Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

So malmo let me just try to understand your point here. You agreed that improving your form is a good idea, but you don't think there is anything wrong with heelstriking.

Now let me ask you this hypothetical question. Let's say you're coaching an athlete who has a very good engine but looks pretty sloppy when they run. This guy is a decent runner, but nothing outstanding.

a) Do you even bother to help him improve his form?

b) If yes to a, how would you go about doing it?

And to you, if the footstrike doesn't matter, what constitutes "good form"? Just wondering since you haven't really spoken about what you believe efficient running form looks like.

Shoe guy, for the hundredth time, you get proposing that your hypothesis is correct, therefore all inferences or conclusions that follow must be correct. This is circular reasoning. Garbage in/garbage out.

You have to be able to define 'good form' in the first place. You are your stubborn pals have proven that you can't. 'Form' is different on each individual.

I think that John Treacy had great form. You might desagree. So what. From the side Suzy Favor Hamilton was poetry in motion, but from the front, her legs kicked out wildly all over the place -- it looked like her leg was broken in pieces. She probably ran on her forefoot too.

But the fact that more elite runners land on their midfoot rather than their heel still doesn't prove that landing on your heel is bad for your or more inefficient than landing else where.

Did Walker publish a study? A magazine article hardly qualifies as a scientific study.

It is only your opinion (plus a few other vocal minimalist cult members) that it is possible to run more efficiently if you don't heel strike.

Go Longer is getting closer to it. This entire thread has centered on the belief that runners should think of their footstrike as the beginning cause of good running form; that is, if I change the way I land, I might get 'better.' The footstrike is actually an effect of what you're doing up the body: the lower leg landing angle (vertical or negative?), hip position, even the torso and arm positions. It would be more appropriate to consider footstrike as a reflex of how you move your body through space.

Malmo, I do agree from the video you provided...and the 1974 European champs 5,000 that Foster is a heel striker...or is heel lander a better description????

The reason I provided the footage of that 1980 Finland roadrace because it was filmed from a different angle....behind, and in that video he doesn't look like a heel striker as in your videos....it's really weird.

In "my" video Foster looks like he is landing (or settling) on the front half of his foot...not on the heel.

The difference could also be explained by him running Finland in road shoes versus track spikes in Gateshead.

go longer wrote:

Here is a link to a discussion of the footstrike issue on The Science of Sport, a website developed and maintained by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas, two Ph.D sport scientists.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/running%20technique

Scroll down to the "Heel vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot: How do elite runners land?" entry. There is a nice review of some research available up to that date (April 2008) and the author's own take which is:

Run!

Looking at one particular study - elite 21 km runners

So in the current climate where real evidence is scarce and opinions hold sway, let's take a look at one study that has examined footstrike patterns during running events. It was done in 2004 in Japan, and published in 2007 in the Journal of Strength of Conditioning (not sure of the reason for the delay - it happens sometimes in science!). The full reference, for those interested, is Hasegawa et al., J Strength & Cond., 2007, (21), 888-893

It was performed at the 2004 Sapporro International Half Marathon in Japan. The scientists set up a high speed camera (very important for accurate collection of information - beats YouTube science any day!) at the 15km mark of the race, and captured most of the runners coming through. In total, they were able to observe the foot strike of 248 men and 35 women, and characterize them as either heel-strikers, mid-foot or forefoot strikers. They also measured Ground Contact Time at the 15km point.

The finding - what do you expect?

Before giving their main finding away, take a moment to guess what they would have found...If you are anything like me, and have read the substantial amount on the internet and in books about how it's "better" (there's that word again) to land on your forefoot, then of course, your expectation might be that they found:

* The majority of runners land on the forefoot

* Those that DO NOT land on the forefoot are the runners who finish towards the back of the field

Well, if that's what you thought, you'd be completely incorrect...! Because the finding is the following:

* 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 forefoot

Those runners that landed on the forefoot did not finish in the first four positions, so the common argument (a flawed one) that the best athletes are forefoot strikers is not supported by this finding.

Possible conclusions - how you read the study is influenced by what you wish to prove...

So, given this, one is tempted to say that the landing of the foot makes no difference to overall performance. Of course, this is not necessarily true. As I wrote above, science is often taken out of context, and this is one such example. You cannot, for example, rule out the possibility that these heel-strikers might be a few seconds or minutes faster if they just learned to land on their forefoot! Personally, I think that's highly unlikely, and what is more likely is that they'll end up in rehab for Achilles injuries, but even that is a "bald assertion", based only on opinion!

Now, however, here is where it gets interesting, and this is where the forefoot advocates got quite excited. When the researchers divided the finishers into groups of 50, they started to see something of a change in mid-foot landing as you moved further down the list. In otherwords, there was a higher percentage of midfoot strikers in the first 50 runners than in the second, and then third, and so on. The graph below shows this for heel-strikers and mid-foot strikers (I haven't shown forefoot, because it's so tiny and insignificant by comparison):

At first glance, the conclusion from this graph is that if you want to be a faster runner, finishing higher up in the overall order, then you should be a midfoot striker, not a heel-striker. That's how many people interpreted the finding. And this may well be true. Unfortunately, there is another possible reason it looks like it does - perhaps it's simply a function of running faster.

