Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

malmo wrote:

HHH wrote:

When someone sets a world record wearing your precious vibrams, lets talk.

You can set the bar much lower than that.... much, much lower.

True. Hey Tommy: What's the fastest anyone has run in those silly water shoes?

HHH wrote:

They did run faster once they wore shores, look it up.

When someone sets a world record wearing your precious vibrams, lets talk.

I agree about the Vibrams part as those are pretty much useless, I think the issue is on the roads the shoe does more of a job of absorbing the shock and returning the energy, given the shod runner a little something extra on the roads, as opposed to grass, the track etc...

I will only admit one thing...I looked pretty stupid writing heal instead of heel. That said most of what you say about the experimental design is wrong.The whole point of a within subject study that is counter-balanced is that:1) You need many fewer subjects because each subject acts his own control2) Within-subjects design minimizes the importance of individual differences.Also you don't seem to understand how experiments work. "So you follow people for several months and want to measure efficiency based on ONE variable."YES, exactly you can ONLY manipulate one variable (the independent variable) and you can measure several outcomes (dependent variables). The WHOLE point of experimental designs is that by only manipulating one variable and by using random assignment, then the differences between groups/time points is the independent variable. All other variables that affect efficiency wash out.

some studies have already been done!

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.

I recommend you read more about experimental design, e.g.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/within-subject-design.html

Clit on bush haytit fund wrote:

Stupid jokes do nothing but further expose your ignorance to biomechanics and scientific inquiry. I asked you how you'd design a study and you dodged the question. You dodge any type of intelligent discussion. You reach your conclusions based on what works for you and on still photos of elite runners. Not that there is anything wrong with that. The simple fact is, there is nothing scientific about it. In order to get a study published with any validity it would require money. Lots of it. Do you think people have ground force reaction plates just hanging around in there basement? Trying to say you would not need a large sample for the study to be valid shows you are completely ignorant to the scientifc method.

What do you mean there's nothing scientific about showing that elites are heel strikers, therefore the OPs outlandish statement is false?

Please explain to me what "double blind" means and how does that relate. Please?

If you know so much, then tell me how you would design a study, how much money would it cost, and account for every dollar? And while you're at it please explain what double blind means, and how that would relate to your phantom study? Please? I'm not the one who thinks that a simple study needs to have the budget of defense contractor. Nor do I think that there needs to involve some huge staff on a payroll. A professor and a few grad students have been doing these kinds of experiments for centuries.

You're the one who's ignorant about the scientific method. Scientist can justify the validity of their studies even with small sampling of subjects. Obviously more the better. If mcgato was reading this thread he could provide the statistical reasoning for it.

Did this study require a huge budget and "staff" to conduct?

What about Lieberman's study?

What about this one?

and this one?

You tell me what their budgets were?

I agree with a lot of what you say but double blind is a real term. It would mean that neither the subjects nor the experimenters know who is in which group. Obviously this would be impossible in studying running form as the subject always knows which group they are in. However, the experimenter analyzing the data should be blind to the group.

Aghast wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say but double blind is a real term.

Of course I understand that double blind is a real term. Completely and utterly meaningless in the context of the type of studies we're talking about.

'Mitochondria' is a real term too, but blurting out 'mitochrondria' on trainin g threads doesn't mean the user understands cytology or biochem, nor does it mean the usage is even relevant to a discussion.

Aghast wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you say but double blind is a real term. It would mean that neither the subjects nor the experimenters know who is in which group. Obviously this would be impossible in studying running form as the subject always knows which group they are in. However, the experimenter analyzing the data should be blind to the group.

I pushed the send button before I finished my thought.

I don't even believe that a researcher needs to be blind to the identity of the data at all, even for an evangelical zealot like Dr Lieberman. If the analysis is sound then it should stand on its own merits, don't you think? Just as long as the researcher dosn't move the goal-post once he sees the data is contrary to his preconceived beliefs.

How many and why?

How did you determine that this number is 'statistically valid'?

What is the threshold number for 'statistically valid'? 20? 37? 292?

