event Correlation P-value
Women’s 800 m (n ¼ 34) 70.623 50.001
Women’s 1500 m (n ¼ 24) 70.521 0.029
Men’s 800 m (n ¼ 71) 70.361 0.002
Men’s 1500 m (n ¼ 52) 70.601 50.001
All runners (N ¼ 181) 70.586 50.001
Figure 4. Relationship between ground contact time and average
race speed for male and female middle-distance runners.
 1280 P. Hayes & N. Caplan
Foot strike patterns
To date, two large field studies have examined foot
strike characteristics in long-distance runners. Kerr
and colleagues assessed recreational runners
(N ¼ 624) over 10 km and competitive runners
(N ¼ 125) at two points during a marathon (Kerr,
Beauchamp, Fisher, & Neil, 1983). They found 81%
of runners to be heel strikers. Hasegawa et al. (2007)
found approximately 75% of high-calibre half mara-
thon runners (N ¼ 415) were heel strikers, with
midfoot and forefoot strikers being associated with
faster running speeds. Novacheck (1998), by con-
trast, suggested that sprinters were likely to adopt a
forefoot pattern. As expected, the results from this
study fall between these two extremes with no more
than one-third of the runners in any event adopting a
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
heel strike pattern. The female runners showed a
remarkably similar pattern for both the 800 and
1500 m. In the male runners, the proportion of
forefoot strikers was similar in the two events,
although there were considerably more midfoot
strikers in the 800 m and therefore concomitantly
fewer heel strikers. To the best of our knowledge,
there are no comparable field-based data for 800 m
or 1500 m races.
Foot strike pattern and ground contact time
Ground contact times in this study were shorter than
those previously reported for longer distance races,
and longer than those recorded for shorter distances.
Notwithstanding the one participant reported who
completed a 1500 m (Williams et al., 1991) but for
whom values were not reported separately, this study
appears to be the first to record ground contact time
during 800 m or 1500 m races. Elliott and Roberts
(1980) reported a mean value of 190 ms for 3000 m,
while for 5000 m there are reported values of
between 203 and 207 ms (Nummela et al., 2008;
Paavolainen et al., 1999; Williams et al., 1991).
During 400 m races, ground contact times of
between 110 ms and 145 ms have been reported
(Bates & Haven, 1973; Bates et al., 1977; Hobara
et al., 2010). In all of these studies, foot strike
position was not recorded. Compared with previous
competitive races of varying distances, the ground
contact times in the present study are in accordance
with the notion that ground contact time decreases in
line with increasing running speed (Luhtanen &
Komi, 1986; Salvidge & Hayes, 2010).
Similar to Hasegawa et al. (2007), we found differ-
ences in average ground contact time between fore-
foot, midfoot, and heel strikers, with heel strikers
having longer contact time for all runners combined
and each of the men’s events. There were large effect
sizes for both midfoot and forefoot strikers compared
with heel strikers. No significant differences in
ground contact time between positions for the
women’s 800 m or 1500 m were found, although
the numbers in each foot strike position were low.
Batterham and Hopkins (2006) highlighted that the
magnitude of effect is of greater importance than
statistical significance, with the latter depending
upon, among other things, sample size. The magni-
tude of effect for each women’s event supports this
pattern of evidence, even where no statistically signi-
ficant differences occurred. Furthermore, the 95%
confidence intervals did not include 0, suggesting a
real difference; however, the lower confidence inter-
val was below the measurement error in our study.
Hasegawa et al. (2007) reported longer ground
contact time during heel strike (199.8 ms) compared
with our data for combined midfoot and forefoot
strikers (187.4 ms). The results from this study are in
accord with this, showing that forefoot and midfoot
strikers tended towards shorter ground contact time.
Williams and Cavanagh (1987) found that heel
strikers had a more extended leg at the point of con-
tact, a longer time spent at maximum knee flexion,
and longer ground contact time than those runners
landing further forward on their foot. These findings,
combined with those of Ardigo and colleagues
(Ardigo, Lafortuna, Minetti, Mognoni, & Saibene,
1995), who found longer acceleration times during
ground contact in heel strikers, led Hasegawa et al.
