Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Never said that. You don't like the meat of my post, so you instead focus on something that I never stated. Isn't the terminology that was agreed upon pages ago as follows: heel striking, foot flat striking, and forefoot striking? In other words, to use the term foot flat instead of mid-foot.

silly old fossil wrote:Malmo and others, I found excellent footage of a true heel-striker.

None of the examples cited of elite heel-stikers match this guy. Provide quality slo-mo sideways video footage of your elites. Thanks much.

http://wwww.flotrack.org/video/403377-Dathan-Ritzenhein-NYC-Marathon-2010-Stride-Analysis

I found this gem with the video when I found it:

Ritz placed only 8th this year with a slower time than his Olympic Trials in 2007. What happened? We found that he was sabotaged by large toe lift, a massive overstride angle and a small stride angle. By eliminating his toe lift, reducing his overstride and increasing his stride angle, Ritz could easily run New York in under two hours.

Right, no problem. If Ritz can easily run under 2 hours, I can easily run under 2:10 and will be competing in the next OG's...

neutralll wrote:Never said that. You don't like the meat of my post, so you instead focus on something that I never stated. Isn't the terminology that was agreed upon pages ago as follows: heel striking, foot flat striking, and forefoot striking? In other words, to use the term foot flat instead of mid-foot.

My bad, read your post too quickly but I don't remember this terminology being agreed upon.

HHH wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:Malmo and others, I found excellent footage of a true heel-striker.

None of the examples cited of elite heel-stikers match this guy. Provide quality slo-mo sideways video footage of your elites. Thanks much.

http://wwww.flotrack.org/video/403377-Dathan-Ritzenhein-NYC-Marathon-2010-Stride-Analysis

I found this gem with the video when I found it:

Ritz placed only 8th this year with a slower time than his Olympic Trials in 2007. What happened? We found that he was sabotaged by large toe lift, a massive overstride angle and a small stride angle. By eliminating his toe lift, reducing his overstride and increasing his stride angle, Ritz could easily run New York in under two hours.

Right, no problem. If Ritz can easily run under 2 hours, I can easily run under 2:10 and will be competing in the next OG's...

Yes, you might have to access

to find the video. My reason for linking it was not to show Ritz, but the hobbyjogger...a true heel-striker.

silly old fossil wrote:Yes, you might have to access

http://www.flotrack.org

to find the video. My reason for linking it was not to show Ritz, but the hobbyjogger...a true heel-striker.

And the point is?

That's alright. I know when analyzing footstrikes I have always used the terms heel, mid-foot, and forefoot strikes....but I think the podiatrist who posted quite a few pages back brought up a good point when he stated that it is impossible to strike at initial contact only on the mid-foot....AKA the navicular, cuboid, and cuneiform bones. So I think a good way to put it is foot-flat AKA landing on the lateral foot with heel and forefoot simultaneously and rolling inwards through the pronation cycle. Obviously there are different degrees of these strikes in each individual, but these are the three gross categories.

WARNING: Do not watch that video while drinking a beverage.

"Ritz could easily break 2:00 in the marathon"

I understand this is a long thread, but my quote of HHH is legit, I only included a relevant portion, but did not alter it any any way. His original post is on page 7. Please check your facts next time before your attach.

If you read my statements I have been pretty "middle of the road." I do not drink the barefoot cool aid nor do I believe that form is completely unimportant. Please feel free to dispute any of my comments....and please be more specific than "prove it", which I still uphold is a moronic request on a thread that is dealing with unproven topics.

I just went back and read the quoted portion again and I did not see the last end quote. It seems the only thing HHH adding in his post was:

"What scientific credentials does he have?"

As such, I am incorrect, my apologies. I should have known that HHH would not added much more than "prove it"....

I think I'm done with this thread and this board.

biggus dickus wrote:I just went back and read the quoted portion again and I did not see the last end quote. It seems the only thing HHH adding in his post was:

"What scientific credentials does he have?"

As such, I am incorrect, my apologies. I should have known that HHH would not added much more than "prove it"....

I think I'm done with this thread and this board.

Aww Dicky, I accept your apology. But just to clarify, I asked for scientific credentials on that one, not just for proof...

biggus dickus wrote:and please be more specific than "prove it", which I still uphold is a moronic request on a thread that is dealing with unproven topics.

The thread is about elites not heel striking and heel strikers being lazy. I think both can be easily proven (as they have been) to not be true. So I don't think asking for proof of statements spoken as though they are fact is too much to ask. As I said earlier, if that makes me a moron, so be it.

here are links to two studies that compared running economy and rearfoot/forefoot.

They each found NO difference in running economy. In one, the runners were barefoot and in the other they wore shoes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8553873

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20154195

the Cunningham study uses the zoological term "low digitigrade" = midfoot/forefoot strike.

Malmo, I wanted to add one thing....this is from a few pages back....but I thought the point should be clarified. In Lieberman's study, they did not have the opportunity to test impact forces for any of the Kenyan runners. If you look closely, the only subjects who ran over the force plate were the American runners.Speeds while barefoot -Habitually shod Americans: 4.0 +-0.3 m/sHabitually barefoot Americans: 3.9 +-0.4 m/sSo when they were analyzing differences in transient impact forces between the two groups, the speeds at which all subjects were running over the force plate were very similar (around 6:42 min./mile)...thereby limiting one of the variables that might negatively impact internal validity of the study.

malmo wrote:

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?

neutralll wrote:

Malmo, I wanted to add one thing....this is from a few pages back....but I thought the point should be clarified. In Lieberman's study, they did not have the opportunity to test impact forces for any of the Kenyan runners. If you look closely, the only subjects who ran over the force plate were the American runners.

Speeds while barefoot -

Habitually shod Americans: 4.0 +-0.3 m/s

Habitually barefoot Americans: 3.9 +-0.4 m/s

So when they were analyzing differences in transient impact forces between the two groups, the speeds at which all subjects were running over the force plate were very similar (around 6:42 min./mile)...thereby limiting one of the variables that might negatively impact internal validity of the study.

That's fine. Why didn't Lieberman show the force plate videos of the subjects running naturally, rather than showing force plate video of himself running with different footstrikes. That doesn't seem very kosher.

HHH wrote:

I found this gem with the video when I found it:

Ritz placed only 8th this year with a slower time than his Olympic Trials in 2007. What happened? We found that he was sabotaged by large toe lift, a massive overstride angle and a small stride angle. By eliminating his toe lift, reducing his overstride and increasing his stride angle, Ritz could easily run New York in under two hours.

Right, no problem. If Ritz can easily run under 2 hours, I can easily run under 2:10 and will be competing in the next OG's...

Here is the condensed version of the silly video SOF posted.

Enjoy.

I do not know why there are not force plate videos of the American subjects. However, Lieberman did not attach the videos of himself running to the study. Below is the supplementary material from the study:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/suppinfo/nature08723.html

The Lieberman videos are from his website. So while I agree with you that it would be great to see force plate videos from the actual study, he did not use the videos of himself running to support his data in the supplementary section.

neutralll wrote:

The Lieberman videos are from his website. So while I agree with you that it would be great to see force plate videos from the actual study, he did not use the videos of himself running to support his data in the supplementary section.

That's splitting hairs.

He used himself as the visible subject of his research in the force plate videos.

and here.

Here's a pdf link to the Lieberman study as it appeared in the Nature journal, with diagrams etc. included:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2010a.pdf

Yes I've been aware of that link since the beginning of the thread, shoe guy.