Speed and footstrike

In otherwords, you naturally shift your contact point with the ground further forward when you run faster. The average speed, incidentally, of the first 50 runners was 3 minutes 3 seconds per kilometer. The second group of 50 runners averaged 3 minutes 10 seconds per kilometer. Hardly a big difference, but given the range (the 50th runner is at least a minute behind the 1st runner), is it possible that groups of 50 is too big, and that all this "finding" represents is a speed effect on footstrike?

The point is, this study does not allow you to differentiate between three possibilities:

1. Faster runners are midfoot strikers (could be co-incidence or some other cause); or

2. Midfoot strikers are faster runners (and therefore we should all change our running style and land on the front part of the foot more); or

3. All runners would eventually be midfoot strikers, if they just ran fast enough!

This is another classic example of how a scientific result can be taken out of context and applied to give advice that may not be 100% correct.

Personal opinion and implications of this study

My personal reaction to this research, when it came out, was that it disproved the popular theory that all runners should be aiming to become midfoot or forefoot strikers. Most of us (well, I'm in this group, apologies if you are not) are nowhere near the elite level, and we're often told by experts and coaches that the elite are landing on the ball of the foot or the midfoot, and so we should too.

But the next time you think of running like Gebrselassie and trying to land mid or forefoot, consider this: if you go out and sprint 100m, you're likely to run on your toes the whole way - because you're running faster, you land more on the mid-foot, or even the forefoot.

Sprinting as you are, you'll probably cover 100m in 14 seconds, which puts you only 1 second ahead of a Bekele or a Gebrselassie in a 5000m race, so is it any wonder they are midfoot strikers on the track - they're running as fast as most of us sprint? The point I'm trying to make is, if you ran the speed they did, you'd be a mid-foot striker too! But just as I suspect they change as they slow down, we all do. So why, and on what basis, should you try to run with the same foot strike when you are running perhaps 3 minutes per kilometer SLOWER than them? Again, these are relatively bald assertions, but hopefully you recognize the implication of speed on foot strike.

So when you go out and run a 3 hour, or a 4 hour marathon, that's another story altogether. And what the Pose running study at UCT showed me a few years ago is that if you change the landing of the foot, you predispose the athlete to injury - that study took a group of runners and within two weeks had them all running on the midfoot (please don't write in to say that Pose doesn't mean midfoot, because Romanov was the coach and he was happy with their technique!). Two weeks later, they all broke down with Achilles tendon injuries!

Why? Because sitting where you are right now, if I was to walk into your office or your home and take you outside and ask you to please run landing on your forefoot or midfoot, I can pretty much guarantee that the way you would achieve this is to point your toe down...you're probably doing this as you read this - contract the calf, and point your toe away from your body, like in ballet. Now imagine your body weight landing on that contracted calf muscle 85 times a minute for 4 hours. That, simply put, is a recipe for disaster.

However, if you can gradually change your landing, then I do believe that you can shift your footstrike. But it's a gradual process. And more important, what is the point? There is no evidence that heel-strikers are injured more, no evidence that mid-foot runners are faster and perform better than heel-strikers, and so the ultimate question is:

Why would you want to change your foot landing to begin with? Science has little to offer you in support of this. And so my advice, having read this far (well done!), is to forget about the possibility that you're landing "wrongly", and just let your feet land where, and how they land, and worry about all the other things you can when you run!

If there is one thing you change in your running, don't focus on your footstrike, but rather on WHERE your feet land relative to your body. Because if you are over-reaching and throwing your foot out in front of you, that's a problem, but what happens when the rubber meets the road is less relevant!

I'm sure there's more to this topic, based on your questions and comments. As usual, fire away! And remember the humble admission from earlier - science, believe it or not, does not know the answer definitively! (just as we can't tell you why Bekele is so dominant in World X-Country!)

Ross

Malmo. Stop adding random people to your list of heel strikers. We clearly watched in a video showing that Tergat did not heel strike. It only looks like it, because you don't pick up the detail of the foot plant where it is moving backward and flexed downward slightly. No heelstrike. If we are going to add random people to the list, add Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay and some other sprinters. They heel strike too, since you need more names to justify your bad habit.

I'm just a nobody, I have run nearly 2000 miles this year at a low standard but I have followed this debate because I have seen good runners I know decide that forefoot striking will make them faster - then they get injured - the circular justification then being that "they are doing it wrong".

I have no vested interest as I have no idea how my foot hits the ground (it seems to vary) but there seem to be two comically misguided ideas in this thread.

1. Gravity pulls you forward.

2. Landing heel first is not heel striking.

I had read the Science of Sport articles way back and what's interesting is that people who don't like their conclusions simply dismiss them and cherry-pick their own usually anecdotal information - much like homeopaths.

