# Foot strike Pattern and Cadence of the Marathon Athletes at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games
## 4 Discussion  
This study presented two objectives related to each of the two hypotheses. In terms of the running strike pattern, the first hypothesis was rejected because the majority of the analyzed runners exhibited a non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) pattern. It is important to note that the results obtained in this study differ from those reported in the literature, where most runners were found to have a rearfoot strike (RFS) pattern (see Table 4). This difference can be attributed to the specific sample analyzed in this study, which consisted of elite athletes competing in the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, whereas previous studies focused on recreational runners [13, 14, 15]. Additionally, even among studies involving elite athletes in competition, different results have been obtained (65% RFS) [2]. This discrepancy could be attributed to two factors. Firstly, the use of new types of footwear incorporating carbon fiber plates may have influenced the footstrike pattern. Secondly, different criteria for defining an RFS runner could contribute to the variations observed. The labeling of the footstrike pattern may be influenced by shoe design features, such as the shoe's drop (the difference in thickness between the heel and toe area of the midsole), which can sometimes be as high as 12 mm and lead to a false RFS classification, even if the athlete runs with a miffoot strike (MFS) and makes ground contact in an anatomically neutral position without dorsiflexion or plantar flexion. As mentioned in the background, there is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal footstrike landing technique in running. In the case of the forefoot strike (FFS) pattern, it is important to note that it was observed in a small percentage of Olympic athletes (10.4% in the right foot and 9.8% in the left foot). This landing technique is known to place greater demands on the foot musculature [5]. Therefore, it does not appear to be the recommended landing technique for long-distance events like the marathon, especially for recreational runners. However, it is interesting to note that in the final of the 10,000 m at the 2017 World Championships, of the 12 finalists, up to 9 of them ran at some point in the race with a forefoot strike pattern. Furthermore, a recent study concluded that all participants in the final had a non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) pattern, and some athletes even switched from a miffoot strike (MFS) to a forefoot strike on the basis of tactical considerations [16]. If a national-level athlete aims to adopt the same footstrike pattern as elite athletes, it is important to recognize that the forefoot strike (FFS) is a demanding technique that requires a proper adaptation period and specific training of the intrinsic and extrinsic musculature of the foot. Additionally, it places greater stress on the muscle-tendon unit of the ankle [6]. According to the findings of this study, the miffoot strike (MFS) pattern was the most commonly observed among the elite athletes analysed. Previous research has also provided several reasons for adopting this running technique: (1) MFS is associated with better performance and improved running economy [8], (2) MFS reduces vertical impact compared with rearfoot strike (RFS) [7], (3) studies focusing on running retraining have proposed a transition from RFS to non-rearfoot strike (NRFS) as a strategy to reduce the risk of injury and as a treatment approach for running-related injuries [10], (4) MFS avoids excessive dorsiflexion of the foot, which can pose a risk of injury [26]. By taking all these factors into account, it can be concluded that MFS is the most favorable technique for long-distance road events.