More Arch, Same Jump: Does Kinesio Tape Actually Improve Performance? | Find Your Stride | Edinburgh Podiatrist
More Arch, Same Jump: Does Kinesio Tape Actually Improve Performance?
Kinesio tape is everywhere in sport. You see it on runners, footballers, volleyball players and gym-goers, often applied with the promise of improving support, alignment, muscle function or performance. For athletes with flexible 'flat feet', the appeal is obvious. If the medial longitudinal arch collapses more under load, perhaps adding some support with tape could improve force transmission, reduce unwanted movement and ultimately make an athlete more efficient. But does it?
A 2025 randomised controlled trial by Nickpey, Boozari and Farjad Pezeshk, published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, put that question to the test. And the answer is rather revealing: Kinesio tape changed the position of the arch—but it didn't improve jumping performance. Even more interestingly, the study found that fatigue changed jumping mechanics substantially, regardless of whether the participants were taped. For clinicians, that makes this study less about whether tape "works" and more about:
Does changing a static foot measurement necessarily change what the foot does when an athlete is producing and absorbing large forces?
What did the researchers do?
The study recruited 46 physically active women aged 18–30 years with bilateral flexible flat feet. Flexible flat foot was defined using an arch height ratio below 0.221. Participants were physically active, undertaking aerobic exercise at least three times per week, but they were not trained athletes. They were randomly allocated to:
Kinesio tape (KT)
Sham tape
The investigators used block randomisation with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Participants were also blinded to which taping condition they received. The force-platform data were analysed by a laboratory engineer who was blinded to group allocation. That's a useful design feature because it attempts to separate a genuine mechanical effect from expectation or placebo effects.
What was the tape supposed to do?
The KT was applied to the foot arches and tibialis posterior.
That makes biomechanical sense.
The medial longitudinal arch isn't simply a passive structure. It contributes to:
force transmission
energy storage and return
shock attenuation
foot stiffness
propulsion
And tibialis posterior is an important contributor to dynamic medial arch support. The researchers hypothesised that taping might reduce arch collapse and improve the mechanics of a high-load movement. Their chosen task was the countermovement jump (CMJ). That's a smart choice for this particular question. A CMJ involves rapid eccentric loading followed by forceful concentric propulsion, followed by landing. It places considerable demands on the foot and ankle while allowing force production to be measured objectively with a force platform.
The first finding: the tape did change the arch
At first glance, this looks encouraging. Navicular drop decreased from approximately:
1.18 mm → 0.97 mm in the KT group. That's around a 17.8% reduction. The sham group changed by only around 0.9%. Statistically, this was convincing:
taping effect: p < 0.001
group effect: p = 0.004
group × condition interaction: p < 0.001
So the tape clearly did something measurable. But here's the important clinical distinction: Statistically significant does not automatically mean clinically meaningful. The absolute change was only approximately 0.21 mm. The authors compare this with a reported minimal detectable change of approximately 1.78–2.28 mm. In other words, the change was far smaller than the amount needed to confidently distinguish genuine change from measurement variability. That's a critical finding. If we told an athlete:
"The tape reduced your navicular drop by 18%."
that sounds impressive. But if the actual change is only 0.21 mm, and the measurement error is roughly nine to ten times larger, the clinical story becomes considerably less exciting.
This is an excellent example of why clinicians should look beyond percentages and p-values.
So did the better-looking arch produce a better jump?
No. This is where the study becomes particularly valuable. The researchers assessed a wide range of vertical ground-reaction-force variables, including measures related to:
Propulsion
eccentric peak force
concentric peak force
power
rate of force development
eccentric stiffness
amortisation variables
Flight
jump height
reactive strength index
Landing
landing stiffness
landing rate of force development
Yet there were no significant effects of KT on these performance variables, either before or after fatigue. There were also no meaningful interactions suggesting that tape became more useful once the participant became fatigued. That is probably the most important practical result. The tape changed a static alignment measure, but that change did not translate into better dynamic performance.
This is where biomechanics gets interesting
It is tempting to assume: better arch position → better mechanics → better performance.
But human movement doesn't work like a mechanical lever sitting on a workbench.
The foot is part of a highly adaptable kinetic chain. During a jump, the athlete is coordinating:
foot
ankle
knee
hip
pelvis
trunk
arms
The nervous system can redistribute loads between these segments extremely quickly.
So a small change in navicular position while standing may have almost no meaningful effect when the athlete is generating forces several times body weight. The authors make essentially this point, suggesting that the mechanical demands of the CMJ may exceed the support provided by the elastic tape and that whole-body motor control may override the relatively small local mechanical effect. That is a useful lesson for sports podiatry. Static alignment is not the same thing as dynamic function.
