Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

The fact that people will sit there and type something as nonsensical as "Landing heel first is not heel striking" suggests that trying to debate with them is a pointless exercise. In fact I believe that this statement comes under the logical fallacy called "High redefinition".

Really?? wrote:

Malmo, a question to consider. If you WERE NOT a Heel Striker, would you seriously be defending them? Are you sure your not biased towards Heel Striking because you are a heel stiker yourself? Or are you just refusing to see the facts?

I guess Malmo just cannot be wrong..And no once again, Paul Tergat is not a heel striker.

You idiots are the ones with a bias. It's been clearly established many different ways. WHO'S THE ONE NOT SEEING THE FACTS?

1. By citing examples of many elite heel strikers that refutes the OPs outrageous claims

2. Exposes the forefoot strikers proponents as cultists, not scientist

3. Exposes the cultists for ZERO evidence to support their mantra

4. Exposes the cultists for their facile physics.

The cultists ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges upon circular reasoning and a facile understanding of physics.

Fell Runner wrote:

The fact that people will sit there and type something as nonsensical as "Landing heel first is not heel striking" suggests that trying to debate with them is a pointless exercise. In fact I believe that this statement comes under the logical fallacy called "High redefinition".

I'm no expert on logical fallacies, but I believe it could be an example of my personal favorite, the celebrated "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

You guys are not paying attention to what I'm saying. It all depends on where you put the most pressure on your foot. If you strike *lightly* on your heel but put the most pressure on your forefoot then that is ok.

Lets just call it a trade off. No one is going to convince either side of any different. One side is wrong, one side is right, one side might be partially right, etc...

Heel = the back part of your foot

Strike = to hit or come into contact with something

Heelstrike = hitting the ground with your heel. You can't just redefine the term once you start to look stupid.

So now we have:

Noureddine Morceli

John Treacy

Rod Dixon

George Malley

Paul Tergat

Alberto Salazar

Mark Nenow

Thom Hunt

Dan Dillon

Jan Merrill

Greg Meyer

Dathan Ritzenhein (being fixed or being f***ed depending upon your reality)

Mebrahtom Keflezighi

Abderrahim Goumri

Abebe Bekila

Abdi Abdirahman

El G

Abubaker Kaki

Miruts Yifter

Vebjorn Rodahl

Joachim Cruz

I wonder if Salazar thinks he could have changed his own form. My take is that he could not and that it would have been a waste of time to try...same with a guy like John Treacy. Being efficient and looking good while running are two different things. Efficiency or running economy can be measured an aesthetically pleasing stride is a matter of opinion.

You can definitely add Khannouchi to that list, I found a few pictures just googling his name. Too bad the poor schmo didn't know how bad his form was, could've been the first 2:04

edumacator wrote:

You can definitely add Khannouchi to that list, I found a few pictures just googling his name. Too bad the poor schmo didn't know how bad his form was, could've been the first 2:04

Maybe he could have been too if he had run in Berlin or Rotterdam. That guy was a beast.

Paul Tergat IS NOT A HEEL STRIKER. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just stop the argument now seriously I tried to make ammends but really guys just stop your the ones dragging on this argument.

whether youre a heel striker or forefoot striker depends on muscle imbalances. malmo and all those heel strikin bros have a weak core and weak calves.

let them heel strike in all their glorious inefficiency, while we forefoot strikers reap the benefits of magnificent form!

^This

malmo,

are there any running books or guides that teach how to heel strike ? is there a correct way to heel strike as opposed to a wrong or inefficient way? is your heel strike optimal or could you improve it?

if a somewhat uncoordinated person with a very limited athletic background wanted to start running to keep fit and maybe test their own potential, what would you tell them with respect to their own, unsure gait?

thank-you

Really?? wrote:

You guys are not paying attention to what I'm saying. It all depends on where you put the most pressure on your foot. If you strike *lightly* on your heel but put the most pressure on your forefoot then that is ok.

Lets just call it a trade off. No one is going to convince either side of any different. One side is wrong, one side is right, one side might be partially right, etc...

So what you're saying is that just because they land on their heel doesn't make them a heel striker. What sort of pressure reading device are you using to determine how hard someone is landing on their heels? What sort of downward pressure would you use as a cut off for determining a heavy heel striker versus someone who strikers *lightly* on their heel which actually qualifies them as a mid foot striker?

Let's call it a tradeoff? I don't think so. You remind me of the Black Knight in Search For the Holy Grail who after he has his arms and legs chopped off decides to call it a draw:

Really?? wrote:

Paul Tergat IS NOT A HEEL STRIKER. I don't know how many times I have to say this. Just stop the argument now seriously I tried to make ammends but really guys just stop your the ones dragging on this argument.

But does he land with his heel first?

muscle imbalances wrote:whether youre a heel striker or forefoot striker depends on muscle imbalances. malmo and all those heel strikin bros have a weak core and weak calves.

Can you prove this?

Graeme McDowell wrote:

I wonder if Salazar thinks he could have changed his own form. My take is that he could not and that it would have been a waste of time to try...same with a guy like John Treacy. Being efficient and looking good while running are two different things. Efficiency or running economy can be measured an aesthetically pleasing stride is a matter of opinion.

Goes back to my example of Suzy Favor Hamilton: was both aesthetically pleasing from the side, but from the front her legs flung out wildly, in directions that you only see in victims of automobile accidents.

wtf102 wrote:

malmo,

are there any running books or guides that teach how to heel strike ? is there a correct way to heel strike as opposed to a wrong or inefficient way? is your heel strike optimal or could you improve it?

if a somewhat uncoordinated person with a very limited athletic background wanted to start running to keep fit and maybe test their own potential, what would you tell them with respect to their own, unsure gait?

thank-you

Not looking to answer for Malmo but I'm guessing he would suggest this:

And tell you that your body will figure out it's most efficient way to run.

HHH wrote:

Let's call it a tradeoff? I don't think so. You remind me of the Black Knight in Search For the Holy Grail who after he has his arms and legs chopped off decides to call it a draw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

Hey, that's my stock retort when I'm dealing with an irrational debater.

"It's only a flesh wound."

muscle imbalances wrote:

whether youre a heel striker or forefoot striker depends on muscle imbalances. malmo and all those heel strikin bros have a weak core and weak calves.

let them heel strike in all their glorious inefficiency, while we forefoot strikers reap the benefits of magnificent form!

Wouldn't you know it, we go from one false assertion to another. Its absolutely endless with you guys.