Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

malmo wrote:

3. I can't imagine why this question would ever come into the mind of an inexperienced runner, any more than a logical explanation why ignorant black folk in Florida would claim they were being "disenfranchised" at the voting booth in 2000. Concern over running "gait" and "disenfranchisement" are the words of outsiders with an agenda.

Talk about stretching for an analogy. Why the hell did that example pop into your mind when you could have picked, oh, I don't know, a million other more relevant analogies? Are you celebrating News Years Eve early?

(like I said, my main issue is that it was a very weak and out of left field analogy, but furthermore, there is evidence that the "ignorant blacks" you discussed might just have a case. From the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the 2000 election:

"During the November 2000 presidential election in Florida, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida. On a statewide basis, while African Americans comprised about 11% of all voters in Florida in the November 2000 presidential election, African Americans cast about 54% of the ballots that were rejected in the election. Before and during the election state and county officials were aware of several key factors that ultimately contributed to the disenfranchisement of qualified voters."

This may or may not have been intentional, but because of these findings, it is hardly insane for blacks to complain about being "disenfranchised." )

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

This may or may not have been intentional, but because of these findings, it is hardly insane for blacks to complain about being "disenfranchised." )

On election day, when suddenly a term that has only been used by professors in sociology departments at elite universities, is being used by uneducated, dirt-poor, rural black folk while being interviewed on TV, you don't think there's anything wrong with the picture?

malmo,

appreciate the fact that you are creatively trying to convey your views (quite strong btw) on the heel strike issue but it seems inappropriate and out of place to bring politics into it.

re 1. i think coaches, and my understanding is that you coach (summer of malmo, right?) do well to care about most aspects of training. How the foot lands when you run seems relevant.

re. 2 maybe I missed it, but I was interested to know if you heel strike yourself and if you would be kind enough to share how you, or others, have observed your running to be. How do you run?

re. 3 do you honestly think that gait is an outsiders word? coaches, health professionals, doctors, researchers, running industry players, runners themselves? It seems wholly acceptable there should be concern for running gait. Are the above outsiders? I agree the science of running is probably quite basic, but there is some science that can be serenely embraced.

Ultimately you come off sounding like a simplicity extremist. But if that is because some minimalists have appeared that way to you, that's ok too.

I'm not sure if this is from that Lieberman study but here's a video of an adolescent kenyan boy running without shoes. Was this what you were referring to Malmo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgkWhcapWLU

- Enjoy.

"Also, the subject in the video was a white butterball hobbyjogger."

You are right about the uselessness of caring about, or trying to change, the "heel-strike" or "forefoot-srike" of your running gait. (There is no such thing as a "midfoot-strike", it would merely be a combination heel/forefoot strike!) But the slur against my current running situation is too much to take. hee hee hee Hope your running is going well. Have a good New Year and let me know if you are really going to have a Summer of Malmo this year, I'll bring t-shirts.

1. But it's not relevant. Lots of elite runners are heel strikers. Lots are mid-foot srikers. Lots are forefoot strikers. Your body will figure out it's most efficient way to run.

2. You did miss it. Go back to the 1st page for what he says and a video of him running.

3. Being overly concerned with a runner's foot strike seems to cause more injuries than it has helped runners get fast. Just run and let your body figure it out.

Danny Komen wrote:

I'm not sure if this is from that Lieberman study but here's a video of an adolescent kenyan boy running without shoes. Was this what you were referring to Malmo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgkWhcapWLU

- Enjoy.

Obviously you haven't been following this thread. It is not what I was looking for. It doesn't have the force plate results that were on the videos supplied in the paper.

Back to the study. It seemed to be a bit suspicious that Lieberman would ignore the data that showed that forefoot strikers (at least in the one case he illustrated) had higher impact forces, than those of the heel strikers, then chose to focus on the 'impact transient' of the first 50 milliseconds. I thought that what's the difference between 50 ms and 100ms (the time that it takes to reach maximum impact values? SO what I did is averaged out the maximum impact values and divided that by the time it took for each foot to generate maximum impact forces. My thought here is that force divided by a time measure is, by definition, POWER, and since the only propulsive forces generated during running is the time that you foot is on the ground -- unless you believe in kindergarten physics that gravity provide forward movement.

