I've heard in the past that a person's running form should be whatever comes naturally from his or her biomechanics, but I've also heard about the merits of midfoot and forefoot striking versus heel striking. I've never had knee or heel problems after years of heel striking. Should I even consider trying to change my form?
Your pants? Ehhh...why bother.
If you've never been injured seriously you are probably doing okay.
i was a heel striker when i was very young because i was over striding in an attempt to run faster. i didn't know what i was doing, and had no expert help.
once i learned about the concepts of stride rate, stride angle, overstriding, and running economy, i got it figured out and no longer overstride.
i realize that each person's anatomy-based biomechanics heavily influences where your foot-plant occurs, but if you have a knowledgable person view and analyze your stride, you'll get it figured out.
for starters, get out and run easily at 165-175 strides per minute with your foot-plants fairly flat directly under you or barely forward. see if it starts to feel "natural" after a while--as it did with me once i broke the overstriding habit.
granted, my overstriding was a bad habit and not anatomy-based. someone who knows this stuff can look at your stride and tell you if your stride is biomechanically correct--even if you heel strike some, as it may be dictated by your anatomy.
eh, if you change there's a chance you hurt your achilles. be careful...
Get back to work at the shoe factory - don't you know there's a recession on
As is often the case, the answer is both yes and no. You would probably be better to change from being a heel striker to a mid/flat foot striker. The think is, however, it is probably a bad idea to just go out and start making sure that you land mid/flat foot. I'm guessing your shoes would hardly allow for it anyway, but even if they did, you'd probably hurt yourself.
What you need to do, other than getting some shoes that don't have any significant heel to toe drop, is to focus on certain workouts/drills that would start to naturally cause you to shift to what would be a more neutral strike. That said, you may be a natural heel striker and perhaps you wouldn't shift to any other strike than you already have.
Some techniques would be:
1. Some barefoot running, starting off with only a few minutes a few times a week, and building.
2. Hills, both sprinting and just making sure you are getting in hills on your normal runs.
3. Strides, which are very good at sharpening and refining your mechanics.
That's my opinion on the matter anyway. I'm sure there are other workouts to do that would also help. Anyone . . . ?
Where does your foot strike occur? If it's in front of you, yes I would change your "form" by increasing your cadence to get you foot strike under your center of gravity. If your foot strike is already under your CG, then the "heel" strike is less of an issue in my book...
A Skeptic wrote:
If you've never been injured seriously you are probably doing okay.
this
Thanks for the (mostly) serious answers. I read all of them.
Do a search on Forefoot running, heel strike, foot strike, etc. and you will find countless threads. Probably a thread every quarter for many years.
It took me 4 months to make the switch and the improvements were dramatic. But it is not for everyone.
I've posted similarly in some of the older threads. Though it may make sense from a physics/biomechanics perspective, individual differences in anatomy, strength/neuromuscular control, etc. ultimately determine if you will get injured or have success.
My transition took place in a few stages. The end result was after much injury (Achilles and foot), I finally got healthy and was able to train hard and my times were no different. That lasted for a while, and then I got injured again. I am now back to heel strike and have nagging injuries years later. I was never injured as a heel striker.
Personally, I don't think that intentionally changing biomechanics like this is a good idea, but others have had different experiences.
The jury's out on whether a heelstrike, midfoot strike, or forefoot strike is "better," i.e. more efficient, faster, less injurious. There's a guy at Harvard who got on the front cover of Nature for a study about forefoot and heel striking, because he showed that impact forces from forefoot striking are different from impact forces from heel-strike running. However, he neglected one minor detail--most evidence today says that impact forces are not a major contributor in running injuries!
Certainly, at fast speeds, the best in the world midfoot or forefoot strike. You need to be able to do that. No way you'll heelstrike your way to a 4:15 mile. But at easy and moderate paces, the real issue is OVERstriding. If you heelstrike but land underneath your body, and have a light, quick stride frequency of 180 or so, you are probably okay. But if you heelstrike way out front, and clomp around at 165 strides per minute, you are going to have some issues. So fixing overstriding should be your first priority.
