Rigid Tape vs Kinesiotape for Runners: Support, Restriction or Sticky Placebo? | Find Your Stride | Edinburgh Podiatrist
Rigid Tape vs Kinesiotape for Runners: Support, Restriction or Sticky Placebo?
Ankle taping is common in running and field sports. Rigid tape is generally used to constrain movement and reinforce the joint, while Kinesiotape is marketed as a more flexible way to influence proprioception and muscle activity. But do either of them preserve performance once fatigue sets in?
A 2025 crossover clinical trial compared rigid tape, Kinesiotape and no tape in 22 trained runners. The researchers measured ankle dorsiflexion, dynamic balance, single-leg drop-jump performance and lower-leg muscle activity before and after a treadmill run.
The findings are interesting, but they do not establish that either tape prevents injury or improves running performance. At most, they show that different taping methods can produce small, immediate changes in selected laboratory measures.
What did the researchers do?
Each participant completed all three conditions in random order:
No tape
Kinesiotape, applied with low tension around the ankle and along selected muscle pathways
Rigid tape, applied using anchors and figure-six strips
The crossover design meant that every runner acted as their own control. Sessions were held once a week, reducing the likelihood that fatigue from one trial carried into the next. The sample consisted of 22 healthy, well-trained runners, including 15 men and seven women. Their average age was approximately 29 years, and they ran an average of 27.3 km per week. Anyone with a lower-limb or lumbopelvic disorder during the previous year, including an ankle sprain, was excluded. After a warm-up, the researchers assessed:
Weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion with a lunge test
Dynamic balance with the Y-Balance Test
Single-leg drop-jump height, flight time, contact time, reactive strength index and stiffness
Surface electromyography of the tibialis anterior, extensor digitorum longus, peroneus longus and medial gastrocnemius
Participants then ran for 30 minutes at 85% of maximal aerobic speed on a treadmill before being retested.
What did the study find?
Rigid tape immediately restricted dorsiflexion
Before the fatigue run, ankle dorsiflexion averaged:
Condition | Dorsiflexion |
No tape | 45.41 degrees |
Kinesiotape | 43.80 degrees |
Rigid tape | 39.71 degrees |
Rigid tape reduced dorsiflexion by approximately 5.7 degrees compared with no tape and 3.1 degrees compared with Kinesiotape. It was also associated with a shorter anterior reach in the Y-Balance Test. This is arguably the study's clearest and most clinically relevant finding. Rigid tape did what rigid tape is expected to do: it restricted ankle movement.
Whether that is helpful depends on the runner. Restriction may be desirable when the aim is to limit potentially injurious motion in someone with ankle instability. It may be less desirable in a healthy runner who needs sufficient dorsiflexion for landing, shock attenuation, hills and changes of pace.
Interestingly, dorsiflexion in the rigid-tape condition increased by 5.9% after the run. That should not automatically be interpreted as an improvement caused by fatigue. A more likely possibility is that the mechanical restraint loosened with exercise, although the study did not directly measure tape tension or mechanical support after running.
Balance did not meaningfully improve
Kinesiotape did not produce a convincing improvement in dynamic balance. Posteromedial and posterolateral Y-Balance performance showed no significant condition-by-time effects, while rigid tape produced lower anterior reach before exercise. For clinicians, this means the study offers little support for applying Kinesiotape to improve balance in healthy runners. It also suggests that the stability gained from rigid tape may come with a mobility cost that affects how far the athlete can reach.
Some jump variables changed, but the meaning is uncertain
Without tape, single-leg drop-jump height fell from 17.04 cm to 15.13 cm after running, an 11.2% reduction. Jump height was nearly unchanged with Kinesiotape and increased from 14.34 cm to 15.79 cm with rigid tape. At first glance, that looks favourable for taping. There are several reasons for caution, however. First, jump height in the rigid-tape condition was already lower before the run. The significant interaction therefore reflects different changes from different starting points, not a straightforward post-fatigue victory for rigid tape. The post-fatigue confidence interval for the rigid-tape change also crossed zero.
