Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

malmo wrote:

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.

http://www.runbare.com/389/new-study-by-dr-daniel-lieberman-on-barefoot-running-makes-cover-story-in-nature-journal/

and here.

http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

Yes, it is interesting that he chooses to use himself as the subject for the videos on his personal website...but it appears to me that the data presented in his running videos reflects the data from the subjects in the study...so I do not think that that takes anything away from the results.

shoe guy wrote:

Look, I realize that this study isn't perfect and that there is room for improvement regarding research on this issue. But the fact is you nor any of your pro-heelstriking friends can find a study that shows that it DOESN't matter. Without proof from a scientific source, you are losing the war.

First of all I am not pro-anything, heelstrike, forefoot, midfoot or tippytoes. It doesn't matter because we've shown you already that elites run with many different footstrikes. The outrageous claim by gazoo and you cultists is that 1) forefoot striking is better, and 2) farefoot running is better.

Here is your scientific evidence.

shoe guy wrote:

2. The source of funding is irrelevant for discrediting the study.

That''s categorically false. As I stated before, on the face of it the source of funding should not normally be a problem if the methodology is impartial and the researcher's own bias' dooes not interfere with the objective discovery and analysis. Any rational person would conclude that Lieberman, who runs around the streets of Boston in his bare feet, and receives funding from a New Age footwear company to produce studies with a predetermined conclusion, and also has websites to promote that conclusion, isn't objective in any way shape or form.

shoe guy wrote:

4. He chose a variety of subjects for his study. Some were serious competitive athletes, some weren't. The fact that he chose himself for demonstration of a few youtube videos isn't important, stop focusing on the minutia.

Sure it's important. Thsoe videos are "the face" of the study. You simply cannot claim that someone who has an irrational preoccupation with barefoot and forefoot running, can land 'impartially' with his heels. He knows the result he wants out of the force plate.

The only way to show impartiality is to show all of the force strike graphics from those natural heel-strikers and natural forefoot strikers who have no vested interest or foreknowledge of how to juice the force plate data.

I'd be very interested to see force-plate videos/data of elite runners running naturally.

Here is the condensed version of SOFs link. Enjoy!

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

When you properly analyze the results, you get this:

Barefoot heelstriker

avg maximum force was 2.45 bw

avg time to max force was 92 milliseconds

forceΔd/100ms = 2.68bwΔd

Shod heelstriker

avg maximum force was 2.465 bw

avg time to max force was 117 milliseconds

forceΔd/100ms = 2.10bwΔd

Barefoot forefoot striker

avg maximum force was 2.58 bw

avg time to max force was 100 milliseconds

forceΔd/100ms = 2.58bwΔd

Shod forefoot striker

information hidden by researchers.. Ahem...

Now what do you think of his study?

So, adidas, Nike and Saucony all fund me to do a study on the benefits of wearing shoes while heel striking which miraculously proves that wearing shoes while heel striking: Reduces impact forces and increases push off power in heel strikers. But I publish it in the letters section of a nature journal and put up a website showing that I did the research at Stanford and state publicly that while those shoe companies might have an interest in the outcome of the study, they didn't have influence on the result. Can you not see how rediculous it is to even think that the study is not biased?

I'm going to call BS on this one.

Really? You don't think it matters? What about not having the force plates for the african runners, does that matter? What about hiding the results for the shod forefoot strikers?

Again, please refer to the properly analyzed results from the study that I provided above.

You realize it isn't perfect yet want us to accept it as the truth? You have to be kidding. We're not pro-heel striking, we're pro do what comes naturally, just get out and run more.

You and your little forefoot cult are the ones that need to provide proof to support your argument that:

Elites don't heel strike (We have shown several that do, so this statement is incorrect)

Heel striking is not as efficient as forefoot striking (you haven't provided any real evidence to support this yet, so one has to assume that it might not be true).

