Hey, you never know. Maybe he was on to something.
Hey, you never know. Maybe he was on to something.
Well, I'm glad this debate has been ended.
Yes, I think it has. I was half trolling anyway so I think it went pretty well.
Terminator x wrote:
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.
?
I love guys like you who throw out things like 'biomechanical' or 'mitochondira' when yuou don't have a clue what your're talking about.
I think the onus is on guys like YOU who yse words loodely like 'biomechanics' when you don't have a contribution to the topic. Yes, I took a biomechanics class, the toughest available at a school that had a reputation in that department. The course was a joke for hnyyone with a science background. Of course I aced it, but the only reason why I didn't score 100 on every exam was becasue I didn't show my work on simple calculations that a monkey could do in their itty bitty monkey heads.
You, nor the OP, have shown that here is a 'bio-mechanically proper' way for the foot to land. Runners have different foot-strikes, just as they have different arm-carries and body leans.
gerataega wrote:
Your contemporary and superior competitor Alberto Salazar begs to differ.
If the irony of your post is astounding.
If you ran across your backyard in your barefoot (naturally) in barefeet (please keep your clothes on), you would naturally land on the balls of your feet. This is the natural way top run (look up POSE running on Google).
NIKE and Adidas selling us expensive shoes with big heels on them (along with us having weak cores) has made us lazy and made us land on our heels. Now NIKE has realized the mistake and is charging us $100 for Nike free shoes that have no heel. Run properly and you don't need these expensive shoes.
i run barefoot and i have no injuries. cushioned running shoes cause plantar fasciitis and achilles tendonitis. they also make your knees and back go bad because you put stress on them with heel striking. malmo thinks hes so fast but i never heard of him. i probaly never heard of him because he was a heel striker which never allowed him to get to the top
Well there you have it.
CanadaCoach wrote:
If you ran across your backyard in your barefoot (naturally) in barefeet (please keep your clothes on), you would naturally land on the balls of your feet. This is the natural way top run (look up POSE running on Google).
NIKE and Adidas selling us expensive shoes with big heels on them (along with us having weak cores) has made us lazy and made us land on our heels. Now NIKE has realized the mistake and is charging us $100 for Nike free shoes that have no heel. Run properly and you don't need these expensive shoes.
Can you provide a link to a credible independent study that proves that heel striking is a bad thing?
Nike continues to make their regular shoes and market the Free's as a training tool. It's funny, the people who aren't drinking the barefoot Koolaid, will rarely tell you that doing some barefoot running or working out occasionally in lighter shoes is a bad thing. But the 'Minimalist' cult will tell you that their way is the only way. And then when you get hurt, it wasn't the lack of shoes, it was your poor running form. But if a runner gets hurt running in regular shoes, it must have been the shoes.
barefoot bill wrote:
i run barefoot and i have no injuries. cushioned running shoes cause plantar fasciitis and achilles tendonitis. they also make your knees and back go bad because you put stress on them with heel striking.
Do you have some scientific proof to back up this well thought out reasoning you have provided?
malmo wrote:
Terminator x wrote: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.
?
I love guys like you who throw out things like 'biomechanical' or 'mitochondira' when yuou don't have a clue what your're talking about.
I think the onus is on guys like YOU who yse words loodely like 'biomechanics' when you don't have a contribution to the topic. Yes, I took a biomechanics class, the toughest available at a school that had a reputation in that department. The course was a joke for hnyyone with a science background. Of course I aced it, but the only reason why I didn't score 100 on every exam was becasue I didn't show my work on simple calculations that a monkey could do in their itty bitty monkey heads.
You, nor the OP, have shown that here is a 'bio-mechanically proper' way for the foot to land. Runners have different foot-strikes, just as they have different arm-carries and body leans.
I seem to remember someone citing something. Of course it supported your point rather than that of the POSE/Chi running/Born to Run crowd. Here it is again:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.htmlAs to my point about not changing your stride if you aren't injured, don't trust me, take it from the experts:
"However, if you can gradually change your landing, then I do believe that you can shift your footstrike. But it's a gradual process. And more important, what is the point? There is no evidence that heel-strikers are injured more, no evidence that mid-foot runners are faster and perform better than heel-strikers, and so the ultimate question is:
Why would you want to change your foot landing to begin with? Science has little to offer you in support of this. And so my advice, having read this far (well done!), is to forget about the possibility that you're landing "wrongly", and just let your feet land where, and how they land, and worry about all the other things you can when you run!
If there is one thing you change in your running, don't focus on your footstrike, but rather on WHERE your feet land relative to your body. Because if you are over-reaching and throwing your foot out in front of you, that's a problem, but what happens when the rubber meets the road is less relevant!
I'm sure there's more to this topic, based on your questions and comments. As usual, fire away! And remember the humble admission from earlier - science, believe it or not, does not know the answer definitively! (just as we can't tell you why Bekele is so dominant in World X-Country!)"
I agree. There seems to be a conflict here between people who have taken actual courses related to science and people who just throw out science words they've heard before.
How about everyone post what degree they have before making an argument?
It's strange how we have the rare privilege of having a world-class runner post on here and everyone argues with and criticizes him. I'm just curious, what keeps you coming back Malmo?
Having just recently found this forum, I for one appreciate the advice you've given, and I'm sure a great deal of others have as well.
What keeps me coming back is very simple - I am a devoted fan of the sport. These jerkwads are not, they are the modern-day equivalent of car-keyers. They are vandals. What motivates vandals to do what they do? I don't know. They are cowards.
If you don't come back then the cowardly jerkwads win.
Malmo comes back because he is like the mature tom cat in my house, always toying with the pet mice I have, never harming them but certainly teaching them a lesson or two. I am a podiatrist, board certified in biomechanics and foot and ankle surgery. My undergraduate days also often dealt in biomechanics at a strong school in the field. I have published 2 papers on aspects of running biomechanics in my younger days, neither of which concerns this debate. It is my opinion that this entire argument is quite silly. The stronger the opinion, it seems, the weaker the proponent. I'd give the straight scoop, but it would only be attacked by one side or the other, neither of which is correct. Stick to what I'll call "drive-by science" and believe whatever you want. I don't think it matters much at all anyway. Just run and try to enjoy it.
Thank you A Skeptic for reiterating what I said. Where your foot lands relative to your body is most important. The type of landing is really the least important thing. I will say though, that dorsiflexion is completely unnecessary and is useless when you are running fast. It is just a bad habit that can be relearned like everything else.
In the video malmo posted of himself that is all that he is really doing wrong. Sure, it worked for him but I believe malmo could have ran faster if he didn't dorsiflex. It is just extra wasted muscle energy and tension.
http://www.posetech.com/training/archives/000398.html
The two best runners of all time don't dorsiflex
Just as soon as you put a link to anything Pose, you became permanently disqualified from the debate.
Shoe guy, you are no different than Tom Cruise and his Scientology cult. You are not voicing fact, you are voicing a superstitious mythology.
Here's a video of the most prolific 1500 meter runner of all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKPvkAeFB0k
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/rankings/men/1500worldbyathlete.pdf
Pose is not the way to run. I would have to agree with Malmo on that one. And yeah, about earlier sorry. I am having some person problems earlier but their fine now so yeah.
Sorry to hear RoffR.