Second, the more comprehensive performance measures were not consistently positive. There was no significant interaction for reactive strength index or lower-limb stiffness. A higher jump or longer flight time does not necessarily indicate a safer landing, more efficient running or better force absorption.
Third, ground-contact time changed in a complex way. It fell substantially without tape but remained broadly stable with both forms of tape. Describing this simply as "mitigating fatigue" risks oversimplifying the biomechanics. Shorter contact time is not inherently worse, and longer contact time is not inherently protective. The appropriate conclusion is that taping altered aspects of drop-jump behaviour, not that it conclusively enhanced performance.
Muscle-activity differences were selective and highly variable
Kinesiotape was associated with greater peroneus longus activity during the first landing phase. Rigid tape affected peak extensor digitorum longus activity during initial contact and take-off. These findings are biomechanically plausible. Peroneus longus contributes to lateral ankle control, while extensor digitorum longus can assist dorsiflexion and eversion. Yet increased electromyographic activity is not automatically beneficial. It could represent:
Improved preparation or sensory facilitation
Compensation for mechanical restriction
Greater muscular effort for the same task
Measurement variability rather than a clinically important response
The EMG values were extremely variable in several conditions, with some standard deviations larger than their means. Numerous muscles, jump phases and EMG outcomes were analysed. Although the authors report Bonferroni correction, the volume of comparisons still warrants caution when interpreting a small number of statistically significant findings. Most importantly, the study did not show that altered muscle activity reduced ankle inversion, improved running economy or prevented injury.
What the study did well
The paper has several genuine strengths:
Randomised crossover design: Each runner experienced every condition, limiting between-person confounding.
Weekly separation: The interval between trials was likely adequate for recovery from a 30-minute run.
Individualised exercise intensity: Running speed was based on maximal aerobic speed rather than using one speed for everyone.
Standardised taping: An experienced physiotherapist applied all tape.
Relevant clinical measures: The lunge test, Y-Balance Test and drop jump are familiar to many sports clinicians.
Normalised EMG: Muscle activity was expressed relative to maximum voluntary contractions.
Prospective registration: The trial was registered before recruitment began.
Transparent disclosures: The authors reported no specific funding or competing interests.
These features make the study useful as an exploratory investigation of immediate biomechanical responses.
Where the paper overreaches - It did not measure injuries
The most important limitation is conceptual: no injuries were measured. The experiment lasted several laboratory sessions and assessed surrogate outcomes. Changes in dorsiflexion, balance, jump height or muscle activity may generate hypotheses about injury mechanisms, but they cannot prove that a tape prevents ankle sprains or other running injuries. Statements linking the findings to reduced injury risk should therefore be treated as speculative.
The runners were healthy
The study excluded runners with recent ankle sprains, Achilles tendinopathy and other lower-limb problems. Its results cannot be confidently transferred to the people most likely to seek taping: athletes with chronic ankle instability, recurrent sprains, pain or rehabilitation needs.
A response that is compensatory in a healthy ankle may be useful in an unstable ankle - or vice versa.
There was no sham-tape condition
Participants could see and feel whether they had rigid tape, elastic tape or no tape. Neither the runners nor the practitioner could be blinded. Without a credible sham condition, it is impossible to separate mechanical or sensory effects from expectation, perceived support and changes in effort. This matters particularly for Kinesiotape, whose proposed effects are partly sensory.
The fatigue manipulation was not well verified
The methods describe a fixed 30-minute run at 85% of maximal aerobic speed, but the discussion refers to running at 85% of VO₂max "until exhaustion." Those are not equivalent protocols. This inconsistency weakens reproducibility. More importantly, the researchers did not report a strong manipulation check demonstrating local ankle-muscle fatigue. There was no consistent overall time effect across the measured variables. The authors acknowledge that the run may have produced predominantly cardiovascular rather than peripheral fatigue. The interval needed for post-run preparation and testing may also have allowed some recovery. Therefore, the central claim that the experiment tested the ankle under meaningful fatigue deserves qualification.
