No one started a thread yet? Rearfoot strike better than forefoot, new study says

From the abstract: "Step rate and step length were not different between groups". I find that one very surprising.

And I second the opinion that efficiency when jogging is only very mildly interesting.

If someone read it: How fast are they? 15 km/h is their normal speed for what distance? What sort of shoes did they use?

why all the hostility?

go hug a puppy, bro.

ive said this since day one. its not about the foot strike is about correct posture. If we get our hips under us and run tall the foot falls right into place. some itll be forefoot, some mid foot, some slightly on the heel. foot strike is a result. once you point your toes to land on the forefoot you loose all the benefits from forefoot running.

Because the technique of measuring running economy (i.e. by measuring respiratory gases) assumes that the energy consumed is aerobic. If you pick too fast a pace to measure running economy, the anaerobic contribution will get too big and distort the results. In this case, they determined that increasing the pace to 17kph would have pushed some of the runners above 90%VO2max, which would have been too high for accurate measurement.

It's true that the p-value was 0.07 (i.e. not smaller than 0.05) at the fastest pace, though the rearfoot group's average energy consumption was still 5.0% lower than the midfoot group. It would definitely be interesting to see what happened at higher speed, using a different measurement technique.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. "Longer contact time and shorter flight time" doesn't mean they're slower -- they were running at exactly the same pace when those measurements were taken. And, in case you've forgotten, they had equivalent personal best times (~70min for HM) on average. That just reflects the fact that if you land on your heel, you spend a higher percentage of your stride cycle in contact with the ground. It's neither inherently good nor inherently bad.

That's incorrect. Since previous studies have grouped forefoot and midfoot strikers together, this study did the same for consistency: "Therefore, in this study runners who appeared to land on the ball of the foot first (i.e. forefoot) or who landed with the heel and ball of the foot simultaneously (i.e. midfoot) were grouped together as midfoot strikers"

You're a strange little man.

This study data was for sub-elite runners, running at a slow pace. Faster runners on a fast run do strike the mid-foot, see data below...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17685722

"The purpose of the present study was to document actual foot strike patterns during a half marathon in which elite international level runners, including Olympians, compete. Four hundred fifteen runners were filmed by 2 120-Hz video cameras in the height of 0.15 m placed at the 15.0-km point and obtained sagittal foot landing and taking off images for 283 runners. Rearfoot strike was observed in 74.9% of all analyzed runners, MFS in 23.7%, and FFS in 1.4%. The percentage of MFS was higher in the faster runners group, when all runners were ranked and divided into 50 runner groups at the 15.0-km point of the competition. In the top 50, which included up to the 69th place runner in actual order who passed the 15-km point at 45 minutes, 53 second (this speed represents 5.45 m x s(-1), or 15 minutes, 17 seconds per 5 km), RFS, MFS, and FFS were 62.0, 36.0, and 2.0%, respectively."

I have not read the complete article.

I would be curious about the running history of the participants. How long had the midfoot strikers been running that way? It seems intuitive that someone who is transitioning from rearfoot to forefoot would be less economical as they are running out of their "default" form.

What types of shoes were they wearing? What sorts of injury rates do they have? Most research articles regarding forefoot striking are assessing the effect of FF strike on injury rates and biomechanics, with running economy being a secondary consideration.

blinded with science wrote: This study data was for sub-elite runners, running at a slow pace. Faster runners on a fast run do strike the mid-foot, see data below...

Yes, if you look at the data that you actually posted, it says that 62% of the fast runners (i.e. those who passed 15km at 45:53 or faster) were rearfoot striking. In other words, some fast runners midfoot strike, while others (more than half) rearfoot strike.

The study that the OP referred to was looking at a different question, which is to compare the running characteristics of fast runners with different footstrike patterns. Footstrike (as measured at half-marathon pace) was a controlled variable, not an outcome measure.

more science on RFS wrote:

http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n1/21/v9n1-21pdf.pdf

If I read this one correctly, they found out that when heel-strikers suddenly switched to low drop shoes, they carried on heel-striking and the shocks were higher. Not really a surprise. What's the point in measuring this? Telling people that they should train and race in the same type of shoes? Fine by me.

discuss

Forefoot striking saves the knees & shins. But calf, soleus, achilles strains more common.

ak47 wrote:

once you point your toes to land on the forefoot you loose all the benefits from forefoot running.

It's amazing to me how many hobby joggers think that forefoot striking means your heel never touches the ground. I see these people hopping around on their toes and it just makes me cringe.

Another aside: Even slow motion video doesn't tell the whole story, because it's possible to touch the heel first but not really place any substantial weight on the foot until you've reached mid or forefoot.

I think the study just shows that non-elite runners should not be worried so much about foot strike and form. If you are not a top distance runner, there is no big difference in outcomes if you are a heel striker or a mid/forefoot striker. There is no reason to blow out your calves/Achilles trying to transition. There is no reason to buy Newtons or run barefoot. Just go out and do what you do.

what type of shoes were the tests done in?

ak47 wrote:

ive said this since day one. its not about the foot strike is about correct posture. If we get our hips under us and run tall the foot falls right into place. some itll be forefoot, some mid foot, some slightly on the heel. foot strike is a result. once you point your toes to land on the forefoot you loose all the benefits from forefoot running.

I like this- and I will use this in the future. Thanks

There are some smart mother fuuckers on here.

800 dude wrote:

It's amazing to me how many hobby joggers think that forefoot striking means your heel never touches the ground. I see these people hopping around on their toes and it just makes me cringe.

Another aside: Even slow motion video doesn't tell the whole story, because it's possible to touch the heel first but not really place any substantial weight on the foot until you've reached mid or forefoot.

Agreed. When your heel doesn't touch, the arch can't flatten against the ground. Instead the front of it rests on the ground, and the back rests unstably on your achilles/plantar fascia, requiring them to hold up the arch as it flattens. I used to not let my heels touch solidly and I got PF from it.

Wear patterns on shoes tell the real story about footstrike.

70 min half-marathon is not really elite in my book, but rather sub-elite runners.

Also, the study wanted a controlled variable in pace, but not everyone runs the same aerobic pace for training even if they do run the same average time in a half-marathon. Some runners have to run slower long runs than others, while others cannot go slower than a certain pace no matter what. This would make any runner outside the controlled variable pace uncomfortable in running form and would change the foot fall at either a slower or faster pace.

Each runner should be filmed at the mile, half and finish of the race to show any change on foot fall as the body warms up and then tires out, this would also affect impact pressure.

I have gone from easy long runs of 6 minute miles to easy long runs at 7'50's after two years of injuries, and I had to change my forefoot running to a more midfoot type form because the pace is just so much different and the body reacts much differently. I do prefer the forefoot running at a faster pace as it doesn't affect my muscles and joints as much as a midfoot or heel stike for me.

numiler22 wrote:

70 min half-marathon is not really elite in my book, but rather sub-elite runners.

I'm guessing you didn't click the link, because here's the first sentence of the abstract:

" PURPOSE:

To analyze the influence of foot strike pattern on running economy and biomechanical characteristics in sub-elite runners with a similar performance level."

Literally no one on this thread called 70-minute half-marathoners elite.