Actually a lot of the shuffler types like Salazar and Treacy pull more than push. May not look pretty but some how Salazar shuffled his way to a 13:11 5,000 which is pretty darn fast. I doubt he could have changed his form to look like Seb Coe.
Actually a lot of the shuffler types like Salazar and Treacy pull more than push. May not look pretty but some how Salazar shuffled his way to a 13:11 5,000 which is pretty darn fast. I doubt he could have changed his form to look like Seb Coe.
Yeah, this whole discussion about what's happening while the runner's foot is on the ground is kinda pointless anyway. Just don't JAM any part of your foot into the ground when you land, and try to make a smooth transition from impact absorbtion to toeoff push. You will probably figure out a pretty good way to get these parts of the stride done that fits your strengths.
It's far more productive to look at what's happening while the foot is in the air. That's where the greatest gains can be realized.
shoe guy wrote:
Can we all just agree that overstriding is bad?
That has nothing to do with the discussion of the thread.
gallagher wrote:A simple run in the snow is very instructive. Look back at your foot prints. Is the deepest impression near the ball of your foot with a shallow sweeping of the snow at the heel area? If yes, then you are primarily a forefoot 'driver.' You might be an initial or simultaneous heel kisser, but your power stroke or push off comes closer toward the front of the foot.
Look at the snow prints of other runners. Many folks strike deeply and forcefully at the heel; the impression of the rest of their shoe is at most half as deep as that of the heel. It's as if there is little to no drive or push off phase. It's just strike and roll or strike and lift.
The fellow above has a point; it's not the initial touch that matters so much but rather how or even if you apply force to propel you forward.
It's the force, the push that moves the runner. It's the forces moving through the runner's body that determine injury susceptibiliy and efficiency.
So how much of a dent in the snow does one need to be to be classified as a heel striker versus a mid foot striker?
HHH wrote:
gallagher wrote:A simple run in the snow is very instructive. Look back at your foot prints. Is the deepest impression near the ball of your foot with a shallow sweeping of the snow at the heel area? If yes, then you are primarily a forefoot 'driver.' You might be an initial or simultaneous heel kisser, but your power stroke or push off comes closer toward the front of the foot.Look at the snow prints of other runners. Many folks strike deeply and forcefully at the heel; the impression of the rest of their shoe is at most half as deep as that of the heel. It's as if there is little to no drive or push off phase. It's just strike and roll or strike and lift.
The fellow above has a point; it's not the initial touch that matters so much but rather how or even if you apply force to propel you forward.
It's the force, the push that moves the runner. It's the forces moving through the runner's body that determine injury susceptibiliy and efficiency.
So how much of a dent in the snow does one need to be to be classified as a heel striker versus a mid foot striker?
How much does a hitter have to swing upward to be called an upper cutter, a level swinger, a chopper?
Is the foot print deeper at the heel? Is the impression level across the entire print? Is the print deeper at the forefoot with the heel barely swept?
Suppose we were out on a Sunday morning run in February in the park near my house. Our conversation might sound like this:
"That level print looks like a midfoot striker."
"That one one looks like she hits harder on the heel then pushes off strongly toward the ball of the foot."
"Wow, look that print. The heel print looks like the guy was digging a bank to kick a field goal in the mud. I'll bet he is in for some injuries, especially with the huge downhills around here."
For the person who started this thread.
Yeah I'd like pr's before and after his heel strike was fixed too. I'd also like to see this person's form before and after. Simply taking people who run fast and saying they are running fast because of there running style doesn't do it for me. I've seen some pretty jacked up running form and heel strike run pretty damn fast.
The fact that "heel strike" is not well defined should tell you something:-)
Have you defined what "midfoot" and "heelstrike" mean yet, since heelstriking apparently no longer means hitting the ground with your heel first?
And to the guy talking about malmo's weak calves and core, what do you honestly believe the guy would've run if he'd had you there to coach him in proper form and core strengthening? How many seconds under 8:21 for the 3k steeple? How many 3:40 1500 guys have "weak calves"? Seriously?
And Really??, you really should just shut the hell up when you've already talked in this thread about having a 10k PR of 43 minutes. How you can get up the gumption to lecture guys who would lap you, what, 10 times in a 10k, about proper form is completely beyond me.
^I haven't raced a 10k in a year. Could probably do 38 now. And I could nearly triple up my 10k time because I am a good Endurance person but don't have a lot of speed. Malmo is much much better than me that is completely true but just because he is better than me doesn't mean he knows everything there is about biochemics.
He might be right for all we know. I might be making a complete fool of myself. But there is alot of scientific Evidence out there that states why Forefoot striking is better.
one thing is for sure, We Ended The Debate On Heel Striking!
gazoo wrote:
How to win a foot strike argument heel striker style...
List of heel strikers:
Everyone.
Heel strikers win argument via classifying midfoot strikers as heel strikers. Sprinters also included as heel strikers.
Dude, what is your reasoned response to the published research which is inconclusive? Reasoned. Thoughtful. Measured.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/running%20techniqueCan you provide the meta-anaylisis of a bunch of other studies that show clearly forefoot strikers run faster? That would be all I need to be convinced there is some merit to your argument.
