Heel vs. Toe running

In looking at the message board 0n this website, I notice an astounding number of injuries and trouble reported with attempting this method (POSE), even under the guidance of Romanov the originator of the idea.

Nearly the entire thing is filled with complaints of calf pain, Achilles tendonitis, and inflamed bursa sacs.

During normal training and most racing the foot lands directly under the the torso. This naturally lends itself to the heel/mid foot strike. As you run faster the foot begins to land out further(overstriding) and the foot touches closer to the toe. To train using the toe running technique a person would have to sprint everything they did and that could cause major problems, never mind the toe landing bit. Look at any sprinters and you see toe running, distance runners are usally in the mid foot region. Ok Ive said my peace.

i wrote the piece, along with a qualified coach and a top club runner with a masters in biomech

the word toe doesn't feature

i talk of landing on the front of the feet as opposed to the heel; the term midfoot is misleading, at least for me: the middle of my foot has a big arch in it

if you want to see a good example of forefoot running over something as long as the marathon, replay paula's london race in slow motion

As a sprinter or distance runner, the ideal foot strike position is always underneath the center of gravity to maintain an "active" footplant. This is basic rotary mechanics. A sprinter is definitely on the balls of the feet and in a "higher" position. A distance runner (especially at slower speeds) will tend to be more of a heel striker............but ideally it still should be under the center of gravity. If the foot lands "out front," the athlete is inadvertently breaking.

Land on your heels and you will run slower.

This is an interesting topic, which people involved in the sport of running have argued over for years. I never really noticed whether or not the Kenyans strike the ground with the front of their foot or the heel and I don't know which way is more efficient.

John Brewer, do you believe that it is always more efficient to land on the front of the feet? For example, if someone is running down a hill of 10% grade or steeper, do you think it would be better to land at the fore-foot since their toe would need to be plantar flexed quite a lot in order to land on the fore-foot?

It is obvious that during the follow through phase of the Kenyans gait, their feet swing up high behind them. However, this appears common for many runners, not just Kenyans, when they are running fast.

-Andy

I was just thinking about this today. I have seen many pictures of elite kenyans landing on their heels in world-class road, X-C, and track races. The leaders at the Boston Marathon this year were heel striking. Just today I was in the bookstore looking at a photo of a couple of Team Kenya guys running Cape Town in 96 and sure enough they were coming down on their heels.

I land mid-to-forefoot, but I don't think that I am more efficient because of it. God knows I'll never run like Rodgers Rop did at Boston this year and he was heel-striking the whole way.

I think it just plain depends upon your biomechanics, leg length, etc.

richard, you're ignorant... study biomechanics; it all has to do with leg & stride length, q-angle and sarcal base angle. everyone is different, but IN GENERAL, the slower you run the further back on the foot you'll strike (obviously). some people are natural forefoot strikers, these people tend to be more suited towards middle distance and lead their runs with their chest. these people can also disregard issues like overpronation, since their arches barely have time to roll inwards. classical striders tend to have reduced injuries but also (typically) have less leg speed...

Now the next question is should runners kick their butt?

Runners should not quite kick their butts, but come close. If you watch any elite distance runners stride, you will see the huge follow through with their legs. I never understood why some people don't let their legs go back far enough in their stride. I think that a lot of it has to do with flexibility. You should not have an over-exagerated stride, but a long stride in which you kick up high in the back is a good thing.

I, and I'm guessing many others, would like to hear JK's thoughts on foot strike and high back swings.

its not about butt kicking, but hip flexion. after a runner pushes off(knee extension, hip extension, plantar flexion)you enter the "swing phase", this is brought about by hip flexion. the momentum left over from pushing off versus the hip flexion causes the knee to bend(knee flexion), and make it appear as if you are kicking your butt. However, if you are trying to kick you butt you are doing nothing more than slowing yourself down.

Someone told me that Michael Johnson lands on his heel. I won't believe it 'til I see a slow-mo' video, but that would be very interesting if it is true.

Heel-striking is more commonly linked with over-striding (and major injury). Landing on the forefoot under the torso allows much of the shock to be absorbed by the muscles (calves and quads), while landing on the heel, which is also a much narrower and therefore a much less stable landing area than the forefoot, translates a huge portion of the shock up through the bones and connective tissues to the back.

A vast majority of those who visit and post on that site are probably those who are transitioning to the method, which should be a patient yet not painfree process, rather than those who have been using it successfully all along. Rushing into the process unprepared can only tempt the onset of greater complications.

Michael Johnson runs very high on the foot. There is a point in his stride when he dorsi-flexes, that is, cocks the front of his foot up high, that makes it appear that he might land on the back half of his foot. He doesn't. He lands very high up on the foot.

Are photos misleading, then? On mensracing.com, there are several photos of Abdi which look like he is an extreme heel-striker, and like someone earlier pointed out, Rogers Rop also looked like a heel-striker. Is that simply due to the dorsi-flexion of their feet, and when they actually land, they strike mid-foot?

The photos are not misleading. Rodgers Rop is a heel striker

When you land on your heels, you are forcing your center of gravity backwards. You also take weight off of your quadriceps. The arm swing is also effected as you start to swing your arms to the right and left in an attempt to restore your balance.

Every person I switched from heel running to landing on the front of their foot, ran much faster.

I assume if you are talking biomechanics, then sprinters should also run on their heels. But since you resorted to name calling, I guess that you don't have much of a point.