Posted: 6/28/2013 5:13:59 PM EDT
|
Are these correct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRkeBVMQSgg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx6x2cD6Y8Q |
| Watch other pro runners, I think you'll find a wide variety. I don't think they heel strike hard but enough. You should have a paw back action and a foot strike under your body. A previous thread linked an article related to heel strike verses midfoot and found the efficiency to not be better with midfoot, I don't recall if it was the same or less. |
| Everyone is going to be a little different. Theres not one best way. Whats efficient for you may not be for another. Dont over stride, keep an eye on your horizon and limit its bounce, buy correct shoes and replace them consistently and dont over do your mileage increases and in time youll reach your goals. |
|
Love that article. |
|
Quoted:
there was a good video that i saw the other day. It showed two of the top Boston finishers in slow motion and analyzed their form. Showed things like head movement and ankle angles. But i cant find it. Has anyone else seen it? Ive seen many versions of biomechanical analysis on elite runners over the years. The problem is comparing them with your average runner can almost be like apples and oranges because of different variables. |
|
Quoted:
there was a good video that i saw the other day. It showed two of the top Boston finishers in slow motion and analyzed their form. Showed things like head movement and ankle angles. But i cant find it. Has anyone else seen it? That can be a tricky comparison. Are those elite runners fast because of their form or is their form what it is because they are running fast? |
|
Quoted:
I cannot overstress the importance of the right shoe. After two years of battling lower leg injuries while running, I switched from a stability to neutral shoe and BAM, no more pain. Go get fitted at a local running store. This. And don't be afraid to spend more than $100 on a good running shoe. You truly get what you pay for. I go through 4 pairs of running shoes a year. It is well worth the couple hundred dollars more I pay for shoes to be running pain free. |
|
There's a young woman somewhere around where I live that runs frequently and her signature style is to let her hands and arms flap around wildly without the slightest trace of any attempt to control them. She is popularly known as "Flappy", but not to her face. I've never seen a dumber style of running. If there should ever be a Ministry of Silly Running Styles, her style will be first on the list. As time goes on she has slowly, gradually started to control those quivering chicken wings. But she still has not figured it all out yet. CJ |
|
Quoted: There's a young woman somewhere around where I live that runs frequently and her signature style is to let her hands and arms flap around wildly without the slightest trace of any attempt to control them. She is popularly known as "Flappy", but not to her face. I've never seen a dumber style of running. If there should ever be a Ministry of Silly Running Styles, her style will be first on the list. As time goes on she has slowly, gradually started to control those quivering chicken wings. But she still has not figured it all out yet. CJ While I was reading your post, I truly got the feeling you came up with this while watching her run from the comfort of your living room or some such place, probably gnawing on a chicken leg...  Who cares? She's out there running, I am glad for her. You though, not so much. |
|
Quoted:
There's a young woman somewhere around where I live that runs frequently and her signature style is to let her hands and arms flap around wildly without the slightest trace of any attempt to control them. She is popularly known as "Flappy", but not to her face. I've never seen a dumber style of running. If there should ever be a Ministry of Silly Running Styles, her style will be first on the list. As time goes on she has slowly, gradually started to control those quivering chicken wings. But she still has not figured it all out yet. CJ Better than those who run with their hands clenched up in fists up by their collar bone - very inefficient. |
|
OP
Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. |
|
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. |
|
Quoted: While I was reading your post, I truly got the feeling you came up with this while watching her run from the comfort of your living room or some such place, probably gnawing on a chicken leg... Who cares? She's out there running, I am glad for her. You though, not so much. Quoted: Quoted: There's a young woman somewhere around where I live that runs frequently and her signature style is to let her hands and arms flap around wildly without the slightest trace of any attempt to control them. She is popularly known as "Flappy", but not to her face. I've never seen a dumber style of running. If there should ever be a Ministry of Silly Running Styles, her style will be first on the list. As time goes on she has slowly, gradually started to control those quivering chicken wings. But she still has not figured it all out yet. CJ While I was reading your post, I truly got the feeling you came up with this while watching her run from the comfort of your living room or some such place, probably gnawing on a chicken leg... Who cares? She's out there running, I am glad for her. You though, not so much. I do work out in the gym and stay active. I don't run but I do an hour or more of hard cardio on an elliptical trainer or rowing machine at least once a week. I don't do much running because (a) I hate it and (b) I have a varicose vein on the outside of each calf which never give me any problem unless I run. Then it swells up and hurts far more than anything that small has any right to. I'm fit enough. No doubt about it. |
|
Quoted:
Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. Scientific explanation? I'm not a scientist. I have run around 22,000 miles or so since I started when I was 13 and I have coached grade school and high school track. In observing myself, people I competed against, and my runners I noted that pronounced heel strikes almost always coincided with over-striding and slower times. Shorter strides are more efficient and it is very hard to have an efficient stride length while maintaining a heel strike. If you run with a decent stride length, you will naturally have more of a midfoot strike. As far as the Asics go, they do have some models with too much height at the back. Gel strikes, kayanos, and Cumulous are fine. You don't need a "minimalist" shoe to run with a midfoot strike. It may help some people but it isn't necessary. Many of the minimalist proponents I encounter are recent converts to running, and if it works for them that's great. Many do end up injured, however, because they over stride in their 5-fingers when they lose focus and get tired. Heel striking in a "minimalist" shoe is a quick trip to Plantar fasciitis. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. |
|
Quoted:
Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. A lot of times, inexperienced runners slam their heels on the ground because their stride is too long. Not a scientist, but jump up and land on your heels with straight legs. Now do the same, but land on the mid/forefoot portion of your feet; then note which one feels better. |
|
Quoted:
Scientific explanation? I'm not a scientist. I have run around 22,000 miles or so since I started when I was 13 and I have coached grade school and high school track. In observing myself, people I competed against, and my runners I noted that pronounced heel strikes almost always coincided with over-striding and slower times. Shorter strides are more efficient and it is very hard to have an efficient stride length while maintaining a heel strike. If you run with a decent stride length, you will naturally have more of a midfoot strike. As far as the Asics go, they do have some models with too much height at the back. Gel strikes, kayanos, and Cumulous are fine. You don't need a "minimalist" shoe to run with a midfoot strike. It may help some people but it isn't necessary. Many of the minimalist proponents I encounter are recent converts to running, and if it works for them that's great. Many do end up injured, however, because they over stride in their 5-fingers when they lose focus and get tired. Heel striking in a "minimalist" shoe is a quick trip to Plantar fasciitis. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. Scientific explanation? I'm not a scientist. I have run around 22,000 miles or so since I started when I was 13 and I have coached grade school and high school track. In observing myself, people I competed against, and my runners I noted that pronounced heel strikes almost always coincided with over-striding and slower times. Shorter strides are more efficient and it is very hard to have an efficient stride length while maintaining a heel strike. If you run with a decent stride length, you will naturally have more of a midfoot strike. As far as the Asics go, they do have some models with too much height at the back. Gel strikes, kayanos, and Cumulous are fine. You don't need a "minimalist" shoe to run with a midfoot strike. It may help some people but it isn't necessary. Many of the minimalist proponents I encounter are recent converts to running, and if it works for them that's great. Many do end up injured, however, because they over stride in their 5-fingers when they lose focus and get tired. Heel striking in a "minimalist" shoe is a quick trip to Plantar fasciitis. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. That's the problem. You're using anecdotal personal experience and calling it empirical evidence. You didn't give your opinion, you stated something as fact. The fact is one way is not better than another and no study to date has proven otherwise. While agree over striding is an issue with most runners, that's far from heel striking being a problem . Some of the fastest and most efficient long distance runners in the US are heel strikers. As long as you're addressing form with proper footwear for that form you should be fine. You'd think if you were giving this advice as you do you'd understand shoes better as well. Most if not all the styles you listed are shod based platforms. Meaning the heel is built up to help dissipate impact forces. If you're not striking with the heel why have extra material there? Why not recommend an 8-4mm offset instead in order to have the form you recommend be accomplished more easily? Do some research before you spout off like its fact, more people are injured this way than are based solely on shoe choice. Recommendations from someone whos got no idea what they're talking about. |
|
Quoted:
A lot of times, inexperienced runners slam their heels on the ground because their stride is too long. Not a scientist, but jump up and land on your heels with straight legs. Now do the same, but land on the mid/forefoot portion of your feet; then note which one feels better. Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. A lot of times, inexperienced runners slam their heels on the ground because their stride is too long. Not a scientist, but jump up and land on your heels with straight legs. Now do the same, but land on the mid/forefoot portion of your feet; then note which one feels better. I'm a heel striker but not inexperienced at all. Many long distance runners I know heel strike. You can land on your heel with a bent leg. Mid foot/forefoot is not better for you it just changes the way the force is translated through the lower limb. And there are just as many injuries related to the form as there are with heel striking. Over striding can be an issue, but over training is much worse regardless and this happens much more frequently out of the two. |
|
Quoted:
