the bigger question wrote:
Now you are the one who is off base. Your assumption that shoe companies cushion the heel because the masses were heel strikers prior to heel cushioning is not true.
Please elaborate.
the bigger question wrote:
Now you are the one who is off base. Your assumption that shoe companies cushion the heel because the masses were heel strikers prior to heel cushioning is not true.
Please elaborate.
Alsal, in the marathon
Sarah Baxter 16:00 at Mt. SAC. Technically it's a WR because there are no other Mt. SACs in the world. And she is most definitely a heel striker.
the bigger question wrote:
It's not all about stride length. The African's, especially the 5k and under crew, forefoot or midfoot strike and overstride. Footstrike is a conscious decision whether to plantarflex your foot at impact or dorsiflex. Stride length comes into play somewhat but its not all about that. Also, it is more difficult to forefoot strike in the shoes with significant heel toe drops, which is why you may at times see a certain elite wearing said shoes, either for the photo shoot or for a long run, heel striking.
People need to stop pretending there isn't a better way. Some people can heel strike their whole life and not be injured, but it still won't lead to optimal performance.
I contend that on the track/races Ryan Hall, Geb, Bekele, El Guerrouj, and Morceli are all midfoot strikers (the foot is dorsiflexed and the midfoot and heel strike at the same time).
Also, when you look at some elites just training, keep in mind that people tend to strike more toward the forefoot the faster they go. There are probably people who will heel strike going slower than race pace who will midfoot strike during the main part of the race--and they may forefoot strike during kicking. Marathons are the slowest events normally considered "track and field," so these are the most likely places you will see leaders heel striking.
Forefoot striking in events of 5K and longer tends to put a great deal of strain on the calves. It's not that heel/midfoot striking is more efficient (it isn't), but it becomes difficult to maintain forefoot striking for longer races, and midfoot is a compromise that many faster mid/long distance people go to.
she is not a heel striker. it just looks like it. she definitely strikes mid/fore first with her heel closely following
Frank Reynolds wrote:
she is not a heel striker. it just looks like it. she definitely strikes mid/fore first with her heel closely following
Nonsense. This No True Scotsman BS is spouted for every fast heel striker. Get over it
I admit I drank deeply from the forefoot Kool Aid when first beginning running, and was rewarded with a raft of injuries. I was doing it wrong, as the kids say. I was deliberately forcing a forefoot landing and ran about looking like a ponce when I wasn't holed up with PF or stress fractures or runner's knee.
Anyway, I wised up and stopped overstriding - forefoot strikers overstride too... they just look ridiculous when they do it.
But what I found was this - I can't force a heel strike now because my feet seem to land under my body to such a degree forcing a heel landing means really wrenching up wit my toes. I also regularly check my cadence and it's 180 strides per minute, exactly on the nose, consistently.
I believe landing beneath my hips and having a high cadence are consequences of starting with a forefoot strike, even if I went about it all wrong to begin with. Now it's drilled in my head and I've refined it and I couldn't be happier. My running shoes are $7 kung-fu style slipper things from Kmart and that makes me happiest of all.
I don't think you need to forefoot strike and you can definitely go about it in a stupid way. But I think it forces good form in the end so long as you think about it a bit, and I can't see myself ever wanting to change.
Easy. Take your shoes off in grass and run. Tell me you heelstrike.
curiousmonkey wrote:
the bigger question wrote:Now you are the one who is off base. Your assumption that shoe companies cushion the heel because the masses were heel strikers prior to heel cushioning is not true.
Please elaborate.
K.Bekele is a light heel striker but it is hardly noticable.
Although I am an avid forefoot striker, I will say that I also at times do a few strides on the heels to give overstressed muscles a break. Simply, I was not sufficiently trained for the workout I got out to do. Marathon elites who start out too fast, or race when not fit, will have the same. While a bad habit for long mileage (some get lucky and don't injure no matter what) heel striking may help a runner out when in trouble with their prime race technique.
Calves are senstive. My experience is that any mileage, even standing around at a pop concert, in high-heel shoes can shorten the calves, and they'll hurt you come raceday. they need to be kept long and strong.
Is the question whether fast runners fore foot strike or is the question does fore foot striking lead to faster times?
It's pretty obvious that most elite runners are mid or forefoot strikers. I haven't seen much/any compelling evidence that changing to a forefoot strike causes improvement in race times or ordinary runners. More likely, the faster you get, the greater percentage of the time you spend forefoot striking.
Olympic trials 10000m men
http://biomechanics.byu.edu/footstrikesmens10k.jpg
Olympic trials 10000m women
There was a video but I cant find it.
PS: Doesn't answer the original question, but gives an idea of the running elite.
In his book Marathoning, Bill Rodgers says he is a heel striker.
I think you have to back up a little bit, and re-think and re-confirm some of your assumptions. For example, if you look at the study referenced in the Sports Scientist link: The vast majority (75%) of the elite runners land on the heel About 1 in four (24%) runners landed on the mid-foot Only 4 out of 283 runners landed on the forefootI've never seen anything which supports your assumption that heel striking is "quite rare" among elite athletes. There are not that many studies around that have examined the foot strikes of elite runners.I've never seen any model or formula that suggests changing footstrike will lead to faster times.The most compelling reason I have seen to change your footstrike is if you are currently experiencing certain kinds of injury. For example, if you have knee problems, switching to mid-foot or fore-foot shifts the stress from the knees to the ankles.But then you need to be careful to build-up slowly, to avoid new calf or achilles injuries until you've adapted to the new pattern.You can also expect your efficiency to go down at first.Afterwards your times may improve, but this is more like due to the increased training you can do, compared to when you would otherwise become injured, or a better form associated with the new footstrike.There is really not enough information to be able to draw any specific or quantifiable conclusions about optimal footstrikes.I would advise working on your overall form, instead of narrowly focusing on the footstrike.
Skater wrote:
So the dominating technique in jogging (mass sports events) is in fact quite rare among elite athletes. Why would that be?
Recently a Dutch guy ran sub 2.10 in the marathon. He's a heel striker for all I know. That being rare here, it's sortof the winning technique for Dutch runners, albeit way off the global pace and well removed from NR.
Anyone know how much quicker midfoot strike is supposed to be, for joggers to elite runners? Are some elite runners perhaps world class runners that never made the switch (back) to normal running?
75% of elites heelsrike? Ridiculous. I watch runners of all abilities, and forefoot striking is a natural style for many of them based on their natural biomechanics.
Yes, really. It might seem a surprising finding, but it is well documented using a high speed camera, on nearly 300 runners participating in a world-class semi-marathon.
Although your detailed evaluation and experience is equally interesting, it would seem that mid-foot and heel strikes are also natural styles deriving from natural, yet shod, bio-mechanics.
I haven't seen anything that supports the concept of forefoot striking producing reliable, quantifiable performance improvements, or that it's a necessary step towards success at the elite level.
a world-class semi-marathon
Geb himself focused more on transitioning from a fore/midfoot strike to a heel strike when he moved up to the marathon. Also, Abebe Bekele barefoot on cobblstone ran with a heel strike to win Rome and set the WR.
If I take my shoes off and run on grass I run with a heel strike, it feel more natural to me. If I try to run barefoot on concrete I transition towards my forefoot more but thats not very natural at all.
The way I see it, shoes are my "Natural Surface" while I run on concrete. Allowing me to run how I normally would.
over analyzing wrote:
The whole heel striking thing really isn't as big an issue as it's made out to be on LR. If you are heel striking, you are overstriding slightly. Some people can run fast while overstriding slightly just like some people can run fast while understriding slightly.
Overstriding, how?