HHH,

"You realize it isn't perfect yet want us to accept it as the truth? You have to be kidding. We're not pro-heel striking, we're pro do what comes naturally, just get out and run more"

So you are saying that "running more" comes naturally? What, you guys are from the Running More cult? Knowing full well that running more means de facto increasing the risk of all types of injury for the most basic of statistical reaons?

Dudes, you are on a hate campaign, and the defamation shows it.

Malmo is a hero. Long ago, he did things that most of us dream of. He is a creative, passionate athlete who still loves the sport that maybe was not as generous as it should have been in return. Cruel Shoes is a bitter testament of this. Just as his love of music and admiring the floating running art of Henry Rono or the Ethiopian champions, are a a celebration of his passion.

But all this passion applied to a systematic hate campaign aimed at people experimenting with footstrikes is astounding.

Hate is easy. Just like name calling. Just like passion. Appreciation and true love take work. What a cop out.

How long do we need to endure your hate for the fact that your dreams did not come true ?

Sport can be cruel. Good coaching should be dedicated to understading this reality to help athletes deal with it.

OK, so you are saying that there is no scientific evidence that running more improves your running. Obviously, everything is to a point and one can't go out and expect running 500 miles/week to be beneficial. But there is an optimal mileage for each runner, and most sub-elite runners do not reach that optimal amount. So yes, most people, if they are interested in improving their distance running times, should first consider running more, not wholesale changing their form. I would posit that the only argument for drastically changing form is if you are chronically injured in ways that dictate form change is necessary. Otherwise, I think that the body, under proper training (i.e.- using a combination of long runs, tempos, intervals, and drills), will self-correct according to its neuromuscular interconnectivity to minimize energy consumption. (This last statement I have read in many biomechanics articles, but I don't have those handy, so I'll leave it as just my opinion.)

Go back to the very first post, and decide for yourself who is calling whom an idiot, and is thus on the "hate campaign" trail. While it's not my style to return fire with fire, I must say that if you are going to dish it, you better be prepared to take it.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that malmo, et. al. "hate" is people making unsubstantiated claims, which they then continue to try and defend even in the face of overwhelming evidence that such claims are untrue.

In the end, if you want to wholesale change the way you are running, go ahead and do it, enjoy it, embrace it, just don't call people, who don't follow suit, idiots.

Hate campaign?

"Cruel Shoes" is a bitter testament? Oh my word? You really ARE nuts!

Now it's a systematic hate campaign?

Dude, you're nutty. The stalking is creepy. It's real simple, the OP's outlandish statement on heel-striking is flat-out wrong. You cultists are also wrong that there is a right way and a wrong way to land with your feet during running. People who rightly disagree with you loonies don't hate you or anyone else. Get over it.

please consider wrote: Knowing full well that running more means de facto increasing the risk of all types of injury for the most basic of statistical reaons?

More old wives tales from the cult. Please cite your studies?

lucKY2b wrote:

In the end, if you want to wholesale change the way you are running, go ahead and do it, enjoy it, embrace it, just don't call people, who don't follow suit, idiots.

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with Scientology until they start trying to brainwash my neighbors. When that happens it becomes MY business.

shoe guy wrote:

Malmo, there are a couple of things you extrapolated from the study a few pages back that are wrong:

"At similar .

speeds, magnitudes of peak vertical force during the impact period

(6.263.7% (all uncertainties are s.d. unless otherwise indicated) of

stance for RFS runners) are approximately three times lower in habitual barefoot runners who FFS than in habitually shod runners who

RFS either barefoot or in shoes (Fig. 2a.)"

I'm aware that he shifts away from the absolute peak values of vertical force (itself an "impact transient") which takes 100ms to reach, in favor of measuring the 'impact transient' (god, that lexeme seems so sciolistic) of the first 50ms.

Both 50ms and 100ms go by in less than a blink of an eye - actully much less than a blink of an eye (300-400ms).