That's the problem. You're using anecdotal personal experience and calling it empirical evidence. You didn't give your opinion, you stated something as fact. The fact is one way is not better than another and no study to date has proven otherwise. While agree over striding is an issue with most runners, that's far from heel striking being a problem . Some of the fastest and most efficient long distance runners in the US are heel strikers. As long as you're addressing form with proper footwear for that form you should be fine. You'd think if you were giving this advice as you do you'd understand shoes better as well. Most if not all the styles you listed are shod based platforms. Meaning the heel is built up to help dissipate impact forces. If you're not striking with the heel why have extra material there? Why not recommend an 8-4mm offset instead in order to have the form you recommend be accomplished more easily? Do some research before you spout off like its fact, more people are injured this way than are based solely on shoe choice. Recommendations from someone whos got no idea what they're talking about. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. Scientific explanation? I'm not a scientist. I have run around 22,000 miles or so since I started when I was 13 and I have coached grade school and high school track. In observing myself, people I competed against, and my runners I noted that pronounced heel strikes almost always coincided with over-striding and slower times. Shorter strides are more efficient and it is very hard to have an efficient stride length while maintaining a heel strike. If you run with a decent stride length, you will naturally have more of a midfoot strike. As far as the Asics go, they do have some models with too much height at the back. Gel strikes, kayanos, and Cumulous are fine. You don't need a "minimalist" shoe to run with a midfoot strike. It may help some people but it isn't necessary. Many of the minimalist proponents I encounter are recent converts to running, and if it works for them that's great. Many do end up injured, however, because they over stride in their 5-fingers when they lose focus and get tired. Heel striking in a "minimalist" shoe is a quick trip to Plantar fasciitis. The OP asked for opinions, and I gave mine. That's the problem. You're using anecdotal personal experience and calling it empirical evidence. You didn't give your opinion, you stated something as fact. The fact is one way is not better than another and no study to date has proven otherwise. While agree over striding is an issue with most runners, that's far from heel striking being a problem . Some of the fastest and most efficient long distance runners in the US are heel strikers. As long as you're addressing form with proper footwear for that form you should be fine. You'd think if you were giving this advice as you do you'd understand shoes better as well. Most if not all the styles you listed are shod based platforms. Meaning the heel is built up to help dissipate impact forces. If you're not striking with the heel why have extra material there? Why not recommend an 8-4mm offset instead in order to have the form you recommend be accomplished more easily? Do some research before you spout off like its fact, more people are injured this way than are based solely on shoe choice. Recommendations from someone whos got no idea what they're talking about. I'll start with the bold above. That is completely false. No elite runners are heel strikers. Next, what is your scholarly support for your position that heel striking is fine/just as efficient/won't cause injury? So far you haven't mentioned any. My "anecdotal" experience is based on years of observations as a runner and a coach. Let me make a few guesses at your level of experience, tell me if I'm wrong. 1. You've been running "seriously" for less than 5 years 2. You probably run 2-3 times per week 3. Your weekly mileage is 7-10 4. You bought some form of minimalist shoe (Five Fingers, Nike Free,...) 5. You came to running from something else like crossfit 6. You probably run in the 9 min per mile range How close am I? |
|
Quoted:
I'm a heel striker but not inexperienced at all. Many long distance runners I know heel strike. You can land on your heel with a bent leg. Mid foot/forefoot is not better for you it just changes the way the force is translated through the lower limb. And there are just as many injuries related to the form as there are with heel striking. Over striding can be an issue, but over training is much worse regardless and this happens much more frequently out of the two. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. A lot of times, inexperienced runners slam their heels on the ground because their stride is too long. Not a scientist, but jump up and land on your heels with straight legs. Now do the same, but land on the mid/forefoot portion of your feet; then note which one feels better. I'm a heel striker but not inexperienced at all. Many long distance runners I know heel strike. You can land on your heel with a bent leg. Mid foot/forefoot is not better for you it just changes the way the force is translated through the lower limb. And there are just as many injuries related to the form as there are with heel striking. Over striding can be an issue, but over training is much worse regardless and this happens much more frequently out of the two. There's not an economical difference with either. They both work and both have their share of injuries. Most runners have never had a running coach to develop their stride and cadence. If someone is asking me on proper running form, I'm going to assume they don't run very much, therefore they probably have their share of bad habits/poor form. When coached to shorten their stride and get the proper cadence, they usually end up being a more of a midfoot striker. That being said, there are a lot of heel strikers that have zero problems, and if you have zero problems running in your skill level or your desired skill level, then don't change what you're doing |
