Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

HHH, the guy publishes a study in which he highlights data from a two subjects: (1) a barefoot forefoot striker and (2) a barefoot heelstriker. As it turns out, the two runners are the same person -- HIMSELF(1,2) -- some quirky guy who runs around the streets a Cambridge with no shoes on. He a a barefoot-running nutjob -- an evangelical one at that.

gazoo wrote:

Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story. Stop being lazy and get better form.

.

The "debate" was settled in the first few pages. Elite runners do heelstrike.

Quite simply getting the most out of the way or manner you use your feet to run, be it for recreation, or competition. Possibly also for rehabilitation.

Exercising your feet. That' all.

Please allow the idea that although footwork is a term commonly used for dancing or boxing or tennis, it can be acceptably applied to running. Especially on irregular surfaces and unpredictable situations.

Male, by the way.

wtf+n (and other sockpuppets) are you Lieberman, or are all barefoot cultists just as obsessive?

"In the barefoot runner who heelstrikes, the typical impact force that you'll get landing on your heel is two times your body weight, essentially the same as hitting your hell with a hammer with two times your body weight." - Dr Daniel Lieberman

http://www.runbare.com/389/new-study-by-dr-daniel-lieberman-on-barefoot-running-makes-cover-story-in-nature-journal/

wtf100+n wrote:Quite simply getting the most out of the way or manner you use your feet to run, be it for recreation, or competition. Possibly also for rehabilitation.

Exercising your feet. That' all.

Please allow the idea that although footwork is a term commonly used for dancing or boxing or tennis, it can be acceptably applied to running. Especially on irregular surfaces and unpredictable situations.

Male, by the way.

Okay, so in the context of this discussion which is about elite runners not heel striking and heel striking being an inefficient way to run, what is your point?

Some definitions are needed here:

Forefoot striking is defined as the first point of contact is your forefoot (regardless if your heal then touches the ground after first contact). No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if it touches first you are not a forefoot striker.

Heal striker is defined as the first point of contact is the heal. No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if your heal touches first you ARE a heal striker.

Aghast wrote:

Some definitions are needed here:

Forefoot striking is defined as the first point of contact is your forefoot (regardless if your heal then touches the ground after first contact). No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if it touches first you are not a forefoot striker.

Heal striker is defined as the first point of contact is the heal. No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if your heal touches first you ARE a heal striker.

I don't know why you had to post that, but it will be interesting to see how the cultists try to blur the line.

Aghast wrote:

Some definitions are needed here:

Forefoot striking is defined as the first point of contact is your forefoot (regardless if your heal then touches the ground after first contact). No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if it touches first you are not a forefoot striker.

Heal striker is defined as the first point of contact is the heal. No matter how lightly your heal touches the ground, if your heal touches first you ARE a heal striker.

Uh oh, the cultists will not like this Aghast, not at all!

wtf100+n wrote:

Are you Malmo?

I have contributed some questions already. I like to read and listen more than posting to be right. Still, this is an interesting topic. Read the wtf posts in this thread. Some of my questions generated some answers which I am going to check on before i comment them ( what the lore of running says about heel striking - I dont have the book handy.)

I hardly got any answers from Malmo. And that might have generated some further contributing.

What is quite unlikeable is that he acts like a bully calling people names, insulting them, and so on.

He is allowed to do this because he is/was fast? Injured during sex? A moderator? Why ?

It seems ok to me to let him know.

I hope you will be equally concerned for me.

It's really quite bizarre and in a lurid way, fascinating to follow someone who is reputed to have been a professional athlete, cling to a message board peopled mostly by school boys and recreational athletes only to lose his cool and berate posters with childish insults and name calling. It's hard to imagine similar behavior from former major league baseball players or NFL vets.

He seems to be surprised that runners would actually come to a public message board to discuss, well, running without passing some sort of entrance qualifications devised by him.

gallagher wrote:It's really quite bizarre and in a lurid way, fascinating to follow someone who is reputed to have been a professional athlete, cling to a message board peopled mostly by school boys and recreational athletes only to lose his cool and berate posters with childish insults and name calling. It's hard to imagine similar behavior from former major league baseball players or NFL vets.

He seems to be surprised that runners would actually come to a public message board to discuss, well, running without passing some sort of entrance qualifications devised by him.

Gallagher! You're back, thank goodness. Does this mean we still might to get for our run through the snow and examine footprints?

HHH wrote:

gallagher wrote:It's really quite bizarre and in a lurid way, fascinating to follow someone who is reputed to have been a professional athlete, cling to a message board peopled mostly by school boys and recreational athletes only to lose his cool and berate posters with childish insults and name calling. It's hard to imagine similar behavior from former major league baseball players or NFL vets.

He seems to be surprised that runners would actually come to a public message board to discuss, well, running without passing some sort of entrance qualifications devised by him.

Gallagher! You're back, thank goodness. Does this mean we still might to get for our run through the snow and examine footprints?

I suppose I will suffer through it if there is ale at the end; on the other hand, I may need some during the workout.

HHH, I do not agree with the context you indicate.