Baseline differences complicate interpretation
Rigid tape changed dorsiflexion and anterior reach before the run, and baseline jump values differed numerically among conditions. This makes the subsequent percentage changes harder to interpret. For example, the rigid-tape jump height started lowest and then rose. That is not equivalent to demonstrating superior absolute post-fatigue performance. Regression to the mean, familiarisation or condition-specific starting differences may have contributed.
Laboratory tasks are not running outcomes
A treadmill run followed by a single-leg drop jump is a reasonable experimental model, but it is not the same as outdoor running. The study did not assess:
Running economy
Pace or time-trial performance
Lower-limb kinematics during running
Ground-reaction forces
Comfort or perceived stability
Tape loosening
Skin reactions
Uneven surfaces, slopes or trail conditions
Injury incidence
The authors argue that the drop jump resembles the single-leg demands of running. That is defensible, but only to a point: a deliberate vertical rebound is not a stride.
Generalisability is narrow
This was a small convenience sample recruited at one university, with only seven women. Sex-specific effects could not be meaningfully examined. Only the dominant limb was tested, participants wore their usual footwear and an expert applied the tape. The results may not transfer to novice runners, older athletes, ultrarunners, people with unstable ankles, different shoes or athletes applying their own tape.
What does this mean for podiatry practice?
The paper supports a selective rather than routine approach.
For healthy runners
There is insufficient evidence here to recommend either tape as a general performance enhancer or injury-prevention strategy. Kinesiotape did not consistently improve balance, dorsiflexion or jump performance. Rigid tape altered jump outcomes but also reduced dorsiflexion. Routine taping should not displace interventions with a clearer rationale, including progressive calf and peroneal strengthening, balance work, graded exposure to running load, appropriate rehabilitation and attention to the athlete's previous injury history.
For chronic ankle instability
This study does not answer the key clinical question because symptomatic and recently injured runners were excluded. Nevertheless, rigid tape may still be reasonable as a short-term adjunct when external restraint is specifically required. The decision should follow an assessment of:
Previous sprains and episodes of giving way
Weight-bearing dorsiflexion
Foot and ankle strength
Dynamic balance
Running and landing mechanics
Sport, surface and footwear
The athlete's response to a supervised tape trial
Measure the intended benefit rather than assuming it. A simple before-and-after lunge test, hop task, balance test and symptom rating can reveal whether a tape configuration is helping, doing nothing or restricting the athlete too much.
For performance
Athletes should not interpret the reported jump-height interaction as proof that rigid tape will make them faster or more powerful when tired. The study did not measure running performance, and the apparent jump benefit came with restricted dorsiflexion and no clear improvement in reactive strength index. Tape may change how a task is performed without improving the athlete's overall capacity.
The clinical bottom line
This trial is a well-intentioned and useful piece of exploratory research. Its crossover design, standardised application and combination of clinical tests with EMG are strengths. Its most credible finding is also the least surprising: rigid ankle tape immediately reduces dorsiflexion. Kinesiotape did not consistently improve balance or mobility. Both tapes altered selected drop-jump or muscle-activity measures, but these changes were inconsistent and cannot be translated directly into better running performance or fewer injuries. For podiatrists and sports clinicians, tape remains a possible short-term, goal-specific tool, not a standalone treatment. For athletes, the practical message is equally simple: feeling supported is not the same as being protected, and a change on a jump test is not proof of improved running.
Find Your Stride!
Citation
García-Arrabé M, Salniccia F, García-Pérez-de-Sevilla G, González-de-la-Flor Á. Effects of tape and Kinesiotape on ankle range of motion, Single Leg Drop Jump and balance after running-induced fatigue: a cross-over clinical trial. PLoS One. 2025;20(4):e0320152. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320152. doi.org
Comments