Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

malmo wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:

Yet one thing they all do is hire a SWING coach.

Look, there are plenty of runners at Penn State that trained just as hard as Malmo..

Have you put that question to Harry Groves?

Harry would probably say "just run baby" and then make a joke about his "son" Mike Sands.

Malmo, hope this takes....compare these two runners.

heelstriker?

uhhhh wrote:

http://smpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/0_21_040508_palestinianrunner.jpg?w=450&h=350http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08qO8oXb4C6Wg/610x.jpg

heelstriker?

Heel-toucher perhaps. In that video he is clearly landing under his COG. Pretty textbook form to me; the hobbyjogger is an extreme heel striker.

OldXCguy wrote:

At 34 pages and 655 posts (and counting), I guess we haven't ended the debate!

I think we can all agree that in many sports there is more than one way to get the job done. Take golf, for instance. Many top professionals have different swings, yet all are able to play the game at a high level. Often, it's about what is most efficient for a particular individual.

A question one might ask when starting out, is should a person try to copy the swing of Jim Furyk or that of Tiger Woods? The former is kind of tough to watch, while the latter is aesthetically pleasing; yet both get the job done. I suspect the situation is similar for running form.

I'm more knowledgable about the golf swing than running form, and I can tell you that despite all the different-looking swings among top pros, they all look very, very similar to one another at the one time it matters most - at impact. This is as close to a universal truth in golf: at impact, hands ahead of the ball, creating a decending blow on the ball. Beginners/amateurs are the exact opposite, trying to "lift" the ball by scooping.

I would like to know if there is a similar "universal rule" in running form. From what I've seen/read, I haven't found it yet.

silly old fossil wrote:

Malmo, hope this takes....compare these two runners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10809294

I don't get it? What's your point?

Malmo, the point being the hobbyjogger/reporter can do all the summer of Malmo's in the world, but he is not going to get to the sub-elite level unless he changes/improves his poor mechanics.

Malmo, basic question for you - is a runner "stuck" with his natural mechanics, or can he modify/improve them?

Is our improvement as a runner strictly limited to training only? That seems the thrust of your argument.

silly old fossil wrote:

Malmo, the point being the hobbyjogger/reporter can do all the summer of Malmo's in the world, but he is not going to get to the sub-elite level unless he changes/improves his poor mechanics.

Malmo, basic question for you - is a runner "stuck" with his natural mechanics, or can he modify/improve them?

Is our improvement as a runner strictly limited to training only? That seems the thrust of your argument.

What are you talking about? The reporter is a completely untrained blob of clay. The "olympic caliber" runner next to him is slower than Eddy Lee. I don't see a point here.

And please explain to me what either of them have to do with Summer of Malmo?

malmo wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:

Malmo, the point being the hobbyjogger/reporter can do all the summer of Malmo's in the world, but he is not going to get to the sub-elite level unless he changes/improves his poor mechanics.

Malmo, basic question for you - is a runner "stuck" with his natural mechanics, or can he modify/improve them?

Is our improvement as a runner strictly limited to training only? That seems the thrust of your argument.

What are you talking about? The reporter is a completely untrained blob of clay. The "olympic caliber" runner next to him is slower than Eddy Lee. I don't see a point here.

And please explain to me what either of them have to do with Summer of Malmo?

Malmo, I asked you a question (two actually).

Can we modify/improve our basic running form if we have bad mechanics? Or are we stuck with the running form God gave us?

Can we only improve as runners by training only?

Your thoughts please.

silly old fossil wrote:

Malmo, I asked you a question (two actually).

Can we modify/improve our basic running form if we have bad mechanics? Or are we stuck with the running form God gave us?

Can we only improve as runners by training only?

Your thoughts please.

If you have "bad mechanics" it will be improved through training. An untrained runner isn't running with the form "god" gave him. Untrained runners are running with the form of untrained runners.

You are not engaged in the discussion, which is:

"ELITE RUNNERS DO NOT HEELSTRIKE, END OF STORY. STOP BEING LAZY AND GET BETTER FORM! and by extension: FOREFOOT RUNNING IS BETTER FOR YOU"

uhhhh wrote:

Why does it matter what is natural? People are faster in shoes.