|
Quoted:
I'll start with the bold above. That is completely false. No elite runners are heel strikers. Next, what is your scholarly support for your position that heel striking is fine/just as efficient/won't cause injury? So far you haven't mentioned any. My "anecdotal" experience is based on years of observations as a runner and a coach. Let me make a few guesses at your level of experience, tell me if I'm wrong. 1. You've been running "seriously" for less than 5 years 2. You probably run 2-3 times per week 3. Your weekly mileage is 7-10 4. You bought some form of minimalist shoe (Five Fingers, Nike Free,...) 5. You came to running from something else like crossfit 6. You probably run in the 9 min per mile range How close am I? Since were turning this into a dick measuring contest first i'll start with, youre way off, sorry. So lets start off with a list of elite runners who are rearfoot accentuated. Ryan Hall (rear/mid), Meb Keflezighi, Haile Gebrselassie, Abdi Abdirahman, Chris Solinsky, Kara Goucher, Deena Kastor, Paige Higgins, should I go on? Second, since you think knowing a lot about running is a belt notch checklist, Ive been running seriously since I joined the military in 97 and even more so since I got out in 03. I run 50+ miles a week to work and Im thinking about training for a 50k. I only use transitional or minimal footwear on my pace or threshold days. For most of my runs I avg low to mid 7s depending on the distance. I dont run many races, as most of my love for running comes from just the pure high of the road. My main reason for it is stress relief and general fitness. Now lets get into the meat and potatoes. I manage and am about to own a running specialty store. I've been in this field for about 10 years now. My undergrad degree is in kinesiology with a focus in the lower limb. Ive been debating as to attend school for a grad degree in biomechanics at my alma mater (all depends on how much extra time Ive got from owning a business). I worked in one of the leading human performance labs in the country while in school, and Ive done thousands of gait analyses over the years for school and my job. The scholarly support for my claim is my education and research that Ive been involved in based on form and impact force translation through the limb. Forefoot/midfoot striking only change the point of translation, not the magnitude of the force. So while rearfoot strikers can see an increase in impulse force with over striding (which I agreed can be a problem) as long as biomechanical inefficiencies are compensated for, there is no loss in efficiency (theres actually a few studies out there that show heel strikers are more efficient than forefoot/midfoot strikers) and no higher instance of injury. No data has yet to refute this. I think a change in form for a more minimal shoe can help most people with proprioceptive response and lower limb strengthening, but its up to the end user to figure out how much their body can handle. Not everyone will be able to use that as their only tool in the toolbox. Overtraining can still occur in forefoot/midfoot strikers and they tend to see more chronic problems with these overtraining scenarios. Achilles in particular can be a big issue, with calf and metatarsal issues following in number of instances (although met issues rose by 250% in 2010 for a number of reasons). So its definitely not an injury free way to run. The main reason I responded is because people like you do the most damage to beginners with questions. They give just enough info without getting into the nitty gritty, but they leave a lot to be desired. No instruction for that person in particular, and every piece of guidance is open ended with opinion instead of fact used as justification. Thats a recipe for disaster. I know you mean well, but in all actuality youre doing more harm than good with your vague, anecdotal responses. Do us all a favor and study up or stop. |
|
Quoted:
There's not an economical difference with either. They both work and both have their share of injuries. Most runners have never had a running coach to develop their stride and cadence. If someone is asking me on proper running form, I'm going to assume they don't run very much, therefore they probably have their share of bad habits/poor form. When coached to shorten their stride and get the proper cadence, they usually end up being a more of a midfoot striker. That being said, there are a lot of heel strikers that have zero problems, and if you have zero problems running in your skill level or your desired skill level, then don't change what you're doing Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Originally By MAJClem:
OP Mid to forefoot strike is best. If you have a pronounced heel strike you are over-striding. Shorten your stride and it should corrct itself. After a few weeks of concentrating on a shorter, quicker stride get fitted for shoes with a low heel height. You don't have to go completely minimalist, just don't get anything with over 1 inch heel height from outsole to heel cup. Some shoes can be deceiving because the midsole material wraps up and over the heel cup so they will look like they have more heel height than they actually do so look for that. Most Asics models are good. Most Nikes have too much heel. Explain to me why a midfoot/forefoot strike is best in scientific terms. How is it better? Especially since your recommendation of an asics shoe doesn't fit the criteria of a minimalist shoe as most of their training platforms have an offset over 8mm. A lot of times, inexperienced runners slam their heels on the ground because their stride is too long. Not a scientist, but jump up and land on your heels with straight legs. Now do the same, but land on the mid/forefoot portion of your feet; then note which one feels better. I'm a heel striker but not inexperienced