The fatigue findings may actually be more interesting than the tape findings
The study found substantial changes after the fatigue protocol. Across both KT and sham conditions:
jump height decreased by 8.5%
eccentric peak force increased by 5.5%
concentric peak force increased by 6.5%
concentric RFD increased by 25.4%
reactive strength index increased by 17.1%
eccentric stiffness increased by 36.2%
landing stiffness increased by 17.1%
These effects remained statistically significant after Benjamini–Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons This is a fascinating pattern. The participants jumped lower, yet several measures of force and stiffness actually increased. So fatigue did not simply mean:
"Everything gets weaker."
Instead, the athletes appeared to adopt a different mechanical strategy.
Could increased stiffness be good or bad?
Potentially both. Stiffness isn't inherently pathological. During running and jumping, an appropriately stiff limb can help:
transmit force
store and return elastic energy
improve propulsion
reduce energy losses
But excessive stiffness during landing can potentially reduce joint excursion and compromise shock absorption. The authors therefore suggest that the increased landing stiffness observed after fatigue could represent a compensatory strategy, while acknowledging that its implications for injury risk remain uncertain. That caveat is important. We shouldn't look at increased stiffness and automatically label it "bad biomechanics." Nor should we assume it is protective. The context and phase of movement matter.
Could post-fatigue potentiation explain the results?
The authors propose an interesting possibility: post-activation potentiation (PAP) may have contributed to the unusual combination of reduced jump height but increased force and stiffness. PAP refers to a short-term enhancement in neuromuscular performance following intense muscular activity. The fatigue protocol involved substantial activity, followed by relatively brief recovery before the post-fatigue jumps. The authors therefore suggest that the observed force increases could reflect an interaction between fatigue and potentiation.
But this is speculative. The study did not directly measure the neuromuscular mechanisms required to establish PAP as the explanation. That is a good example of where a discussion section can generate a useful hypothesis without proving it.
What does this mean for runners?
Here's where we need to be careful. The study did not investigate running. It investigated countermovement jumping in recreationally active women with flexible flat feet. So we cannot conclude:
"Kinesio tape doesn't work for runners."
That would go beyond the evidence. In fact, the authors highlight previous research in runners that has reported changes in arch posture, plantar pressure and tibialis anterior activity with different taping techniques. The important point is that different tasks produce different mechanical demands. A tape configuration that changes plantar pressure during running might not meaningfully change a maximal jump. A technique that provides useful sensory feedback might not provide enough mechanical support to alter high-load force production.
And a trained athlete may respond differently from a recreationally active non-athlete.
So the appropriate conclusion is much narrower: This particular KT application did not improve CMJ performance in this particular population.
The population is a major limitation
For a sports-performance audience, this is probably the biggest issue.
The participants were:
female
aged 18–30
recreationally active
physically active at least three times per week
not trained athletes
The authors themselves state that the findings may not generalise to male athletes, trained athletes, older adults or competitive female athletes. That's particularly relevant to podiatrists working with:
footballers
runners
volleyball players
basketball players
dancers
CrossFit athletes
court-sport athletes
Elite athletes often have substantially different:
neuromuscular control
strength
tendon properties
movement strategies
exposure to high loads
responses to fatigue
So this paper shouldn't be used as evidence that taping is useless in sport. It tells us something much more specific.
The sham control is a strength—but not perfect
The sham tape was applied near, rather than directly over, the target structures.
That's a sensible strategy because the investigators wanted participants to believe they were receiving a legitimate intervention without providing substantial mechanical support.
The lack of differences between KT and sham for the CMJ outcomes therefore makes a pure expectation effect less likely. But there is a bigger issue: Tape is not a standardised intervention. The mechanical behaviour depends on:
tape material
width
number of strips
direction
tension
application technique
skin preparation
anatomical target
The authors point out that previous studies have used very different configurations.
Even the shape of the tape matters. The current study used a Y-shaped configuration, and the authors suggest that reducing tape width may have reduced its potential structural effect.
So "Kinesio tape" isn't really one intervention. It is a family of interventions.
Another important limitation: no post-fatigue arch measurement
This is a subtle but important methodological issue. The investigators measured navicular drop before fatigue but did not reassess it afterwards. They prioritised collecting the force data immediately after the fatigue protocol to avoid recovery effects. That's understandable.
But it means we don't know whether the tape maintained its effect when the participant was actually fatigued. And that is arguably the most clinically interesting question.
If the theory is: fatigue → reduced muscular support → greater arch collapse → KT provides external support then we really want to know what happens to the arch after fatigue.
