Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

J.O. wrote:

Yes the heel doesn't absorb much shock, but the 'heelstrike' motion does absorb shock as it rolls inwards and forwards.

And some elite runners do this a lot, some don't.

I agree, I feel there should be some clarification between "heelstriking" and simply hitting the ground with your heel first. I feel that study lacked that distinction (although it would have been difficult to find).

I usually hit the ground with my heel first, especially on training runs, but most of my force goes to my mid-foot and front-foot. I imagine many elites do the same. This is in contrast to heel-striking, which a lot of new runners do, where most of the force goes into your heel. It's probably a result of both the cushion in the shoes enabling it, but also overstriding. I imagine that very few elite, or even experienced runners, do it because when you run a lot of mileage, your body finds more efficient ways to run.

Nobody heelsrikes in the way you described, it would hurt too much. So called beginner runners have actually been running from a very young age and know how to roll the heel inwards and forwards, or, in the case of supinators, not have the heel come down at all when they run.

And don't get me started on this overstriding nonsense. Where are these runners whose stride is too long?

I’m not surprised at any of the crazy shit people post here anymore. As long as an IQ test isn’t required to have an internet connection the lunatics will be out in full force. Why on earth would anyone care what part of the foot touches the ground first. It has no relevance to performance. For some, the heel touches first. For others, it’s the midfoot. And for some others, they land on their tippy-toes. Focusing on more extraneous information, that is unrelated to performance, is a distraction. Focus on training and preparing to race. The time spent will be much more productive.

Noureddine who?

This is ridiculous even by the standards of the dolts on this message board. Please don’t tell that to the two world class guys 45 seconds behind me that I ran with the emergency brake on.

Python wrote:

The conclusion is that it barely f###ing matters, and we're not sure which is the best for any individual.

>>Implying physics works differently for different individuals.

Christopher Poole wrote:

This isn't a matter of biology, it's a matter of mechanics.

Implying that you don't understand physics/mechanics, and that there is a "correct" way of footstrike. There isn't.

malmo, you know how it is? These myths are circulated by all sorts of people who should know better.

Surely the biggest myth of all time has to be the lactic acid myth, which is slowly morphing into other forms of phoney biochemistry. Why do people say this stuff to runners they are trying to coach? To sound knowledgeable?

Pious platitudes. All of it a completely useless diatribe.

Hey malmo, would you advise running twice a day 7 days a week? Sorry for the bit of randomness.

there is TECHNIQUE, large principles of similarity governed by biomechanics of the body as a 3rd class lever sytem.

then there is STYLE, individual differences that don't largely affect proper technique.

There are better and worse ways to run which dictate how fast. it does matter how your foot lands if you are doing it inefficiently. there is a reason some people get injured chronically when approaching certain volumes.

foot contact and "form" change with velocity. The way you walk isn't the way you run unless you are running very slow. you don't see sprinters running with a heel toe roll like in walking. because sprinting is largely pushing and walking is far more pulling.

velocity in distance running is a much greater variable from level of competitivness (elite vs hobby jogger), and within the training (long slow runs vs intervals).

IN GENERAL: the heel leads to the ground, meaning in the air as the femur, tibia, foot moves down toward the ground it looks as though the heel will touch first.

at moderate speeds (not full sprinting)much of the foot should be used to dissipate forces in a rocking chair like fashion. a full footed or flat footed contact that may initiate on the outside back (heel"ish") part of the foot rolling for a ball of foot take off.

even in high speed sprinting the heel makes contact with the ground, but usually after a more forefooted (outside middle) of the foot and then the natural "give" at the ankle.

The leg should act as much like a spring as possible with preparation for landing by pretenstion of quad for knee stiffness and around the ankle for stability, abosorbtion , and force application as well as taking advantage of free energy from elastic properties of the body.

but too many people speak in too many absolutes about it MUST be this way or it MUST be that way, or IT DOESNT MATTER at all.

The hyperbole from the ignorant on all sides is sad.

kid3 wrote:

Hey malmo, would you advise running twice a day 7 days a week? Sorry for the bit of randomness.

Or 6, or 5, or 4. Generally 5 or 6 works just fine.

Thanks man. I didn't really know who you were until I watched that youtube video. I saw the time and was like, jeez that's a pretty slow 10k time. Then I saw it was an 8 mile race and literally went "Woaw".

J.O. wrote:

malmo, you know how it is? These myths are circulated by all sorts of people who should know better.

Surely the biggest myth of all time has to be the lactic acid myth, which is slowly morphing into other forms of phoney biochemistry. Why do people say this stuff to runners they are trying to coach? To sound knowledgeable?