at all. Many long distance runners I know heel strike. You can land on your heel with a bent leg. Mid foot/forefoot is not better for you it just changes the way the force is translated through the lower limb. And there are just as many injuries related to the form as there are with heel striking. Over striding can be an issue, but over training is much worse regardless and this happens much more frequently out of the two. There's not an economical difference with either. They both work and both have their share of injuries. Most runners have never had a running coach to develop their stride and cadence. If someone is asking me on proper running form, I'm going to assume they don't run very much, therefore they probably have their share of bad habits/poor form. When coached to shorten their stride and get the proper cadence, they usually end up being a more of a midfoot striker. That being said, there are a lot of heel strikers that have zero problems, and if you have zero problems running in your skill level or your desired skill level, then don't change what you're doing I agree with most of what you said. What I bolded I'll partially agree, but mention Ive seen a habit/genetic response to form training. Some people, even with form training revert back to a rearfoot strike and seem to be just as efficient if not more so as theyre more comfortable doing so. That reminds me of a study I read a year or so ago about people getting form training for minimalist shoes. The study followed a number of runners who got training for this type of footwear then revisited those runners a certain time later. After that time, over 50% of the runners who received training had reverted back to a heel strike even in minimalist footwear. I believe sports scientists.com have mentioned this factoid in some of their analyses. If you get a chance thats a great website with two Drs in biomechanics giving their input on the whole form/gait/footwear thing. |
|
Quoted:
Since were turning this into a dick measuring contest first i'll start with, youre way off, sorry. So lets start off with a list of elite runners who are rearfoot accentuated. Ryan Hall (rear/mid), Meb Keflezighi, Haile Gebrselassie, Abdi Abdirahman, Chris Solinsky, Kara Goucher, Deena Kastor, Paige Higgins, should I go on? Second, since you think knowing a lot about running is a belt notch checklist, Ive been running seriously since I joined the military in 97 and even more so since I got out in 03. I run 50+ miles a week to work and Im thinking about training for a 50k. I only use transitional or minimal footwear on my pace or threshold days. For most of my runs I avg low to mid 7s depending on the distance. I dont run many races, as most of my love for running comes from just the pure high of the road. My main reason for it is stress relief and general fitness. Now lets get into the meat and potatoes. I manage and am about to own a running specialty store. I've been in this field for about 10 years now. My undergrad degree is in kinesiology with a focus in the lower limb. Ive been debating as to attend school for a grad degree in biomechanics at my alma mater (all depends on how much extra time Ive got from owning a business). I worked in one of the leading human performance labs in the country while in school, and Ive done thousands of gait analyses over the years for school and my job. The scholarly support for my claim is my education and research that Ive been involved in based on form and impact force translation through the limb. Forefoot/midfoot striking only change the point of translation, not the magnitude of the force. So while rearfoot strikers can see an increase in impulse force with over striding (which I agreed can be a problem) as long as biomechanical inefficiencies are compensated for, there is no loss in efficiency (theres actually a few studies out there that show heel strikers are more efficient than forefoot/midfoot strikers) and no higher instance of injury. No data has yet to refute this. I think a change in form for a more minimal shoe can help most people with proprioceptive response and lower limb strengthening, but its up to the end user to figure out how much their body can handle. Not everyone will be able to use that as their only tool in the toolbox. Overtraining can still occur in forefoot/midfoot strikers and they tend to see more chronic problems with these overtraining scenarios. Achilles in particular can be a big issue, with calf and metatarsal issues following in number of instances (although met issues rose by 250% in 2010 for a number of reasons). So its definitely not an injury free way to run. The main reason I responded is because people like you do the most damage to beginners with questions. They give just enough info without getting into the nitty gritty, but they leave a lot to be desired. No instruction for that person in particular, and every piece of guidance is open ended with opinion instead of fact used as justification. Thats a recipe for disaster. I know you mean well, but in all actuality youre doing more harm than good with your vague, anecdotal responses. Do us all a favor and study up or stop. Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll start with the bold above. That is completely false. No elite runners are heel strikers. Next, what is your scholarly support for your position that heel striking is fine/just as efficient/won't cause injury? So far you haven't mentioned any. My "anecdotal" experience is based on years of observations as a runner and a coach. Let me make a few guesses at your level of experience, tell me if I'm wrong. 1. You've been running "seriously" for less than 5 years 2. You probably run 2-3 times per week 3. Your weekly mileage is 7-10 4. You bought some form of minimalist shoe (Five Fingers, Nike Free,...) 