No one started a thread yet? Rearfoot strike better than forefoot, new study says

numiler22 wrote:

70 min half-marathon is not really elite in my book, but rather sub-elite runners.

That's only 4 minutes and 10 seconds off the women's world record! That's "not really elite"? Oh wait, unless you're speaking from a patriarchal viewpoint.. Okay, carry on.

"bull*shi*t- alert"

instead of reading dumb articles like this one, people only need observe the best and talk to them about foot strike.

the article is about jogging which has no bearing at all to running at a proper speed.

anyone serious about looking at foot strike should study the vids of the top 10 of all time and copy them, look at the real deal and not some diatribe from "armchair" scientists. just look at close ups to see what is going on.

exactly.

you want to use the foot to absorb the shock and carry the momentum forward.

that is the key. if you run excessively on your toes or foot strike on your heels, you wont absorb the shock properly and get injuries front left right and center.

you want all the muscles in the feet and ankle to be flexible and strong so that you can "catch" and grab the ground not hit it like a punch.

got it. think about catching a baseball when you first learned.

you just hole out your hand and bang you are hurt.

you learn to time it and pull back as the ball comes in, no hurt.

of course if you have no athletic skill you can put in a bunch of padding in the mit. but that is quite a dumb fix no?

Does the actual article state what they mean by "more economical?" If these are sub elite runners, then essentially having them run at a easy jog or cool down pace isn't legit. One would need to have them do trials at race pace, the real pace that matters.

longjack wrote:

"bull*shi*t- alert"

the article is about jogging which has no bearing at all to running at a proper speed.

I agree with most of what you said but this is an ignorant thing to say. What is a "proper speed"? You cant get more subjective than that. While the test subject's pace might be a jog for some, it may be race pace for others. If you go to a road race, 90 percent of the participants are going to be "jogging."

800 dude wrote:

It's amazing to me how many hobby joggers think that forefoot striking means your heel never touches the ground. I see these people hopping around on their toes and it just makes me cringe.

Ever seen Paula Radcliffe run? Her heels never touch the ground.

longjack wrote:

anyone serious about looking at foot strike should study the vids of the top 10 of all time and copy them, look at the real deal and not some diatribe from "armchair" scientists. just look at close ups to see what is going on.

No, you don't want to copy other runners, bad idea. Your own natural biomechanics will determine what is right and wrong for you.

jobby hogger wrote:

longjack wrote:

anyone serious about looking at foot strike should study the vids of the top 10 of all time and copy them, look at the real deal and not some diatribe from "armchair" scientists. just look at close ups to see what is going on.

No, you don't want to copy other runners, bad idea. Your own natural biomechanics will determine what is right and wrong for you.

For your typical "jobby hogger"? Sure.

For someone who cares about getting faster and/or reducing injuries? Wrong.

You can't discover your "natural" biomechanics if you've only ever run in thick-heeled clunky shoes.

jobby hogger wrote:

Ever seen Paula Radcliffe run? Her heels never touch the ground.

Shut up about Paula Radcliff already. People always try to use her as an example of bad form. Her form is actually very good.

skinny dude wrote:

Shut up about Paula Radcliff already. People always try to use her as an example of bad form. Her form is actually very good.

Missing the point there dude.

hold the phone wrote:

Because the technique of measuring running economy (i.e. by measuring respiratory gases) assumes that the energy consumed is aerobic. If you pick too fast a pace to measure running economy, the anaerobic contribution will get too big and distort the results. In this case, they determined that increasing the pace to 17kph would have pushed some of the runners above 90%VO2max, which would have been too high for accurate measurement.

So they need to find a better way to test efficiency at fast paces. Testing a 70 minute HM runner's performance at 6:30 pace would be like evaluating a Ferrari at 60 mph. Who cares about efficiency at easy pace? You need to test at or near race pace to get an accurate picture.