No, they are not. People are faster in spikes because they add serious modification, people in shoes do not get serious injury while running over broken glass, but generally you can run barefoot (or in vibrams, if it matters) just as fast as in running shoes.

Rest of your post is just to stupid to comment.

tomtom wrote:

No, they are not. People are faster in spikes because they add serious modification, people in shoes do not get serious injury while running over broken glass, but generally you can run barefoot (or in vibrams, if it matters) just as fast as in running shoes.

Rest of your post is just to stupid to comment.

No. You're the one who's drunk on stupid today.

People are faster in shoes, period. It has nothing to do with the spikes. The spikes are simply a modification that helps the already faster shoes become even more faster.

tomtom wrote:

malmo wrote:

and he doesn't understand natural selection.

I see victims of the american education system here. Ever wonder why the whole world laugh at you? Jesus, where you guys got the idea of "natural form in shoes"? There is no such thing as "natural form in shoes" or "natural form on bicycle", for one simple reason - shoes and bicycles never were part of our natural environment, hence we never ever evolved to gain "natural form" for them.

We have one and only effective way to move forward on two legs, every modification will be against the body mechanics. Sure, having the ridiculously effective cardiovascular system you can win some races even with form as ugly as Malmo had, still running against nature always cost little more energy.

Wow, evolution does NOT work that way. Species do not evolve to perfection, only sufficiency. Humans have not even had that much time to evolve. People are born with a ton of differences and imperfections, so they need to accommodate them. Plus humans were intelligent enough to survive for a long time, regardless of imperfections.

The evolved anatomy of humans sufficed for survival. That in no way mean it could not be improved.

tomtom wrote:

Rest of your post is just to stupid to comment.

Coming from the authority.

malmo wrote:

People are faster in shoes, period.

No, they are not. Only advantage shoes have over our feet is fact that it's rubber touching asphalt, not our skin. Vibrams compensate this, and there already were races won by Vibram-wearers. Or by barefoot runners, just to mention

who won numerous races against world champions, or famous

who won olympic marathon barefoot.

Yeah, Bikila broke bone training barefoot - and this is only reasony why people like me train in shoes.

You are so far behind this discussion it's not even funny.

SaImon wrote:

The evolved anatomy of humans sufficed for survival. That in no way mean it could not be improved.

Sure it can be. For example, using rubber instead of skin to push from asphalt. But heel-strike is not improvement, it put half of your running muscles in positions and range motions completely different that ones you have while running barefoot. Wonder why Kenyans dominated running so badly? Yeah, almost all of them run as close to "natural" form as possible.

Again, there is one and the only natural form of running - one you have barefoot. Every change you made put your body mechanics under stress. There was not even slightest chance for heel-running to be even close as efficient as forefoot-strike, otherwise some human subraces or even culture groups would evolve to run from these lions (or after these females) on their heels.

tomtom wrote:

No, they are not. Only advantage shoes have over our feet is fact that it's rubber touching asphalt, not our skin. Vibrams compensate this, and there already were races won by Vibram-wearers. Or by barefoot runners, just to mention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegla_Loroupe

who won numerous races against world champions, or famous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila

who won olympic marathon barefoot.

Yeah, Bikila broke bone training barefoot - and this is only reasony why people like me train in shoes.

The idiocy is endless with you guys. You're like mutant mushrooms, or the Viet Kong. When ones dies there are 10,000 more like you.

Notice how much faster Bikila and Loroupe ran after they got shoes?

The idiocy is endless with you guys. You're like mutant mushrooms, or the Viet Kong. When ones dies there are 10,000 more like you.

Notice how much faster Bikila and Loroupe ran after they got shoes?

meh, typical retired sport star, that no one pay attention anymore except forum trolls - all he can do is insult, insult, insult...

so, tell us, how much faster they ran after they got shoes, and don't forget to tell us how much faster they would ran with vibrams instead than barefoot.

tomtom, you're nuts. It's not for me to prove that your newage footwear is worth anything, the onus is on you cultists.