I have heard different things about the pros and cons of midfoot striking. I'm just wondering if, as I have heard, midfoot striking automatically helps you run faster, mostly over distances shorter than 5k, and if so, how to go about trying to convert to midfoot striking(cautiously, I'm guessing). Or does it all depend on each individual's biomechanics how one should run?
midfoot and forefoot striking is NOT better. It depends on your biomechanics. The only thing that causes trouble is overstriding, and you can overstride as a midfoot or even forefoot striker too. As long as your foot is landing under your hip, your stride is fine.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html
Heel striking is wrong. It's really that simple. How far up on the toes you are depends on how fast you want to go.
landing heel first acts like a brake and causes more impact. the heel isn't a shock absorber. landing midfoot means more efficiency, less shock and more powerful stride.
this kind of illustrates what i'm talking about:
http://www.newtonrunning.com/run-better/optimal-running-form
show me an elite marathoner who heel strikes or 5k or 10k. it is not efficient.
heel striking causes colapse at ankle knee an hip and absorbtion of force instead of application of force.
leg stiffness upon impact is important, albeit less important than in sprinting. that can't occur with a heel strike.
a mid foot strike allows for the achilles tendon to be used like a spring board for free energy. it is efficient with little work required for the energy return.
heel strike occurs when the foot is tossed out in front of the knee. not only is it an inefficient line of force back to the center of mass, but it is also a larger braking force as time passes until the COM pass over the foot.
the foot should land as close to under the COM as possible and the hip is responsible for amplitude of movement of the thighs, instead of restricting movement at the hip and throwing the foot out from the knee.
yeep wrote:
landing heel first acts like a brake and causes more impact. the heel isn't a shock absorber. landing midfoot means more efficiency, less shock and more powerful stride.
this kind of illustrates what i'm talking about:
http://www.newtonrunning.com/run-better/optimal-running-form
Is this really true? "Landing heel first acts like a brake and causes more impact"? I land on my heel, but do so very lightly and roll quickly through to my toe. My foot strike is very quite and I frequently surprise people on the trail when I pass them because my feet make very little noise on impact. When I try to land on my forefoot/midfoot and not my heel, it feels like I am stabbing the ground with my foot and I get a lot more impact noise with the ground. I have noticed the same for other runners I know who run forefoot/midfoot and do not strike with their heel. Of course speed changes this. Running top speed, I am on my forefoot. But running anything from 5k to marathon, I am landing on my heel.
Just personal observation, but wondering if there is anything out there other than the often heard refrain that heel striking is breaking/more impact?
Abdi
It would be nice if that newton site actually had the two little runners going at the same speed.
.............................. wrote:
show me an elite marathoner who heel strikes or 5k or 10k. it is not efficient.
Straight from the Science of Sport Blog:
Looking at one particular study - elite 21 km runners
So in the current climate where real evidence is scarce and opinions hold sway, let's take a look at one study that has examined footstrike patterns during running events. It was done in 2004 in Japan, and published in 2007 in the Journal of Strength of Conditioning (not sure of the reason for the delay - it happens sometimes in science!). The full reference, for those interested, is Hasegawa et al., J Strength & Cond., 2007, (21), 888-893
It was performed at the 2004 Sapporro International Half Marathon in Japan. The scientists set up a high speed camera (very important for accurate collection of information - beats YouTube science any day!) at the 15km mark of the race, and captured most of the runners coming through. In total, they were able to observe the foot strike of 248 men and 35 women, and characterize them as either heel-strikers, mid-foot or forefoot strikers. They also measured Ground Contact Time at the 15km point.
...
* The vast majority (75%) of the elite runners land on the heel
* About 1 in four (24%) runners landed on the mid-foot
* Only 4 out of 283 runners landed on the forefoot
(http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html)
From that same article that you take out of context:When the researchers divided the finishers into groups of 50, they started to see something of a change in mid-foot landing as you moved further down the list. In otherwords, there was a higher percentage of midfoot strikers in the first 50 runners than in the second, and then third, and so on.The point is, this study does not allow you to differentiate between three possibilities: 1. Faster runners are midfoot strikers (could be co-incidence or some other cause); or 2. Midfoot strikers are faster runners (and therefore we should all change our running style and land on the front part of the foot more); or 3. All runners would eventually be midfoot strikers, if they just ran fast enough!
Ummmmm wrote:
.............................. wrote:show me an elite marathoner who heel strikes or 5k or 10k. it is not efficient.
Straight from the Science of Sport Blog:
Looking at one particular study - elite 21 km runners
So in the current climate where real evidence is scarce and opinions hold sway, let's take a look at one study that has examined footstrike patterns during running events. It was done in 2004 in Japan, and published in 2007 in the Journal of Strength of Conditioning (not sure of the reason for the delay - it happens sometimes in science!). The full reference, for those interested, is Hasegawa et al., J Strength & Cond., 2007, (21), 888-893
It was performed at the 2004 Sapporro International Half Marathon in Japan. The scientists set up a high speed camera (very important for accurate collection of information - beats YouTube science any day!) at the 15km mark of the race, and captured most of the runners coming through. In total, they were able to observe the foot strike of 248 men and 35 women, and characterize them as either heel-strikers, mid-foot or forefoot strikers. They also measured Ground Contact Time at the 15km point.
...
* The vast majority (75%) of the elite runners land on the heel
* About 1 in four (24%) runners landed on the mid-foot
* Only 4 out of 283 runners landed on the forefoot
(http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/04/running-technique-footstrike.html)
.............................. wrote:
show me an elite marathoner who heel strikes or 5k or 10k.
Use Google Images, you can find dozens of them. Here, I'll start you off:
Khannouchi:
http://www.pbase.com/eiger/image/59082571Sihine:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/ketambatu/Athens2004/3ethipians2.jpgMeb:
http://www.mensracing.com/photos/nyrr8k03/8k15.jpghttp://www.mensracing.com/athletes/interviews/mebkeflezghi.htmlAbdi:
http://www.mensracing.com/photos/nyrr8k03/8k22.jpgnone of those pictures show heel striking (contact with the heel and ground. I think you can find better photos of elites heel striking.
i used to see desiree ficker in races and she'd always land on the balls of the fee. i always it looked unnatural and that it'd just exhaust the soleus and gastroc' muscles. does she still run like that?
I've seen pictures on the net of Herb Elliott heel
striking in a 1500 race.
Show me because it sure doesn't look like he is a heal striker here:http://www.dinkumaussies.com/PIC/Herb%20Elliott.jpg
Bob Wildes wrote:
I've seen pictures on the net of Herb Elliott heel
striking in a 1500 race.
Hicham was a heel striker.
Debunker wrote:
Show me because it sure doesn't look like he is a heal striker here:
http://www.dinkumaussies.com/PIC/Herb%20Elliott.jpgBob Wildes wrote:I've seen pictures on the net of Herb Elliott heel
striking in a 1500 race.
You can't tell one way or the other from that picture.
you understand that picture doesn't show a footstrike, right? Everyone toes off to move forward.
I know I wasn't saying that is proves it one way or another that I why I would like to see this "mythical" picture he found on the internet. I just think that given his stride in that picture it would be hard to imagine him heal striking. Try as I can, I can't find a picture of him heal striking.http://barefootted.com/uploaded_images/SportsllustratedBarefoot01-719926.jpg
i agree but.... wrote:
you understand that picture doesn't show a footstrike, right? Everyone toes off to move forward.