(2007) to propose that heel striking required more
time for knee joint movement and possibly muscle
activation to accelerate their leg. While this may
be correct, it is also possible that the shorter ground
contact time enables greater use of stored elastic
energy (Ardigo et al., 1995; Bosco, Viitasalo, Komi,
& Luhtanen, 1982).
Point of ground contact and average race speed
In the present study, average race speed was
significantly different depending on the point of
foot contact. When all runners were combined,
forefoot and midfoot strikers were significantly faster
than heel strikers; however, with one exception, there
were no differences within each event. While there
were no differences within events, the effect sizes
tended to follow the trend shown for all runners
combined. Overall, these results show some support
for the notion that midfoot and forefoot strikers have
a faster average race speed than heel strikers.
Hasegawa et al. (2007) showed that shorter
ground contact time was related to a higher finishing
position and that forefoot and midfoot strikers
tended to have shorter ground contact times than
heel strikers. Taken as a whole, our findings would
support this with shorter ground contact times and
faster average race speed in forefoot and midfoot
strikers compared with heel strikers. Based on

findings from several studies (Ardigo et al., 1995;
Heise & Martin, 2001; Kyrolainen et al., 2001;
Spurrs, Murphy, & Watsford, 2003; Williams &
Cavanagh, 1987), Hasegawa et al. (2007) hypothe-
sized that midfoot and forefoot strikers may be more
economic than heel strikers. By contrast, Kram and
Taylor (1990) proposed that the energetic cost of
running relative to body weight is inversely propor-
tional to the rate of force application. They used the
reciprocal of ground contact time as a proxy measure
for the rate of force application. On this basis, at any
given speed, reducing ground contact time would
increase the oxygen cost, thereby making the runner
less economic.
For many years, coaching folklore (Watts et al.,
1972) has advocated the heel strike first pattern for
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
middle- and long-distance runners. The results of
this study and those of Hasegawa and colleagues
clearly show that high-level runners do not necessa-
rily follow this pattern. These data cannot validate
claims in recent publications (Dreyer, 2003; Roma-
nov, 2002; Yessis, 2000) that advocate a midfoot
strike is best. To substantiate these claims, further
intervention studies are required.
Relationship between average ground contact time and
average race speed
One of the most striking findings of this study was
the similarity in the strength of the relationship
between ground contact time and average race speed
across all runners combined and in each of the
events, with the exception of the men’s 800 m. The
similarity of these relationships could suggest a
systematic effect, although further research is re-
quired to confirm this. This is, however, consistent
with Luhtanen and Komi (1986), who found a
reduction in ground contact time with increasing
running speed. Traditional explanatory models of
endurance running performance (Coyle, 1995; Di
Prampero et al., 1986; Joyner, 1991) are essentially
comprised of metabolic and morphological compo-
nents, whereas Paavolainen and colleagues’ (1999)
model incorporated both metabolic and neuromus-
cular factors. The findings for ground contact time
from this study would fit within the neuromuscular
aspects of Paavolainen’s model. In terms of model-
ling endurance running performance, the strength of
our correlations, while not exclusively explaining
performance, suggest that ground contact time
should be incorporated in future models.
The men’s 800 m exhibited a weaker relationship
between average race speed and average ground
contact time. Correlations are affected by both
sample size and the spread of scores (Bates, Zhang,
Dufek, & Chen 1996). In the men’s 800 m event,
there were 71 competitors with only 14.46 s covering
Ground contact times in middle-distance races 1281
the fastest and slowest runners. This density of the
sample may have contributed to the moderate
correlation observed. In contrast to this, the coeffi-
cients of variation (CV) for average race speed for
each event were similar across the events (CV ¼ 3.0–
3.7%). In absolute terms, however, this event had the
smallest range of race times and the largest number
of competitors. The fastest runner was 1.08 s quicker
than any other competitor, leaving 70 competitors
spread over 13.38 s (CV ¼ 2.86%), an even more
densely grouped sample. Further research is required
to identify whether the weaker relationship in the
men’s 800 m is real or a statistical artefact.