Predictably, a thread with a provocative title developed several contexts, not least Malmo's need to work on his explanations of physics.

More interestingly, the thread generated several posts which clearly indicate there are some very educated people out there, spending time reading this message board.

Thus the context I focussed on was trying to understand why Malmo is posting as though he is the global authority on running, moreover insolently so.

Personally and very briefly, I think more research needs to done for substantial conclusions to be made about footstrike efficiency. But I find the work done todate, interesting and stimulating.

And no, I am not Lieberman. Neither am I obsessive nor cultist of anything or any kind.

But Maybe Malmo should send Lieberman an email with all his perplexities.

lucKY2b wrote:

I'm surprised by the statement the shoe does not absorb some of the initial impact shock; that is counterintuitive to me. The shoe has an elasticity, which must lead to some compression that would decouple somewhat the road from the leg. Reference?

Nevermind, I've answered my own question. Since the shoes are so light, whatever force is evident at the bottom is essentially transmitted through. It should be noted, however, that the shoe does distribute that force across the heal so it does reduce the pressure.

No, you and your buddies just added every pro runner to the list of heel strikers, even ones that don't heelstrike. I've brought that up twice before but my post keeps getting deleted. I'll say it again; adding random pros who are midfoot strikers to the list of heel strikers isn't a good argument. Why not add sprinters to the mix too?

malmo wrote:

The "debate" was settled in the first few pages. Elite runners do heelstrike.

Sorry gallegher (or whatever name you're posting under next time) I haven't lost my cool one bit. When a few idiots come to a message board for serious runners and make an outlandish claim about elite runners that has been already been disproved, they should be ridiculed. No one, me or anyone else, has created "entrance qualifications" for discussion. The discussion is "Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story" which has been categorically proven wrong. The corollary sub-discussion is "footstriking is better than heelstriking" which has also been proven wrong. The center of this 2nd discussion hinges around THE OPINION (not facts) of an obsessive barefoot running professor who runs around the streets of Cambridge in his bare feet. He is an evangelical nutjob who takes funding from a New Age footwear company, uses himself as a subject to collect data for a predetermined conclusion disired by the footwear company - that barefoot running is better. "gallegher" I used to live in Eugene Oregon. It's a place (like Cambridge, Berkely and Madison) that attracts all kinds of crazies. There used to be an SSDI-collecting nutjob there who called himself "Zeus"(RIP) who used to wander around town wearing dresses with headless barbie dolls sewn on it, and wore a crown, which was a silver spray-painted automobile air filter.. I am one of the few people who actally sat down with him and talked to him, but not without making him discard the ridiculous public facade. Every time I look at that video of Dr Lieberman running around Cambridge on a cold winter day in his bare feet, the first thing that comes to my mind is Zeus. If there's anything pathological about my posting on an internet message board, it's me discussing anything with anonymous sockpuppets. There's a good reason why you cultists cannot identify yourselves.

gazoo wrote:

Heelstrikers are not stupid, they are just unaware of a bad habit. People who feel the need to justify heel striking are idiots. You learned a bad habit. Get over it. You refuse change still you are not as good as you could be.

Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story. Stop being lazy

and get better form.

wtf100+n wrote:

But Maybe Malmo should send Lieberman an email with all his perplexities.

Contacting barefoot running nutjobs is just as crazy as being a barefoot running nutjob.

gazoo wrote:

No, you and your buddies just added every pro runner to the list of heel strikers, even ones that don't heelstrike.

I've brought that up twice before but my post keeps getting deleted.

I'll say it again; adding random pros who are midfoot strikers to the list of heel strikers isn't a good argument. Why not add sprinters to the mix too?

Perhaps you could consider using one anonymous name? The Meerkat Sockpuppet Stratagem doesn't fool anyone.

gazoo wrote:

No, you and your buddies just added every pro runner to the list of heel strikers, even ones that don't heelstrike.

You're wrong.

gazoo wrote:

Elite runners do not heelstrike, end of story. Stop being lazy

and get better form.

wtf100+n wrote:HHH, I do not agree with the context you indicate.

Predictably, a thread with a provocative title developed several contexts, not least Malmo's need to work on his explanations of physics.

More interestingly, the thread generated several posts which clearly indicate there are some very educated people out there, spending time reading this message board.

Thus the context I focussed on was trying to understand why Malmo is posting as though he is the global authority on running, moreover insolently so.

Personally and very briefly, I think more research needs to done for substantial conclusions to be made about footstrike efficiency. But I find the work done todate, interesting and stimulating.

And no, I am not Lieberman. Neither am I obsessive nor cultist of anything or any kind.

But Maybe Malmo should send Lieberman an email with all his perplexities.

Okay, carry away with your personal attack, I don't have anything to add to this.

gazoo wrote:No, you and your buddies just added every pro runner to the list of heel strikers, even ones that don't heelstrike.

I've brought that up twice before but my post keeps getting deleted.

I'll say it again; adding random pros who are midfoot strikers to the list of heel strikers isn't a good argument. Why not add sprinters to the mix too?

No reply to Aghast's definition then? You're still considering some heel strikers to be mid foot strikers?