Evolutionary Reasoning Behind the Forefoot-Strike Walking Gait

Fossil and Anthropological Evidence for Foot Strike in Early Hominins

Paleontological evidence strongly indicates that early bipedal hominins used a heel-first walking gait, much like modern humans, rather than a forefoot-first step. Key findings include:

• Laetoli Footprints (Tanzania, ~3.66 million years ago): These fossilized footprints, likely made by Australopithecus afarensis, show a clear human-like pattern of heel-to-toe walking. The impressions reveal a pronounced heel strike followed by toe push-off – “the gait of these early humans was ‘heel-strike’…followed by ‘toe-off’ – the way modern humans walk” . The Laetoli prints also show an inline big toe and arched foot, indicating a foot adapted to terrestrial bipedalism rather than grasping branches .

Artist’s depiction of two Australopithecus afarensis individuals walking and leaving the Laetoli footprints (~3.6 million years ago). Fossil footprints at Laetoli show an essentially human-like, heel-striking gait .

• Foot Bone Anatomy: Early hominin fossils display adaptations consistent with heel-first locomotion. For example, Australopithecus afarensis had a robust calcaneus (heel bone) and a rigid midfoot arch, much like modern humans . A large, weight-bearing heel bone suggests that the heel made solid contact with the ground during walking, supporting a plantigrade gait. In fact, the earliest evidence of a human-like, enlarged calcaneus dates to around 3.2 million years ago, in A. afarensis fossils from Hadar, Ethiopia . These traits would facilitate heel-strike walking by absorbing impact at the heel and stiffening the foot for an efficient toe-off.

• Homo Erectus Footprints (Ileret, Kenya, ~1.5 million years ago): Fossil footprints attributed to Homo erectusshow fully modern foot kinematics. They preserve a longitudinal arch and weight transfer pattern nearly identical to that of living humans . Researchers have noted that the Ileret tracks provide “the earliest evidence for fully human-like bipedal kinematics, with high arches” – implying that by the time of Homo erectus, the heel-to-toe stride and arch-supported push-off were well-established. There is no sign in these trackways of a consistently forefoot-first strike.

• Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 Ma) and Earlier Hominins: Ardipithecus, an even earlier hominin, had a mixed anatomy. It possessed a grasping divergent big toe and a more flexible midfoot, indicating it still spent time in trees. Its calcaneus was smaller and less specialized for shock absorption than later hominins. This suggests Ardipithecus was not as adept at efficient heel-strike walking on the ground. Nonetheless, when it did walk bipedally, it likely still contacted the ground with the heel – great apes (our common ancestors) already exhibit a heel-down posture . In fact, the heel-strike trait appears to long predate dedicated long-distance walking: “other great apes also are heel-first walkers, [so] the trait evolved before our common ancestors descended from the trees” . This implies the plantigrade foot was an ancestral condition in hominids, even if its initial evolutionary purpose was not purely for walking efficiency.

Summary: All available fossil and footprint evidence points to early humans being heel-strikers when walking. There is no direct fossil evidence that any hominin used a primarily forefoot-striking gait during normal walking. The fundamental foot structure – from the stout heel bone to the development of a rigid arch – was tuned for heel-first weight acceptance and a forceful toe-off, very much like the gait of modern humans . Forefoot striking, therefore, was likely reserved for specific situations (running, stealth, etc.) rather than being the default walking mode in our ancestors.

Comparative Anatomy: Human Feet vs. Other Primates and Digitigrade Animals

Humans are unusual among mammals in walking with a plantigrade stance (heel on the ground). Understanding how other animals walk can illuminate why forefoot (digitigrade) gait might evolve and why our lineage retained a heel-down approach.

• Great Apes: Humans and our great ape relatives (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) share the heel-down, plantigrade foot posture . In great apes, the heel bears weight during standing and walking, just as in humans . This is actually a derived trait within primates – most smaller primates do not fully plant the heel in locomotion. Great apes have relatively large heels and a flexible midfoot (they have a “midfoot break” allowing some foot bend in push-off), but they still make first contact with the heel on the ground. This shared plantigrady suggests an evolutionary shift in our lineage away from the more typical primate condition.