5. You came to running from something else like crossfit 6. You probably run in the 9 min per mile range How close am I? Since were turning this into a dick measuring contest first i'll start with, youre way off, sorry. So lets start off with a list of elite runners who are rearfoot accentuated. Ryan Hall (rear/mid), Meb Keflezighi, Haile Gebrselassie, Abdi Abdirahman, Chris Solinsky, Kara Goucher, Deena Kastor, Paige Higgins, should I go on? Second, since you think knowing a lot about running is a belt notch checklist, Ive been running seriously since I joined the military in 97 and even more so since I got out in 03. I run 50+ miles a week to work and Im thinking about training for a 50k. I only use transitional or minimal footwear on my pace or threshold days. For most of my runs I avg low to mid 7s depending on the distance. I dont run many races, as most of my love for running comes from just the pure high of the road. My main reason for it is stress relief and general fitness. Now lets get into the meat and potatoes. I manage and am about to own a running specialty store. I've been in this field for about 10 years now. My undergrad degree is in kinesiology with a focus in the lower limb. Ive been debating as to attend school for a grad degree in biomechanics at my alma mater (all depends on how much extra time Ive got from owning a business). I worked in one of the leading human performance labs in the country while in school, and Ive done thousands of gait analyses over the years for school and my job. The scholarly support for my claim is my education and research that Ive been involved in based on form and impact force translation through the limb. Forefoot/midfoot striking only change the point of translation, not the magnitude of the force. So while rearfoot strikers can see an increase in impulse force with over striding (which I agreed can be a problem) as long as biomechanical inefficiencies are compensated for, there is no loss in efficiency (theres actually a few studies out there that show heel strikers are more efficient than forefoot/midfoot strikers) and no higher instance of injury. No data has yet to refute this. I think a change in form for a more minimal shoe can help most people with proprioceptive response and lower limb strengthening, but its up to the end user to figure out how much their body can handle. Not everyone will be able to use that as their only tool in the toolbox. Overtraining can still occur in forefoot/midfoot strikers and they tend to see more chronic problems with these overtraining scenarios. Achilles in particular can be a big issue, with calf and metatarsal issues following in number of instances (although met issues rose by 250% in 2010 for a number of reasons). So its definitely not an injury free way to run. The main reason I responded is because people like you do the most damage to beginners with questions. They give just enough info without getting into the nitty gritty, but they leave a lot to be desired. No instruction for that person in particular, and every piece of guidance is open ended with opinion instead of fact used as justification. Thats a recipe for disaster. I know you mean well, but in all actuality youre doing more harm than good with your vague, anecdotal responses. Do us all a favor and study up or stop. 1. You began by replying to my post with a very strong "you don't know what you're talking about rant" without knowing anything about my experience level. here are better ways to start the conversation. I took the bait and responded in kind. 2. Of the runners you mentioned, Solinsky is the only one I haven't seen run in person. None of those I have seen are heel strikers. The video of Solinsky's american record 10k run at Stanford shows that he isn't a heel striker either. 3. You concede that training and proper stride length will lead to a mid-foot strike but you continue to argue that it doesn't matter. 4. If your are running your pace/threshhold days in "minimalist" shoes, I highly doubt that you are heel striking on those days. I have doubts that you heel strike most of the time. 5. I wish you luck with your business and your running. |
|
Quoted:
1. You began by replying to my post with a very strong "you don't know what you're talking about rant" without knowing anything about my experience level. here are better ways to start the conversation. I took the bait and responded in kind. 2. Of the runners you mentioned, Solinsky is the only one I haven't seen run in person. None of those I have seen are heel strikers. The video of Solinsky's american record 10k run at Stanford shows that he isn't a heel striker either. 3. You concede that training and proper stride length will lead to a mid-foot strike but you continue to argue that it doesn't matter. 4. If your are running your pace/threshhold days in "minimalist" shoes, I highly doubt that you are heel striking on those days. I have doubts that you heel strike most of the time. 5. I wish you luck with your business and your running. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll start with the bold above. That is completely false. No elite runners are heel strikers. Next, what is your scholarly support for your position that heel striking is fine/just as efficient/won't cause injury? So far you haven't mentioned any. My "anecdotal" experience is based on years of observations as a runner and a coach. Let me make a few guesses at your level of experience, tell me if I'm wrong. 1. You've been running "seriously" for less than 5 years 2. You probably run 2-3 times per week 3. Your weekly mileage is 7-10 4. You bought some form of minimalist shoe (Five Fingers, Nike Free,...) 