This is a bit like going to the track in a 100m race and determining that the first runner at the 50 meter mark matters more than the first runner to the line at 100 meters.

This choice of focus on impact transient is deliberate, as it melds with Lieberman's personal bias' and unproven assertions throughout that, "one hypothesis is that heel striking contributes to some of these injuries." He goes on to say. "We emphasize though, that no study has shown that heel striking contributes more to injury than forefoot striking.”

If there is no study that proves his unfounded assertion, then why say it? An evangelist like Lieberman knows why. A false assertion in a scientific paper is a shout, the accompanying caveat is a whisper.

"Mr Bank Teller is suspected at being an inside co-conspirator in the heist. We emphasize though, there is no evidence that he was involved."

Impact is not bad, unless it's bad. If it's bad then it is provable and it would be reflected in the performances levels and injury rates of elite runners. Obviously Lieberman's unproven hypothesis is wrong. You can bet he'd have already been involved in ground-breaking research on this topic if he was right.

Lieberman defines impact transient as a bad thing. Which doesn't surprise me at all. Lets face it, many of the 'shoe guys' that found there way into the business were trained at my alma mater. In the 80s, they all collectively determined that the shoes of the 70s were too hard and started producing running shoes that were too soft. We all know the result - an INCREASE in the injury rates of runners. Guys like me were saying 'these freaking shoes are too soft. They're like strapping pillows to my feet." What do I know, right? This was a bit like a team of NASCAR engineers not listening to the feedback of the drivers, in favor of what they've written on the whiteboard.

Force impact of the foot is the only time in the gait cycle in which energy can be transferred to the road. Energy in the ankles, tendons and ligaments, "spring loading" as you guys say, if it is there at all, will be reflected in the readings on the force place. The more energy transferred (transient peak) in the shortest unit of time is a reflection of the power, or perhaps more correctly, the available power, and ultimately, all things being equal, the velocity of the runner.

ELITE RUNNERS DO NOT HEELSTRIKE, END OF STORY. STOP BEING LAZY AND GET BETTER FORM!

More nutty shit from the cult of Scientology.

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

Malmo-

THere's a reason he focused on the initial peak or the impact transient.

You seem focused on the total GRF which is normal for those outside the field of biomechanics to focus on. It's a common mistake.

However, if you are familiar with biomechanics research for the past 20+years you'd realize that EVERYONE focuses on the initial impact transient.

Why? Because if you look at correlation studies, prospective studies, or retrospective studies on injuries and running, they almost all show that peak GRF doesn't increase injury risk. It doesn't matter whether it is stress fractures of the foot, shin, etc. or runner's knee or any other running injury. Peak GRF rarely correlates with injury.

What does correlate is the impact transient. It's been shown in a variety of studies from stress fractures to a variety of other injuries that runners with higher impact transients have a much higher injury risk than those who don't.

That is why Lieberman (and everyone else) focuses on the impact transient. There's a whole injury theory in running biomechanics that that initial peak (which is present in heel striking and not in forefoot) is a major cause of a variety of injuries.

Again, this is not new. We've known this and focused on it for a while.

It's not some crazy conspiracy of Lieberman using selective data to get his results. He focuses on impact transient because that is what everyone focuses on when lookng at GRF.

spencersh wrote:

What does correlate is the impact transient. It's been shown in a variety of studies from stress fractures to a variety of other injuries that runners with higher impact transients have a much higher injury risk than those who don't.

I get it. People running at a higher speed get injured more? If I ran fast intervals every day I'd probably get injured more? If I ran at race speeds every day I probably get injured more? I that it?

Would you cite those studies too?

Where is the proof that heel strikers have a much higher risk of injury than forestrikers then?

And what does all of this do with the topic ELITE RUNNERS DO NOT HEELSTRIKE, END OF STORY. STOP BEING LAZY AND GET BETTER FORM? and FOREFOOTTRIKING IS THE BEST WAY TO RUN?