• Other Primates: Most monkeys and many small primates exhibit a more semi-plantigrade or digitigrade gait, especially on unstable arboreal supports. They often keep the heel elevated when moving on branches or when running. For example, gibbons and many monkeys frequently land on the midfoot/toes, and may only sometimes bring the heel down (especially on large, flat surfaces) . The primate ancestors of apes likely had a tendency to toe-walk on branches, but in the great apes a shift occurred. One hypothesis is that as apes became larger and adopted suspensory behaviors (hanging from branches and walking bipedally along limbs), they repositioned their center of mass rearward, facilitating a flat, planted foot for balance . In other words, an ape hanging under a branch and stepping with its hind legs would naturally use the whole foot for support, which could explain how heel-down posture evolved in our lineage for climbing stability .

• Digitigrade Mammals: The vast majority of mammals (e.g. dogs, cats, rodents) walk and run on their toes or forefeet, not their heels. In these digitigrade animals, the heel (calcaneus) is elevated off the ground, often forming part of an extended leg (what looks like an animal’s “hind leg backwards knee” is often the ankle). This configuration lengthens the limb and tends to increase running speed and efficiency. A digitigrade stance allows tendons (like the Achilles tendon) to store and release elastic energy like springs, improving the economy of running . It also effectively lengthens the stride without increasing bone length, since the foot operates as an extra segment of the limb. Classic cursors (running specialists) such as deer, horses, and cheetahs take this to an extreme – unguligrade animals like horses run on the tips of their toes (hooves), maximizing limb length and speed.

• Plantigrade Mammals: Besides great apes and humans, relatively few mammals are plantigrade. Examples include bears, badgers, raccoons, wolverines, and some rodents. These tend to be animals that rely on stability, power, or varied movement more than outright running speed. A plantigrade stance provides a larger base of support and the ability to bear weight comfortably. Interestingly, bears and great apes share this trait despite divergent evolutions, presumably because a flat foot aids certain behaviors like standing upright, wrestling or swatting in fights, and climbing. As one comparative study noted, “most mammals…walk on the balls of their feet…Few species land on their heel: bears and humans and other great apes” . The human foot, with its broad heel and arches, reflects this unique commitment to plantigrade bipedalism.

Trade-offs: The contrast between digitigrade and plantigrade locomotion highlights an evolutionary trade-off. Plantigrade (heel-down) posture sacrifices some running economy and speed in exchange for greater stability, support, and walking efficiency at slow speeds . Digitigrade animals are built to flee or chase – they run fast, but often can’t exert as much pushing force when grappling or climbing. Plantigrade animals (like apes/humans, bears) are better at forceful activities and can move in varied ways (walk, climb, stand upright), but they are generally slower runners . These differences suggest that the evolution of a forefoot-strike gait in a lineage usually reflects selection for high-speed locomotion or stealth, whereas a heel-strike gait reflects selection for strength, stability, and all-day energy economy.

Theoretical Advantages of Forefoot-Strike Gait in Evolutionary Context

If forefoot striking wasn’t the primary walking mode of our ancestors, in what scenarios might a forefoot or digitigrade gait confer advantages? Evolutionarily, several potential benefits of forefoot-first locomotion can be identified by looking at both human capabilities and other species:

• Running and Endurance: Humans are unique in being both plantigrade walkers and capable endurance runners. When humans run, especially barefoot or in minimal footwear, they often switch to a more forefoot or midfoot strike pattern to avoid hard heel impacts . A forefoot strike in running allows the Achilles tendon and arch to absorb shock and recycle energy, resulting in smaller collision forces compared to a heel strike on a hard surface . Evolutionary biologists like Daniel Lieberman have argued that humans evolved to be “endurance runners” for persistence hunting, and that for millions of years humans ran either barefoot or with thin sandals . In such conditions, forefoot- and mid-foot strike gaits were probably more common (versus the heel-pounding enabled by cushioned modern shoes) and may have protected the feet and legs from injury . Thus, one rationale for forefoot strike is in high-speed or endurance locomotion: it enables running without a heavy jarring impact, leveraging our large calf muscles and tendons as springs. The human foot’s anatomy – including a big Achilles tendon insertion and stiff arch – suggests it can function in a spring-like manner when running on the forefoot . In evolutionary terms, forefoot striking would have been advantageous when our ancestors needed to sprint or run long distances (e.g. to chase prey or escape predators) by reducing impact stress and improving running efficiency.

