Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Something to try next time you buy a new pair of the same shoes that you normally run in. Notice the places in the old shoes that have compressed compared to the new ones.

If you're like me, you'll see that the front of the foot has compressed much more than heal area. No wonder older shoes hurt my legs - the higher heal pad gets in the way of getting the front foot to the ground.

High heels are pu$$ies.

I'm a little disappointed that the heel strike proponent posted that particular video segment, because it isn't really germane to the discussion. These guys are in the finishing kick of the race. Most people, even normal heal-strikers, will strike more mid/fore-foot in a hard finishing kick of a track race.Better to look in the middle of a long race to examine their true running form. I was intrigued by this gentleman's blog, he seems to be on his own journey, but as a practicing biologist, he understands the scientific burden of proof necessary to make definitive claims. Best thing is that he's analyzed real data from the middle of real races and isn't shy about admitting where there are ambiguities or inconsistencies.http://www.runblogger.com/2010/08/on-running-form-variability-in-elites.htmland a follow-up post about where the foot lands relative to CoG.http://www.runblogger.com/2010/08/on-running-form-ii-where-should.htmlHe's decided to make himself a guinea pig experiment of one to see what it takes to change his form and see how it turns out. It is an interesting read if nothing else.

gazoo wrote:

Yes, look at his feet @ 38, 41, 43. The foot stops moving forward just before it touches the ground and then begins moving back. It is also flexed ever so slightly downward and the lateral side of the foot is closer to the ground than the medial.

Looking at a foot gives you clues as to how your footstrike pattern should be.

The calcaneus is for resting while standing. It should not touch the ground when running.

Red Glare wrote:

A Skeptic wrote:

How about this: if you haven't had any injury problems you probably shouldn't worry about your stride?

How about this: if you haven't had any injury problems that doesn't mean you won't if you're trying to run your very best and it doesn't mean that you couldn't also be more efficient and thus faster.

Nothing better for your training than not being injured, and it is highly unlikely that altering someone's stride will make them faster. But if you want to mess with your stride, I certainly hope it goes well for you.

Likewise, I hope your simplistic outlook works well for you. You don't have to wait until something breaks to fix it, and if you like rolling around with bags of sand in your trunk without knowing why your tank of gas, tires, and suspension don't last longer and perform better than they do then more power to ya.

Christopher Poole wrote:

Python wrote:

The conclusion is that it barely f###ing matters, and we're not sure which is the best for any individual.

>>Implying physics works differently for different individuals.

This isn't a matter of biology, it's a matter of mechanics.

assuming every human is an identical machine

You can't just accept some shallow scientific-sounding conclusion until you realise its inconsistencies, then change it. We learn through observation, not our worded conclusions. Otherwise, this would be practised:

unless you felt like opposing it logically.

Python wrote:

Christopher Poole wrote:

>>Implying physics works differently for different individuals.

This isn't a matter of biology, it's a matter of mechanics.

assuming every human is an identical machine

You can't just accept some shallow scientific-sounding conclusion until you realise its inconsistencies, then change it. We learn through observation, not our worded conclusions. Otherwise, this would be practised:

http://www.somaxsports.com/wanjiru.html

unless you felt like opposing it logically.

Matter of mechanics you say? I think you should take a look at this.

A Skeptic wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

How about this: if you haven't had any injury problems that doesn't mean you won't if you're trying to run your very best and it doesn't mean that you couldn't also be more efficient and thus faster.

Nothing better for your training than not being injured, and it is highly unlikely that altering someone's stride will make them faster. But if you want to mess with your stride, I certainly hope it goes well for you.

You serious? You honestly think that form is completely irrelevant in running performance? Do you see any elites running like the 10 min hobbyjogger down your local street? Form relates to economy which relates to how efficiently you use energy.

shoe guy wrote:

You serious? You honestly think that form is completely irrelevant in running performance? Do you see any elites running like the 10 min hobbyjogger down your local street? Form relates to economy which relates to how efficiently you use energy.

I see hobbyjoggers running down the street every day that look like Zersenay Tadese every day, just slower.

RoffR wrote:

Malmo, just because Morecelli did it doesn't mean you can justify all the other athletes who have not done it and have become significantly more succesful. If I'm not mistaken, after his brilliant 1500m Wr he suffered injuries(possible caused by Heel Striking) and also he sort of Plateaud after the 1996 games.

yup, flash in the pan:

lol@tards.. wrote:

RoffR wrote:

Malmo, just because Morecelli did it doesn't mean you can justify all the other athletes who have not done it and have become significantly more succesful. If I'm not mistaken, after his brilliant 1500m Wr he suffered injuries(possible caused by Heel Striking) and also he sort of Plateaud after the 1996 games.

yup, flash in the pan:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/rankings/men/1500worldbyathlete.pdf

Yes Morceli was only the most prolific 1500m runner of all time.

He plateaued after the 1996 games? You mean he didn't improve forever? What a failure that guy was.

I've got a lot of respect for what you did on the track o'malley, but goddamn you're one dense f***er sometimes. If you want to debate biomechanics then start citing biomechanics and quit posting that stupid video that doesn't prove anything. The conclusion "biomechanics do not matter" can not in any way be logically arrived at from an argument consisting entirely of "some people have had success heel striking". Take some biomechanics classes and some logic classes and come back here, because simply being a fast runner does not make you an authority on biomechanics or anything other than what it feels like to run fast.

When you need medical advice, who do you go to? A trained doctor, or your 90 year old neighbor who hasn't been sick in 30 years?

malmo wrote:

Can any other person possibly write as many words as you do and say absolutely nothing?

For the 1000th time. Runner's techniques vary. There is no 'proper' technique.

"why do some strike on heels, some on toes, but most flat? why not an equal random distribution if it truly didn't matter?"

Random distributions in nature are not equal. I wouldn't expect them to be.

You're a stubborn bulldog who has bitten down hard on the bone of contention. Only you don't realize the bone that you are obsessively slobbering over is an illusion.

Your contemporary and superior competitor Alberto Salazar begs to differ.

gerataega wrote:

Your contemporary and superior competitor Alberto Salazar begs to differ.

Alberto "heel striker" Salazar? Keep begging.

You beat me too it. If Alberto thought that heel-striking was bad, then he sure is the worst example you could think of for someone to practice what he believes.

Without a doubt the 90 year old neighbour who hasn't been sick in 30 years!

Same here. 30 years?! The guy's doing something right.

Just like the guy who did 120 pack years and nothing happened to him. I want to smoke just like him!