Is heel striking really that horrible?

Guys in my high school heel struck all the time. It was no big deal.

Forget the "strike" part.

Keep the stride rate around 180 steps/min. (it will likely be a little faster if racing or doing interval/ repeats etc.).

That's it.

It will reduce ground contact time and cause you to land lightly under your center of gravity. Basic physics and anatomy.

Do that and everything will take care of itself (don't overthink it).

I used to be a heel striker. But I noticed that I was faster when I landed on my midfoot. It took 1-2 weeks of forcing myself to land on my midfoot to lose the habit. My calves were sore and slightly enlarged for 1-2 weeks. I don't regret it though because the rest of my form above the feet improved once I made the change.

The book Born to Run started a fad of supposedly natural foot striking. There is no natural. Forget cadence, too. Both are functions of speed, which can be de- composed into turnover and stride length. Run a lot, run tall, hips forward, neck relaxed. Pose and Chi offer useful insights. That said, low drop shoes work for me, perhaps because they require fuller ankle probation. Strong feet help, acquired by grass and trail running.

The usual letsrun 'experts' come out in force on these threads.

Heel strikers have longer calf muscles relative to forefoot strikers. Different morphology, different biomechanics.

Everyone lands IN FRONT of their center of gravity, that's basic phsyics and basic biomechanics. Those claiming otherwise are clueless.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to land UNDER your center of gravity when you run.

180 stride per minute???? Irelevant, everyone is different.

good grief wrote:

The usual letsrun 'experts' come out in force on these threads.

Heel strikers have longer calf muscles relative to forefoot strikers. Different morphology, different biomechanics.

Everyone lands IN FRONT of their center of gravity, that's basic phsyics and basic biomechanics. Those claiming otherwise are clueless.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to land UNDER your center of gravity when you run.

180 stride per minute???? Irelevant, everyone is different.

Unless you're just beginning or have no concern for performance, 180spm is a concern. You're trading peak muscular force which cannot sustain the same stress as your cardiovascular system (higher cadence).

or

"a given power output can be accomplished

at a variety of cadences, so in effect there would be

a number of cadence-resistance combinations at which a

subject could achieve the target power output. However, it

seems unlikely that the same level of muscle activation

would be sufficient to achieve that target power at all

cadence-resistance combinations...

...In conclusion, we have presented evidence that muscle

activation at a given power output is minimized at a unique

cadence and that unique cadence is higher at higher power

output..."

ref:

(7).pdf

good grief wrote:

The usual letsrun 'experts' come out in force on these threads.

Heel strikers have longer calf muscles relative to forefoot strikers. Different morphology, different biomechanics.

Everyone lands IN FRONT of their center of gravity, that's basic phsyics and basic biomechanics. Those claiming otherwise are clueless.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to land UNDER your center of gravity when you run.

180 stride per minute???? Irelevant, everyone is different.

Calling BS on you. You have links to support your "basic biomechanics" delusion?

Go 46 seconds in to see Usain Bolt slow motion

Bolt is landing about 9 inches in front of his center of gravity.

rundork wrote:

Unless you're just beginning or have no concern for performance, 180spm is a concern.

What do you mean by a "concern" ? Some world class runners have spm slower than 180 (like Farah running a 1/2 marathon), some right at 180, some quite a bit quicker.

So what's your point?

180 spm (give or take a little) is more or less the most efficient stride rate for people running (usually racing) 5km to marathon. Milers/800m and of course sprinters would probably be closer to 190-200 or faster while racing. Most elites on their easy days are close to 180 (and if not they are very very likely over 170).

You take slower than 170 and you're probably overstriding.

And I will take back what I said about landing under the CG (it's not straight under, but close enough!). The whole concept of a footstrike closer to "directly under your body" is the point and I was trying to drive home. Most runners who overstride (including myself) "reach out too far in front" with their feet, and land too far in front of CG. These runners also generally have a slower stride rate.

Reducing foot ground contact time and optimizing stride rate are the name of the game.

And so you can't really argue with the 180 number.

at 47 wrote:

Bolt is landing about 9 inches in front of his center of gravity.

Bolt's heel and calf are directly under his body when contact is made on his forefoot. I think that qualifies as making contact under his center of gravity.