Time course of changes
A main finding of the present study is that in all of
the races the first lap had significantly shorter average
ground contact time than the last lap in each event.
An increased ground contact time is consistent with
fatigue-associated changes seen in competitive races
over 400 m (Bates et al., 1977; Hobara et al., 2010)
and treadmill running to exhaustion (Gazeau et al.,
1997; Williams et al., 1991). Concomitant with
increased ground contact time is often an increase in
step length and reduction in running speed (Bates
et al., 1977; Hobara et al., 2010; Kadono, Ae,
Enomotot, Sugita, & Morioka 2008). Longer dis-
tance races, however, have not always shown
increases in stride length (Elliott & Ackland, 1981;
Elliott & Roberts, 1980; Williams et al., 1991).
During competitive 800 m races, using a group of 49
male runners of similar performance capability to the
present study, Kadono et al. (2008) showed a
progressive decrease in both running speed and
stride length from 200 m onwards. They did not,
however, record ground contact time and it is not
therefore possible to determine if the decrease in
stride length was related to increased ground contact
time. The ground contact phase is the only point of
the running gait where propulsive force can be
generated by the runner. It is likely that any
mechanism causing fatigue during this phase will
negatively impact upon performance. Paavolainen
and colleagues’ (1999) model, however, proposed
that fatigue can potentially be caused by a number of
different mechanisms, including changes in ground
contact characteristics. Further study is required to
clarify how the increases in ground contact time
affect middle-distance performance.
The increase in ground contact time over the
course of a race might, on first viewing, suggest that
some element of fatigue has occurred during the
races. There may be an alternative explanation
whereby athletes are slowing down and that ground
contact time is simply related to running speed
(Luhtanen & Komi, 1986; Salvidge & Hayes, 2010),
 1282 P. Hayes & N. Caplan
although the impact of fatigue on the relationship
between running speed and ground contact time is
unknown. For all 22 races observed in the current
study, there was a pacemaker for at least the first
50% of the race. In each race, the pre-determined
pace was faster than the final average race speed.
Split times from each race were not available,
although experienced pacemakers were used in
each race. Our subjective observation was that the
pre-determined split times were invariably met or
exceeded by the pacemakers and competitors alike,
thereby suggesting that the runners slowed down.
This would agree with previous work looking at
pacing strategies in men’s elite (Tucker, Lambert, &
Noakes 2006) and sub-elite (Kadono et al., 2008)
800 m runners. Noakes and colleagues (Noakes,
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
Lambert, & Hauman, 2009) showed that for
successful world record attempts in the men’s mile
(1609 m), the first lap was the fastest in 62% of
cases, with the last lap quickest in the remaining
races analysed. The ground contact time results from
this study do not correspond directly with this,
although the smaller effect size statistics in the
1500 m compared with the 800 m suggest the
possibility of a more varied response between
runners. Unfortunately, there were no individual
lap split times available in the current study to enable
a direct comparison between ground contact time
and running speed throughout the race. Further
research is required to examine this relationship.
Belli and colleagues recommended that when
examining stride characteristics between 32 and 64
strides should be analysed (Belli, Lacour, Komi,
Candau, & Denis, 1995). Bates and colleagues
suggested that for ground reaction forces a minimum
of eight strides are required (Bates, Osternig, Saw-
hill, & James, 1983). Clearly, this is impractical in
field-based studies where the number of ground
contacts ranges from four (Elliott & Ackland, 1981)
to one (Hasegawa et al., 2007; Kerr et al., 1983). We
only measured one ground contact for each runner
on each lap of his or her race, and although below the
recommendation of Bates et al. (1983) it is similar to
previous field-based studies. Furthermore, the low
technical error of measurement determined prior to
this study strongly supports the accuracy of the
analysis.