Barefoot heelstriker

avg maximum force was 2.45 bw

avg time to max force was 92 milliseconds

force/100ms = 2.68bw

Shod heelstriker

avg maximum force was 2.465 bw

avg time to max force was 117 milliseconds

force/100ms = 2.10bw

Barefoot forefoot striker

avg maximum force was 2.58 bw

avg time to max force was 100 milliseconds

force/100ms = 2.58bw

Shod forefoot striker

information hidden by researchers.. Ahem...

What is interesting here is that while the forefoot striker was generating more force on the ground, he is generating less power than the heel striker. The heel striker is simply transferring energy to the ground faster, generating more power, and that efficiency might go a long way to explain why the two most prolific 1500m runners in history were heel strikers.

Of course, we have only three videos to draw data from, and who knows, maybe an analysis of the rest of the videos might reveal something different?

Of course the researcher in this case is looking at impact and 'impact transient' as bad things. The problem with this is that impact forces are what generates forward velocity, and that 1/10 of a second when the foot is in contact with the ground, is were all of the forward velocity comes from. In athletic competition that's what matters.

malmo wrote:

2. No, just run, and run naturally.

Which is a proper midfoot strike as seen on Tergat.

3. Being overly concerned with a runner's foot strike seems to cause more injuries than it has helped runners get fast. Just run and let your body figure it out.[/quote]

Can you cite your study on this? Where is your proof?

now you know how you sound every time someone makes a clear point, opinion or not.

No I am not a coach. But I was one of the first professional runners of the professional era. All runners should care about most aspects of training. No runners should dwell on the insignificant, and how your foot lands falls in that category.

One the very first page I said I was both heel and mid-striker, depending on pace. I even provided a video.

Your reading comprehension has much to be desired. I said that beginning runners are extremely unlikely to be concerned with gait, nor is there any reason for them to be. By outsiders, I mean running geek twits, who can't recognize that.

You come off as a fool.

HHH wrote:

3. Being overly concerned with a runner's foot strike seems to cause more injuries than it has helped runners get fast. Just run and let your body figure it out.

Can you cite your study on this? Where is your proof?

what's good for the goose wrote:

now you know how you sound every time someone makes a clear point, opinion or not.

He said that "Being overly concerned with a runner's foot strike seems to cause more injuries than it has helped runners get fast." He clearly identifies that remark as speculation, no doubt spurred by Dathan Ritenzheins disastrous (and foolish) attempts to fix what isn't broken. Which makes your response a non sequitur.

Of course the researcher in this case is looking at impact and 'impact transient' as bad things. The problem with this is that impact forces are what generates forward velocity, and that 1/10 of a second when the foot is in contact with the ground, is were all of the forward velocity comes from. In athletic competition that's what matters.[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere. It is not just how the foot hits the ground. The ankle stiffness and knee stiffness caused by anticipatory firing play a major role in IF the forces efficiently make it to the center of mass, or of they are lost due to "mushing out."

I also think most of this thread is arguing over semantics. Flat rolling contacts vs heel contacts. There are degrees to which is better or worse and it depends on where the foot is located when it lands and how it acts when on the ground which are dictacted by a slew of things that occured prior to ground contact. Then that ground contact will influence a slew of things that happen after ground contact.

I'm saying, as opinion (no HHH no study to note here)there are better and worse ways for EVERYONE to run that include commonalities. There are best ways to exit the blocks, pole vault or throw the shot put. Not everyone can perform the best techniques due to different levels of strenght, power, coordination, mobility and work capacity.

My only point is, TO SAY IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL is a stubbornly foolish as the minimalists, or any other fringe group.

If it didn't matter, we would see people using ballerina toe techniques, or moon walks. The more in the "ball park" you get to correct technique, the better you have of reaching the maximum potential your other fitnesses will allow. The furhter away from "best practices" you are the more chance you are not reaching your potential or that you will get beat by someone of equal fitness more better energy return from the ground due to efficiency.

