Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

You missed the point again, sorry.

Actually your opinions are a great startinng point for some debating, rather than arguing over 41 pages of a poorly stated premise as we have done thus far.

For example:

Learning a sport: is running the exception?

A brief title, but imagine it as an essay to get into college, it would generate quite a few issues to write about, hence to debate.

Re-training human behaviour: At what age does this become impossible? If for some it makes sense to wear braces as adults, as much as it does taking up yoga or pilates to what other activities can it apply to?

And third:

Running form: can it be improved? What are the variables to take into consideration? And should tehy be taken one at the time or all together a little bit at the time?

While you decide, I will go and peruse your link which I actually have seen already but did not read in its entirety.

Will post soon.

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

That video was mostly accurate but I don't see how people can discount ALL the info just because he made super insane comment about the time. Obvious sub 2 hours won't be easy for anyone at any fitness level, but doesn't at least a little bit of the info make sense when Ritz is compared to Wanjiru?

Bob Prichard does great work with video analysis and mathematics.

Bob Prichard doesn't seem to care about the nature of cause and effect relationships.

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

What was the song at 5:14 in the video?

bluewaters wrote:

HHH wrote:

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.

You missed the point again, sorry.

Nope, I don't think I did but just for kicks, why don't you tell me what your point is in reference to the original post:

I've read around 238 of these threads. How about this. Your heel, i.e. your calcaneus is not meant to absorb shock. Its one large bone. No single person can possibly think that landing on a single large bone can absorb shock unless they are stupid.

Heelstrikers are not stupid, they are just unaware of a bad habit. People who feel the need to justify heel striking are idiots. You learned a bad habit. Get over it. You refuse change still you are not as good as you could be.

Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story. Stop being lazy

and get better form.

Driving with square wheels isn't efficient. Sure it'll get you there, but not without a lot more gas, busted springs and a cracked frame.

furiousxc wrote:

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

That video was mostly accurate but I don't see how people can discount ALL the info just because he made super insane comment about the time. Obvious sub 2 hours won't be easy for anyone at any fitness level, but doesn't at least a little bit of the info make sense when Ritz is compared to Wanjiru?

Stating that someone would easily break 2 hours in New York shows a clear lack of understanding for the sport of running. Why would you take anything else he has to say seriously?

HHHcan you get over the fact that gazoo, whowhatever it is, called inappropriately an idiot? Or are you going to keep on using the opening post to continue a badly stated debate?Come man, have some courage to progress. Lets have a good debate. Or have the courage to say I dont wnt to seriously create a debate, it is more convenient to troll.On on.

Well go ahead and read the links -- I think they are well thought out and supported, by PhD students much more qualifed than I am, in physiology, in coaching, and maybe as athletes.I'm not sure how much I want to participate in a theoretical debate and potential thought experiments. My main opinion here was that what's missing from the previous 41 pages is real data. I think that's the next step to making progress in any related discussion. E.g. before concluding the calcaneus bone can't absorb impact, show evidence of increased stress fractures among heel-strikers. (That should be a pre-requisite to the hypothesis).People have already looked at issues such as:- Learning to run (mastered by most 3 year olds), versus Learning to run faster, longer (matching optimal training to individual athletes talent, strengths, and weaknesses).- Age related degradation -- Maybe retraining is always possible, but at a certain point, you can not avoid getting old.- Running form -- Of course it can be improved, and there are quite a few known variables. Effects of efficiency/economy improvements can be measured on the order of decades.

Depends on what you mean by "mostly", I guess.The scar tissue hypothesis looks interesting, but even Bob Prichard calls it a "novel hypothesis". Maybe I'll look into a targeted deep tissue massage to address a sore shoulder (from volleyball and bowling), and target some improved flexibility for my tightening muscles.I would call the "sub-2 hour" claim a publicity stunt, and a double edged sword.Otherwise, there are a lot of faulty assumptions, and over-simplified models, but a full rebuttal would be too lengthy (and probably was done elsewhere). But some observations:- Peoples legs bend, unlike the sides of a triangle (especially if you strive for a "negative overstride angle")- People "fly through the air" between steps, making the complete stride look more like a trapezoid than like a triangle- Africans typically weigh less, are shorter, and have different limb lengths, making stride comparisons difficult- You can not extrapolate the gains of an "injured masters club runner" to American elites.

furiousxc wrote:

That video was mostly accurate but I don't see how people can discount ALL the info just because he made super insane comment about the time. Obvious sub 2 hours won't be easy for anyone at any fitness level, but doesn't at least a little bit of the info make sense when Ritz is compared to Wanjiru?

please consider wrote:HHH

can you get over the fact that gazoo, whowhatever it is, called inappropriately an idiot?

Or are you going to keep on using the opening post to continue a badly stated debate?

Come man, have some courage to progress. Lets have a good debate. Or have the courage to say I dont wnt to seriously create a debate, it is more convenient to troll.

On on.

You are free to start a new and better debate in a new thread, no one is stopping you.

Studies being released supporting Malmo and his - dare I say it? - common sense.

http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/study-rearfoot-forefoot-strike-equally-efficient

i think what really causes problems isn't the heel strike. first of all i have to say even though i'm a man of God i do believe in evolution and barefoot running on soft surfaces. but the thing that bothers me is that after barefoot running and by that forefoot running - or whatever you want to call it - most of us has really forgotten the basic principle behind barefoot running!

barefoot running is supposed to be better for you because it's more natural. if we accept this fact then it must be unnatural to think constantly about your running technique. what is natural is that you constantly develop your stride by running without thinking it at all, not by reading a book or watching youtube videos. but i think three elements in a running shoe are unnatural and really cause problems: 1. too heavy (this is the main reason. running with a heavy shoe makes your lower feet muscles do much more work, and for the muscles to compensate this you need to take longer strides and decrease your frequency, this is unintentional and you can really do nothing about it, except get rid of your heavy shoes. some people think that in this situation it is good to think about your stride and change it by thinking, however this might help to prevent injuries but puts even more stress to lower leg muscles: you lose economical stride! what you really should do is get rid of heavy shoes! i think anyone much more than 200 grams is a heavy shoe and it will change your running style too much. get rid of heavy shoes!) and as the 2. not flexible (too stiff = not natural) 3. big heel to toe difference (this is often thought as the main reason for problems. however, i think this isn't as big a deal as heavy shoes. this again is unnatural which means it's bad. though i dont think theres that much difference between 4mm drop or 0mm drop... when you can go for zero drop go, but 4mm drop is okay).

these are my conclusions i have come up with serious thinking. they are based on basic knowledge of human anatomy and evolution biology but not based on a specific scientific research. i don't want you to take these as facts (because these aren't facts - they might be right or not, who knows). i just want to give another perspective and some things you could think about on your own.

Get on your knees and try to sprint 50 yards. Where do your feet strike? Nuff said.

Links security wrote:

Get on your knees and try to sprint 50 yards. Where do your feet strike? Nuff said.

i agree with you on that heel striking is worse than midfoot/forefoot but you're not seeing the big picture. it is true that almost everyone (maybe not some overweight people who have not run in years) sprint 50 yards with forefoot touching first and everyone knows this is more efficient. but if we consider this as a fact does the same necessarily apply to longer distances, like 100, 200 or 400 meters? if you look at the worlds best 100 meter runners and the 400 meter runners, you can clearly see how different their strides are. And you can see even a bigger difference in longer distances.

Legendary thread.

Links security wrote:

Get on your knees and try to sprint 50 yards. Where do your feet strike? Nuff said.

I sprint heel first, and a lot of the fastest NFL players are heel strikers.