Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

My bad, I hadn't asked that yet. So do you think heel striking is an inefficient way to run? What about forefoot/flatfoot striking?

HHHH wrote:

Could it be that everyone might have their own efficient way to land and run? And what's right for you, isn't necessarily right for me? And maybe we all just need let our bodies figure that out? What is so hard to accept about that?

Prove it!

If this is not the case, then why are there heelstrikers, forefoot strikers, flatfoot strikers, midfootstrikers that all seem to run fast?

Okay, let me phrase this like the minimalist cult has done:

I've read around 239 of these threads. How about this. Heel striking and then rolling onto your midfoot and driving off your forefoot is the best way to absorb shock while still producing maximum power. No single person can possibly think that landing on your midfoot can absorb shock unless they are stupid.

Minimalist cult members are not stupid, they are just unaware of a bad habit. People who feel the need to justify midfoot striking are idiots. You learned a bad habit. Get over it. You refuse change still you are not as good as you could be.

Elite runners do not midfoot strike, end of story. Stop being lazy and get better form.

Driving with square wheels isn't efficient. Sure it'll get you there, but not without a lot more gas, busted springs and a cracked frame.

HHH every question you just asked i already answered. which to me (in my opinion with no studies to prove it) that you have not been reading.

So now you can insert your goto line.

"that is just your opinion, you have no proof."

go back and re-read, then come talk to me.

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

HHH every question you just asked i already answered. which to me (in my opinion with no studies to prove it) that you have not been reading.

So now you can insert your goto line.

"that is just your opinion, you have no proof."

go back and re-read, then come talk to me.

You ramble far too much in your posts it's hard to figure out exactly what you are saying so I'll try to simplify this for you:

What do you think is the most efficient way to land?

that is an excuse. read what i wrote.

if you believe there are indeed more efficient and less efficient ways of landing, then I believe it matters how you land. THAT IS MY POINT. I reject that it doesn't matter and the body will naturally fugure it out and that we don't have control over better and worse techniques.

foot strike should adhere to these principles:

http://www.texastrack.com/coaching_article_5.htm

velocity, and maybe even more importantly percetage of top velocity will dictate where on the foot someone lands, just as malmo said he did both.

but there are people who never change because they can't because they don't know how. their body didn't figure it out. either they are overriding what is supposed to be natural, or they were uncoached, overcoached, mis-coached.

it matters. i given all the ways i think it matters.

or here

http://runners-corner.com/pdf/runningformkines.pdf

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

that is an excuse. read what i wrote.

if you believe there are indeed more efficient and less efficient ways of landing, then I believe it matters how you land. THAT IS MY POINT. I reject that it doesn't matter and the body will naturally fugure it out and that we don't have control over better and worse techniques.

foot strike should adhere to these principles:

http://www.texastrack.com/coaching_article_5.htm

velocity, and maybe even more importantly percetage of top velocity will dictate where on the foot someone lands, just as malmo said he did both.

but there are people who never change because they can't because they don't know how. their body didn't figure it out. either they are overriding what is supposed to be natural, or they were uncoached, overcoached, mis-coached.

it matters. i given all the ways i think it matters.

Okay, you think it matters but can't prove it. As long as you qualify it with it being your opinion, I'm okay with that.

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

that is an excuse. read what i wrote.

if you believe there are indeed more efficient and less efficient ways of landing, then I believe it matters how you land. THAT IS MY POINT. I reject that it doesn't matter and the body will naturally fugure it out and that we don't have control over better and worse techniques.

foot strike should adhere to these principles:

http://www.texastrack.com/coaching_article_5.htm

velocity, and maybe even more importantly percetage of top velocity will dictate where on the foot someone lands, just as malmo said he did both.

but there are people who never change because they can't because they don't know how. their body didn't figure it out. either they are overriding what is supposed to be natural, or they were uncoached, overcoached, mis-coached.

it matters. i given all the ways i think it matters.

I don't think the proponents of allowing the body to "figure it out" are saying that there are not more or less efficient ways to run. I believe that they are saying that there are proven things that one can correct (like over-striding) that can be worked on, and that runners should not waste energy trying to correct unproven things like the specifics of which end of ones foot hits first. As far as "the most correct" foot landing, probably the only thing universally agreed upon is that the footstrike should not have a backward force component, beyond that, I think it's mostly speculation.

Regarding form, let's just comment on a few elite runners:

Wanjiru: What's with that one arm up/one arm down?

Geb: Pronate much?

Salazar: Someone give that guy a chair.

Hall: What's with those robot arms?

Radcliffe: How's that head bobbling working for you?

All these runners have been very successful marathoners with their very unique styles. You could almost pick out most runners by looking at their form. Their running styles are almost as unique as finger prints. As has been mentioned many times earlier, the body is a complicated collection of muscles, tendons, bones, that are coordinated through their specific interconnectivity, history of use, and development. Unless one can analyze every single muscle and tendon interconnection within the body, I don't think there is any practical way to determine what would be the optimum (read efficient)coordination for each person's biomechanical engine. It's up to the runner to figure out what works most efficiently for them. However, there are some proven things that can be worked on (e.g.-cadence, range of motion, explosiveness); but focusing on one unproven thing just seems counterproductive and perhaps harmful.