Who are you following?

Why are you following them?

How long are you going to stalk them?

How much money?

What's your budget?

Double blind? please explain the details of your double-blind study?

What is blind, and how is that different from double-blind?

Why does it matter?

Yes, you've said that. How much is 'huge'?

Which equipment?

By tens of thousands is it 10,000 or 36,000 or 99,000?

Doesn't it make sense to collect the data at institutions that already have these machines?

How much do they charge for using them? Tens of thousands of dollars?

You do? How many people do you need in this staff?

What are their position titles?

What are their daily duties?

What are their salaries?

Why can't grad students do this?

Why a year?

What type of study, you haven't defined it yet?

Compensate who?

Why hundreds?

What's the going rate for footstrikers?

Can you subcontract South American or Asian footstrikers for less?

Add one more to the growing list of

Noureddine Morceli

John Treacy

Rod Dixon

George Malley

Paul Tergat

Alberto Salazar

Mark Nenow

Thom Hunt

Dan Dillon

Jan Merrill

Greg Meyer

Dathan Ritzenhein (being fixed or being f***ed depending upon your reality)

Mebrahtom Keflezighi

Abderrahim Goumri

Abebe Bekila

Abdi Abdirahman

El G

Abubaker Kaki

Miruts Yifter

Vebjorn Rodahl

Joachim Cruz

John Ngugi

Zersenay Tadese

Samuel Tsegay

Put

. in the front of each link

youtube.com/watch?v=tTO7tFiyBlw&feature=related

youtube.com/user/Vafareunculo#p/c/823732165E0A1C6C/68/gz0GtjmUD04

runblogger.com/2010/05/elite-males-in-slow-motion-at-2010.html

youtube.com/watch?v=5D56ZAvcxN0

youtube.com/watch?v=OPIqF_QPKWI

youtube.com/user/Vafareunculo#p/c/823732165E0A1C6C/34/Ax7DQ_wwH7U

youtube.com/watch?v=nKtRH1097AE

youtube.com/watch?v=YB8hEc3yIwE

scienceofrunning.com/2010/09/how-worlds-best-runners-strike-ground.html

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot 4 were heel strikers.

Metabolic and mechanical aspects of foot landing type, forefoot and rearfoot strike, in human running.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8553873

The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20154195

Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17685722

Ground reaction force differences between running shoes, racing flats, and

distance spikes in runners.

jssm.org/vol9/n1/21/v9n1-21pdf.pdf

1. 2:09:21 Carlos Lopes

2. 2:09:56 John Treacy

3. 2:09:58 Charlie Spedding

Where are the forefoot runners?

'someone else' wrote: I believe this debate would be appropriately ended by concluding that the body will find the most efficient form for whatever stresses it is under

Agreed. Forefoot lends itself to barefoot running, and heelstrike to running with shoes. i don't know why that is hard for people to understand, they are chalk and cheese.

Why aren't these guys landing on their forefoots? They must be lazy, ingorant, and can get away with it only becauses of their god-given talent. If they only knew how wrong they are they could do better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxPRVk0FHY

where are they? wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DUNCBJwhj0

1. 2:09:21 Carlos Lopes

2. 2:09:56 John Treacy

3. 2:09:58 Charlie Spedding

Where are the forefoot runners?

Amen.

That Joanie chick and that Greta girl. Don't they know? You know the words of the chorus by now, everybody sing!

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dFgH_vDh6E

I have an idea:

Let's just end the heel strike debate right now.

I'm a heel striker and proud of it. Malmo has won this debate. Thread over. Cultists go home.

Heel Strikers Unite wrote:

I'm a heel striker and proud of it. Malmo has won this debate. Thread over. Cultists go home.

So what, anyone that heel strikes is normal, but anyone who midfoot strikes or think its better for them is a cultist? Explain. The term cultist is thrown around like republicans throwing around the term terrorist. Say cultist and you get everyone on your side without reason, when you are associating that stupid minimalism/Vibram crowd with shod runners who midfoot strike.

I don't understand how they are automatically related.