Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Malmo, I don't understand how you think foot strike can make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE IN PEFORMANCE. It's a different place where you strike making your stride different and your foot roll foreward or back some way. Forefoot in my opinion is just a great way to strike. I really don't see why that is hard to comprehend. Forefoot is simply better IF YOUR FOOT CAN HANDLE IT. Otherwise, Just keep plodding along.

Really??? wrote:

Malmo, I don't understand how you think foot strike can make absolutely NO DIFFERENCE IN PEFORMANCE. It's a different place where you strike making your stride different and your foot roll foreward or back some way. Forefoot in my opinion is just a great way to strike. I really don't see why that is hard to comprehend. Forefoot is simply better IF YOUR FOOT CAN HANDLE IT. Otherwise, Just keep plodding along.

But looking at the above (now properly analyzed research), you could argue that heel strikers generate more power than forefoot strikers. Perhaps you missed this that Malmo posted earlier:

What is interesting here is that while the forefoot striker was generating more force on the ground, he is generating less power than the heel striker. The heel striker is simply transferring energy to the ground faster, generating more power, and that efficiency might go a long way to explain why the two most prolific 1500m runners in history were heel strikers.

ok malmo and HHH

Where is the study that shows that it doesn't matter?

if you read all of my posts you will note that I do not believe in forefoot contacts, i think flat rolling contacts that change with velocity are the best practice.

i think that there are a multiple variables that lead to a footstrike. i think the point of contact in relationship to the center of mass is critically important. you will note that i think the best people are the best for a reason. and if all other things are equal, the way you put your foot down, ie running efficiency, will determine the winner. we are human so all other things aren't equal. I differ in opinion with you, but we are all just spouting opinions.

running is a skill and it is learned. utilizing and maximizing the stretch reflex by anticipatory firing of muscles, degree of range of motion at joints.

There is no study to show that it doesn't matter. But there is also no study to show that it does matter. You're right, it's all about opinions at this point but to come on here and say that no elites heel strike and heel strikers are just lazy is incorrect (you didn't say this but the OP did).

The above properly analyzed study now shows that heel striking produces more power than mid foot striking. So does that mean all runners should now become heel strikers? Of course not. People have run faster using all kinds of technique. That's why it doesn't matter.

Do you really feel that all things being equal, efficiency is what determines who will win? I would argue (my opinion here) that heart and courage are far more important. I have beaten many guys with far more talent and efficiency than myself. I'm simply a lot a tougher and more willing to take myself to the well than most people.

Malmo wrote:

Why does that bother you? Force and work are directly proportional. The fact that a force is applied and the subject moved an unknowable distance is moot. Delta d becomes a constant.

my reply:

First off, I agree the Lieberman paper has many flaws, let's not propagate them with loose and incorrect use of physics terms, since they are so elegantly defined.

In running, the foot, arch, achilles, whole leg etc. all act in a spring-like manner.

A spring is defined by its stiffness, k = F/delta d

Your assertion that "force and work are proportional" is only true if stiffness is constant. See study abstract below showing that to be a bad assumption. "A significantly higher leg stiffness during the stance phase was found for the barefoot condition."

The distance that the foot/arch/leg springs etc. deform is not unknowable, Lieberman didn't measure them but others have and do.

J Biomech. 2000 Mar;33(3):269-78.

Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running.

De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P.

Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium.

Abstract

This study investigated spatio-temporal variables, ground reaction forces and sagittal and frontal plane kinematics during the stance phase of nine trained subjects running barefoot and shod at three different velocities (3.5, 4.5, 5.5 m s(-1)). Differences between conditions were detected with the general linear method (factorial model). Barefoot running is characterized by a significantly larger external loading rate than the shod condition. The flatter foot placement at touchdown is prepared in free flight, implying an actively induced adaptation strategy. In the barefoot condition, plantar pressure measurements reveal a flatter foot placement to correlate with lower peak heel pressures. Therefore, it is assumed that runners adopt this different touchdown geometry in barefoot running in an attempt to limit the local pressure underneath the heel. A significantly higher leg stiffness during the stance phase was found for the barefoot condition. The sagittal kinematic adaptations between conditions were found in the same way for all subjects and at the three running velocities. However, large individual variations were observed between the runners for the rearfoot kinematics.

