Foostrike conversion?

I think Hesse has it right. Its better to focus on using a quick light stride first, and the appropriate footstrike will follow. I used to overstride considerably, and then when I went to college, my coach told me that the most significant goal for my freshman year should be to get my striderate up to at least 180 strikes per minute. At first it felt weird and tiring, but after a while I was able to relax. I started striking midfoot instead of on my heel. In addition to being more durable, my times droppped pretty significantly right away.

Dont Even Attempt wrote:

You cannot change your foot strike. You are going to end up injuring yourself because of the way your body has evolved into absorbing shock. You can change the way your upper body moves, hips, and knee drive but you cannot physically change foot strike.

So the guy over-extending and slamming into the ground is stuck with that for all eternity?

My footstrike went through a few changes. In my Kayanos I over-extending and slammed hard on my heel because I could. After I started training in the Tiger Paws, my footstrike immediately moved forward such as that by the time I was meeting the ground, I was already pushing off for the next step. Then, after about 1000 miles of running in flats, my footstrike moved a little further back towards the heel. Now, I'm running in either H Streets or cross country shoes and my footstrike will be further back if I'm trotting, or more forward if I'm running at a solid pace.

I can't count the number of times the phrase "slamming" is used to describe the heel landing. How is the impact greater when landing on the heel? Are you somehow falling from a greater height in the air? This is nonsense, and the studies looking at ground reaction forces wih different types of foot architecture, differrent landing patterns and different shoe types do not support the idea that you land harder on your heels.

The other claim that is repeated as gospel is that the shorter time of contact seen when landing on the midfoot or forefoot means a more "efficient" gait. I would like to see some evidence offered up in support of this concept. I quote from Peter Cavanagh "It has been suggested that 80% of the population are rearfoot strikers at distance running speeds, but there is no clear idea at present of which pattern is more conomical from an energy standpoint or more beneficial from an injury prevention point of view". Now that review (from arguably the World's foremost authority on running biomechanics) is from 1987. So, it is possible there is data generated since then that I am not aware of. If so, what is it?

hesse wrote:

i was up to 80 mpw last year when my inner shins, just above my ankle (i mean right above the ankle, and directly inside, became sore).

i am getting this checked out soon, i have been resting and healing. but i believe that i may have done too much too soon, despite my caution. i think it is related to tendon strain.

has anybody experienced similar soreness near their ankles?

That soreness is a possible precursor to a stress fracture. It will probably be diagnosed as periostitis if it has not progressed to a stress fracture or does not show up on x-rays yet.

Heel striking does not have to be "slamming", but oftentimes it is. People over-extend and land with their heel infront of their centre of gravity.

I run in H Streets and can land with my heel w/o any problems -- I've said that most people making a transition to flats will almost always move their footstrike forward but it may or may not move back after sometime. Mine moved back. And I don't overextend.

Wow. I wasn't expecting this thread to get resurrected, nor did i foresee it turning into (yet another) flats battle, although given the dynamics here i suppose i should have.

A quick update on my footstrike conversion: I switched about a month ago, and haven't done any heel striking since. I also switched shoes to mizuno wave precision, which are a little more low profile than my previous pairs. Running pretty much every other day -- either on the treadmill (damn snowstorm here in nyc) or outside, i limited myself to 3-6.5 miles. No more than 16 miles a week and lots of elliptical cross-training on the side, and some yoga.

Hess -- I developed a pain which sounds somewhat similar to yours -- a pain on the medial side of my leg just above the bony protrusion of the ankle, almost between the shin and the calf-- i thought it was an interior calf strain. It started bothering me on Friday (no run on thursday) and dummy that I am, i did 6.5 miles with lots of hills ( i had to take the kids out for practice), and needless to say it got worse on Saturday. It really feels like a strain or tendonitis to me, and it is improving rapidly (no running, ice, and stim seems to be helping), and i was planning on testing it out on the treadmill (flat surface) today. All that stress fracture talk is a bit sobering though.