• Agility and Quick Maneuvers: Forefoot striking can improve agility in certain movements. When the foot lands on the toes/ball, the body’s center of gravity stays slightly lower and the muscles of the foot and leg are engaged, ready to spring or change direction. Many animals that must make rapid turns or pounce on prey (cats, for example) move on their toes. In human athletics and combat, being “on the balls of your feet” is synonymous with readiness and quick reactions. A digitigrade-like posture enables faster acceleration and decelerationbecause there is less braking from an outstretched heel. Anthropologists have noted that even though great apes and humans are heel-walkers, a heel-down gait can limit top speed – “gazelles, deer, horses, dogs – they all run on the ball of their feet or the tips of their toes” for maximal speed . Early human hunters may have benefitted from the ability to temporarily use a forefoot strike when sprinting or dodging, even if their default walk was heel-first. There is a subtle balance: interestingly, a planted heel can also aid quick pivots – David Carrier found that a heel-down foot gives more traction for sudden turns . But for light, nimble footwork (sidestepping, tiptoeing, leaping), forefoot landing is generally advantageous. In sum, forefoot gait enhances explosive agility, which would be useful in evolutionary contexts like close-range hunting, evading an obstacle, or competitive fights where quick foot repositioning is needed.

• Stealth and Terrain Navigation: A forefoot strike can be quieter and more cautious on uncertain ground. Stepping toe-first allows an animal or person to feel the terrain before fully weighting the foot, which helps in avoiding sharp objects and maintaining balance on uneven surfaces. Many indigenous tracking and stealth techniques involve walking quietly by landing on the forefoot/outside edge first and rolling the foot down gently. For example, a described “fox walk” or stealth walk has the person place the outer forefoot (little-toe side) down first, then gradually lower the heel, keeping weight on the back leg until the front foot is secure . This method drastically reduces noise (no loud heel thump) and prevents snapping twigs or crunching gravel unexpectedly. Early human foragers and hunters moving through forests would find this useful for stalking prey or avoiding detection. The forefoot strike also minimizes disturbance to the ground and allows rapid adjustment if the foot encounters a hole or unstable rock (you can pull back before committing your full weight). Evolutionarily, while our anatomy did not shift to digitigrade, our behavioral adaptability allowed use of forefoot steps for silent approach and careful climbing. Hominins who could walk both ways – quietly on the forefoot when needed and efficiently on the heel over distance – may have had a survival advantage in hunting prey or raiding food without alerting animals. Indeed, the only time modern humans typically use a forefoot-first walk is when walking barefoot on very hard or sharp terrain (to avoid heel pain) or when trying to be silent (sneaking). This suggests an inherent versatility: one Reddit account from a barefoot walker notes that on harsh, rocky ground or when walking fast, they naturally shift toward a forefoot or midfoot strike, whereas on soft grass a heel strike is comfortable . The body instinctively finds that forefoot striking “has its place – when you’re walking on harsh terrain in particular (rocks, etc.)” . Early humans traversing diverse landscapes would have found forefoot stepping advantageous in rocky hills, dense vegetation (to avoid dry leaves noise), or crossing streams (feeling with toes for stability).

• Combat and Strength: A forefoot stance can be part of a fighting strategy, but research suggests it’s actually the heel-down stance that gives greater combat advantage in terms of sheer force. When delivering a punch or grapple, planting the heel provides a solid anchor to transmit force. A recent biomechanical study by David Carrier found that volunteers could strike and push with significantly more force when their heels were on the ground versus when they were up on the balls of the feet . The planted heel increased the torque they could apply (essentially using the foot as a lever against the ground) . This implies that early human ancestors engaged in physical confrontations (over mates, territory, etc.) might benefit from a heel-planted stance to wrestle or hit harder. However, forefoot striking still figures in combat for speed. Fighters (like boxers or martial artists) stay on their toes for quick footwork and bouncing in and out of range. Evolutionarily, one can imagine that while the power in a fight (shoving, striking power) comes from a stable heel-down posture, the agility to dodge or reposition comes from a toe-oriented posture. Thus, the human foot’s ability to do both may reflect a compromise. Carrier and colleagues have framed it as a “fight or flight” trade-off: species tend to specialize in one or the other . Animals on their toes (digitigrade) excel at flight (running away or chasing), whereas those with heels planted (plantigrade) can better stand their ground and fight . Great apes, including humans, appear to have feet geared more toward the fight end of that spectrum , with forefoot agility available as needed. In short, forefoot striking in combat provides quickness (for fleeing, feinting, or fast kicks), but the evolutionary trend for hominins was to retain heels for forceful interactions. This ties into the hypothesis that aggression and fighting ability influenced human anatomy: “Animals that are able to use their heels to plant their feet firmly…like bears, badgers and great apes, are able to deliver stronger blows” , and the shape of our feet (with a robust heel) is “one of a series of traits…that increase fighting performance” .

