rekrunner wrote:I took a Xmas break, so here are a summary of my own opinions, to a bunch of previous posts, in no special order.
First, lets talk about the calcaneus, and bones in general. Addressing the statement "No single person can possibly think that landing on a single large bone can absorb shock unless they are stupid." Not ruling out that I may, in fact, be stupid (although no one has yet shown that in any study), one of the primary adaptations of training is within the structure of your bones. Bones respond to stress, by becoming more resistant to that stress. If we stress bones too much, too quickly, without giving them a chance to adapt, then we end up with stress fractures and breaks. Therefore, the calcaneus which doesn't fracture or break must be adapting sufficiently to handle the stress. Is heel-bone stress fracture a common running injury? Is it more prevalent in heel-strikers versus mid-foot/fore-foot strikers? I've never heard of it before, as a running injury. Sure, falling out of a building, or being thrown out of a car, but not as a cumulative stress injury due to running. I thought heel-striking stressed the knees and hips, not the heel itself.
But otherwise, I think I know why this debate can not end. If the question is wrong, can there be a right answer, and would it matter?
What have we learned so far?
There doesn't yet seem to be any reason to conclude that heel striking, in and of itself, is bad at all. As far as I can tell, beyond speculation, no one has yet linked it to bad form, inefficiency, reduced performance or injuries. Forget ending the debate, it hasn't really even started yet, because there are no established facts, only a bunch of speculative hypotheses.
To characterize this alleged "debate", on one side, people have turned speculative hypotheses into premature conclusions, saying that heel striking is bad for you (attempting to link it to bad form, inefficiency, reduced performance, or increase injury). On the other side, we have a group of people, not saying the exact opposite, that heel striking is good, but rather saying that there is not yet any basis for debate, one way or the other. The two "sides" are not even having the same discussion.
Seems like the best answer is not "yes" or "no", but to "unask the question":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_
(negative)
Or to paraphrase Joshua's lesson about global thermonuclear war in "Wargames", "the only way to win, is not to play the game".
Of course someone astutely observed that no study has shown that foot-strike doesn't matter. That seems like a valid observation that deserves some attention, but then where does that leave us. No study shows that foot-striking matters, or doesn't matter. Isn't it premature to conclude that the heel striking debate is over? I guess you can not ignore the biggest epidemiological study of all -- real life. "malmo" says that in his personal experience of over 40 years of being connected to elite athletes and coaches, changing your foot-strike didn't ever seem to be a priority for anyone at anytime. Does someone have any counter-example to that? Not changing form (like Salazar/Ritz), but simply the foot-strike pattern.
What else have we learned? Forget what heel striking is, at least we know what it is not:
- Heel striking is not over-striding (sorry biggus dickus). Although over-striding is characterized by heel striking, the opposite is not true.
- Heel striking is neither form, nor efficiency. While form and efficiency are often areas of concern for coaches and athletes, heel striking may (or may not) be just one facet of overall improvements in form, and efficiency. To early to tell.
For those who wanted to define over-striding, we don't need a clear definition at all, as long we know the definition of "over". Of course "over"-striding must indicate some non-optimal imbalance, or else it wouldn't be prefixed with "over". There must be "too much" of something. We know over-striding is bad, simply by definition of the prefix. How would I define over-striding? Well if you reduce your stride, and see improvement, then you were over striding. I proved this to myself by experiment when I was 13.
What about the tendency to heel strike with shoes, while forefoot striking barefoot? Here I will re-ask questions from Ross Tucker and Jonathon Dugas (sportsscientists.com). If we assume the body naturally finds an optimal foot strike when barefoot, why can't we also assume that it naturally finds the optimal foot strike when wearing shoes? This leads to a mighty different hypothesis, that heel striking while wearing shoes is not only not unnatural, but rather optimal. Also, with the Japanese study (referenced before), Ross and Jon suggest we can not rule out that observing more "mid-foot strikers" in the top 50 is simply because foot-strike is a function of speed. The faster we go, the more we tend to move our strike "up the foot". This change is natural, and doesn't need to be "learned".
What about POSE? Interesting idea, but what is Dr. Romanov selling? Weekend seminars on how to adapt to a "one-size-fits-all" form. But it hasn't been established that 1) one size fits all, and 2) that changing the form reduces injuries. Furthermore, two conclusions from Dr. Romanov's own studies are that 1) athletes who start POSE often complain about ankle, achilles, and calf problems, and 2) changing to "the POSE" leads to a reduction of efficiency, at least for the short term of the study (the topic wasn't explained or followed up). I could see rationalizing a change to a POSE-like form, to reduce knee and hip injuries, for those who may be more prone to those types of injuries, or for those who over-stride, but not as a "one-size-fits-all" program that can be packaged into a weekend infomercial for everyone.
I guess the Lieberman study raises one more question in my mind, putting aside any observations about scientific methodology. While he showed data about different strides stepping on a force plate, did he talk about stride rates? (I didn't/won't read the study). I mean, is it better to reduce impact forces by 1/2, if you double the number of impacts?
And I can see how, if you read some of his statements a certain way, some might speculate that "malmo" comes across as arrogant. Don't let that stop you from pointing out which facts are wrong, or any logical flaws and fallacies he commits, or real facts which show the contrary. Seems like the only thing "stupid" he's done in this thread (besides the unfortunate "biggus dickus" little mixup earlier), is just to participate for 32 pages about a debate which hasn't even properly started.
And is "malmo" a coach? Well he says no, but what about "summer of malmo"? Isn't the whole spirit of "summer of malmo" exactly what he's saying here -- "it doesn't matter!!!" Just go out and run, get in some miles, meet up with teammates, and rivals too, once in a while for a group speed session, and have fun -- it's summer! No complex daily/weekly plans, no fixed targets, no goals, beyond building a summer base, learning to relax, and occasionally learning how to run faster, in a group. Don't sweat trivial details, like how your foot lands, and where your hips are supposed to be, relative to your center of gravity.
Sorry it's so long, but so is this thread.
(And for HHH -- sorry but I conducted no studies or references to backup my baseless observations and uninformed opinions. It's all based on my own logic, reasoning, observation, experience and personal bias).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a pretty good post and no worries about the lack of a study since you ended it by saying that they are your own observations and reasoning. If only we could get the cultists to do the same, I think we could all get along much better!
___________________________________________________________I couldn't help but laughing.