Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Well, i believe that forefoot striking is faster, porque sprinters get "up on their toes" when running.

Notice I said "I believe", hence I am not claiming the statement as fact, stating a hypothesis, etc. Just stating an opinion, which will most likely be taken as a scientific inquiry, and then denounced through some crazy "evidence". This thread is funny!

Perhaps forefoot/mid-foot striking allows for optimization of biomechanics by allowing for the full potential of the energy produced by the mitochondria to be used in addition to the force of gravity to create forward motion.

In all seriousness malmo's stance is not really a direct confrontation to the argument on heelstrike efficiency. For it could be stated that for some people heelstriking would be terribly inefficient. Thing is you can have bad running form due to a variety of reasons, but you can improve on that form. The statement that "it doesn't matter" is just silly. We don't run slouched over with our arms trailing on the ground, but run a certain way because it is efficient. Obviously an extreme case, but I would deem it necessary to illustrate a point.

Watch out, I'm a cultist!! hahaha

Whether form matters and whether foot strike style contributes to "better" form are two entirely different debate. How did the argument get to the point where if I reject that forefoot striking is the most efficient then I am necessarily claiming the form doesn't "matter"?

bluewaters wrote:

In all seriousness malmo's stance is not really a direct confrontation to the argument on heelstrike efficiency. For it could be stated that for some people heelstriking would be terribly inefficient. Thing is you can have bad running form due to a variety of reasons, but you can improve on that form. The statement that "it doesn't matter" is just silly. We don't run slouched over with our arms trailing on the ground, but run a certain way because it is efficient. Obviously an extreme case, but I would deem it necessary to illustrate a point.

gallagher wrote:lucky2b,

I seem to remember a fairly recent thread containing statements by R. Canovo about runners who perform better in cross country v. road; something about runners with more elastic connective tissue excelling on harder surfaces and pullers and lifters have an advantage on softer cross country courses.

Maybe he can describe the origin of those views.

End of serious portion of post.

If Canova cannot provide studies to bolster that opinion I'm sure that HHH and Malmo will excoriate him as a cultist, moron, cool aid drinker.

He had better not have come by those conclusions via observation and experience because we all know that all effective athletic coaching and training should originate in well designed, controlled and repeatable lab experiments.

HHH to A. Lydiard at the pearly gates; nice to meet you - prove it with a study.

Well according to coachD on the silly barefoot running thread:

As Renato has pointed out, the difference between Kenyans and American barefoot cultists is that the Kenyans are intelligent enough to run in shoes when they can afford them.

So I wouldn't hold your breath about any elites or top coaches coming on here to support what you and Gazoo are trying to have us all believe without any proof.

That being said, I would be more willing to hear out someone that is actually around elites and knows something about running fast. You guys aren't and you don't.

But yes, in order to fully believe everything he was saying, I would want some proof. Sorry if you can't quite understand that an educated person would not be willing to take the word of some anonymous poster on a message board or that of a barefoot whacko.

And don't worry, when I meet Mr Lydiard on the other side, I won't need proof because I'll know who he is.

Malmo never said that poor running form didn't matter, he said that it didn't matter how your foot strikes. How many elites or top coaches (apart from Salazar and Ritz and we all know how that is going) worry about foot strike? None. Know why? Because there are better things to worry about.

Yuppers wrote:Whole thread is TLDR

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

/thread

Wow, with all the Christopher McDougall quotes, you might think maybe they should have just got him to write the article for them? Oh wait, they did...

I made it a week with my new year's resolution not to post on this thread.

Please cite your study that there are more important things to worry about? it seems to be opinion that no elites or top coaches other than Salazar think it isn't worthy of worrying about. I think you have committed one of malmo's logical fallacies. While he may agree with your stance, he likely doesn't want you on his side because you are not worthy of his debate style.

However, using the information that there are "better things to worry about." You are likely quantifying that one is better off optimizing mileage, having better sleep and nutrition habits, tinkering with the best rep to rest and pace ratios in workouts. The proper volume, intenstiy and density of training.

I think most coaches are always trying to do that. Those may be the most important things to worry about. But since we are already worrying about those, why can we not also decide that efficient footstrike (whatever we deem it to be) matters.

For example, I don't think the exact racing spike you choose matters as much as how well you are handling all of your training variables. But I do think that the racing spike you choose does matter. Maybe it only matters very little, but it matters.

That is one of the contentions of malmo that he refused to answer when pressed much earlier. it was instead easier for him to point out logical fallacies, or call people clever names.

