Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

think of it like "gears"

you shouldn't be walking up on your toes any more than you should be heel striking when you sprint. your body has different ideal running forms for different speeds. the reason you see elite runners forefoot striking is that they're in the top gears.

(this is in reply to the whole thread and not L2B)

I'm late to the party but have two comments that essentially support malmo.

1) there are interaction effects (think of epistasis in genetics) in any sufficiently complex functional system such that the optimum x depends on the value of y and z. One consequence of this is that the performance surface (say 8 mile time as a function of x, y, and z morphological, kinematic and physiological variables) is multi-peaked - different combinations of causes give equal performance. Importantly, some combinations simply won't be available to you because while we can change kinematics (to an extent) we cannot change many aspects of morphology or physiology. This applies to even single-peak performance surfaces meaning that the top performance for one person will include a different set of kinematics than the top performance for a 2nd person.

2) A performance such as 8 mile time is made up of several subperformances (let's be crude and just say efficiency and speed). The problem with optimization in complex functional systems is that the (locally) optimum combination of traits for efficiency is unlikely to be the same optimum for speed. How these add up to optimize 8 mile time or 100 meter time or marathon time will differ not only with each other but also among individuals (again, that interaction problem).

gazoo wrote:

Heel Striking Enthusiast wrote:

Didn't seem to hurt these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D56ZAvcxN0&feature=related

They don't heel strike. They do a mid foot. Your point proves you are wrong. Their foot is already in a backward motion on impact with the ground. You can't do that with a heel strike.

I'll say it again. YOUR CALCANEUS IS NOT MEANT TO ABSORB THE IMPACT OF RUNNING.

Before starting this thread, you may have gone to the trouble of actually defining "heel striking" by saying this. Like most other runners on here, I assumed that this term referred to striking the ground with one's heel, which just about all runners do.

If what you see in the video is a mid-foot strike, and not heel striking by your definition, then I suppose I generally agree with you.

Instead of using single random pictures you've found on the internet to declare whether someone heel strikes or not, why not use this modern technology we have called high speed video...

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/09/how-worlds-best-runners-strike-ground.html

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot and only 4 were heel strikers.

Okay, back to arguing over random pictures taken that are on the internet.

uselessinfo wrote:

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot and only 4 were heel strikers.

In other words, more than a quarter of the elite runners were heel strikers. That is a significant number.

My take on it wrote:Heel striking, on the other hand, fits people with weaker foot strength.

This is your opinion or can you site a paper/research to prove this?

Really?? wrote:Running a treadmill does ruin my form.

And you think this proves your point that you need to run with your hips forward? Really?

uselessinfo wrote:

Instead of using single random pictures you've found on the internet to declare whether someone heel strikes or not, why not use this modern technology we have called high speed video...

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/09/how-worlds-best-runners-strike-ground.html

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot and only 4 were heel strikers.

Okay, back to arguing over random pictures taken that are on the internet.

But this still doesn't prove that heel striking is a bad thing.

keep_going wrote:

uselessinfo wrote:

Out of 15 runners in the 5th avenue mile, 11 were forefoot or midfoot and only 4 were heel strikers.

In other words, more than a quarter of the elite runners were heel strikers. That is a significant number.

But doesn't actually prove that heel striking is a bad thing.

Physics PhD wrote:

Same principle as climbing a vertical wall. It is very much possible even though no external force is pulling you to the wall.

Of course with an idealized (friction proportional to surface pressure), perfectly smooth and nonadhesive surface it is impossible. However such a surface do not exist in our physical world, it cant even be constructed in theory.

On a rubber track with spikes i believe it wouldnt be too hard after some training (but i have not tried so i could be wrong).

There is absolutely an external force pulling you to the wall. It's very clear that you do not know how torque works and your handle is misleading.

Even if you had friction on the ground, do you not see that endless torque is produced rotating you backwards without gravity? Or that the climber's feet is pushed into the wall?

Really, Physics PhD, you need to resist your free body diagrams. And if you or anyones else still thinks this is irrelevant to locomotion, you are completely wrong.

A comment of a clown.

lucKY2b wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

If what say is bad physics, maybe you care to educate me on how we create forward movement without using gravity?

Think about it this way. You can't breath without gravity either (unless you use a tank), but that doesn't mean gravity is what makes you breath. Gravity is just the backdrop underwhich we must function.

Contraction of muscles against static friction is what causes locomotion. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between static friction and gravity. The maximum amount of static friction that can produced is proportional to the normal force, but that only dictates how fast you can accelerate without slipping.