And I would argue that in the endurance event IT MATTERS EVEN MORE than in sprints because the endurance events have many many more ground contact opportunities.

'Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story. Stop being lazy'

Most runners including elites heelstrike when going slower and go up onto toes when running faster

You should just run naturally however that is instead of thinking about it

This is not a mater of semantics at all. It's real simple, there is no "proper' way to run. If there was, it's clear that it must be heel-strikers.

Your foot landing is the cumulative result of your personal physicality - the sum of your bone structure, musculature, ligaments, and tendons. It is not a choice, nor is there any logical reason for there to be.

It doesn't matter at all, becasue it's been demonstrated that it doesn't matter. Over and over. We are not the ones being stubborn here. You're like a little kid spinning around circles in the living room with his hands on his ears and eyes shut, singing "I-ah I- ah I-ah -am -noh-ah-ah-ot- lis-es-enn-ning"

oh well since you put it that way, now i understand, thank you.

a few last questions, can one run improperly? is there any possible way to use an improper way of running. in any major road race there are not people of all speeds that are being inefficient FOR THEM?

.............................. wrote:

oh well since you put it that way, now i understand, thank you.

a few last questions, can one run improperly? is there any possible way to use an improper way of running. in any major road race there are not people of all speeds that are being inefficient FOR THEM?

It's endless with you. The False Continuum logical fallacy. Bravo.

ONCE AGAIN, the topic of this thread is whether or not elites are heel-strikers, and by extension is there a proper way of landing? The topic IS NOT "throw out as many logical fallicies, false dichotomies, red herrings, and ad-hoc scenarios until something sticks."

what's good for the goose wrote:

3. Being overly concerned with a runner's foot strike seems to cause more injuries than it has helped runners get fast. Just run and let your body figure it out.

Can you cite your study on this? Where is your proof?

now you know how you sound every time someone makes a clear point, opinion or not.[/quote]

Hence the word 'seems', since it is my opinion.

Do you mean that I sound like an educated person who isn't willing to just accept someone's word for it when they can't provide any proof to back up what they are saying?

Indeed, I would be prepared to give the anti heel-strike fanatics some consideration if they weren't so dogmatic that their way is right and occasionally admitted that they are just speculating.

.............................. wrote:

Of course the researcher in this case is looking at impact and 'impact transient' as bad things. The problem with this is that impact forces are what generates forward velocity, and that 1/10 of a second when the foot is in contact with the ground, is were all of the forward velocity comes from. In athletic competition that's what matters.

Now we are getting somewhere. It is not just how the foot hits the ground. The ankle stiffness and knee stiffness caused by anticipatory firing play a major role in IF the forces efficiently make it to the center of mass, or of they are lost due to "mushing out."

I also think most of this thread is arguing over semantics. Flat rolling contacts vs heel contacts. There are degrees to which is better or worse and it depends on where the foot is located when it lands and how it acts when on the ground which are dictacted by a slew of things that occured prior to ground contact. Then that ground contact will influence a slew of things that happen after ground contact.

I'm saying, as opinion (no HHH no study to note here)there are better and worse ways for EVERYONE to run that include commonalities. There are best ways to exit the blocks, pole vault or throw the shot put. Not everyone can perform the best techniques due to different levels of strenght, power, coordination, mobility and work capacity.

My only point is, TO SAY IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL is a stubbornly foolish as the minimalists, or any other fringe group.

If it didn't matter, we would see people using ballerina toe techniques, or moon walks. The more in the "ball park" you get to correct technique, the better you have of reaching the maximum potential your other fitnesses will allow. The furhter away from "best practices" you are the more chance you are not reaching your potential or that you will get beat by someone of equal fitness more better energy return from the ground due to efficiency.

And I would argue that in the endurance event IT MATTERS EVEN MORE than in sprints because the endurance events have many many more ground contact opportunities.[/quote]

You're right, we are getting somewhere now, I actually agree with something you said:

This is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up.