But that's just my opinion.

Are you for real? this is what Malmo and others have said from page one!

Here is the original posters fallacious assertion

He is wrong. It's been demonstrated that there are many elite heel-strikers, in fact, some of the best that have ever run (ElG, N. Moceli, J. Cruz) yet you stubborn minimalists dismiss the evidence.

HHH wrote:

You mean you're tired of people not accepting your word as being true without providing some proof? I don't need to prove you wrong, you are the one making a statement that you can't prove..

THIS!

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

velocity, and maybe even more importantly percetage of top velocity will dictate where on the foot someone lands, just as malmo said he did both.

but there are people who never change because they can't because they don't know how. their body didn't figure it out. either they are overriding what is supposed to be natural, or they were uncoached, overcoached, mis-coached.

it matters. i given all the ways i think it matters.

Both ElG and N. Morceli were not top 800m runners, but they continued to heel-strike in WR paced 1500m races. Their 1500 WR paces were closer to top velocity percentage wise than their peers.

Where they uncoached, overcoached, mis-coached? Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

J. Cruz, another heel-striker, was not as fast of a 400m runner as his peers. His 800m pace was closer to top velocity than his peers, as well. Was he uncoached, overcoached, or miscoached too?

He is wrong. It's been demonstrated that there are many elite heel-strikers, in fact, some of the best that have ever run (ElG, N. Moceli, J. Cruz) yet you stubborn minimalists dismiss the evidence.

Elites do heel strike.

But I'm amazed at this threads basis for that is random pictures and youtube video.

I've seen high speed video (i.e. where you can actually tell and not randomly guess and see what you want to see) of El G from his last olympics. There was no heel striking going on for the 100m segment.

Does that mean he doesn't ever heel strike? No, but I'd take the 100m segment of high speed video over random pictures or youtube video any day.

The argument on this thread is ridiculous. Especially the crappy scientific/biomechanical analysis and the understanding of GRF.

correction. "Were" they uncoached.

Please define your usage of heel strike.

Yes. many elites will strike with their heel first, mostly due to dorsiflexion. You will not often see elites overstride, which also results in a heel strike. When you do, I'd bet most occurrences are due to fatigue and not what they would consider "text book."

Over striding (e.g. my definition of a true heel strike) is not the best way to run and you will typically see this is beginner runners that do need some "training."

HHH disclaimer: The above views are my "opinion" and I can't and don't plan on proving them! By the way, this whole topic is in an unproven area, so demanding proof is really a moronic request...

biggus dickus wrote:

Over striding (e.g. my definition of a true heel strike) is not the best way to run and you will typically see this is beginner runners that do need some "training."

Seems like definition creep, no? Since when is over-stride synonymous with heel-strike? I can overstride and toe-land. It ain't pretty, but I can do it.

I think most people here would agree that overstriding is bad. Generally leads to backward forces on impact, which is measurable and quantifiable and is a whole different issue.

biggus dickus wrote:HHH disclaimer: The above views are my "opinion" and I can't and don't plan on proving them! By the way, this whole topic is in an unproven area, so demanding proof is really a moronic request...

If questioning what people post as fact without any basis for said fact makes me a moron, so be it.

If i come on here and claim the following will you simply accept it because I say so? If so, I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.

I've read around 239 of these threads. How about this. Heel striking and then rolling onto your midfoot and driving off your forefoot is the best way to absorb shock while still producing maximum power. No single person can possibly think that landing on your midfoot can absorb shock while still producing maximum power unless they are stupid.

Minimalist cult members are not stupid, they are just unaware of a bad habit. People who feel the need to justify midfoot striking are idiots. You learned a bad habit. Get over it. You refuse change still you are not as good as you could be.

Elite runners do not midfoot strike, end of story. Stop being lazy and get better form.

Driving with square wheels isn't efficient. Sure it'll get you there, but not without a lot more gas, busted springs and a cracked frame.

lucKY2b wrote:

biggus dickus wrote:

Over striding (e.g. my definition of a true heel strike) is not the best way to run and you will typically see this is beginner runners that do need some "training."

Seems like definition creep, no? Since when is over-stride synonymous with heel-strike? I can overstride and toe-land. It ain't pretty, but I can do it.

I think most people here would agree that overstriding is bad. Generally leads to backward forces on impact, which is measurable and quantifiable and is a whole different issue.

Don't think it's creep, it's just been unclear from the beginning and part of the confusion is they are different topics that are being mixed.

If you strike with your heel with a foot landing under your center of gravity, I say no big deal.

If you overstride, which also will result in a heel strike (yes, possible to mid foot, but not typical or natural) they I'd say that it's likely an issue....and related to low cadence... To talk about a "heel strike" without clarifying the specifics results in a pointless discussion...this thread being my "proof."

biggus dickus wrote:

If you strike with your heel with a foot landing under your center of gravity, I say no big deal.

Except for the fact that video analysis shows that all elites have first contact slightly in front of CoG, what you are saying is what malmo, et. al. have been saying all along.

Slightly, yes. Also discussed that physics demand this... They also typically have a "good" stride rate...

Ever seen a beginning runner over stride with around 150 cadence? Now that is a "heel strike"....