I've always referred to POSE-style running as using a forefoot strike. You land on the part of the foot just below the toes, and just above the arch. However, on several occasions, the most recent being today, I have been told that a midfoot strike is superior.
Well, I got around to thinking about it today, and is a midfoot strike even possible?
1. You've got an arch there, a gap. There's a bit of contact with the ground on the outer edge, but for the most part, the midfoot doesn't ever contact the ground, ever.
2. You can draw a straight line between the bottom of the heel and the bottom of the forefoot. Since there are no hinge joints in the foot (not the toes, but the stubby part), if you wanted to have the middle of that line contact the ground, the earliest at which you could do it would be when the heel and forefoot also hit the ground. That is, when the entire foot lands flat. That couldn't be considered a midfoot strike. The forefoot can contact the ground first because it is still exposed when the foot bends at the toes. The heel can contact the ground first because it is still exposed when the ankle is flexed. A midfoot strike would be like trying to put the palm of you hand down on the table before the base of the hand or the base of the finger joints touch. It doesn't make sense.
3. If you're wearing a running shoe with an oddly shaped sole (as all common running shoes have), then yes, the middle of the shoe can contact the ground at around the same time as the forefoot, but then wouldn't the force inside the shoe still be on the forefoot, rather than the midfoot? You've still go that arch there.
Logically, it just doesn't make sense, and I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it to me.