heel-striking vs. midfoot/toes

Kudos to everyone who posted experience from their own body and not some lame photograph of an elite runner heel striking.

I know this is letsrun, but WOW, some of you really need to get a clue.

HEEL STRIKING IS NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO RUN, IT NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE. If you are a heel striker and have no desire to transition to midfoot that is fine, you don't have to. Indeed, it will take focus, work and patience.

Just because some really fast runners seem to be heel striking does not mean it is the most efficient way to run.

People become elite runners for different reasons. You do not need to be the most efficient runner to win races. Many of these guys are using their incredible strength, power, determination, focus and will to win....not their incredible efficiency. In short, they have much more "fuel" to waste and therefore do not need to be supremely efficient.

A good point was brought up about the foot landing under the center of mass. Yes you can split hairs and say you can still heel strike with your foot landing under your COM. This, however, will not be a "traditional" dorsiflexed heel strike in front of the COM.

Genius, the pictures were in response to someone incorrectly claiming that no elites heel strike. Please indicate where I claimed that heel striking is the most efficient way to run.

People become elite runners for different reasons and runners heel strike for different reasons as well, not the least of which is a tendency toward certain injuries and other physiological (known or unknown) details. Your comment on COM at least approaches the admission that the system we're discussing is extremely complex and nuanced. The forefoot/heel strike argument amounts to creating a dividing line through an arbitrary detail and claiming that one way is the best way to run for all people. It IS possible to heel strike (even forward of COM to a point) without actually braking even if, in fact, I don't. Can everyone? My guess is no. The absolute claims that X is the best way for all to run and Y is not are irresponsible and ignorant.

My post was a response to the topic in general and not any post or poster in particular. I agree that claiming no elites heel strike is incorrect.

So KK would have run what, 2:02 if he was a midfoot striker?

Body The Brain Heenan wrote:

My post was a response to the topic in general and not any post or poster in particular. I agree that claiming no elites heel strike is incorrect.

beep beep beep, clearly you were replying to him and are now backtracking.

right... wrote:

Look, there are outliers with everything.

Yes, and the forefoot strikers are the outliers.

READ THIS ARTICLE!!!!

Or, if you're ambitious: Hasegawa et al., J Strength & Cond., 2007, (21), 888-893

THE MAJORITY OF ELITE ATHLETES HEEL STRIKE. All elite athletes will be "on their toes" (or rather, balls of their feet) during a fast-paced middle-distance race on the track simply because the pace is so fast. Even a clomping heel-striker forefoot strikes when doing an all-out 100m. And an elite middle distance runner is clocking sub-60s during his race, so it only makes sense that he would alter his footstrike. Not to say that consciously forefoot striking will make you faster. Google "pose tech." It's a bunch of triathletes and recreational runners who tiptoe their way to 4-hour marathons, singing the praises of forefoot striking. And when you're screaming around the track trying to best your 1500m PR, the LAST thing on your mind is how your foot is hitting the ground.

Also, for those who are considering "switching" to a different footstrike pattern:

I must reiterate that the only possible way that your footstrike can slow you down is if it is in front of your center of gravity.

Look, I'm a huge fan of most of the work the science of sports guys do, but in this case it is obvious that they are endurance athletes and that they aren't biomechanists.

I also hate the POSEr method, but what do you expect in such a short term study? Of course there economy will get worse when changing technique initially.

Your changing neural programing that has taken place over years of running. Go try and change how you hold your pen when you write...you will suck at it. Even if you write incorrectly, like I do, you'll be useless at the most efficient and correct way of holding your pen while writing. Why? Neural programming.

Onto the other study, did you read it?

Ground Contact Time was found to be less across all speeds with the midfoot compared to rearfoot group. That is significant, because as runners we are always trying to find ways to minimize GC. See CHapman's presentations at the recent USATF clinics for more info.

Secondly, and perhaps MOST importantly.

This study was done in Japan. Japanese are famous for their mileage run. Due to this, and other factors, Japanese elites tend to be heel strikers. It would be interesting to see how many of the top runners were kenyans who heel striked and how many were japanese.

Also, at 15k in a half marathon, you'd expect that as the runners tend to tire, some will result in a shift to more of a heel strike due to fatigue.

808 wrote:

GranpaChook wrote:

If you run without shoes you'll find it almost impossible to hit the ground with your heel first, it'll hurt like a mother.

Hurt like a mother? Maybe if you slam your heels into the ground. When I jog barefoot, I land on my heels. However, I brush the ground with my heels first. When I start running faster, I start to shift toward my forefeet.

With minimalists/forefoot striking advocates there is no middle ground. You either have "proper form" and land up on your toes regardless of pace or you're unenlightened and pound the shit out of your heels. How about people who land on their forefeet but transition back to their heels? Or people who are very light heel "strikers"?

I tend to agree with you, but I wanted to point out that people who land on their forefoot but transition back to their heel have already tensed their muscles and supported their weight, and the heel touch is just that, a touch, so the stride would be mostly supported by the initial contact and follow through of the forefoot. In the case of people who are light heel strikers, they would be called midfoot strikers because the lightness of the heel contact would be caused by most of the rest of the foot already being there.

There is a picture of Herb Elliott winning

the 1959 Victorian half-mile championship

opposite page 82 of "The Herb Elliott Story".

Herb is definitely heel striking, but it is

possible that he was easing up at the end of

an obvious win for him.

right... wrote:

as runners we are always trying to find ways to minimize GC.

Yes, but only if full hip extension is not impaired. Pulling the foot from the ground early is not effecient even if it results in shorter GC times.

um? wrote:

Yes, but only if full hip extension is not impaired. Pulling the foot from the ground early is not effecient even if it results in shorter GC times.

obviously...

minimize GC while being able to keep the application of force.

right... wrote:

um? wrote:

Yes, but only if full hip extension is not impaired. Pulling the foot from the ground early is not effecient even if it results in shorter GC times.

obviously...

minimize GC while being able to keep the application of force.

ie more power