Additionally, as some posters have indicated, if you heelstrike but have not really been injured, you are probably okay (unless you've never done high mileage before and are about to vault yourself into some big weeks). If, in contrast, you've had lots of injuries, you might think about switching footstrike styles...unless those injuries include recurrent Achilles tendon problems! If you are young (high school age) you'll get away with switching footstrike styles much easier, since your tendons and muscles are more flexible and supple. Ideally, all kids would LEARN to run midfoot, because I have a hunch it is slightly more efficient. But if you're a true and true heelstriker, no worries, there ARE a good deal of elites who still heelstrike (at least at slow-ish speeds) and run fast.
777 wrote:
if you heelstrike way out front, and clomp around at 165 strides per minute, you are going to have some issues. So fixing overstriding should be your first priority.
Except that nobody actually runs like that.....
So many biomechanics experts here repeating the same old nonsense.
U should get some Vibrams or better yet some Inov-8 Evoskins
I like Inov-8. Vibrams look silly.
777 wrote:
The jury's out on whether a heelstrike, midfoot strike, or forefoot strike is "better," i.e. more efficient, faster, less injurious. There's a guy at Harvard who got on the front cover of Nature for a study about forefoot and heel striking, because he showed that impact forces from forefoot striking are different from impact forces from heel-strike running. However, he neglected one minor detail--most evidence today says that impact forces are not a major contributor in running injuries!
Certainly, at fast speeds, the best in the world midfoot or forefoot strike. You need to be able to do that. No way you'll heelstrike your way to a 4:15 mile. But at easy and moderate paces, the real issue is OVERstriding. If you heelstrike but land underneath your body, and have a light, quick stride frequency of 180 or so, you are probably okay. But if you heelstrike way out front, and clomp around at 165 strides per minute, you are going to have some issues. So fixing overstriding should be your first priority.
Additionally, as some posters have indicated, if you heelstrike but have not really been injured, you are probably okay (unless you've never done high mileage before and are about to vault yourself into some big weeks). If, in contrast, you've had lots of injuries, you might think about switching footstrike styles...unless those injuries include recurrent Achilles tendon problems! If you are young (high school age) you'll get away with switching footstrike styles much easier, since your tendons and muscles are more flexible and supple. Ideally, all kids would LEARN to run midfoot, because I have a hunch it is slightly more efficient. But if you're a true and true heelstriker, no worries, there ARE a good deal of elites who still heelstrike (at least at slow-ish speeds) and run fast.
This was a very good post, I'd read it again if I were you. My experience: I was much more of a heel striker when I was younger, and every time I would race in spikes I'd land more to the midfoot, and my calves would be so sore I could barely jog for 2-3 days afterwards. I started doing workouts in racing flats, and found myself more or less landing midfoot on all of my runs, regardless of what shoes I was wearing. I suspect if you looked closely enough that my heel still hits the ground a moment before anything else, but it's a very small amount of force and it's pretty close to being directly under my center of gravity, which I believe is much more important than which exact spot on your shoe touches down first.
There is no such thing as a "heel striker". Try jump roping. ARe you landing on your heels every time you land? No. Just try to shorten your stride a bit
heel striker wrote:
I've heard in the past that a person's running form should be whatever comes naturally from his or her biomechanics, but I've also heard about the merits of midfoot and forefoot striking versus heel striking. I've never had knee or heel problems after years of heel striking. Should I even consider trying to change my form?
J.O. wrote:
Except that nobody actually runs like that.....
So many biomechanics experts here repeating the same old nonsense.
I have personally witnessed several runners who run exactly like that. I counted their stride frequencies myself! I've even seen a few guys under 160 strides per minute, and this is at 7-minute miles or so! You really have to see it to believe it. Most "hobby joggers" have very low stride frequencies. Next time you're at the track, count the number of times a jogger's right leg hits the ground in 30 seconds. You'll probably count 42 or so--that'd be 168 strides per minute. It's no surprise that the 160ish strides per minute runners had lots of injury problems, and terrible footspeed.
Great question. It seems that if it works for you that you would want to maintain your current program. However, changing or bettering your form can actually help you run longer--not longer in distance, but longer for your entire life due to less impact on your entire body. Dr. Craig Richards and I talk about developing what is being called natural running in our new barefoot running book at http://www.barefoot-running.us/barefoot-running-book, which will be due out by Penguin in February. You might find it valuable, even if you are not wanting to make an entire barefoot transition. What is discussed is quite relevant since we also talk about the benefits of a forefoot or midfoot strike (in shoes) versus a heel strike promoted by most mainstream footwear. Good luck and keep us updated.