Lets just end the heel strike debate right now.

Modesty wrote:

That's only the case if you're not a competitive runner. Heel striking isn't bad if one is simply jogging.

Heel-striking isn't ever bad..... unless it's not your natural form.

So far in this thread we’ve counted these heel strikers:

Morceli, Malley, Tergat, Salazar, Nenow, Hunt, Dillon,

HHH wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:

Heel striking is the result of poor posture. Look, Arthur Lydiard repeated one simple mantra about running form - HIPS FORWARD, the rest will follow naturally. Arthur said the textbook example of this was Pekka Vasala.

Malmo sits back on his hips, but he had a great engine, which allowed him to WIN UGLY.

Did you know Arthur? I'm not sure he would agree with your comment about heel striking being a result of poor posture. Your comments about Malmo's running form are also out to lunch.

I have been to a lecture or two by Arthur who emphasised HIPS FORWARD, and that is the only thing he emphasised regarding running form. He equated running with your hips back with slouching in an armchair.

Previous, I should have said Malmo sits back on his hips SOMEWHAT. Where Malmo has solid mechanics, they are not truly outstanding per se....not like Greg Fredericks, for instance.

Ritz, Meb, Goumri also Heel Strikers=ineffecent

silly old fossil wrote:

HHH wrote:

Did you know Arthur? I'm not sure he would agree with your comment about heel striking being a result of poor posture. Your comments about Malmo's running form are also out to lunch.

I have been to a lecture or two by Arthur who emphasised HIPS FORWARD, and that is the only thing he emphasised regarding running form. He equated running with your hips back with slouching in an armchair.

Previous, I should have said Malmo sits back on his hips SOMEWHAT. Where Malmo has solid mechanics, they are not truly outstanding per se....not like Greg Fredericks, for instance.

But did he say that heel striking was bad?

Greg who? Did he beat Malmo?

HHH wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:

I have been to a lecture or two by Arthur who emphasised HIPS FORWARD, and that is the only thing he emphasised regarding running form. He equated running with your hips back with slouching in an armchair.

Previous, I should have said Malmo sits back on his hips SOMEWHAT. Where Malmo has solid mechanics, they are not truly outstanding per se....not like Greg Fredericks, for instance.

But did he say that heel striking was bad?

Greg who? Did he beat Malmo?

I am not the Lydiard expert...we should bring Nobby into this. The amount of time your foot is on the ground is wasted time....and heel striking (rolling up onto your toes) is a lot of wasted time on the ground...it ties into stride cadence as well.

Also, landing mid-foot allows you to go into the drive phase IMMEDIATELY.

Greg Fredericks had the best running form of anyone Malmo ever encounted...he told me so himself. Greg was a 1980 Olympian, and a 1972 should've been Olympian also.

I used to be a heel striker, although I imagine I would hit midfoot during faster paced speed work and races. I also did a lot of ultra's in those days, which I imagine were all accomplished through a natural heel strike (a few race photos confirm this fact).

I had never been a knee injury-prone runner, usually sidelined with your normal gamut of foot injuries instead. Still, I managed to take myself out of running with my worst knee injury ever, a few years ago. I built up mileage too quickly and am getting older (30s).

After healing, (without surgery), within reason I began running again and found myself running more on the front of my feet. I found in the early stages of returning to running, a full on heel strike would occasionally cause a "twinge" in the tender knee, so I naturally assumed a more forward foot strike. I now find myself running midfoot all the time. I can't tell how it alters performance as I still need to start training seriously again, but if I can do so without further injuries, I'm sold. So in my case the change in footstrike was both somewhat unconscious and somewhat deliberate at the same time, partially thanks to an injury.

As a sidenote I tried a deliberate change in my footstrike when I was running approx. 60-70 miles /week in the 90s, and just couldn't do it at the time.

stop the insanity wrote:

Modesty wrote:

That's only the case if you're not a competitive runner. Heel striking isn't bad if one is simply jogging.

Heel-striking isn't ever bad..... unless it's not your natural form.

So far in this thread we’ve counted these heel strikers:

Morceli, Malley, TERGAT, Salazar, Nenow, Hunt, Dillon,

Terhat didn't heel strike. Its obvious in the previously linked video that he does no such thing. He mid foots the entire time.

