Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

note by malmo, a falsified post by 'biggus dickus'

biggus dickus wrote:

HHH wrote:

The main thing to take away is to not overstride. Dorsiflexing is unnecessary movement in my opinion, but is less crucial. I haven't done any studies on this, but I plan to after I begin medical school next fall.

biggus dickus wrote:

mmmm, I think I said that. I knew I had you pegged right as someone who just got out of school and was impressed with their new found "knowledge."

P.S. You did not define overstride or back that statement up with facts.

HHH wrote:

I never wrote this, nor am I getting ready to begin med school next year. Nice try little dicky. I can only assure you that I am not just out of school as nice as it would be to turn back the clock...

The vulgarity of your handle aside; in addition to the endless cavalcade of logical fallacies, misrepresentations, and outlandish assertions -- WHY would you go so far as to completely fabricate a statement that another poster didn't make?

What the hell is wrong with you? This epitomizes the lack of credibility of your side. What Dr. Lieberman did in his study was bad enough. What you just did is unconscionable.

Aghast wrote:

While I agree with a lot of what you have argued on this thread I don't know how you can say he only used only himself as a test subject.

I didn't say that he only used himself. In fact, I explicitly said that of all of the subjects in the study, the subjects that he determined to be important enough to be representative of the data gleaned in the force plate videos, turned out to be only one person, himself, Dr Lieberman, a quirky Harvard professor who runs around the streets of Cambridge in his bare feet.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any academic justification for this. I don't see even one iota of effort on the part of this nutjob to be impartial, nor to be on a quest for objective scientific discovery. He is completely in bed with a New Age footwear company, Vibram USA, and has set up research and websites dedicated to promoting their hokey Five Fingers thingymabobs. He is the Rev Jim Jones of the running world. Maybe not that bad, but he is at least the L Ron Hubbard of the running world. The day that I see a photo of Tom Cruise wearing those silly things will be validation day.

It seems quite funny that a champion with your pedigree and with such a creative coaching attitude as per your manifesto would get so riled up about all this.

http://pih.bc.ca/malmosmanifesto.html

What was the persistent foot problem The Globe wrote about when you won the Freedom Trail?

With all the experience you have now, is there anything you would have done differently 30-35 years ago when you were doing so well?

malmo wrote:

[quote]Aghast wrote:

While I agree with a lot of what you have argued on this thread I don't know how you can say he only used only himself as a test subject.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any academic justification for this. I don't see even one iota of effort on the part of this nutjob to be impartial, nor to be on a quest for objective scientific discovery. quote]

Just to add to what Malmo said:

For example, what Lieberman doesn't include in his study is people who are fast, habitually-shod runners. Look at the speed average for his different study groups. The Kenyan group was comfortably fast a 4:30/mile pace, while the American shod "athlete" was running comfortably fast at 6:20/mile pace. It's comparing apple to oranges.

Good catch lucky2b, I completely missed breakdown of the groups. The more you read about this guys research, the more your eyes roll.

I didn't miss this winner:

“one hypothesis is that heel striking contributes to some of these injuries. We emphasize though, that no study has shown that heel striking contributes more to injury than forefoot striking.” – Dr Lieberman

Hey malmo,

Just for your info, Lieberman's study was not the first to show what it did.

There have been a handful of studies since the 70's showing that midfoot/forefoot striking changes everything that Lieberman's study showed it to (impact transient, loading rate, ground contact, lack of initial peak, etc.).

So while you may be right that he has a conflict of interest, his findings weren't revolutionary or new. They just confirmed most of what we already knew.

TY spencer.

29% of the trial subjects were American. They ran at an average speed of 4.0m/s or 6:42/mile

71% of the trial subjects were Kenyans. They ran at an average speed of 5.5 m/s or 4:52/mile.

57.2% of the trials were for barefoot runners

42.8% of the trials were for shod runners

Why weren't the American runners running at 5.5m/s?

spencersh wrote:Hey malmo,

Just for your info, Lieberman's study was not the first to show what it did.

There have been a handful of studies since the 70's showing that midfoot/forefoot striking changes everything that Lieberman's study showed it to (impact transient, loading rate, ground contact, lack of initial peak, etc.).

So while you may be right that he has a conflict of interest, his findings weren't revolutionary or new. They just confirmed most of what we already knew.

And these studies are?