• Energetics of Walking: From a pure energy perspective, a forefoot-strike gait in walking is costly for humans compared to heel-strike. Experiments show it uses much more muscle work: walking with a ball-of-foot first step uses ~53% more energy, and tip-toe first uses ~83% more, than heel-first walking . This is because landing on the forefoot causes a slight “stop” with each step (losing forward momentum) and requires the calf muscles to stabilize and push off more actively, whereas a heel-first stride lets the skeleton and ligaments transfer energy smoothly . For early humans who needed to cover great distances for food, an economical walking gait was crucial. Heel-strike walking is far more energy-efficient, effectively turning the leg+foot into an inverted pendulum that conserves mechanical energy between steps . Therefore, sustained forefoot walking would be maladaptive for a hunter-gatherer – they’d tire out faster for no gain. Evolution seems to have strongly favored the energy savings of heel-first walking in humans . However, the ability to temporarily switch to forefoot mode (despite the energy cost) could be worth it in short bursts where stealth, speed, or precision trump efficiency. In evolution, those short critical moments (stalking prey, fighting, fleeing danger) can be life-or-death, even if they burn more energy, whereas the daily default gait remains heel-first for economy. This dual capacity might explain why our foot is versatile – it’s principally a heel-striker by design, but with muscular effort it can function as a forefoot striker when needed.

Expert Opinions and Evolutionary Hypotheses

Researchers across disciplines have proposed several hypotheses for why the human foot evolved its particular characteristics, weighing the importance of walking vs. running vs. fighting, etc.:

• David Carrier (Evolutionary Biologist, University of Utah): Carrier has extensively studied human foot posture. His research concluded that walking heel-first is much more efficient than tip-toe walking and likely was retained because of the long distances covered by hunter-gatherers . However, since great apes (who do not walk long distances) also have this trait, he suggests pure walking economy wasn’t the initial selective pressure . Carrier speculates that a heel-down posture “may be advantageous during fighting by increasing stability and applying more torque to the ground to twist, push and shove,” as well as increasing agility in rapid turning during aggressive encounters . In a later study, Carrier and Cunningham experimentally showed that with heels planted, humans can exert greater forces – supporting the idea that a planted heel gives a fighting advantage . Carrier sees the human foot as part of a suite of traits (including our ability to stand upright, our facial robustness, etc.) that may have been influenced by intraspecies combat. He also acknowledges the “climbing hypothesis” for ape feet: namely, that shifting weight to the hind limbs in arboreal settings could have led to plantigrade feet even before ground walking . In sum, Carrier’s view is that heel-down posture was maintained in human evolution partly because it made us better fighters (and didn’t impede our endurance walking), illustrating a fascinating trade-off between combat and locomotion .

• Daniel E. Lieberman (Paleoanthropologist, Harvard University): Lieberman is known for the “endurance running” hypothesis and studies of barefoot running. His work emphasizes how the human foot and leg are adapted to long-distance running (e.g., large Achilles tendon, springy arches, sweat-cooling to run prey to exhaustion). Lieberman’s influential 2010 study in Nature demonstrated that habitually barefoot runners use forefoot or midfoot strikes and thereby “generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers” . He argues that forefoot striking in running was likely common in our ancestors and helped avoid high-impact injuries while running without cushioned shoes . However, Lieberman also notes that humans are unique in that we are both good endurance runners and very economical walkers – an unusual combination . The human foot reflects this dual role. Lieberman’s research implies that evolution favored a foot that could handle running (forefoot strike capability) but still perform superbly in walking (heel strike efficiency). In effect, the foot’s evolution was guided by the need to run far (hunt, scavenge) and walk far (forage, migrate) – tasks that demand different gait mechanics.