I agree that there is no scientific evidence (nothing that i have found) which states that forefoot striking is more efficient. I'm also a bit skeptical of the flat-touting movement. However, the change in strike really seems to put less pressure on my knees and my itb band which were always hurting before. Is this because my achilles/calf is absorbing most (or more of) the impact? My stride rate is about 180, and that is comfortable with this type of landing. Also, i used to wear orthotics, but have not been wearing them in the mizuno's because i was told that i didn't need to control the pronation when i landed on the forefoot. (the running store had video analysis).

I'm glad to see the thread is back up, but would hope that it doesn't simply degenerate into a name-calling, flat-throwing brawl.

i will keep in touch with you dtbrooklyn, for i am going to be building up again and i want to check that soreness above the ankle. if it is tendenitis, i think it can be overcome with stretching/strengthening/gradual approach.

but i suppose often stress fracture could appear in this case. long term pressure on bones by tendons that are too tight? does that sound reasonable?

could it be tendinitis, that if left in a sore stage may develop into a stress fracture?

always the challenge of knowing what is acceptable soreness and what is 'red=flag" soreness

any thoughts?

When I converted to mid/forefoot last fall...rotating two or three pairs of different shoes that forced diff muscles to be used was helpful. I used and currently still rotate nb900 03 tigerpaw and waffle racers. Mixem up!

I've read that when it comes to a midfoot stride, some pronators have had more success with efficient shoes as opposed to stability shoes. Any thoughts on this?

Looking forward to some feedback.

I agree. My previous shoes were the high-heeled ultra supportive types sold to "overpronaters".

In regards to the pronating question, and the need for stability shoes when striking mid/forefoot (i don't really think that those terms are interchangable, people seem to prefer the former, but i don't quite understand how you can land "midfoot") I am under the impression that it is harder (impossible?) to overpronate when striking in this manner. As a heel striker I ran in NB 856 with custom-made orthotics to control pronation -- now I'm running in lightweight mizuno precisions and no orthotics. Is this because of less contact time with the ground?

Can a person with expertice in biomechanics comment on this?

Hesse -- I'm in agreement with you that what seems to be afflicting each of us is probably tendonitis -- i'm feeling much better and am going for an easy 3.5 this afternoon -- so we'll see how it reacts to that. I don't feel like a stress fracture is impending (i've had one before), so i'll trust my judgement for now. Taking it slowly, icing and stretching are the keys.

i talked with a physcial therapist the other day, and he reaffirmed what i have been figuring out:

1- orthodics are designed for heel striking.

2- if we become strong enough on the forefoot, we should not need orthodics.

3- however, if i am running on my forefoot, it is OK to have the orthodics in, especially in thr transition period, in case my legs get tired at the end of the run and i relapse into heel striking.

as for #3. i think that is up for debate. some people would argue that orthodics will raise your heel up and not allow you to strengthen the muscles and tendons for forefoot running.

also, i think when people speak of forefoot and midfoot running they are generally referring to the same thing. i suppose true fore foot running would be on the toes and the heel would never touch the ground, but that seems a bit too extreme (and i dont know how efficient).

its all about being gradual.

and here is a website i got off another post for strenghtening exercises:

http://www.medformation.com/ac/crssma.nsf/file/crs-sma-sma_posterior.tibial.tendonitis.exercises

hesse

I'm enjoying this thread a lot and have just starting messing with my own stride, running much shorter and lighter strides b/c of ITBS problems. I'm curious about what sort of professional to consult for advice, assessment of stride etc so I don't get (more) injured. I'm a working stiff (and started running seriously after college) so I don't have a coach or someone like that to consult. I've tried to elicit advice a few times at running stores to no avail. Should I look for a sports doctor? Physical therapist like Hesse is doing? A coach for hire? I'm in Washington DC if anyone has referrals, thanks -

heres a question. so my physical therapist says keep my orthodics in - do you agree?

i do think it makes sense to keep my orthodics in at least when i am walking around and working on my feet. after all i still have low arches.

the debate in my mind is whether i take them out when i run. will they a) allow me to be lazy with my foot strike, or b) be a helpful safety net if my legs get tired.

as ive said before, for me the focus is on turnover first, then focus on footstrike. i think i will stay with the orthodics and jsut not really need them.

thoughts? anyone out there, or is this thread dead?

word, hesse

What's wrong with low arches?