5. You came to running from something else like crossfit 6. You probably run in the 9 min per mile range How close am I? Since were turning this into a dick measuring contest first i'll start with, youre way off, sorry. So lets start off with a list of elite runners who are rearfoot accentuated. Ryan Hall (rear/mid), Meb Keflezighi, Haile Gebrselassie, Abdi Abdirahman, Chris Solinsky, Kara Goucher, Deena Kastor, Paige Higgins, should I go on? Second, since you think knowing a lot about running is a belt notch checklist, Ive been running seriously since I joined the military in 97 and even more so since I got out in 03. I run 50+ miles a week to work and Im thinking about training for a 50k. I only use transitional or minimal footwear on my pace or threshold days. For most of my runs I avg low to mid 7s depending on the distance. I dont run many races, as most of my love for running comes from just the pure high of the road. My main reason for it is stress relief and general fitness. Now lets get into the meat and potatoes. I manage and am about to own a running specialty store. I've been in this field for about 10 years now. My undergrad degree is in kinesiology with a focus in the lower limb. Ive been debating as to attend school for a grad degree in biomechanics at my alma mater (all depends on how much extra time Ive got from owning a business). I worked in one of the leading human performance labs in the country while in school, and Ive done thousands of gait analyses over the years for school and my job. The scholarly support for my claim is my education and research that Ive been involved in based on form and impact force translation through the limb. Forefoot/midfoot striking only change the point of translation, not the magnitude of the force. So while rearfoot strikers can see an increase in impulse force with over striding (which I agreed can be a problem) as long as biomechanical inefficiencies are compensated for, there is no loss in efficiency (theres actually a few studies out there that show heel strikers are more efficient than forefoot/midfoot strikers) and no higher instance of injury. No data has yet to refute this. I think a change in form for a more minimal shoe can help most people with proprioceptive response and lower limb strengthening, but its up to the end user to figure out how much their body can handle. Not everyone will be able to use that as their only tool in the toolbox. Overtraining can still occur in forefoot/midfoot strikers and they tend to see more chronic problems with these overtraining scenarios. Achilles in particular can be a big issue, with calf and metatarsal issues following in number of instances (although met issues rose by 250% in 2010 for a number of reasons). So its definitely not an injury free way to run. The main reason I responded is because people like you do the most damage to beginners with questions. They give just enough info without getting into the nitty gritty, but they leave a lot to be desired. No instruction for that person in particular, and every piece of guidance is open ended with opinion instead of fact used as justification. Thats a recipe for disaster. I know you mean well, but in all actuality youre doing more harm than good with your vague, anecdotal responses. Do us all a favor and study up or stop. 1. You began by replying to my post with a very strong "you don't know what you're talking about rant" without knowing anything about my experience level. here are better ways to start the conversation. I took the bait and responded in kind. 2. Of the runners you mentioned, Solinsky is the only one I haven't seen run in person. None of those I have seen are heel strikers. The video of Solinsky's american record 10k run at Stanford shows that he isn't a heel striker either. 3. You concede that training and proper stride length will lead to a mid-foot strike but you continue to argue that it doesn't matter. 4. If your are running your pace/threshhold days in "minimalist" shoes, I highly doubt that you are heel striking on those days. I have doubts that you heel strike most of the time. 5. I wish you luck with your business and your running. 1. I apologize for coming off that way, its just one of my biggest peeves as its one of the main reasons we see a ton of injuries. 2.&3. I think the problem youve got is you think heel striking and over striding are synonymous or mutually exclusive, which they are not. One can absolutely not be over striding, or even have shorter strides and still heel strike. Youtube any of those people I mentioned along with running form or analysis and youll see a heel first impact without an over stride. Ryan Hall is the only one it will be hard to locate. We did a GA on him for a project a few years ago and it was concluded that while ultimately he's midfoot, he heel impacts after a while from fatigue. 4. My pace, threshold, and fartlek days are run in the Saucony fastwitch. It is a posted 4 mill offset transitional shoe. I may have a more midfoot strike at the beginning of my training but Im heel striking near the end. Transitional shoes are lower than 12 mill offsets with larger midsole stack heights than true minimal shoes so heel striking in them is not an issue for shorter distances. 5. Appreciate it. |
|
Quoted:
1. I apologize for coming off that way, its just one of my biggest peeves as its one of the main reasons we see a ton of injuries. 2.&3. I think the problem youve got is you think heel striking and over striding are synonymous or mutually exclusive, which they are not. One can absolutely not be over striding, or even have shorter strides and still heel strike. Youtube any of those people I mentioned along with running form or analysis and youll see a heel first impact without an over stride. Ryan Hall is the only one it will be hard to locate. We did a GA on him for a project a few years ago and it was concluded that while ultimately he's midfoot, he heel impacts after a while from fatigue. 4. My pace, threshold, and fartlek days are run in the Saucony fastwitch. It is a posted 4 mill offset transitional shoe. I may have a more midfoot strike at the beginning of my training but Im heel striking near the end. Transitional shoes are lower than 12 mill offsets with larger midsole stack heights than true minimal shoes so heel striking in them is not an issue for shorter distances. 