Conclusion
This is the largest field-based study examining both
male and female 800 m and 1500 m runners during
competitive races. The main findings are that the
majority of runners adopted a forefoot or midfoot
landing strategy. Both forefoot and midfoot strikers
had shorter ground contact times than heel strikers,
which generally translated into faster average race
speeds. There were strong correlations between
ground contact time and average race speed for all
events except the men’s 800 m, which had a
moderate correlation. During both 800 and
1500 m races, ground contact time increased from
the first to last lap. Two plausible explanations are:
the increase in ground contact time is reflective of
fatiguing processes or changes in ground contact
time are due to changes in running speed.
References
Anderson, T. (1996). Biomechanics and running economy. Sports
Medicine, 22, 76–89.
Ardigo, L. P., Lafortuna, C., Minetti, A. E., Mognoni, P., &
Saibene, F. (1995). Metabolic and mechanical aspects of foot
landing type, forefoot and rearfoot strike, in human running.
Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 155, 17–22.
Bates, B. T., & Haven, B. H. (1973). An analysis of the mechanics
of highly skilled female runners. Mechanics and Sport, 4, 237–
245.
Bates, B. T., Osternig, L. R., & James, S. L. (1977). Fatigue
effects in running. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 9, 203–207.
Bates, B. T., Osternig, L. R., Sawhill, J. A., & James, S. L. (1983).
Assessment of subject variability, subject–shoe interaction and
the evaluation of running shoes using ground reaction force
data. Journal of Biomechanics, 16, 181–191.
Bates, B. T., Zhang, S., Dufek, J. S., & Chen, F. C. (1996). The
effects of sample size and variability on the correlation
coefficient. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28,
386–391.
Batterham, A. M., & Hopkins, W. G. (2006). Making meaningful
inferences about magnitudes. International Journal of Sports
Physiology and Performance, 1, 50–57.
Belli, A., Lacour, J. R., Komi, P. V., Candau, R., & Denis, C.
(1995). Mechanical step variability during treadmill running.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiol-
ogy, 70, 510–517.
Bosch, F., & Klomp, R. (2005). Running: Biomechanics and exercise
physiology in practice. Maarssen, Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bosco, C., Viitasalo, J. T., Komi, P. V., & Luhtanen, P. (1982).
Combined effect of elastic energy and myoelectrical potentia-
tion during stretch–shortening cycle exercise. Acta Physiologica
Scandinavica, 114, 557–565.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coyle, E. F. (1995). Integration of the physiological factors
determining endurance performance ability. Exercise and Sport
Science Reviews, 23, 25–63.
Di Prampero, P. E., Atchou, G., Bruckner, J. C., & Moia, C.
(1986). The energetics of endurance running. European Journal
of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 55, 259–266.
Dreyer, D. (2003). Chi Running. New York: Fireside Books.
Elliott, B., & Ackland, T. (1981). Biomechanical effects of fatigue
on 10,000 m running technique. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 52, 160–166.
Elliott, B. C., & Roberts, A. D. (1980). A biomechanical
evaluation of the role of fatigue in middle distance running.
Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 5, 203–207.
Gazeau, F., Koralsztein, J. P., & Billat, V. (1997). Biomechanical
events in the time to exhaustion at maximum aerobic speed.
Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry, 105, 583–590.
Hasegawa, H., Yamauchi, T., & Kraemer, W. J. (2007). Foot
strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-
level half marathon. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 21, 888–893.

Heise, G. D., & Martin, P. E. (2001). Are variations in running
economy in humans associated with ground reaction force
characteristics? European Journal of Applied Physiology, 84, 438–
442.
Hobara, H., Inoue, K., Gomi, K., Sakamoto, M., Muraoka, T.,
Iso, S. et al. (2010). Continuous change in spring-mass
characteristics during a 400 m sprint. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 13, 256–261.
Hopkins, W. (2006). http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.html.
Humphreys, J., & Holman, R (1985). Focus on middle-distance
running. London: A&C Black.
