It's typical to heelstrikers not to believe that forefoot running is possible for long distances. I know because I was a heel striker until I repented and became a proud forefoot striker. I once was boind but now I see. They are blind. No point talking to them.
Yes, it is surprising how strong their beliefs can be.
I remember reading an article a few years ago where they said among a few tens of people (or was it more?) they looked at in a marathon, no one had a forefoot strike near the end. Maybe it's uncommon, but it still is possible.
I completed at least three marathons in zero drop shoes, including a 2:39 one in Wave Universe 5. And I did not heel strike at any point. And my calves did not explode. (My toenail on the other hand...)
And more importantly, some elite runners do it, and they go fast and they look fine after the race.
I wonder if there is real data backing the idea that for the marathon, heel striking is better than forefoot striking. One would think forefoot striking on the road would help going back to the track easily.
Fed-Up Old Runner wrote:
http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/yet-another-study-shows-heel-striking-is-more-efficient-than-midfoot-striking/
B.S.
Doesn't mean anything.
Jumping off a skyscraper may be more efficient than walking down the stairs.
Just trying to weigh in here. If I recall correctly, there was indeed a study stating that heel strike is more economical, but it's only up to a point. When someone is running 5:00 per km, heel striking is more economical, but when someone is running faster say, under 4:00 per km, there is no difference in running economy between heel strike and forefoot strike. So saying heel striking is more economical is only partially correct.
Shawn H wrote:
Iran the moran wrote:^THIS^
So. Much. This.
Dibaba is doing it wrong! With a heel strike Tirunesh would have destroyed Keitany!
No, as much as I love Tirunesh Dibaba, Keitany is an all-time great, too. Dibaba wouldn't have "destroyed" her no matter how she might have altered her form. You're right that Dibaba ran on her toes--and with a big backswing--just like she does on the track, but can you really fault her form when she ran sub-2:18 in only her second marathon while also battling stomach issues? I'm really excited to see what she can do next.
He man, I completely agree. I thought the sarcasm was clear enough in my other post :)
Keitany is a beast, definitely.
Dibaba has the classic running technique, and she holds it 26.6 miles. She should never change that!
Iran the moran wrote:
Dibaba has the classic running technique, and she holds it 26.6 miles.
You must have included the warm up :)
welcome to research church wrote:
I'd sooner take the words from a tv pastor as truth than whatever comes out of the keyboard of this research junky guy. Just because someone calls himself a researcher doesnt make him one.
Yeah, we should rather listen to anonymous idiots on Letsrun.
welcome to research church wrote:
I'd sooner take the words from a tv pastor as truth than whatever comes out of the keyboard of this research junky guy. Just because someone calls himself a researcher doesnt make him one.
well,. wrote:
Yeah, we should rather listen to anonymous idiots on Letsrun.
10/10
grox wrote:
Iran the moran wrote:Dibaba has the classic running technique, and she holds it 26.6 miles.
You must have included the warm up :)
haha, that's right.
only downside of letsrun, no edit function
well,. wrote:
welcome to research church wrote:I'd sooner take the words from a tv pastor as truth than whatever comes out of the keyboard of this research junky guy. Just because someone calls himself a researcher doesnt make him one.
Yeah, we should rather listen to anonymous idiots on Letsrun.
yo Craig, you mad, "University lecturer, woo basher, runner, cynic, researcher, skeptic, clinician, rabble-rouser, dad" bro?
well,. wrote:
celery wrote:I partially agree with you (though I'm not fully on the zero drop bandwagon). I read an article about the fancy new Nike shoes, and I was surprised at the heel to toe drop. I forget the exact measure, but I know it was considerably more that 4 mm (which is the usual drop of the Sauconys that I use for training). For myself, I have found that when running anything near 5 minute pace, a heel lift of anything greater than 4 mm starts to feel like it inhibits the natural way my foot wants to hit the ground. This, along with shoe weight, is why runners usually change out of their trainers and into their flats when they plan on doing speed work. One of the little pleasures of running, is that feeling you get when you change into your "fast" shoes after you are warmed up and ready to race. For the elite athletes that are going to run a marathon at 5 pace or faster, they have little need for heel lift IMO. Some padding, yes. But substantial heel lift, I think not.