I get it. People running at a higher speed get injured more? If I ran fast intervals every day I'd probably get injured more? If I ran at race speeds every day I probably get injured more? I that it?

Would you cite those studies too?

Where is the proof that heel strikers have a much higher risk of injury than forestrikers then?

And what does all of this do with the topic ELITE RUNNERS DO NOT HEELSTRIKE, END OF STORY. STOP BEING LAZY AND GET BETTER FORM? and FOREFOOTTRIKING IS THE BEST WAY TO RUN?

Malmo,

That's the thing with the impact transient. It's regardless of speed. Even if matched for the same exact speed when measuring, some runners have greater impact transients than others even if the peak GRF is the exact same.

What does it have to do with heel striking?

Let me break down the logic.

1.Heel striking causes an initial peak GRF/higher impact transient than forefoot running, regardless of speed.

2. The impact transient increases injury risk.

3. Changing to forefoot/midfoot striking decreases impact transient and potentially injury risk.

Is that logic correct? We don't know yet. People like Lieberman and others are studying that right now.

But we know #1 ans #2 to be correct.

As for evidence, there was a large meta-analysis that just came out recently on GRF and stress fractures:

What does it say in brief:

When you compare stress fracture and non-stress fracture runners. The peak GRF is NOT different between each group. The loading rate and impact transient IS different between each group. (the loading rate, average and instantanous is what Lieberman measured and found different in his study on footstrike...)

spencersh wrote:

That is why Lieberman (and everyone else) focuses on the impact transient. There's a whole injury theory in running biomechanics that that initial peak (which is present in heel striking and not in forefoot) is a major cause of a variety of injuries..

OK, Lieberman has said that many times.

"one hypothesis is that heel striking contributes to some of these injuries."

He goes on to say. "We emphasize though, that no study has shown that heel striking contributes more to injury than forefoot striking.”

Is there any reason why the discipline of biomechanics has a whole injury theory in running like this, when there is no study that shows this? I understand that scientific discovery has to start somewhere ... but it seems to me you guys are putting the cart before the horse.

Perhaps it might be better to study why heel-strikers aren't getting the injuries that the biomechanics people want them to have? Perhaps their should be a study on why the heel-strikers are some of the most prolific elite performers ever, despite the desire from you guys that they shouldn't be. Perhaps a psychologist could do a Rorschach Test on biomechanics people and determine why they see injury everywhere?

What do you see?

I see a lady getting injured while having sex.

This?

A man getting injured having sex.

This?

Two men and a cheerleader getting injured having sex.

What about...?

A man in a cast who broke his leg when he having sex on the roof and fell.

I see. I think we have established a pattern here. You have a preoccupation with sex, and you have an unreasonable fear of injury. Tell me about your childhood??

Hey doc, don't point fingers at me. You're the one with the stash of dirty pictures!

Are Wanjiru and Kebede now classified as "heel strikers" too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLKv3xSDLFY

spencersh wrote:

2. The impact transient increases injury risk.

This is not true, otherwise heelstrikers would have higher injury rates than FFstrikers.

spencersh wrote:

3. Changing to forefoot/midfoot striking decreases impact transient and potentially injury risk.

Neither is this true.

"We emphasize though, that no study has shown that heel striking contributes more to injury than forefoot striking.” - Dr Lieberman

My contention is the elephant in the living room that you're choosing to ignore.

If the impact transient in the first 50ms isn't causing the injuries that you desire to see, then perhaps it might be a good idea for you to figure out why? Perhaps it's time to realize that the peak f'(x) of the impact curve, found in the first 50s, is not critical, and that all of your focus is just noise. Maybe it's better to focus on the peak impacts and the average f'(x) of that slope over the first 100ms? Huh?

Really??? wrote:

Are Wanjiru and Kebede now classified as "heel strikers" too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLKv3xSDLFY

Classic. Another bizzarro post from out in left field.