MAKAU IS A HEEL STRIKER!

It's a MARATHON who gives a ****. You're not going to have a perfect foot strike, arms that go back and forward 90 degrees, legs that kick your butt, and high knee lift over 26.2 miles. You can't apply sprinter running form to everything.

legally blonde wrote:

go to 2:57 of this video. Makau is not heel striking - looks like midfoot or whole foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDqnjs46gwc

I did. And I took another screenshot..

it looks like

He's a heel stiker. It's not super prominent, and close to being midfoot, but contact is made with his heel. What is so wrong with admitting to what is clearly evident? And why is it such a big deal if he tends to stike closer to his heels than his forefoot?

minimalist North wrote:

He also let's his arms cross his midline.

Even the fastest runners can have bad form.

Anyone remember Paul McCloy from Canada?

I've been lapped by him more than once so I got to see his form up close and personal. Really, really bad. But he went sub 28 for 10km, sub 13:30 for 5000m and a 10mile best of 47:04. Top 10 in WCC.

Celular wrote:

legally blonde wrote:

go to 2:57 of this video. Makau is not heel striking - looks like midfoot or whole foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDqnjs46gwc

I did. And I took another screenshot..

http://i.imgur.com/6PQXj.jpg

it looks like

http://i.imgur.com/eQHiI.jpg

He's a heel stiker. It's not super prominent, and close to being midfoot, but contact is made with his heel. What is so wrong with admitting to what is clearly evident? And why is it such a big deal if he tends to stike closer to his heels than his forefoot?

from what I can see, neither of these two shots he is connecting yet with the ground - so how do you know? what the moving video - if he were striking first with the heel, his forefoot would be up in the air, and it is not, he looks to be moving along with the mets hitting same time as heel. what I would call midfoot.

malmo wrote:

coach d wrote:

But true heel striking, with the heel absolutely striking first, with absolute braking forces, then rolling onto the forefoot (too much) is the most inefficient way to run.

As we've seen on the great heel-striking thread, those who subscribe to your superstitious belief-system will wiggle and evade, and say anything that is contrary to what their eyes are actually seeing. Heel-striking, midfoot striking, and toe striking matter as much as hair color.

Image:

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2ed426a.jpg

Good photo, Malmo, but the runners with only their heels touching the ground have not actually struck the ground. Made contact, yes, but there hasn't been a significant force to the ground yet. If there was, we'd see their muscles tense and as a result, they're legs stay straight.

By the way, I'm not taking sides on this argument. I'm happy with the way I run and believe that others are happy with the way that they run. I just have a problem when people twist evidence around to fit their paradigms. Much like using this subject to sell those stupid vibrams.

Thanks. I didn't know. I'll invest in a little time studying soft tissue anatomy. Could you supply any references? I'm thinking of becoming a midfoot striker. Jeesh.

You can't land flat footed when the heels are built up in the shoes.

It is not possible.

If you land with the shoe flat, then your foot will be pointed downward at 20 to 25 degrees, like you were running down in impossibly steep hill. Consider running down a 10% grade, then double that - which shows how ridiculous the modern running shoes are with their stupenduous heel lifts.

So of course, to prevent this, Makau and many other runners, myself included, are going to land on the heels of any built up shoes, in order attempting to keep the feet flat at impact, as is the way the feet function normally mechanically.

Whoever posted they run on their forefoot, when the shoes are pointed downward at 20-25 degrees, well that does not make any sense to me. Running shoes should be like the person would run barefoot, when the strike has not been grossly perverted by the modern high heeled soft soled running shoes. I don't even know why they are called running shoes, as they are no longer suited for running.

J.R. wrote:

So of course, to prevent this, Makau and many other runners, myself included, are going to land on the heels of any built up shoes, in order attempting to keep the feet flat at impact, as is the way the feet function normally mechanically.

.... I don't even know why they are called running shoes, as they are no longer suited for running.

So makau just ran a better marathon in history than anyone before in shoes "no longer suited for running."

To quote you: "it is not possible."

Once again you are wrong. You can land on the posterior part of your forefoot in any shoe if you have that kind of running form. The size of the heal makes no difference. You are simply talking nonsense.

J.R. wrote:

If you land with the shoe flat, then your foot will be pointed downward at 20 to 25 degrees, like you were running down in impossibly steep hill. Consider running down a 10% grade, then double that - which shows how ridiculous the modern running shoes are with their stupenduous heel lifts.

Let check the math:

Heel lift for Adidas Adios = 11mm (according to runningwarehouse).

Typical distance between heel and ball of foot is about 15cm (or 150mm).

So tan(theta)=11/150, and thus the angle is theta = invtan(11mm/150mm)= 4 degrees.

Where'd you pull 20-25 degrees from?....Wait, don't tell me.

J.R. wrote:

You can't land flat footed when the heels are built up in the shoes.

It is not possible.

I get the rest of what you are saying about the disadvantages of a heel lift, but to say the above is 100% wrong. There are these things that normal people have (maybe you don't?) called ankles that can point the foot downwards, even steeper than the grade of a shoe with a heel lift. I know because I run up and down 15,000 feet a week, often down grades of 30% or more and pointing the foot down at landing is a matter of survival.

Wow, 4 people in a row who have no clue what I said.

Ha ha ha ha.

Unbelievable.

This guy has just run THE FASTEST (legal) MARATHON IN HUMAN HISTORY.

He is doing something INCREDIBLY RIGHT. Anyone with even the slightest experience in the sport knows what an earth shattering performance this was.

And yet...

People still refuse to believe what is right in front of their eyes.

Run how the hell you want, and if it works why change a damn thing.

Makau is not wearing the adidas Adios. Why are you making that assumption. Look at Makau's shoes and then cross reference with Runningwarehouse. Makau is wearing an unreleased adidas midsole and outsole.

No, that's four people in a row who have refuted what you have said, some with actual evidence, which you are sorely lacking.

Make it five. You are completely wrong.

Under Ultra wrote:

Makau is not wearing the adidas Adios. Why are you making that assumption. Look at Makau's shoes and then cross reference with Runningwarehouse. Makau is wearing an unreleased adidas midsole and outsole.

Someone earlier in the thread had mentioned Adios, I didn't bother to cross-analyze that, as it was completely immaterial to my point. Typical built-up shoes have about an 11-12 mm drop. So it's pretty safe to say that the angle drop, in whatever-the-f*** he was wearing, will be about 4.5 degrees or less. Most certainly wouldn't be much more even in the most built-up running shoes you can buy.

Yeah, this is correct. The biggest fvcking cow-shoe I can find on Running Warehouse by Adidas has a 31-19 height, front to back for a 12mm drop. Still right around 4-5 degrees. There is no way on Earth Patrick Makau is not wearing an Adidas flat with somewhere around a 10-12 mm drop. The Adios is 26-15, the Ace is 27-17. Adidas marathon flats have a ridiculous thick heel, I'll grant you that, but it's nothing like 25 degrees.

malmo wrote:

coach d wrote:

But true heel striking, with the heel absolutely striking first, with absolute braking forces, then rolling onto the forefoot (too much) is the most inefficient way to run.

As we've seen on the great heel-striking thread, those who subscribe to your superstitious belief-system will wiggle and evade, and say anything that is contrary to what their eyes are actually seeing. Heel-striking, midfoot striking, and toe striking matter as much as hair color.

Image:

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2ed426a.jpg

Malmo,

Are you sure hair color has no impact on running? Then why do I get slower as my hair gets grayer?

if the best runners in the world have "bad form", then is it really bad form? no. it is just different. there is no right way to run. the right way is to just get out there and do it.