i said all other things being equal, including heart and courage. i ask the question because I don't have a study to cite for my opinion. I ask the question because I don't know how it "can't matter at all." that is too absolute for me when I believe there are degrees of proper technique.

i think there are degrees of heel striking. i think there is crashing on a heel of a foot that is cast out in front of a runner causing longer delays for passing over the center of mass and and excessive collapsing at the ankle, knee and hip. i think there is what would appear on video to be a "heel lead" toward the ground, then a lighter touching of the outside heel first followed by a rolling action and a forefoot push off that looks more appealing and efficient to me.

what is the old saying about Porn? "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." Can't we agree to seeing both efficiency and inefficiency in runners of all abilities. The better the runner, the fewer the number of inefficiencies we see? are we really arguing that every human being runs absolutely in the most efficient manner for them because it is simply a natural action? noone can run inefficiently and therefore it doesn't matter? am I misstating the contention?

I keep getting accused of logical fallacies, and truth be told I'll need to read up on those. I just think they are logic. I think handwritting is a skill that can be improved. I think speaking is a skill that can be improved. We can all get by writing how we write and speaking how we speak. Some are neater than others, some are more educated than others. I think how we ran as kids likely isn't how we run as adults. I think some of us happen upon or are coached to better techniques, while others copy or have simply have wrong concepts they try to employ.

i think there is a reason you see elite runners running they way they do. I think you see fewer totally forefoot strikers and excessive heel strikers for a reason. I think that reason is that those aren't the most effective ways to do it and that leads me to believe there exits a more effective way and that it matters. I don't have a study. I think I can look at people like Abdi and even Meb and say, "I think they have great engines and perhaps this technique that looks significantly different than many other great engines finishing ahead might be a clue."

Anyone can come along and pull out a line from my above rant and attack it and likely be correct. It doesn't change my ovearall statement that there is both efficient and inefficient ways of running and if one is inefficient it can be changed. I think it matters and I don't think we are doomed by the "natural" way we have chosen to move.

But what I REALLY think, is that I like the passion on this board. I think I have been obsessive and compulsive about posting. I think my new year's reolution will be not to post on this thread again........starting tomorrow of course.

HHH wrote:

biggus dickus wrote:

Finally someone gets it. It's not just about what part of the foot hits the ground first.

...and likewise anyone can be a "heel striker' by dorsiflexion.

In general, I don't think "heel striking" is an issue for accomplished runners.

Over striding (aka a type of heel striking) is a common issue with slower runners. Most of the "research" should really be viewed in the context of the average runner.

For elites, I would largely agree to just run baby...but to discount over striding for the average runner would be an oversight.

Do you have some proof to back up these statements?

I'm so tired of that lame comeback. This is the stinking internet (and letsrun no less)....prook? I don't need no stinking proof. Prove me wrong!

Simple, your response was to a request for a reference that taught how to heel strike. Your reference does not do that. As you point out it uses the term "heel strike" as the start and end of a cycle....hardly teaching how to heel strike...

.............................. wrote:

I also think most of this thread is arguing over semantics. Flat rolling contacts vs heel contacts.

Ding, ding we have a winner!

wtf105 wrote:The topic of the thread as titled was about ending the minimalist debate. What elite runners do or dont do is one of many subtopics that arose and that you steer towards to suit yourself and not to debate with the possibility of sharing a point of view.

The thread was starting saying that elite runners don't heel strike. It has been proven several times that they do. Furthermore, those of not in the minimalist cult have been arguing that there is more than one way to run fast, not that they only way to do it is to heel strike. People have run fast heel striking. People have run fast midfoot/forefoot/flatfoot striking as well. Could they run faster if they changed the way they strike the ground? Perhaps. Would their time and effort be better spent running more? Absolutely.

Please post your vote on the Left Sidebar to FINALLY SETTLE THIS DEBATE and start the new year out right.

http://psutafalumnigolf.blogspot.com

I'm not arguing that there aren't efficient and inefficient types of runners. What I am arguing is that heel striking is not necessarily a bad thing as the OP set out to prove and end the debate for good. Nor has it been shown that heel striking is inefficient.