How one runs matters. That doesn't mean we are all robots and must run the same. It means that one can run efficiently and inefficiently. If i see a ten year old sprinter trying to run heel toe for 100m I will try to correct them because it matters. And if I see a 15 year old girl going for 5 mile distance run striking up on her toes the whole time I will very very likely correct her as well. Because it matters. It doesn't mean i won't coach the other variables as well, it just means there can be both major and minor flaws in technique. Technique that is often velocity based.

did you know that Dan Pfaff, one of the most respected power event coaches in the world (LSU, Texas, OregonTC, USOTC-CV, and now head of the track and field training for the British leading up to London), has all of the sprinters do their "drills" flat footed (which can even be rolling heel to toe but certainly not toe first). He does not want them on the ball of their foot, because the body isn't moving at a fast enough velocity to have a "natural" toey landing. In order to land on your toe during drills you must plantar flex which is not optimal. What is optimal is a neutral roughly 90 degree alignment of foot to shin at the ankle, and it needs to be "stiff" from pretension.

If one does this and runs fast enough it will result in a forefoot landing. If one jogs it will result in heel to to landing.

a sprinter, a distance runner, a thrower can all have faulty movement patterns that are correctable. so too can distance runners. as i said before great engines with weaker technical efficiency can beat weaker engines with better technique. that would be evidence that there are "more important things to worry about" such as improving the engine. But when 2 people of equal engines meet (all things being equal) the more efficient technique will prevail. This would be evident that while it might not be the most important thing to worry about, that it does matter and should be worried about as a comprehensive approach to improving all things trainable. That is not to say heel strike vs forefoot strike, it just means the person who is most efficient to for them would win in an all other things equal scenario. Proper technique, however that is defined, matters.

That was my one and only point that has been lost in the shuffle of barefoot, vs. forefoot vs. you have no study, vs. you are a cultist logical fallician.

The only way you can propel your body forward is by having your foot on the ground first pushing against the earth. to say that it matters not how you do that, is incorrect. I don't know how to put it any other way. I know I wouldn't ask someone to run like a ballerina on their toe box for 10ks, and I know I wouldn't have someone run on their heels with out their toes or even mid foot ever touching the earth. I know those aren't efficient, I know it would matter a lot if you chose that style.

It does matter where ur foot strikes silly! However most of these posts are ambiguous and henceforth fan the flames of war on this thread.

But, people fail to recognize the difference between natural stride and imposed stride. That is the reason for the mid-foot "cult" as its being called now. But one would not necessarily assume that all people have the same running technique. However the shoes of today imposes the same heel strike technique on all people due to the large heel cushioning systems and heel-forefoot offset. This might be beneficial to some but not too others.

DISCLAIMER: All of this is opinion, not fact. Second, my opinion rests probably closer toward malmo's position, but I have learned from this thread that that position is occupied by idiots also, so I would like to distance myself from that stance.

Well, actually HHH, I have no dog in the hunt concerning the forefoot v. heel strike debate.

My main disagreement is that by repeatedly responding to every opinion with demands for studies you are leaping over an important threshold question; namely, is analysis of athletic performance and technique amenable to controlled scientific studies in a sterile, laboratory setting outside the natural competitive/coaching/training environment?

By stating that you would be willing to listen to Renato Canova without scientific studies to back up his opinions you are admitting that studies are not nearly as important to all we know about running performance, despite half a century of exercise science, as what has been discovered and honed empirically by coaches and participants.

The variables are two many and too numerous and include emotional and motivational factors.

The analysis of running technique and performance may be no more susceptible to a hard scientific approach than the ballet or how to best hold a violin bow.

Hell, even the previously(seemingly) settled science conceringin lactate threshold is now suspect.

I would add some friendly encouragement that you should never retreat from a debate just because your opponent has more formal education than you. It's the issue that matters not the persons, especially where opinions are involved.

Playing the psychic and assuming that you are the more educated participant can prove quite embarassing.

Your statements above indicate that you are certain of your intellectual superiority over the lowly, peasant posters on this board.

Perhaps you'd like to dazzle us with the particulars of your long and distinguished academic and professional life.

I actually agree with some of what you are saying here. I personally don't think it matters enough to obsess about. You do. Neither of us can prove or disprove our opinions but as long as we're not trying to ram it down each other's throats (No Elites heel strike, heel strikers are lazy), I can live with that.

bluewaters wrote:It does matter where ur foot strikes silly! However most of these posts are ambiguous and henceforth fan the flames of war on this thread.

But, people fail to recognize the difference between natural stride and imposed stride. That is the reason for the mid-foot "cult" as its being called now. But one would not necessarily assume that all people have the same running technique. However the shoes of today imposes the same heel strike technique on all people due to the large heel cushioning systems and heel-forefoot offset. This might be beneficial to some but not too others.

DISCLAIMER: All of this is opinion, not fact. Second, my opinion rests probably closer toward malmo's position, but I have learned from this thread that that position is occupied by idiots also, so I would like to distance myself from that stance.

As long as it's your opinion I am okay with this but how do you know for certain that footstrike matters so much? Taking out the extreme examples of heel striking for a 100m or running on your toes for 10k, where are the studies to prove that it matters so much that you should risk injuring yourself to change?

