More recently, running retraining has received increasing attention in the literature and clinical practice (Barton et al., 2016). Running retraining can be defined as “the implementation of any cue or strategy to alter an individual’s running technique” (Barton et al., 2016; Davis, 2005), with the majority of the literature dominated by studies evaluating the biomechanical effects of increasing step rate (cadence), and transitioning from a rearfoot strike to a non-rearfoot strike (Barton et al., 2016). Other retraining strategies include cues to run softer, widen stance, change proximal mechanics, and neuromotor cues to engage muscles (e.g. “squeeze your bottom”) (Barton et al., 2016). Clinical trials evaluating running retraining are scarce to date. Early research in this area produced limited evidence from small case series supporting consideration of running retraining in clinical practice (Barton et al., 2016). These findings indicated that transitioning to a non-rearfoot strike in combination with increasing step rate or altering proximal mechanics over a six week period may benefit runners with anterior exertional lower leg pain (Barton et al., 2016; Breen et al., 2015; Diebal et al., 2012). Additionally, visual and verbal feedback to reduce peak hip adduction over a two week period may benefit females with patellofemoral pain (PFP) (Barton et al., 2016; Noehren, Scholz, & Davis, 2011; Willy, Scholz, & Davis, 2012). Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating running retraining in runners with PFP have recently emerged, and these reported conflicting findings in regard to the potential value of running retraining. Roper et al. (2016) reported greater reduction in running related pain following two weeks (8 sessions) of retraining to transition from a rearfoot to non-rearfoot strike when compared to a control group who did not receive any retraining intervention. However, Esculier et al. (2017) did not report the same benefits in reducing running related pain following their 8 week (5 sessions) retraining intervention focused on increasing step rate by 7.5% compared to an education control.