Back to Bekele and the Nike shoes. In a related video about the Nike shoes, there was a world renowned biomechanics expert who talked about how difficult it is to tweak the carbon fiber plate in the shoe to optimize its position for each athlete. You can't just take slow-mo footage on a treadmill, because a treadmill can't perfectly mimic the road. This would have to be a process of trial and error. Maybe Nike, working with Bekele, didn't take the proper time to get his shoes right. That might explain this shoe snafu.
Anyway, I think the Nike shoes might be good for certain people with certain biomechanics. But for someone like Bekele, whose foot strike is already so efficient, I think Nike's efforts are more likely to screw up an already good thing, than to help.
Basically all marathon racing shoes have 8-10 mm drop: Zoom Streak 6, Adidas Adios etc.
It is difficult for me to find the heel drop for many shoes. Saucony seems to be the only company that regularly says whet their heel drop is. I just read something that estimates the heel drop of the adios boost to be 10 mm. I would have never guessed they were that high base on feel. They feel just as "flat" as the kinvaras and many other saucony styles that only have a 4 mm drop. So I guess a 10 mm heal drop is not detrimental to fast running...its probably just the overall lightness of the racing shoes (compared to trainers) that makes them feel fast.
His arrogant comment about times didn't help.
celery wrote:
It is difficult for me to find the heel drop for many shoes.
Running Warehouse give it for just about all the shoes they sell.
Iran the moran wrote:
grox wrote:You must have included the warm up :)
haha, that's right.
only downside of letsrun, no edit function
yeah that is the only downside,hahahahahahahaha
Orthotics are bad because they interfere with pronation. Once both heel and forefoot are in contact with the ground, as always happens unless sprinting, the arch flattens like a bow to absorb energy from the impact. There seems to be confusion between overpronation of the foot and overeversion at the ankle joint. Stopping overeversion shouldn't interfere with pronation.
It's common sense that ankle eversion is a problem in cushioned shoes. It's precisely the same instability a woman in stiletto heels has, on a lesser scale. The solution is to stop wearing cushioned shoes, not insert an anti-eversion device that also cancels out pronation.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Orthotics are bad because they interfere with pronation. Once both heel and forefoot are in contact with the ground, as always happens unless sprinting, the arch flattens like a bow to absorb energy from the impact. There seems to be confusion between overpronation of the foot and overeversion at the ankle joint. Stopping overeversion shouldn't interfere with pronation.
It's common sense that ankle eversion is a problem in cushioned shoes. It's precisely the same instability a woman in stiletto heels has, on a lesser scale. The solution is to stop wearing cushioned shoes, not insert an anti-eversion device that also cancels out pronation.
Are you referring to a normal arch or an acquired flatfoot deformity? If it's latter, please provide multi-authored, peer-reviewed research that supports your above claims.
OTOH, orthotics are very beneficial for flatfoot deformity and a host of lower leg injuries related to AFD:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4094099/#!po=0.431034
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16707631When I was in my late 20s, I developed chronic bilateral Achilles tendinitis related to AFD. Custom orthotics completely alleviated the problem and allowed for higher mileage and regular racing well into my mid-50s. Even after sustaining an acute PTT rupture & medial column collapse last year, orthotics has allowed for some limited running. As I mentioned to you in an earlier response, try running at all with this type of injury...you won't get very far.
I heal strike faster than you hobby jog.
2:28 heal strike wrote:
I heal strike faster than you hobby jog.
Go for you wise guy. Btw, are you a public school grad? You spelled HEEL wrong 😄
Fed-Up Old Runner wrote:
Orthotics are bad because they interfere with pronation. Once both heel and forefoot are in contact with the ground, as always happens unless sprinting, the arch flattens like a bow to absorb energy from the impact.
Are you referring to a normal arch or an acquired flatfoot deformity? If it's latter, please provide multi-authored, peer-reviewed research that supports your above claims.[/quote]
Why would I be talking about collapsed arches when discussing pronation?
These are not new or profound ideas. Research denied. It's common knowledge what pronation is, even if the confusion with eversion is more common.
Research , research...blah blah
Are you some kind of university lecturer?
They always want researches.
Darling, could you pick up the kids from school today?
Sorry wifie, not until you supply some research that backs up your request.
Darling, i'm horn&, lets have se@
Sorry wifie, research please..