Forefoot vs. Heel Landing

landing on your forefoot is, as you said, much less jarring on your joints and your body as a whole. It's also the natural stride of a human being - how many elite milers do you see landing on their heels?

Fair point. Just to clarify, I was talking about distance training. I understand that some of those milers land on their heels for 20-milers, but land on their forefoot (forefeet?) for the mile race (which seems messed up to me, but I'm not trying to go down that rabbit hole). (BTW, I'm a forefoot lander, but I have some lingering posterior tibial tendinitis, so I want to make sure that I'm not making a mistake doing all my training on my forefoot.)

Much of the tendonitis is a result of muscle overuse. Try finding the trigger point and rub it out. I get tendonitis (forefoot landing) at the inner part of my foot where the arch ends and the heel bone starts. I find the sore spot (sore to the touch) in the middle of my inner gastro lobe and rub it out. The pain then goes away. Make sure to stretch the lower legs A LOT.

Thanks for the advice TP. Actually, I've had the tendinitis and have been getting physical therapy for two months, and haven't run (on land) during solid stretches in that period. The tendinitis is improving, but still lingers. I got cross-friction massage on the area for the first time today, and that seemed to help.

I still am interested in the main discussion, and am sorry that I turned the discussion so directly about me. Thanks all.

Like oh boy said, it is au natural. Try heel striking running barefoot. Abebe Bikila winning the 1960 marathon… the discussion doesn’t really need to go farther.

While searching the web a while back, I found some force plate measurements that showed two big spikes for the heel strike and one for the forefoot striker.

Unfortunately for most western civilized folk, they have had shoes put on their feet for most of there lives, underdeveloped lower legs and feet as a result.

So take your pick; forefoot and contend with the lower leg pain and issues, or heelstrike and let your knees and back deteriorate from the jarring.

In those force plate measurements that you saw, was the spike for the forefoot landers larger than either of the spikes for the heel striker? If so, one could argue that heel landing minimizes the maximum force, which could lessen or prevent injuries. I'd rather take two small blows to the head than one big one. (Remember, I'm a forefooter (and should add that I used to be a heel lander), so I'm not really arguing with you. I'm just trying to understand.)

Don't remember, but I think they were the same or similar amplitude. You should search for yourself.

i did run at at under 60 second pace already on my heels and since i ma more of the distance type runner i dont hink there is ever the need for me to go on my forefoot.Tryd it but even when barefoot i run 'flat footed' i thought it was forefoot but heel still hit ground just before the rest of the foot lands after. ps i think jogging on your forefoot is stressing for the achilles tendon.

I learned one thing trying to change your technique is disastrous.

yeah i tried to change from heal striker to toe as well and it led to a stress fracture. talked to a good doctor about it and he said that if you are going to change you really need to do some supplemental claf and lower leg exercises or your just asking for trouble.

Ok, we have veared into the anecdotal and the debate about whether mechanics can be changed. (At the risk of breaking my own guideline for the discussion, I'll note that I changed from heel landing almost two years ago and had over a year of solid running (lost of weeks in the 70s and 80s) prior to getting the injury, so it can be done.)

I'm a midfoot (forefoot as you described) strider too; it doesn't matter if I'm racing a mile or 10. I think midfoot striking is more efficient because you don't have the breaking action of a heel strike but it does place more stress on the calves and arches.

I've got high arches and a rigid foot and continually fight tight calves, including getting a message every week. If I was a 5'8" 130 lb runner it might be different, but not at 6'1" and 165 lbs.

