Before we start with our discussion, Ill explain what the terms rear-foot and fore-foot striking indicate. Footstrike patterns are categorized depending on the portion of the foot that initially contacts the running surface. During a rear-foot strike, a runner contacts the ground with the lateral aspect of the heel. A number of studies on runners have suggested that a majority of shod runners strike with a rear-foot strike. I feel that this is logical as the weight of the shoe is generally more towards that rear-foot. This makes a natural tendency for the heel to drop earlier than the forefoot.  A mid-foot strike is one in which the runner initially contacts the ground across the metatarsal heads with the heel subsequently contacting the running surface. A forefoot strike is when the initial contact is also on the metatarsal heads but the heel never touches the ground. Coming back to our topic, I feel it is not just the pattern or type of the footstrike that impacts risk of running injuries. Additionally, it is the inclination of the landing foot to the ground during initial contact which is affects the shock absorption capability of the runner. (which is the prime aim of the initial contact phase). Increasing the foot inclination angle increases the peak vertical ground reaction force, braking impulse, knee extensor moment, and negative work performed by the knee extensors, all of which have been associated with various running-related injuries in the past. Hence, while criticizing the footstrike pattern of the runner, I think it would make more sense if we also take the foot inclination angle of the runner into account. A fore-foot strike angle of 20° could be more damaging than a heel strike angle of 5°.