Forefoot vs. Heel Landing

I recall that most of the guys in jtupper's study were long-distance guys, and no real mid-distance. Even most elite marathoner seem to heel strike, at least at marathon pace.

Maybe I'm missing soemthing here, but surely the problem with jtuppers study (and stuides of that type) is that it measures economy immediately after the change, whereas what we, the runners, need to know is what is more efficient after years of adaptation.

If you heelstrike for years then to run forefoot as a one off for a test is bound to be uneconomical for you. But that does not mean that it is not better for your running economy in the long term.

This short term result approach is one of the big failings of modern sports science, IMHO. Or rather the reliance upon its results and not recognising its limitations.

I'm a forefoot runner, but have experience with both (go heel impact when compromising certain injuries).

Forefoot strike puts lots more pressure on the lower leg muscles/tendons like calves, solueus, achilles.

Heel strike definitely jars the knees more.

In my case, it's as simple as that.

Hi Pants!

In total agreement with you here. Humans are really good at optimising movement in the SHORT TERM. Years of heel striking leads to a body well conditioned to heel strike, and poorly conditioned to forefoot strike - of course heel strikers will immediately struggle to run effectively on their forefoot, and it will feel difficult and unnatural. They might conclude that they are 'naturally' a heel striker, but IMO its nurture overiding nature.

yeah, the problem is subject recruitment / retention / adherence, and funding. Oversimplifying a bit, but funding system in UK broadly rewards number of publications per year in a university department. Little incentive for the longer term studies we might like to do.

oh boy wrote:

landing on your forefoot is, as you said, much less jarring on your joints and your body as a whole. It's also the natural stride of a human being - how many elite milers do you see landing on their heels?

My thinking is that footstrike is a function of velocity. The natural WALKING stride features a heel landing. As a runner's speed increases, the foot plant tends to be more towards the midfoot and then forefoot.

This assumes an unshod state. Shoes, especially those with high heel-to-forefoot ratios, tend to change things.

?,

As you may no by now I am a POSE RUNNING advocate. Unfortunately there are just to many variables for a scientific group study to provide anything more than anecdotal evidence. The reason why I believe the Optimal running footstrike is the ball of the foot is because this position is the most obvious spot on our feet that allows us to fall forward. If we place our body weight on our heels first we will proceed with rolling to the ball of the foot. So to avoid wasted time and energy landing on the heel, I believe it is more efficient to go straight to the position on the foot which you can move forward fastest from.

Most people are confused by the term "the ball of the foot". This is the spot behind the big toe where your sesemoid bones are located. In order to accomplish a correct ball of the foot landing one must learn proper feel of lifting and dropping their leg and maintaining a nuetral foot position. Ones heel should be slightly touching or just above the ground. This takes deliberate practice which does not automatically happen because you run barefoot or in a minimal cushioning shoe. You must do specfic drills in which to create this pattern of movement. Dr. Nicholas Romanov the developer of the Pose Method technique has study this at nauseum for the last 25 years and continues to refine every aspect of teaching running. If you have not read or studied the Pose Method technique I would highly recommend you do so. I hope you find some answers to your questions. Good luck!

There are several problems with using studies to measure change in economy or efficiency in running form. Not to pick on Jtupper, but in a study done like the one he mentioned several things effect the results. First off, ask any good mechanics coach and they'll tell you that running ona treadmill alters a runners form. It's harder to do certain things on a treadmill that are natural running outside. Using myself as an example when I run on a treadmill I don't extend my hip (I cut the stride short), and have to conciously think about putting my feet down flat underneath me because on the treadmill they sometimes tend to float out on me. In fact, I've had coaches who were able to tell me when they saw me running later in the afternoon if my morning workout had been on the treadmill because in the afternoon the effects still linger a little.

Secondly, you can't just tell someone to land forefoot or heel strike and to change in the middle of a run. It takes many months or even years before someone can switch from heel striking to landing flat footed. Of course if you tell an athlete who has heel striked for years to try running on his forefoot and measure the economy it will be worst for the motion that is unnatural at first. It will be awkward because he's not used to running that way and more than likely isn't doing it entirely correctly.

Just a couple things to point out as to why scientific studies aren't a definitive answer on this subject. It's too hard to study because of the above reasons.

in runnning a 3000m race. Should i stay on my heals til the final 400 do u reckon?

If Suzy Favor ran on her heels, she would be a multiple gold medalist.

SFH reaches with her toe before footstrike.