Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

gallagher wrote:You need to provide some rationale for your arrogance. There must be some reason other than just a bad hair day, or week.

Oh geez Gallagher, you are so witty and intelligent. But I'm sure you hear that all the time...Do you have anything to add on the topic of this discussion or shall we call it a day?

gallagher wrote:

You need to provide some rationale for your arrogance. There must be some reason other than just a bad hair day, or week.

How many different names are you going to post under, A-S-S-H-A-T?

HHH wrote:

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.

1. Try running while wearing a back-pack filled with heavy books. That is unnatural, it is inefficient, I digress.

2. What constitutes natural running? Whatever comes naturally to you when you run, seems pretty obvious. You might be a heel-striker, or a mid-foot striker, but at least see which feels better and what works for you.

3. Your third question is irrelevant now.

4. Never claimed it was fact, so I don't have to provide proof.

Okay back to number one. I don't have studies, but a thought experiment. Assume that natural running was inefficient. Henceforth there exists at least one change of varying effect that would make running easier, which your body told you was either through either pain or injury. Hence you would make that change in response to your body's feedback. But then wouldn't this be the way you ran all the time, henceforth be how you naturally ran? You are focusing on specifics here and losing yourself in science.

P.S. - Lack of evidence on one side does not necessarily imply that that "hypothesis" is not valid, and that an opposing side is valid, I see lots of this going around on this forum.

Oh and HHH

"But one would not necessarily assume that all people have the same running technique." stated by me earlier.

You missed the point. Try again :)

how is this thread still going? lol

Don't take scientific studies too seriously. We always have to look at each one to see the flaws.

"Arthur Eddington was so convinced of the theory of general relativity that he altered his data to support it. Eddington set out to put Einstein to the test by carefully measuring how light was bent during a solar eclipse.

But apparently the examiner went soft. When the results were in, Eddington threw out 16 photographic plates that didn’t support Einstein’s theory. Even worse, he then published his research without those 16 plates and showed how Einstein’s theory accurately predicted the resulting data. It was this experiment that helped launch the public acceptability of relativity. Strangely enough, the hoax still has legs. You can still find the experiment listed in current textbooks as "proof" of Einstein’s theory."

lets try something new, as inspired by one post on the difference between learned behaviour and otherwiser:

how many posters have applied any type of learned behaviour to their running?

how much of this learning had to do with running technique?

how much of technique was about how to use the feet?

did other aspects of technique receive more attention? which ones?

I for one was once told that the best way to run long distance was to heel strike, skim as close as possible to the ground to avoid wasting energy lifting the feet, let the arms drop to a comfortable bend and try to move them as little as possible to avoid wasting energy.

this is true.

But we have a lack of evidence to support the statement: Heel striking is not as efficient as mid/fore/flat foot striking. And until there is some, this statement should not be taken as true.

Let's put HHH's repeated requests for evidence in perspective. Looking at the first post, a lot of claims are made, without any basis or support:

- Your heel (calcaneus) is not meant to absorb shock.

- No single person can think so, unless they are stupid. (Maybe married persons could?)

- Heel-strikers are not stupid.

- Yet people who justify heel-strikers are idiots.

- Heel-strikers are unaware of a bad habit.

- Heel-strikers have a bad habit.

- "You" (who, heel-strikers? heel-striker justifiers?) learned a bad habit.

- "You" refuse change, and therefore are not as good as you could be.

- Changing from heel-striking will make you better (what does better mean? faster? less-injured?)

- Elite runners do not heel-strike.

- Heel-strikers are lazy.

- Heel-striking is bad form.

- Heel-strikers can find a better form.

- Heel-striking is like driving with square wheels, which uses more gas, busted springs and a cracked frame.

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe any of these things. After 41 pages, there is no reason to believe any of these claims are anything more than hypothetical conjecture.

Like training, a good debate requires a good base, and a solid foundation. We should at least have some measurable observations which re-inforce the hypotheses. Observations fall short of a proof, but at this point, we don't even have documented observations.

No one (not in this thread, nor in any lab, street, or track) has yet linked heel-striking directly to bad form.

No one has yet linked heel-striking directly to increased injury rates.

No one has yet linked heel-striking directly to inefficiency, or bad economy.

Well in fact, as referenced earlier in this thread, some studies have been provided, but if anything, they suggest the contrary:

- Heel-striking occurs often in nature, even among elite athletes. Heel-striking occurs more often than not. 75% of athletes heel-strike in a 2004 Japanese half-marathon.

- Dr. Romanov (POSE inventor) conducted a 12-week study which showed that running economy decreases when you change to POSE.

- Dr. Romanov also conducted a study which showed that switching to POSE reduces impact at the knees, but increased impacts at the ankles. After two-weeks, many athletes complain of calf, ankle, and achilles problems.

- Dr. Lieberman looked at impact forces of different foot-strikes. Yet impact forces have not ever been linked to injury rates.

It is not up to HHH to have credentials, or provide proof, that these conjectures are not true. HHH does not claim they are true or false, but simply unsupported, because the evidence is lacking.