This study can't answer that.
What does this tell us about orthoses?
Interestingly, the paper raises an important comparison without actually testing orthoses.
The authors discuss evidence suggesting that rigid orthotic devices may have greater effects during dynamic and repetitive loading because their mechanical properties are less dependent on elastic tension and skin adhesion. But we should not jump from that discussion to:
"Orthoses are better than tape."
This trial did not compare them. That would require a properly designed head-to-head study.
Still, from a podiatric perspective, the distinction is useful: Tape and orthoses are not interchangeable. Tape may provide:
sensory input
short-term positional influence
a small mechanical effect
reassurance/confidence
Foot orthoses can provide a different and potentially more consistent mechanical interface with the foot. The right choice depends on the clinical question.
What should sports podiatrists do with this?
Probably less than you might think—and that's a good thing. The study doesn't justify abandoning taping. It does suggest that we should stop treating tape as a universal biomechanical solution. If you're using KT, ask: What am I actually trying to achieve? If the goal is: Pain modulation or sensory feedback then a small mechanical change may not matter.
If the goal is: Changing arch mechanics during a high-load sporting task then we need evidence that the tape can actually achieve that. If the goal is: Improving performance
then measure performance. If the athlete jumps higher, runs faster, cuts better or tolerates training better, that's meaningful. If the navicular moves 0.21 mm but nothing else changes, the clinical significance is questionable.
What about injury prevention?
This study does not show that Kinesio tape prevents injuries. There were no injury outcomes.
There was no prospective injury surveillance. The force-platform variables are biomechanical measures, not injury endpoints. So we should resist statements such as:
"KT reduces injury risk in people with flat feet."
This study doesn't demonstrate that. Likewise, the increased stiffness after fatigue should not be interpreted as proof that fatigue increases injury risk in these participants. The authors appropriately describe the potential injury implications as uncertain and call for further research.
The bigger lesson: don't confuse a biomechanical change with a performance change
This may be the most useful takeaway from the paper. We can change:
foot posture
joint position
muscle activation
pressure distribution
stiffness
ground reaction forces
without necessarily improving performance, and we can sometimes improve performance without producing a dramatic change in a single biomechanical variable. Human movement is an adaptable system. That's why the best clinical question isn't:
"Did the tape change the arch?"
It's:
"Did the intervention produce a meaningful improvement in the outcome that matters to this athlete?"
That might be:
pain
training tolerance
running volume
jump height
sprint speed
change-of-direction ability
confidence
return to sport
The answer will vary between athletes.
Verdict: useful evidence, but don't over-sell the tape
This is a well-designed small experimental study with several strengths:
randomised allocation
sham comparison
blinded force-data analysis
repeated-measures design
objective force-platform measurements
correction for multiple comparisons
pre-study familiarisation
a clearly defined flexible-flat-foot population
The results are also refreshingly honest. KT altered navicular drop, but the change was smaller than the minimal detectable change and did not translate into improved jumping mechanics or performance. Meanwhile, fatigue clearly altered the way these participants jumped.
That finding may ultimately be more important. It reminds clinicians that the foot doesn't operate in isolation and that fatigue can change the entire neuromechanical strategy of a movement.
For athletes, the message is simple: If the tape makes you feel better, there may still be a reason to use it—but don't assume a tidier-looking arch means a better-performing foot.
And for clinicians: Measure the thing you actually care about.
If your objective is performance, test performance.
If your objective is pain, measure pain.
If your objective is load tolerance, monitor load tolerance.
A 0.21-mm change in navicular position is interesting physiology.
It just isn't the same thing as a faster, stronger or more resilient athlete.
Quick clinical summary
Finding | What happened? | Clinical interpretation |
Navicular drop | ↓ 17.8% with KT | Statistically significant |
Absolute navicular change | ~0.21 mm | Below reported MDC of 1.78–2.28 mm |
CMJ performance | No KT effect | No evidence of performance enhancement |
vGRF variables | No KT effect | No measurable kinetic benefit |
Fatigue | Jump height ↓ 8.5% | Genuine performance decrement |
Force after fatigue | Increased | Likely altered neuromechanical strategy |
Stiffness after fatigue | Increased | Interesting, but clinical significance uncertain |
Injury prevention | Not measured | Cannot claim KT reduces injury risk |
Find Your Stride!
Citation
Nickpey Z, Boozari S, Farjad Pezeshk A. Effects of kinesio tape on countermovement jump kinetic variables in physically active females with flat feet before and after fatigue: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2025;17:309. doi: 10.1186/s13102-025-01355-4.
Comments