Wearing shoes increases the energy cost of running. Burkett et al. (1985) found that oxygen consumption during running increased as the amount of mass they added to the foot increased; shoes and orthotics representing 1% of body mass increased oxygen consumption by 3.1%. Flaherty (1994) found that oxygen consumption during running at 12 km/h was 4.7% higher in shoes of mass ~700 g per pair than in bare feet. An increase in oxygen consumption of ~4% is of little importance to the recreational runner, but the competitive athlete would notice a major effect on running speed.

The increase in oxygen consumption with running shoes could have several causes. An obvious possibility is the energy cost of continually accelerating and decelerating the mass of the shoe with each stride. Another possibility is the external work done in compressing and flexing the sole and in rotating the sole against the ground--up to 13% of the work done in walking, according to Webb et al. (1988). Frederick (1986) reported that oxygen consumption increased substantially with thicker shoe inserts during treadmill running. Not surprisingly, materials used for cushioning in shoes absorb energy, and stiff midsoles should produce a 2% saving of energy compared with standard midsoles (Stefanyshyn and Nigg, 2000). Finally, shoes probably compromise the ability of the lower limb to act like a spring. With bare feet, the limb returns ~70% of the energy stored in it, but with running shoes the return is considerably less (Yessis, 2000, p.123).

For the record, my Dr. Leiberman-worthy "scientific" study has shown that the work habits of NYC Sanitation workers is 6 times more important than whether you land on your heel, forefoot, or an imaginary "midfoot".

http://psutafalumnigolf.blogspot.com

Heel Striking is better in your opinion? Now THAT is going too far...Just because alot of people do it doesn't mean it's right..If a bunch of people did a math problem wrong and you knew it was wrong but everyone else did it would you do it too? Now who's loosing all their excuses?

You can say the same about forefoot striking. Where is the evidence? And what are these loose excuses you speak of? Are they like loose morals?

Really??? wrote:

Heel Striking is better in your opinion? Now THAT is going too far...Just because alot of people do it doesn't mean it's right..If a bunch of people did a math problem wrong and you knew it was wrong but everyone else did it would you do it too? Now who's loosing all their excuses?

Tadese (world half mar record holder) has best running economy ever measured in a laboratory.

Sure looks like he is a heel striker to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/polyesterpowdercoated/4001219411/

Barefoot Forefoot wrote:http://sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

This is a paper citing a collection of studies.

I really think there is only one relevant point in everything that you have quoted:

Barefoot Forefoot wrote:Finally, shoes probably compromise the ability of the lower limb to act like a spring. With bare feet, the limb returns ~70% of the energy stored in it, but with running shoes the return is considerably less (Yessis, 2000, p.123).

But I can't find this study online. Do you have a link? I would like to see how this study was done, who funded it, etc...

ZT wrote:Tadese (world half mar record holder) has best running economy ever measured in a laboratory.

Sure looks like he is a heel striker to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/polyesterpowdercoated/4001219411/

Oh no ZT, the cultists will reply, he's not putting a significant amount pressure on his heel and therefore he's not really heel striking...

But you'll reply:

Surely if he lands on his heel, he is heel striking?

But that'll reply:

Not if he's not putting a significant amount of pressure on his heel, that means he's actually midfoot striking.

And you'll reply:

How much is significant?

And they'll reply:

He is clearly a midfoot striker. All elite runners are midfoot strikers and you are an idiot if you think otherwise.

And you'll reply:

Do you have some proof for this?

And they'll reply:

You don't need proof, it's obvious because people teach other people how to midfoot strike, therefore it must be the only way to land correctly or run fast.

And so the madness will go...

Yessis M (2000). Explosive running. Illinois, USA. Contemporary Books

available from Amazon

plus, it comes with a small packet of KoolAid in the back.

I went for a 35 minute jog the other day and tried to do it on my toes/midfoot the whole time. Usually, I can't run on my toes unless it's a sprint, but somehow I was able to. It was really weird at first, but I started getting a little more used to it.

The next day, though, my Achilles was really sore, and even worse on the 2nd day. Gonna try again when the soreness fades.

ZT wrote:Yessis M (2000). Explosive running. Illinois, USA. Contemporary Books

available from Amazon

plus, it comes with a small packet of KoolAid in the back.

Doesn't sound like it's a credible study at all so we'll have to discount that as proof...

But the KoolAid interests me! If I drink it will I magically start to run faster and stay injury free forever?

Marrow2000 wrote:I went for a 35 minute jog the other day and tried to do it on my toes/midfoot the whole time. Usually, I can't run on my toes unless it's a sprint, but somehow I was able to. It was really weird at first, but I started getting a little more used to it.

The next day, though, my Achilles was really sore, and even worse on the 2nd day. Gonna try again when the soreness fades.

My only question is why?