Is heel striking better for some people?

People have run FAST heel striking and midfoot striking! Heel strikers get hurt, midfoot strikers get hurt, and forefoot strikers get hurt. In the end it doesn't really matter...There is no evidence to support that if you run one way or the other that you will be subjected to more or less injuries....Furthermore, there will always be intrinsic and extrinsic factors that cause runners to get injured...

Add one more to the growing list of

Noureddine Morceli

Carlos Lopes

John Treacy

Charlie Spedding

Rod Dixon

George Malley

Paul Tergat

Alberto Salazar

Pete Pfitzinger

Mark Nenow

Joan Benoit

Grete waitz

Thom Hunt

Dan Dillon

Jan Merrill

Greg Meyer

Dathan Ritzenhein

Mebrahtom Keflezighi

Abderrahim Goumri

Abebe Bekila

Abdi Abdirahman

El G

Abubaker Kaki

Miruts Yifter

Vebjorn Rodahl

Joachim Cruz

John Ngugi

Zersenay Tadese

Samuel Tsegay

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot 4 were heel strikers.

Metabolic and mechanical aspects of foot landing type, forefoot and rearfoot strike, in human running.

The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans.

Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.

I'd say some people are trapped by heel-striking. Many are certainly fast, because their body has never known anything else and grown accustomed to the deficiency. They can't stop because to do so would mean interrupted training and slower times until they can readjust. For some, readjustment could mean injury, so it's just easier to stay where they are and try to make the best of it.

+Desi Davila

Hey thanks for the replies everone. A important detail i forgot to mention... as a heelstriker i got a stress fracture in my shin. As a forefootstriker i've gotten one in my foot. So either way i get injured easy..

These posts are making me seriously consider going back to the heelstrike.

funny how you criticize a book, when another book is why most people heel strike.

Lieberman is back with a study of Harvard runners, saying that forefoot is statistically better in terms of injury/energy, and that "mid-foot" basically doesn't exist:

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/06/20/new-study-favors-forefoot-strike/

I have a good friend that hits on the forefoot, while I hit heel first. I reas that his style is better, but when I adjusted, I had frequent shin injuries. I went back to my way, and the injuries persist. I would not suggest anybody change from what is natural for them.

OK Torpedo wrote:

Lieberman is back with a study of Harvard runners, saying that forefoot is statistically better in terms of injury/energy, and that "mid-foot" basically doesn't exist:

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/06/20/new-study-favors-forefoot-strike/

This guy is challenging him.

Interesting article but that article says that heel striking may be better for speed...wha huh? If you sprint 100m, do you heel strike...ummm, no. When you run a 400, do you heel strike...umm, no. So you don't run faster with a heel strike, because if you did you would sprint that way. Also, while the calcaneus may be a less fragile structure than the forefoot, it has to be because when you land on it the impact forces are greater. Lets all pay attention to the 5k and 10k at the olympic trials and see how many of these guys heel strike. I am going to bet none. While you may see some doing it at the end of a marathon due to fatigue, it will not be their preferred way to run. Someone said the best way to run is the natural way for you. Well, take the blasted shoes off and run on grass. If you heel strike after 3 minutes, maybe you should heel strike, but I don't think many at all, if any, will. Now the shoes we wear should only serve to protect the bottom of our feet from things underneath. Why the hell are people wearing shoes that change how they run compared to when they don't wear shoes. That's the whole point.