I for one am clamouring to see the properly controlled trials that demonstrate the superiority of any particular method of running. As time and again people have been unable to define what they mean by "Heel-striking" other than to howl with indignation that whatever else it is, it is not running with the heel striking the ground first, I'm not hopeful of seeing these trials.
gallagher wrote:How much does a hitter have to swing upward to be called an upper cutter, a level swinger, a chopper?
Is the foot print deeper at the heel? Is the impression level across the entire print? Is the print deeper at the forefoot with the heel barely swept?
Suppose we were out on a Sunday morning run in February in the park near my house. Our conversation might sound like this:
"That level print looks like a midfoot striker."
"That one one looks like she hits harder on the heel then pushes off strongly toward the ball of the foot."
"Wow, look that print. The heel print looks like the guy was digging a bank to kick a field goal in the mud. I'll bet he is in for some injuries, especially with the huge downhills around here."
1. No idea. But if I was making claims about on it publicly (ie. on a baseball message board) and didn't want to look like a moron when I got called out on it, I would
have some kind of an idea.
2. If we were out for a Sunday morning run in February and all you wanted to talk about was whether or not someone was a mid-foot, forefoot or heel striker based upon the imprint they left in the snow; then it would be the last time I would ever run with you as I would be too bored of your company to ever do it again!
Just as in baseball, golf, swimming, throwing a football, high jumping, the pole vault and in just about every sport, the technique debate will never and can never end.
One generation claims that the wrists are the key to hitting power, the next says it's the lower body.
A phenom does it well one way and suddenly that is THE way to do it until a new phenom does it the opposite way.
And so it goes with running, a sport that has an infinite variety of events and paces, where technique can change with the addition of a few pounds, the acquisition of more or less upper body strength, the gradual onset of bad habits or the hiring of an obsessive compulsive instructor named Alberto.
Really??? wrote:
^I haven't raced a 10k in a year. Could probably do 38 now. And I could nearly triple up my 10k time because I am a good Endurance person but don't have a lot of speed. Malmo is much much better than me that is completely true but just because he is better than me doesn't mean he knows everything there is about biochemics.
He might be right for all we know. I might be making a complete fool of myself. But there is alot of scientific Evidence out there that states why Forefoot striking is better.
As requested several times, can provide a link to an independently funded, peer reviewed and valid research paper that shows what you are stating as fact?
gallagher wrote:
Just as in baseball, golf, swimming, throwing a football, high jumping, the pole vault and in just about every sport, the technique debate will never and can never end.
One generation claims that the wrists are the key to hitting power, the next says it's the lower body.
A phenom does it well one way and suddenly that is THE way to do it until a new phenom does it the opposite way.
And so it goes with running, a sport that has an infinite variety of events and paces, where technique can change with the addition of a few pounds, the acquisition of more or less upper body strength, the gradual onset of bad habits or the hiring of an obsessive compulsive instructor named Alberto.
It's not really much of a debate to be honest. One side claims that you should just let your body figure out it's most efficient way to run. The other side says you must land midfoot and that heel striking is bad and heel strikers are lazy and that Nike and adidas are just out to screw us of our hard earned dollars. And then when they are challenged to provide some valid research to prove their rediculous claims, they can't do it.
I'm wondering...
Is it possible for you guys to be wrong? I could be wrong, but I guess it's impossible for you to be wrong so I am certainly wrong. Heel striking clearly has the EXACT same results as Forefoot striking except with Forefoot striking you can quicken your turnover. I wonder just why Forefoot striking is better with that thought in mind?
Defination of Heel Strike for all wondering:
The stage in gait at which the heel of the foot or shoe first makes contact with the walking surface.
HHH wrote:
gallagher wrote:How much does a hitter have to swing upward to be called an upper cutter, a level swinger, a chopper?Is the foot print deeper at the heel? Is the impression level across the entire print? Is the print deeper at the forefoot with the heel barely swept?
Suppose we were out on a Sunday morning run in February in the park near my house. Our conversation might sound like this:
"That level print looks like a midfoot striker."
"That one one looks like she hits harder on the heel then pushes off strongly toward the ball of the foot."
"Wow, look that print. The heel print looks like the guy was digging a bank to kick a field goal in the mud. I'll bet he is in for some injuries, especially with the huge downhills around here."
1. No idea. But if I was making claims about on it publicly (ie. on a baseball message board) and didn't want to look like a moron when I got called out on it, I would
have some kind of an idea.
2. If we were out for a Sunday morning run in February and all you wanted to talk about was whether or not someone was a mid-foot, forefoot or heel striker based upon the imprint they left in the snow; then it would be the last time I would ever run with you as I would be too bored of your company to ever do it again!
Please don't respond to my posts if you have nothing to offer other than the above tripe. Hostile, badly concocted insults are just an admission that you have nothing of value to say. You have in effect conceded the point. Is it lost on you that your response is, to use your word, moronic and sophomoric? Are you a high school sophomore of thereabouts? If not, more's the pity.
Please do a little experiment for me and then report back.
The next time you are in a pub or attending a cookout, when an adult male engages you in a discussion and disagrees politely with you, promptly call him a moron.
Folks like you usually behave that way only behind the safety of your keyboard.
Heel STRIKE is mis-leading. The word STRIKE suggests force.
Many runners branded as heel strikers may lightly touch down on their heel, but the real force (ie. striking) is done on the flat part of the foot = mid-foot strike.
OK, how much force is lightly ? Have we got numbers on this for a range of the elites quoted in this thread? Really until we have this you are just pulling assertions from thin air.