• Other Anthropologists & Biomechanists: Studies of hominin footprints (by researchers like Kevin Hatala, Brian Richmond, etc.) and of foot fossils (e.g., William L. Jungers, Carol Ward, Jeremy DeSilva) reinforce that the human foot became a rigid lever with a large heel early in our evolution. The consensus in anthropology is that by the time of Australopithecus, our ancestors had a fundamentally human-like gait  . Biomechanists like Madhusudhan Venkadesan and Nicholas Holowka have examined how the foot’s arch and muscles contribute to gait. A recent review by Holowka & Lieberman (2018) argued that the arch and plantar fascia allow a spring-like “windlass” mechanism that is useful for both walking and running, and that the human foot can function in “high gear” vs “low gear” push-off depending on the strike (forefoot vs whole-foot) – giving flexibility in different locomotor tasks. Another area of expert commentary is on injury and modern health: Irene Davis (a physical therapist and biomechanics expert) and others have noted that modern cushioned shoes encourage overstriding and heavy heel impacts in running, which can contribute to injuries; they often advocate forefoot or midfoot striking (and shorter strides) for healthier running form. While this is about running, it underscores that the natural human foot is capable of lower-impact gait if not encased in thick shoes.

• Evolutionary Compromise: Experts broadly agree that the human foot is a product of multiple demands. As one science writer put it: humans seem to have “compromised their economy of walking for the economy of running” when compared to other mammals – meaning we kept a plantigrade foot from our ape heritage (so we’re not as fast as a digitigrade animal our size), but we gained exceptional endurance running ability through other adaptations, and we retained the efficient walking that plantigrady affords. The result is a foot that can do it all reasonably well, if not perfectly: walk all day without tiring, run long distances, climb, balance, fight, even swim. The forefoot strike ability is one facet of that versatility, used when beneficial, but not our default gear.

Modern Applications and Advantages of Forefoot Striking

In contemporary times, there has been renewed interest in “natural” gait and foot function, especially with the barefoot and minimalist shoe movement. This has shone light on some potential benefits of forefoot or midfoot striking for health and performance:

• Barefoot Walking and Posture: Walking barefoot (or in zero-drop minimalist shoes) tends to encourage a softer, more midfoot-oriented landing compared to walking in thick-heeled shoes. Without a raised, cushioned heel, people often shorten their stride and may land more flat-footed or gently on the forefoot to avoid jarring impacts. Advocates claim this restores a more natural gait and can improve posture. By not over-striding and slamming the heel, one keeps their weight centered and stance aligned. According to foot experts, walking barefoot or minimally shod improves balance and proprioception and leads to “better foot mechanics, which can lead to improved mechanics of the hips, knees, and core” . In other words, using the foot’s muscles and allowing a slight forefoot or midfoot landing can engage the arches and stabilizing muscles, potentially promoting better alignment up the body. Many people report that after transitioning to barefoot-style walking, they feel their posture is more upright and their gait more “springy,” likely because a forefoot or midfoot strike avoids the braking action of a long heel-first step and keeps momentum moving forward.

• Shock Absorption and Joint Health: A forefoot strike, with the knee slightly bent, lets the calf muscles and Achilles tendon absorb shock that otherwise the heel bone and knee joint would take. In running, this is well documented (forefoot striking greatly reduces the instantaneous impact force ). In walking, impact forces are lower, but those with orthopedic issues sometimes experiment with gentler foot strikes. Notably, a recent biomechanical analysis of uphill walking found that forefoot strike walking reduced knee and hip joint forces(while increasing ankle/calf strain), whereas heel striking reduced ankle strain but sent more force to the knee/hip . This trade-off means a person with knee pain might benefit from a forefoot or midfoot strike to spare the knee, provided their calves can handle the extra work. Some physical therapists indeed suggest that a slight forefoot-first landing can help cushion the impact for people with certain joint issues, as the muscle action dissipates force. However, it’s a balance – heel striking in walking is not inherently harmful (it’s the natural mode), and our heels have a thick fat pad for cushioning impacts . As one medical source points out, the human heel pad provides shock reduction, energy dissipation, and protection on each heel strike . A forefoot strike shifts that shock absorption to the muscles and tendons. This can be positive (strengthening the muscles, reducing skeletal stress) but if overdone or done without conditioning, it could cause calf/Achilles fatigue. Modern insight suggests alternating or finding a comfortable middle ground – a midfoot strike – especially on hard surfaces. One barefoot runner summarized: “Midfoot striking is the most normal, safe and natural foot strike when walking barefoot,” with heel strike being fine on forgiving surfaces and forefoot strike useful on very rough ground .