Not true. You only fall on your nose if you are decelerating and stopping.

If you stand in place with your feet under your center of gravity you don't fall on your nose, unless you've been drinking.

S. Canaday wrote:

180 spm (give or take a little) is more or less the most efficient stride rate for people running (usually racing) 5km to marathon. Milers/800m and of course sprinters would probably be closer to 190-200 or faster while racing. Most elites on their easy days are close to 180 (and if not they are very very likely over 170).

You take slower than 170 and you're probably overstriding.

Reducing foot ground contact time and optimizing stride rate are the name of the game.

And so you can't really argue with the 180 number.

Look, I respect your opinion, and I don't disagree with you too much, however., not everything you wrote is entirely true. The reality is, world class runners really are different when it comes to stride rate. The 180 # is *somewhat* overblown. Now it IS true that not many go under 180, but some do, and many go well above. Examples:

1) Mo I think was doing about 170 during his 1/2 marathon. Compare that to a short, asian female (known for their quick turnover but short strides) running a 1/2 marathon. BIG difference (I know I've counted some of these women at well over 200 spm)

2) You then state that 800/milers and sprinters would be more like 190/200. Maybe on the avg, but again, there are BIG DIFFERENCES (the point you seem to not be aware of) between world class athletes. Rudisha, has an incredibly long stride. Amazingly, despite the speed he is running at, he is very close to that 180 mark when running 50 second pace. But others? I known I've counted Webb at 800m and Ngeny at 1000/1500 in or near 220's. Again, you can't simply ignore these differences. And as far as sprinters, I believe Michael Johnson was at some extraordinary rate of about 280 spm (!)

So there is certainly no "one size fits all" or a magic number. The only thing 180 signifies to me is: it's unusual to be lower than that when running fast, but people like Mo Farah do indeed do it. And many others are WAY higher than that.

One more thing: "Reducing foot ground contact time and optimizing stride rate are the name of the game. " Maybe reducing ground contact, but not maximizing stride rate necessarily. Look at Farah, Rudisha, Komen: LONG, loping strides. Incredible stride LENGTH is why they are some of the best ever.

runnerwhoprofesses wrote:

Forget cadence, too. ...

Cadence does matter. Low cadence means either (1) your foot is on the ground for a long time before pushing off or (2) you are air-borne for a long time in between steps. The only way to be in the air for a longer time is for your foot to spend more energy pushing your body (center of gravity) upward rather than propelling forward, less efficient energy usage, and your landing foot has to absorb (spend more time to absorb) more energy with each step, over a long distance that cumulative impact could do greater damage to your muscles.

Less strides in total though. Works out about the same.

at 47+ wrote:

at 47 wrote:

Bolt is landing about 9 inches in front of his center of gravity.

Bolt's heel and calf are directly under his body when contact is made on his forefoot. I think that qualifies as making contact under his center of gravity.

He's landing on his forefoot though, so no.

That's why I said "..190-200 or FASTER.." while racing for mid-d runners. Sprinters, I admit I don't know...well over 200+ Again, we seem to agree though that no one running fast is doing less than 170 steps per minute. For all intensive purposes that is still relatively close to the "magical" 180 number. And the point of this thread is about heel-striking and I mentioned stride-rate because with most runners the over-stride (and therefore likely leading to a heel strike) is caused by a slow stride rate.Of course there is some variation (esp. when comparing milers/sprinters to half marathoners and men to woman). Furthermore, how the heck did you count Mo during his half marathon...by looking at a video clip for 30-60 sec? Not that accurate. I'm going to assume that the majority of people on here are not as fast as the aforementioned runners and likely could probably use a little boost in stride rate. There are so many people out there doing 150-160 steps/minute and they'd be so much more efficient with a faster turnover. Forget about stride LENGTH for most of these people as they over-stride way too much anyway and are more limited by their cardiovascular engine in the first place...

at 47 wrote:

at 47+ wrote:

Bolt's heel and calf are directly under his body when contact is made on his forefoot. I think that qualifies as making contact under his center of gravity.

He's landing on his forefoot though, so no.

Incorrect. The leg is the physics vector that matters.

Your position is people with large feet land farther in front of their center of gravity. Yeah, right.