Our daughter was a heel striker and she started working with a trainer to strenghen her calves and they gave her special stretches to do. then she switched to midfoot strike and in the beginning she had some calf issues but the soreness went away. She is more efficient in her running and she not jarring her knees with every step. You may get alittle slower in the beginning until it becomes natural to you. She would have to really think about how she was hitting the ground with every step. She says it is well worth the trouble to change. Good Luck

I have tested many runners and conducted a few research projects to test running economy, in which the subjects (many good runners) were tested using their chosen foot plant, rear-foot plant and forefoot plant. (1) more were rear-foot strikers as a chosen style. (2) Several who were traditionally fore-foot strikers used less energy when they switched to rear-foot striking (3) one subject who had always run rear foot was more economical when switched to fore foot. (4) We had 6 guys run for 2 hours at their marathon race pace (on a treadmill so not necessarily reality), and every 30 minutes tested them with their chosen foot strike and with the opposite foot strike (I was hoping maybe we could show that certain muscles fatigue after a couple hours, and switching footstrike might bring into play some fresher muscles -- which did not prove to be the case as economy -- using their chosen foot strike -- did not change over the full 20 miles of running). (5) I am pretty convinced that what runners and coaches often view as a more "efficient" running technique is simply changing to a techniqwue that looks better to their eye, and may not at all end up costing less energy, which is my interest -- what does it cost you as opposed to how are you looking doing it. (6) Naturally, the injury issue is a big one and some runners may be better off with poorer economy, as result of a technique of landing that reduces chance of injury, even though it is more economical -- a sad state of affairs indeed

I think jtupper pretty much provided the definitive answer to this question. One point I wanted to make doesn't really add much to the discussion on running economy, but addresses this issue of braking forces that comes up a lot on this board when discussing heel strike. Peter Cavanagh studied the issue of foot striek and force production at length, in average runners and elites. His consistent finding is that braking forces are equal or a bit higher in forefoot strikers.

Gotta disagree with Jtupper on this subject.

I think there is a certain style of running that is most efficient, it will just vary from person to person based on their physical make up. I think it really matter the faster the event is. The mid distance events especially, you rarely ever see anyone world class who doesn't run with a certain basic ideal. Sure there are one or two things off, but almost always they have the core elements correct. In my mind there is no debate, flat foot landing is a must if you want to optimize your performance.

Form and mechanics can be changed. I'm living proof, and Ive changed many runners form myself. The proofs in the videos.

I have to chime-in on this one. I've made a conscious effort this winter and spring to change to a fore-foot stride. I have always run on my toes on grass and in track spikes, but my orthodics and bulky shoes allow for mid to back foot striking on long runs. With virtually the same training as college, I have taken almost 20 seconds off my 5k pr on the track with better toe running (14:58 - 14:39). However, I am 6'3" and 160lbs, so my calves have difficulty in runs longer than 10 miles with this method. It has proven effective for me on the track, and I'm hoping it can translate into more productive times on the roads, but I'm not sure it's possible. Almost every pure toe runner I know (and they're usually exceptionally fast)has miserable calf-related problems in marathons for the reasons I specified above.

No bananas wrote:

I have to chime-in on this one. I've made a conscious effort this winter and spring to change to a fore-foot stride. I have always run on my toes on grass and in track spikes, but my orthodics and bulky shoes allow for mid to back foot striking on long runs. With virtually the same training as college, I have taken almost 20 seconds off my 5k pr on the track with better toe running (14:58 - 14:39). However, I am 6'3" and 160lbs, so my calves have difficulty in runs longer than 10 miles with this method. It has proven effective for me on the track, and I'm hoping it can translate into more productive times on the roads, but I'm not sure it's possible. Almost every pure toe runner I know (and they're usually exceptionally fast)has miserable calf-related problems in marathons for the reasons I specified above.

Thats because intentionally prancing along on your toes is stupid. Go run barefoot on grass. Don't be a pretentious bitch and think about every single footstep, just run. Notice that you are landing flat footed. Slap yourself and stop pretending that running on your toes makes you faster or better. It's all about leg position and weight distribution, not which part of your foot hits the ground first.

Who did your daughter work with and how did she go about changing this? I would love to change my stride, but I find myself physically unable to land on my forefoot.

There is a local sports training place in our town and we researched a couple of differnt places. She incorporates some of the POSE running. (I know....... alot of people think it is crap)... It worked for her and she has improved her times and most importantly will not be jarring her knees for years to come. She feels better doing it and knows it will be better for her in the long run. Have someone take video or pictures of you running. you can tell alot by that. She was a major heel striker and was an injury waiting to happen.