• Strengthening Foot Muscles: Forefoot or midfoot striking engages the intrinsic foot muscles and lower legs more than a passive heel strike stride. People who practice barefoot walking often note development of stronger arches and calves. By landing on the forefoot and allowing the heel to lower under control, you perform a mini eccentric calf exercise each step. Over time, this can build muscle endurance and arch strength. Some trainers incorporate “toe walking” drills or forefoot walking in parkour and martial arts training to increase foot strength and balance. A pro-barefoot article lists benefits of forefoot walking such as “strengthens calves” and “strengthens feet as the foot is being fully utilized with each step” . It also claims it “promotes better posture” and even “develops core strength” – the latter perhaps because maintaining a forefoot gait requires a more engaged core and gluteal activation to keep balance. While those specific claims are anecdotal, it is logical that taking some walking time in a forefoot strike (e.g., on barefoot walks in nature) can serve as a form of exercise for the foot muscles that are underutilized when we always walk with cushioned heels.

• Balance and Proprioception: Landing on the forefoot gives the nervous system immediate feedback from the front of the foot and toes. Many balance exercises (like walking on a line or beam) encourage staying on the balls of the feet. Barefoot walking in general improves proprioception – the awareness of foot position – since you can feel the ground. As noted in a Healthline review, barefoot movement leads to “improvements in balance, proprioception, and body awareness” . This can translate to more stable gait and potentially less risk of falls. Some rehabilitation programs for gait retraining teach a softer foot strike (closer to flat foot or slight forefoot) to eliminate the habit of overstriding and slapping the heels, which can cause a lurching, imbalanced gait in some individuals. By practicing a forefoot strike walking (sometimes called “fox walking” in outdoor education), people often report a smoother, gliding walk that feels more controlled and quiet, indicating better balance.

• Sports and Performance: Certain sports demand forefoot or toes-first movement. Sprinters run exclusively on their forefeet to maximize speed. Dancers and gymnasts train extensively on their toes for agility and to perform moves like relevés and jumps. For them, strengthening this aspect of gait is crucial. In more everyday terms, hikers and soldiers are taught to walk more softly (often midfoot strike) when moving over long distances to reduce noise and fatigue from hard heel impacts. Additionally, walking uphill is generally easier with a forefoot strike (you naturally lean forward and go onto the toes on inclined surfaces, which also reduces strain on the Achilles by shortening the range of motion needed). There is even some evidence that walking uphill with a forefoot strike can reduce the load on knees (as mentioned earlier) while engaging the calves – something mountain climbers intuitively do by staying on their toes during steep ascents . In martial arts, a heel-first step is rarely used because it’s slow and telegraphs movement; instead, sliding in with a forefoot placement keeps one’s center of gravity ready to either spring forward or back quickly. Modern tactical training (for example, in certain military or police contexts) also borrows from indigenous knowledge of stealth: officers are sometimes trained to step lightly, forefoot first, when moving through buildings quietly. Thus, forefoot gait has niche performance advantages in speed, stealth, and precision contexts.

• Footwear Considerations: Modern cushioned shoes have thick heels that virtually force a heel strike by protruding under the rearfoot. This has possibly altered the natural gait of many people. Minimalist footwear (zero drop, thin sole shoes) or going barefoot reverses that. Some people who switch to minimalist shoes find they naturally adopt a shorter stride and a milder heel or midfoot strike, which can alleviate certain chronic impacts. A systematic review noted significant differences in gait kinematics between barefoot vs. common footwear – barefoot walkers exhibit a more plantarflexed ankle at contact (which is closer to a midfoot strike) and engage foot muscles more . The takeaway is that forefoot striking can be encouraged or discouraged by footwear. If evolutionary history had taken a different turn (say, if humans evolved hooves or something akin to paws), our gait might be more digitigrade. But since we now wear shoes, an interesting “experiment” is happening: those who ditch supportive shoes often rediscover some forefoot striking in their gait, potentially reaping benefits in foot strength and reduced impact, at the cost of some calf fatigue initially . Podiatrists caution that transitioning to more forefoot use should be gradual – untrained feet might get injured if suddenly asked to do too much (e.g., Achilles tendinitis can occur if one overstrains their calf/Achilles with forefoot running or walking too quickly).