Are you arguing that heel striking is inefficient despite the correctly analyzed results from the Vibram study above? If so, please provide some proof. Until then, these are just your opinions which are you free to have and share but don't try to pass them off as fact.

biggus dickus wrote:Anyone can become a forefoot striker by simply plantar flexing the foot. That would be just as inefficient as casting the foot further in front of you to land excessively heel toe.

Finally someone gets it. It's not just about what part of the foot hits the ground first.

...and likewise anyone can be a "heel striker' by dorsiflexion.

In general, I don't think "heel striking" is an issue for accomplished runners.

Over striding (aka a type of heel striking) is a common issue with slower runners. Most of the "research" should really be viewed in the context of the average runner.

For elites, I would largely agree to just run baby...but to discount over striding for the average runner would be an oversight.[/quote]

Do you have some proof to back up these statements?[/quote]

I'm so tired of that lame comeback. This is the stinking internet (and letsrun no less)....prook? I don't need no stinking proof. Prove me wrong![/quote]

You mean you're tired of people not accepting your word as being true without providing some proof? I don't need to prove you wrong, you are the one making a statement that you can't prove.

If you don't like it, head over to a high school message where there might be some more gullible suckers who are more likely to believe your word as Gospel.

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread has become officially ridiculous.

good thing the debate ended on post #1

And yet somehow 22 pages still won't end it. It'll take a head shot from the moderators to finally bring peace, I'm afraid.

i am saying inefficient is inefficient regardless of if it is forefoot, or excessive heel striking.

if there is inefficient, than it can be improved, and if it can be improved then it matters.

i have no studies, i am apparently full of logical fallacies.

i have not commented on any study, i am not a minimalist. i think efficient footstrike is velocity dependent as well as dependent on the movements both before and after ground contact which are dependent on the skill sets of strength, speed, mobility, coordination and work capacity. all of those can be improved. i just believe there IS efficient and inefficient. I think people can run fast in spite of being less efficient because of superior supporting characteristics. I think people can run slow being efficient and having weaker supporting characteristics.

I just believe that the answer "it doesn't matter just run" is not acceptable at least by me.

All of this is simply your opinion if you can't provide something to back it up.

But, how do you explain the fact that there seems to be really fast runners running with a variety of footstrikes? Could it be that everyone might have their own efficient way to land and run? And what's right for you, isn't necessarily right for me? And maybe we all just need let our bodies figure that out? What is so hard to accept about that?

no shit it is my opinion. i've said on a number of occasions I have no studies so HOPEFULLY you'll stop sounding like a broken record that saying there is no proof. just as you offer no proof that the body can just figure out the most efficient way for it to run other than just saying it over and over again. same thing I am doing.

I said there are people who run fast in spite of the most efficient style because of better motors and people who have worse motor and more efficient techniques that get beat.

i have said there can by stylistic difference and defined technique as the commonalities of an efficient method. the body is a 3rd class lever system with fulcrums that require anchoring and each body IS different.

malmo said he was both a heel striker and flat foot striker dependent on velocity. Why the change in technique if it didn't matter? how nice that his body magically knew exactly which contact to employ at every given velocity. and no one ever taught him and he never once had a conscious thought about it. Are there not people who run the same way regardless of if you ask them to jog, run and interval or sprint. I watch people who don't know how to change because their body only knows one way. you can repeat and ingrain a poor technique just as easily as you can repeat and ingrain a good technique.

My fundamental disagreement is with Malmo and those who say the body will just figure it out. Like the body and more importantly our mind can't override and make changes both good and bad.

People watch sports all the time and try to emulate what they see. Golfers try to change and tweak their swing for better results of accuracy and distance. I know another logical fallacy. But does the golfer simply need to just keep swinging and the body will figure it out? I mean moving your arms is just natural right? It doesn't matter right?

New people take up running all the time, does that mean that their body will just figure it out and that they can't be instructed on what is more efficient and what to try to avoid?