.............................. wrote:as i said before great engines with weaker technical efficiency can beat weaker engines with better technique. that would be evidence that there are "more important things to worry about" such as improving the engine. But when 2 people of equal engines meet (all things being equal) the more efficient technique will prevail. This would be evident that while it might not be the most important thing to worry about, that it does matter and should be worried about as a comprehensive approach to improving all things trainable. That is not to say heel strike vs forefoot strike, it just means the person who is most efficient to for them would win in an all other things equal scenario. Proper technique, however that is defined, matters.

Can you provide a study that backs up what you are saying?

So, are you saying that you are willing to believe everything you read on a message board that is posted without any proof? Okay, how about this. I've been using breath rite nasal strips lately and my times have dropped 10%. Everyone in my training group has done the same. Therefore, anyone not using breath rite nasal strips is just lazy and anyone who disagrees is stupid. Will you be rushing out to purchase some now?

I never said I would take what he said as the truth, but I would be more willing to listen to him or other people that are actually around elites about their experiences about what works and doesn't work. I think you are the one who is greatly missing my point here. To come onto to a running message board and say that no elites heel strike or that heel striking is not as efficient as mid foot striking and then have no proof to back it up is just plain goofy. I think I've been pretty clear on that all along so don't try and twist this into something else. I do quite a bit of my faster running using more of a flat/fore foot strike. But that doesn't make it the only way and to say that I never heel strike would be wrong.

I agree with you. But if you believe what you just wrote, how can you support someone who comes onto a message and writes that forefoot striking in the only way to run fast?

Spare me the condescending lecture you ass hat. Show me where i said that I am more intelligent that anyone? My statement of "Being an educated person I don't take what anonymous posters write on a message as truth" is hardly saying that I am more intelligent you.

But you know what, if you or anyone takes the word of Gazoo or yourself or Malmo or me or anyone else on this message board (without some kind of proof to back it up) as being 100% true, than yes, I am far more intelligent than you.

Clarify "so much" please. You are missing the point by a lot. Now u r dragging in the whole one is better than the other, and the "is it worth changing" debate. It's simple really, if u just reread my post, you should do what's natural, BUT might have to look outside the "box" to know what is natural. That's why I like barefoot running as a "tool" to developing form, as you will do what feels comfortable.

Also, you want studies, but my stance doesn't involve a hypothesis, merely a clarification, so I will not invoke science.

To Summarize: Footstrike matters in the sense that if you do not run naturally, you will be inefficient. To say it doesn't matter implies the exact thing which u r refuting.

HHH,

You actually rephrased every statement I made and garbled every question I asked so as to avoid answering anything honestly and directly.

And once again, you are confusing me with posters who have agreed with the OP. Attempt to read, digest and discuss.

I will concede one point; most every educated person I have met liberally uses the term ass hat.

I believe it was Mark Twain who wrote, 'History does not repeat but it does sometimes rhyme, ass hat.'

I think the ass hat he was addressing was Oliver W. Holmes.

gallagher wrote:HHH,

You actually rephrased every statement I made and garbled every question I asked so as to avoid answering anything honestly and directly.

And once again, you are confusing me with posters who have agreed with the OP. Attempt to read, digest and discuss.

What are you talking about? I rephrased every statement you made? I didn't rephrase anything you wrote, those are your quotes followed by my comments and questions.

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black with your statement attempting to read, digest and discuss. You would do well to try using some of your own holier than thou recommendations.

You asked one question, here it is:

gallagher wrote:gallagher wrote: is analysis of athletic performance and technique amenable to controlled scientific studies in a sterile, laboratory setting outside the natural competitive/coaching/training environment?

Yes, in my opinion I think it is possible to perform a scientifically valid study on technique.

Anything else or are you still upset that I didn't want to go for a run in the snow with you?

bluewaters wrote:Clarify "so much" please. You are missing the point by a lot. Now u r dragging in the whole one is better than the other, and the "is it worth changing" debate. It's simple really, if u just reread my post, you should do what's natural, BUT might have to look outside the "box" to know what is natural. That's why I like barefoot running as a "tool" to developing form, as you will do what feels comfortable.

Also, you want studies, but my stance doesn't involve a hypothesis, merely a clarification, so I will not invoke science.

To Summarize: Footstrike matters in the sense that if you do not run naturally, you will be inefficient. To say it doesn't matter implies the exact thing which u r refuting.

I'm not missing your point one bit. Can you prove that by not running 'naturally' you are going to be inefficient? What exactly constitutes natural running? Is my natural running the same as your natural running? Until you can provide some proof, that is your opinion and you are clearly entitled to have that opinion but it's not fact simply because you say it is.

Still waiting for those stellar credentials.

gallagher wrote:Still waiting for those stellar credentials.

What difference do my credentials make, I am not making claims that need credentials. If you feel I need credentials to back up my claims that any educated person wouldn't take the word of an anonymous poster as fact without proof on a message board then I'm really not sure what to tell you.