As I said, you do lean forward slightly to combat the drag force, but that about it, and it ain't much. If leaning forward were so important, running on a treadmill would ruin your form. Think about that.

ROTATION is caused by forces not in alignment, which is exactly what contracting muscles and static friction is. It is the forward lean that uses gravity that balances that rotation.

As you say, a forward lean is needed to combat drag force. So you see that a forward lean creates forward force. Now ask yourself, how is that done?

[quote]Bozo xx wrote:

A comment of a clown.

[quote]

Maybe you'd care to say something effective?

General reply to the entire thread...

1) Science

Calling for studies to prove something about running injuries is ridiculous. There are too many variables and it is too expensive to follow a large enough sample for a long enough period of time.

So, studies will not *prove* anything in this case.

What science can do is show as that x-footstrike showed significantly less knee torque than y-footstrike in q-number of runners.

It could also show us that x-footstrike did not show more knee torque than y-footstrike. This doesn't prove anything about injury so the scientists must deduce - for example "x-footstrike reduced knee torque and is thus POTENTIALLY less injurious than y-footstrike"

2) Gravity - the debate here is not over physics it is over semantics. When you lean forward you will either fall down or take a step. We all know this. So gravity helps us move forward by causing us to automatically take steps forward. Gravity is pulling down, we are stepping forward to remain upright. This is a way a slight forward lean is typically more efficient than running upright. It is easier to lift the leg than to push the body forward from a standstill.

3) heel vs. Midfoot - we know that in order to heel strike, one must either rely on protective shoes or run on soft terrain. Conversely, one can run midfoot while barefoot on very hard surfaces.

3B) heel, midfoot and forefoot are rarely even defined. Someone posted a link to the science of sport blog post about the japan study. They forgot to mention one critical thing - how did they define a heel strike?

One final thing to remember - it's always just a little more complicated than we think it is.

I hope everyone has a good new year. Please end this thread by then. My morbid fascination with it is quite disturbing. Just for the record though:

1. No one runs on their toes. The metatarsal-phalangeal joints are as far forward as we get. Horses run on their "toenails", but not humans.

2. Anyone striking their midfoot on the ground first is quite pathologic and probably suffers from Charcot Arthropathy and shouldn't be running at all. "Midfoot" strikers are merely striking the metatarsal-phalangeal joints at a different angle than "forefoot" strikers (closer to "heel" striking). This is due to the point in the gait cycle they actually touch the ground, dictated mostly by genetic factors.

3. The abuse I'll take for stating any of this is the price I must pay for commenting on a board filled with the highest intellect imaginable.

could some genius explain why they don't make any running shoes with spikes in the heel?

thank-you

wtf101 wrote:

could some genius explain why they don't make any running shoes with spikes in the heel?

Because no one toes off their heel. I guess there is such thing as a dumb question.

There is no way to truly quantify how much it matters, but to say it doesn't matter at all where one lands on their foot defies both logic and common sense. And NO I can't cite a study.

We run forward instead of backwards for a reason. Now I bet some very fit and trained people can run faster backwards than some fat slobs do forward. No one would dare argue that we should run backwards.

Natural selection (and money)has the giants trend towards basketball. Great hand/eye coordination trends toward baseball.

In track and field the big strong ones throw. The great nervous systems sprint and jump. And the great cardio vascular systems run endurance.

Watch a kids race you'll see all kinds of variety in both technique and cardio vasvular talent because the level of achievment is low. Same goes for a road race, but the people up front sure do look a lot different in how they move and run to the spectators than do the middle and back of the packers.

The higher up the level of achievment you go, those with weaker cardio vascular talent and technical talent will start to be NON competitive.

At the highest level only the greatest engines will survive and you will see even more commonality of technique. There will be fewer and fewer poor technical models. Are there some, yes. And the explanation for that is "great(er) engine." Do I have studies to cite? No.

Toe running is as bad or worse than deep heal contacts. The foot is best at dissipating force when the whole foot is used in a rolling rocking chair like action. Flat foot rolling contacts are "best biomechanical practice."

You just need to look and watch what happens MOST often. It is simple biological evolution. The best motors with the best technique will rise to the highest levels. People will fall all over the spectrum for good and bad motor and good and bad technique. The best combinations of the 2 will have the best success.

To say it doesn't matter, and mean that it really makes no difference how one runs does not make sense to me. Seeing people achieve highly and do it differently doesn't equate to "it doesn't matter how you do it."

Really?? wrote:

Running a treadmill does ruin my form.

And to Malmo:

I've suffered a few cases of PF and some self inflicted pain like you snd obviously some severe knee strains but really not much other than that.

When did I have some severe knee strains?