Some people need to hide behind sciolistic fog-machines.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit."

The only thing sillier than "correct foot strike" is the guy who preaches "correct starting technique" on these boards. Heck, he's probably the same guy.

Saying this person is fast, so it doesn't matter if they heelstrike doesn't make any sense. It just means you have to work more to run the same speed. Think how much faster he could have been if he didn't have such a savage heel strike.

Heel striking is for running down hill and slowing yourself down. Not running fast.

Okay well I'm about to enter a newby marathon program I found online that peaks at like 75 miles a week with a 20 mile long run. Assuming I'm sticking to this plan, would it be wise to get in 4-6 mile doubles in on every day except my long run day?

...and what if the person's specific joint/muscle/tendon configuration is such that his footstrike (of whatever type it is)... is THE most efficient form based on his physiology? Should he change it and wind up injured to apease the crazy notion of "one best form"?

gazoo wrote:

Saying this person is fast, so it doesn't matter if they heelstrike doesn't make any sense. It just means you have to work more to run the same speed. Think how much faster he could have been if he didn't have such a savage heel strike.

Heel striking is for running down hill and slowing yourself down. Not running fast.

Preach it to the man.

To me, the idea that you will naturally use the best form for you by running a lot makes the most sense.

Well, this is quite entertaining. Gazoo, you sure did put the nail in the coffin on this debate.....not.

gazoo wrote:

It just means you have to work more to run the same speed. Think how much faster he could have been if he didn't have such a savage heel strike.

Is this quantifiably proven or are you just positing this? Do you have access to some scientific database of elite runners who have changed their form from heal-strike to forefoot that shows a correlation of improved speed resulting from this transition? If so, I'm very curious to see the results. Otherwise, it's all hot air as far as I'm concerned. Conversely, I'll bet there are plenty of examples where somebody messed with their form and ended up slower and/or seriously injured.

malmo - looked at that video quite a few times - seen before - without music and video - nice addition. But a peripheral question that is just a curiosity - you look down a number of times. Habit? function? other?

tim

NATURAL SELECTION

Watch the elites. Find the technical commonalities, there is a good place to begin.

Don't focus on THE ONE GUY that does it differently and conclude it doesn't matter. That ONE GUY is the outlier.

There is a reason that there are commonalties of technique and differences in style of the best.

Either A. they were coached that way, or B. they "naturally" did it that way (the right way) which allowed for the highest levels of success. Basically, the brought the "correct skill" to the game which allowed them to stay in the game.

We've all seen the heavy hobby jogger running slowly down the street running just like they would if they were walking casting out the foot, landing on the heel and rolling off the foot. We see those 5 hour charity marathoners running the whole race this way. But you don't find ANYONE up front doing it like that. Why?

Those who naturally choose techniques that are fundamental violations of human locomotion self select OUT of the conversation because they never reach high levels of success. Sure every now and again one may win a HS state meet, or be an age group road racer. But they don't reach the top levels.

Ever see Robert Parish the old Boston Celtic take a jump shot or a free throw? It was ugly, odd, but it worked for him. You didn't see a generation of basketball players rush to emulate him because his style had fundamental violations in set up, release which effected the outcome that mattered ACCURACY. Not so much for him, BUT FOR THE REST OF THE BASKETBALL PLAYING WORLD.

Distance running has a lot more to do with the cardiovascular potential God gave you than the nervous system God gave you (which allows for coordination and eventually technique). At lower levels a well developed cardio vascular system with inferior mechanics can beat an inferior cardio vascular system with superior mechanics.

That doesn't mean the mechanics are not important, OR that there isn't a better or even best way to strike the ground as a human being trying to run fast for 10 seconds, or 43 seconds, or 100 seconds or 3:40 seconds or 10+ minute or 120+ minutes.

At the upper levels, both are required. Not 100% of the time, but 95+% of the time for sure. For every 1 Abdi(heel and flat sinusoidal curve) techniques running fast there are 100 Lagats or Webbs (full footed and bouncy striding.)

Now how your prioritize this science becomes the the art of coaching. But to say it is not important or worse "does not matter" is just as bad as saying it is the only thing that matters.

PS, while the start may not matter to a marathoner, or a whloe lot to even a 400m runner, proper starting means a lot to the 60m runner. There are prinicples of proper starting which don't include rocking back, shifting weight and starting forward again. So the argument is the same. There is a better and even best way to do it. How much time you spend on it is up to you. And while in endurance races that involve sub maximal pacing and tactics the importance of the start can be negligible or none on the OUTCOME, but it doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to do it.