So, I repeat what I said earlier, the debate has not ended -- it has not even started. It's not just a question of declaring your faith, then taking a vote. Without any arguments, we can not have a debate. To irrationally assert as fact, that which has no evidence, could be considered cultist. To say there is yet no reason to believe, or not believe, unsupported speculation, one way or another, is not cultist.

rekrunner Bob Prichard says that heel striking "is like putting on the brakes 26,000 times while driving 26 miles. You'll burn up the brakes, just as you'll burn up your legs."

Who are you to prove a guy wrong who knows the secret to sub 2 hour marathons?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vafareunculo#p/u/12/pNkv9Ibnvho

When I click the link, I get:

"This video contains content from WMG and Sony Music Entertainment, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

When I worked at Hughes Aircraft Company, they built a solar powered car, which won some solar powered race in Australia. It was designed with energy conservation in mind, and the brakes were not classic brakes but

I don't have anything to say. I just want to be part of this thread.

I guess I heel strike a little, but mainly midfoot.

Anywho, continue....

rekrunner wrote:

When I click the link, I get:

"This video contains content from WMG and Sony Music Entertainment, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

Well that sucks.

As a result, your video is blocked in these locations:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Cayman Islands, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Congo - Democratic Republic of, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), Faroe Islands, Finland, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See (Vatican City State), Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macao, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Martinique, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Micronesia - Federated States of, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, North Korea, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Reunion, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Wallis and Futuna, West Bank, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Oops, pressed "Post Message" by mistake.I don't live in the right country. When I click the link, I get:"This video contains content from WMG and Sony Music Entertainment, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."I understand your point, but in fact, my main point is that no one is proving anyone wrong here, in this "debate" beyond providing examples of elite heel-strikers. The main argument against attempting to change foot strike is that there are no reasons yet for it.Regarding "braking" when you heel strike. There is no doubt that over-striding, usually accompanied by a heel-strike, is not optimal. As I explained, otherwise, we wouldn't call it "over"-striding.I worked for an aerospace company when they built a solar powered car, which won some solar powered race in Australia. (They actually got lucky, because they beat some storm that everyone else got caught in). It was designed with energy optimization and conservation, and the brakes were not classic brakes which used friction to convert lots of kinetic energy to pure heat loss. Instead they were regenerative, serving to store some of the kinetic energy by charging the batteries.Foot strikes during running are like that. Not all of the energy absorbed by foot strikes is lost. Energy is stored in tendons and muscles, and released during the push-off.I don't know exactly what Bob Prichard says, but even putting on the brakes 26,000 oversimplifies the situation. Optimizing energy storage and return is quite a complex problem, which takes the body about 10 years to get right.

malmo wrote:

rekrunner Bob Prichard says that heel striking "is like putting on the brakes 26,000 times while driving 26 miles. You'll burn up the brakes, just as you'll burn up your legs."

Who are you to prove a guy wrong who knows the secret to sub 2 hour marathons?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vafareunculo#p/u/12/pNkv9Ibnvho

I can't speak for all the other countries receiving the video, but you correctly guessed which country I live and work in.

rekrunner wrote:

Regarding "braking" when you heel strike. There is no doubt that over-striding, usually accompanied by a heel-strike, is not optimal. As I explained, otherwise, we wouldn't call it "over"-striding.

I worked for an aerospace company when they built a solar powered car, which won some solar powered

Unfortunately you didn't get to see the video. It was satire.

I did see a video once about form inefficiencies, comparing Ryan Hall's marathon to an elevation change of 4 tall buildings (Empire State?), up and down, versus some African who only climbed it 1.5 times, and measuring things like leg stride angles, with some estimations about time lost. I was wondering if it was the same "source" concluding a "sub-2" marathon performance.I was certain, from the context, that it could only be satire.

malmo wrote:

Unfortunately you didn't get to see the video. It was satire.

rekrunner wrote:

I did see a video once about form inefficiencies, comparing Ryan Hall's marathon to an elevation change of 4 tall buildings (Empire State?), up and down, versus some African who only climbed it 1.5 times, and measuring things like leg stride angles, with some estimations about time lost. I was wondering if it was the same "source" concluding a "sub-2" marathon performance.

I was certain, from the context, that it could only be satire.

Yup, that was it. I just gave it a proper embellishment.

rekrunner,

it was suggested a few pages ago that this was not well put debate.

Maybe we could start a good debate now. Please suggest some titles.

Also I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Malmo if his feelings were hurt.

In reading back and around threads, I found some things that he posted which really made me laugh, LOL.

[quote]please consider wrote:

Now the aggression levels have subsided, it would be great if coaches who post here like Canova, Kellog, and other experienced runners like Jaguar1, EddyLee, Henry Rono (heck invite some to post here even if they never do, never have) and others, would join the debate.

Or start a new one, properly titled on another thread, with the sides of the argument clearly stated. It might be appropriate to ask researchers to participate as well since a lof the data discussed originates from them. Can Letsrun provide this to the running community?

So start a better debate and ask the whole running community to participate.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

So are you saying ...[quote]