Joyner, M. J. (1991). Modeling: Optimal marathon performance
on the basis of physiological factors. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 70, 683–687.
Kadono, H., Ae, M., Enomotot, Y., Sugita, M., & Morioka, Y.
(2008). The racing patterns of male 800 m runners of different
recorded levels. Japanese Journal of Physical Education, Health
and Sport Science, 53.
Kerr, B. A., Beauchamp, L., Fisher, V., & Neil, R. (1983).
Downloaded by [North Carolina State University] at 15:36 28 March 2013
Footstrike patterns in distance running. In B. M. Nigg & B. A.
Kerr (Eds.), Procedings of the International Symposium on the
Biomechanical Aspects of Sports Shoes and Playing Surfaces (pp.
135–142). Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press.
Kram, R., & Taylor, C. R. (1990). Energetics of running: A new
perspective. Nature, 346, 265–267.
Kyrolainen, H., Belli, A., & Komi, P. V. (2001). Biomechanical
factors affecting running economy. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 33, 1330–1337.
Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Designing sensitivity: Statistical power for
experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Luhtanen, P., & Komi, P. V. (1986). Mechanical factors
influencing running speed. In E. Asmussen & K. Jorgensen
(Eds.), Biomechanics VI-B (pp. 23–29). Baltimore, MD:
University Park Press.
Noakes, T. D., Lambert, M. I., & Hauman, R. (2009). Which lap
is the slowest? An analysis of 32 world mile record perfor-
mances. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 760–764.
Novacheck, T. F. (1998). The biomechanics of running. Gait and
Posture, 7, 77–95.
Nummela, A. T., Heath, K. A., Paavolainen, L. M., Lambert, M.
I., St. Clair Gibson, A., Rusko, H. K. et al. (2008). Fatigue
during a 5-km running time trial. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 29, 738–745.
Ground contact times in middle-distance races 1283
Nummela, A. T., Paavolainen, L. M., Sharwood, K. A., Lambert,
M. I., Noakes, T. D., & Rusko, H. K. (2006). Neuromuscular
factors determining 5 km running performance and running
economy in well-trained athletes. European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 97, 1–8.
Paavolainen, L., Hakkinen, K., Hamalainen, I., Nummela, A., &
Rusko, H. (1999). Explosive-strength training improves 5-km
running time by improving running economy and muscle
power. Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 1527–1533.
Romanov, N. (2002). Pose method of running. New York: Dorling
Kindersley.
Salvidge, C., & Hayes, P. R. (2010). Changes in muscle tendon
unit stiffness with increasing running speed. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 44, i27.
Saunders, P. U., Pyne, D. B., Telford, R. D., & Hawley, J. A.
(2004). Factors affecting running economy in trained distance
runners. Sports Medicine, 34, 465–485.
Siler, W. L., & Martin, P. E. (1991). Changes in running pattern
during a treadmill run to volitional exhaustion: Fast versus
slower runners. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 7,
12–28.
Slocum, D. B., & James, S. L. (1968). Biomechanics of running.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 205, 721–728.
Spurrs, R. W., Murphy, A. J., & Watsford, M. L. (2003). The
effect of plyometric training on distance running performance.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 89, 1–7.
Tucker, R., Lambert, M. I., & Noakes, T. D. (2006). An analysis
of pacing strategies during men’s world-record performances in
track athletics. International Journal of Sports Physiology and
Performance, 1, 233–245.
Watts, D., Wilson, H., & Horwill, F. (1972). The complete middle
distance runner. London: Stanley Paul.
Williams, K. R., & Cavanagh, P. R. (1987). Relationship between
distance running mechanics, running economy, and perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Physiology, 63, 1236–1245.
Williams, K. R., Snow, R., & Agruss, C. (1991). Changes in
distance runners’ kinematics with fatigue. International. Journal
of Sports Biomechanics, 7, 138–162.
Yessis, M. (2000). Explosive running. Colombus, OH: McGraw-
Hill.