5. Appreciate it. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll start with the bold above. That is completely false. No elite runners are heel strikers. Next, what is your scholarly support for your position that heel striking is fine/just as efficient/won't cause injury? So far you haven't mentioned any. My "anecdotal" experience is based on years of observations as a runner and a coach. Let me make a few guesses at your level of experience, tell me if I'm wrong. 1. You've been running "seriously" for less than 5 years 2. You probably run 2-3 times per week 3. Your weekly mileage is 7-10 4. You bought some form of minimalist shoe (Five Fingers, Nike Free,...) 5. You came to running from something else like crossfit 6. You probably run in the 9 min per mile range How close am I? Since were turning this into a dick measuring contest first i'll start with, youre way off, sorry. So lets start off with a list of elite runners who are rearfoot accentuated. Ryan Hall (rear/mid), Meb Keflezighi, Haile Gebrselassie, Abdi Abdirahman, Chris Solinsky, Kara Goucher, Deena Kastor, Paige Higgins, should I go on? Second, since you think knowing a lot about running is a belt notch checklist, Ive been running seriously since I joined the military in 97 and even more so since I got out in 03. I run 50+ miles a week to work and Im thinking about training for a 50k. I only use transitional or minimal footwear on my pace or threshold days. For most of my runs I avg low to mid 7s depending on the distance. I dont run many races, as most of my love for running comes from just the pure high of the road. My main reason for it is stress relief and general fitness. Now lets get into the meat and potatoes. I manage and am about to own a running specialty store. I've been in this field for about 10 years now. My undergrad degree is in kinesiology with a focus in the lower limb. Ive been debating as to attend school for a grad degree in biomechanics at my alma mater (all depends on how much extra time Ive got from owning a business). I worked in one of the leading human performance labs in the country while in school, and Ive done thousands of gait analyses over the years for school and my job. The scholarly support for my claim is my education and research that Ive been involved in based on form and impact force translation through the limb. Forefoot/midfoot striking only change the point of translation, not the magnitude of the force. So while rearfoot strikers can see an increase in impulse force with over striding (which I agreed can be a problem) as long as biomechanical inefficiencies are compensated for, there is no loss in efficiency (theres actually a few studies out there that show heel strikers are more efficient than forefoot/midfoot strikers) and no higher instance of injury. No data has yet to refute this. I think a change in form for a more minimal shoe can help most people with proprioceptive response and lower limb strengthening, but its up to the end user to figure out how much their body can handle. Not everyone will be able to use that as their only tool in the toolbox. Overtraining can still occur in forefoot/midfoot strikers and they tend to see more chronic problems with these overtraining scenarios. Achilles in particular can be a big issue, with calf and metatarsal issues following in number of instances (although met issues rose by 250% in 2010 for a number of reasons). So its definitely not an injury free way to run. The main reason I responded is because people like you do the most damage to beginners with questions. They give just enough info without getting into the nitty gritty, but they leave a lot to be desired. No instruction for that person in particular, and every piece of guidance is open ended with opinion instead of fact used as justification. Thats a recipe for disaster. I know you mean well, but in all actuality youre doing more harm than good with your vague, anecdotal responses. Do us all a favor and study up or stop. 1. You began by replying to my post with a very strong "you don't know what you're talking about rant" without knowing anything about my experience level. here are better ways to start the conversation. I took the bait and responded in kind. 2. Of the runners you mentioned, Solinsky is the only one I haven't seen run in person. None of those I have seen are heel strikers. The video of Solinsky's american record 10k run at Stanford shows that he isn't a heel striker either. 3. You concede that training and proper stride length will lead to a mid-foot strike but you continue to argue that it doesn't matter. 4. If your are running your pace/threshhold days in "minimalist" shoes, I highly doubt that you are heel striking on those days. I have doubts that you heel strike most of the time. 5. I wish you luck with your business and your running. 1. I apologize for coming off that way, its just one of my biggest peeves as its one of the main reasons we see a ton of injuries. 2.&3. I think the problem youve got is you think heel striking and over striding are synonymous or mutually exclusive, which they are not. One can absolutely not be over striding, or even have shorter strides and still heel strike. Youtube any of those people I mentioned along with running form or analysis and youll see a heel first impact without an over stride. Ryan Hall is the only one it will be hard to locate. We did a GA on him for a project a few years ago and it was concluded that while ultimately he's midfoot, he heel impacts after a while from fatigue. 4. My pace, threshold, and fartlek days are run in the Saucony fastwitch. It is a posted 4 mill offset transitional shoe. I may have a more midfoot strike at the beginning of my training but Im heel striking near the end. Transitional shoes are lower than 12 mill offsets with larger midsole stack heights than true minimal shoes so heel striking in them is not an issue for shorter distances. 5. Appreciate it. Cheers |