I can't get on youtube from work but I seem to recall Khalid Khannouchi was a pretty consistent heel striker in his prime. One more name for the list unless my memory is way off.

I am interested because I recently just watched a video.

And I have discovered why everyone on here thinks so many elites heel strike.

This video presented Sammy Wanjiru. As he was landing, it appeared his heel would strike first, and it did. But just lightly. He put the most pressure on his forefoot, however, so despite the fact he "technically" hit on his heel first, he is really a forefoot runner.

Malmo, a question to consider. If you WERE NOT a Heel Striker, would you seriously be defending them? Are you sure your not biased towards Heel Striking because you are a heel stiker yourself? Or are you just refusing to see the facts?

I guess Malmo just cannot be wrong..And no once again, Paul Tergat is not a heel striker.

As long distance running is a sport in which metabolics/aerobic capacity is far more important than biomechanics, I think whatever form of footstrike that enables you to run faster at any given moment dims in importance compared to the form of footstrike that enables you to most fully develop your aerobic potential.

To an ivory tower lab rat, this thread is highly entertaining. Please continue.

gazoo wrote:

Malmo. Stop adding random people to your list of heel strikers. We clearly watched in a video showing that Tergat did not heel strike. It only looks like it, because you don't pick up the detail of the foot plant where it is moving backward and flexed downward slightly. No heelstrike. If we are going to add random people to the list, add Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay and some other sprinters. They heel strike too, since you need more names to justify your bad habit.

Gazoo: You really do pick and chose what to respond to. Several times you have been asked to provide proof for your statements which you haven't done. You keep arguing your hypothesis as though it is a true statement when in reality you have no proof to back it up.

Your original hypothesis was:

'Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story'

This has been proven to be false beyond a doubt. Do you have a new hypothesis to argue about or shall we just end this now as a crushing defeat for the Minimalist Cult?

Just what in god's name is the definition of heel striking if it's not having your heel be the first point of contact with the ground.

Really?? wrote:

I am interested because I recently just watched a video.

And I have discovered why everyone on here thinks so many elites heel strike.

This video presented Sammy Wanjiru. As he was landing, it appeared his heel would strike first, and it did. But just lightly. He put the most pressure on his forefoot, however, so despite the fact he "technically" hit on his heel first, he is really a forefoot runner.

Malmo, a question to consider. If you WERE NOT a Heel Striker, would you seriously be defending them? Are you sure your not biased towards Heel Striking because you are a heel stiker yourself? Or are you just refusing to see the facts?

I guess Malmo just cannot be wrong..And no once again, Paul Tergat is not a heel striker.

F*ck are you stupid. No is defending heel strikers, they don't need to be defended you moron. Malmo has already said that he was both. I know I am as well.

All we are saying is that it really doesn't matter, being one or the other will not make you faster so worrying about which one you are or trying to change your footstrike to be something else is a waste of time. Or worse, you will end up injured and unable to run like Dathan.

The more you run, the more efficient and faster you will get. It's that simple really, get out and run.

So guys, what have we learned today from the conclusive study that so many have used on here?

-The Pose Method is only practiced by 4% of Elite runners

-The ones who were Midfoot striking percentage is correct, also happening to be a similar number of how many elites midfoot strike in big road races.

-The rest of the elites were put down under Heel Strikers most likely because there heel strikes first. However, it likely touches lightly, and the main force of the strike goes right under the forefoot, which means it is a forefoot strike despite the fact the elite does *slightly* touch on his heel.

-Only about 5-10% of the given number of heel strikers are actually heel strikers.

So, looks like we have a bunch of people who have no idea what a Heel, Midfoot, or Forefoot strike really is.

Really?? wrote:

So guys, what have we learned today from the conclusive study that so many have used on here?

-The Pose Method is only practiced by 4% of Elite runners

-The ones who were Midfoot striking percentage is correct, also happening to be a similar number of how many elites midfoot strike in big road races.

-The rest of the elites were put down under Heel Strikers most likely because there heel strikes first. However, it likely touches lightly, and the main force of the strike goes right under the forefoot, which means it is a forefoot strike despite the fact the elite does *slightly* touch on his heel.

-Only about 5-10% of the given number of heel strikers are actually heel strikers.

So, looks like we have a bunch of people who have no idea what a Heel, Midfoot, or Forefoot strike really is.

Where did you get the 4% number?

Where is the proof for the % of midfoot strikers being correct? Because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

So you are saying if someone touches down with their heel, it doesn't make them a heel striker?

Where did you get this 5-10% number?

Agree but again you are missing the point. It doesn't matter.

I have not taken the time to follow this thread because I already know the right answer.

Just out of curiosity, has the debate been ended yet?

biggus dickus wrote:

I have not taken the time to follow this thread because I already know the right answer.

Just out of curiosity, has the debate been ended yet?

Okay. The debate is over . . . NOW!