I really can't understand why people can't see that Tergat does not heel strike. He is clearly Lower Midfoot. These people clearly don't know what heel striking is...

silly old fossil wrote:

HHH wrote:

But did he say that heel striking was bad?

Greg who? Did he beat Malmo?

I am not the Lydiard expert...we should bring Nobby into this. The amount of time your foot is on the ground is wasted time....and heel striking (rolling up onto your toes) is a lot of wasted time on the ground...it ties into stride cadence as well.

Also, landing mid-foot allows you to go into the drive phase IMMEDIATELY.

Greg Fredericks had the best running form of anyone Malmo ever encounted...he told me so himself. Greg was a 1980 Olympian, and a 1972 should've been Olympian also.

Do you have a link to a study that proves that heel striking ties up stride cadence? Or that landing mid-foot allows you to go into the drive phase immediately?

Most people, even 'heel strikers', tend to land a bit more mid foot when they are going faster. I'm not arguing that mid foot or fore foot striking is bad, I'm just saying that doing some heel striking isn't. Run the way you run, don't over think it. There isn't one correct way to run, there are lots. Some people are more efficient running as heel strikers, some are more efficient running as mid foot or forefoot. The more you run, the more efficient your body becomes. In my opinion you are better off spending some extra time training rather than worrying about your form.

silly old fossil wrote:

I am not the Lydiard expert...we should bring Nobby into this. The amount of time your foot is on the ground is wasted time....and heel striking (rolling up onto your toes) is a lot of wasted time on the ground...it ties into stride cadence as well.

Also, landing mid-foot allows you to go into the drive phase IMMEDIATELY.

Really? Where is your evidence that heel striking affects the drive-phase at all? Where is your evidence that is matters? Science is observable and repeatable. You are offering a mere hypothesis, not a scientific fact. Show us the data to support your theory?

I said that Fredericks, whom I've beaten many times, is the smoothest runner I've ever seen. It has nothing to do with where is foot touches the ground first. Noreginne Moreli is almost as smooth - strikes his heel first even at 3:27 1500m speeds (:55s)

Malmo this is pathetic. But before going off on facts that I can not proove, I just want to ask, How much did you use to get injured Malmo?

silly old fossil wrote:

Previous, I should have said Malmo sits back on his hips SOMEWHAT. Where Malmo has solid mechanics, they are not truly outstanding per se....not like Greg Fredericks, for instance.

SOF, A couple of things, quantify what "sitting back on the hips" is? Then establish what "somewhat" means? Then after that identify who is "sitting back..." who is "not sitting back ..." and who is "sitting back ...somewhat" Then after that show us why this is relevant at all?

The problem with our sport is there is a desire for some people to make it 'scientific', so a lot of terminology gets thrown out that has little or no relevance. Science isn't about circular reasoning. The scientific method is about hypothesis (read 'speculation'), observation and the collection of empirical data through repeatable experiments, and coming to cogent conclusions through logical reasoning. The problem here is that people rarely get past the hypothesis stage, and end up repeating the hypothesis, sprinkled with a few stock scientific terms, as scientific fact. So we end up with a sport laden with a sub-population that buys into gimmicks that have no known physiological mechanism to support their use -- breathe right strips, ice baths, compression socks, etc etc etc.

Simply voicing the words 'biomechanics' and 'mitochondria' doesn't make an hypothesis any more scientific than putting a bird on something makes it art.

Science is used to understand and explain physical phenomena. Speculation, hypothesis, serendipity, and even drunken visions are a starting point in science -- not the end point.

The scientific method is a factory that has a creative Hypothesis Department, an Experimental and Observation Lab, and then it all goes through a Logic Mill before the final product comes out. Once out, the product can be tested and retested, and the entire manufacturing process scrutinized by outsiders until all of the bugs are worked out.

Really?? wrote:

Malmo this is pathetic. But before going off on facts that I can not proove, I just want to ask, How much did you use to get injured Malmo?

What's pathetic?

Injury? Probably less, way less than most.

About once a year.

In 3 years in high school high school (2)

I nearly missed the entire cross country season (1971) due to Osgood's Schlatters', and had a foot injury (1972) that slowed me down for a few weeks. That's all.

In college, 6 injuries, missed 3 races

Freshman year (1974)

banged my heel up in the steeplechase, which slowed me down for a few weeks.

Sophomore year of XC (1974) I sat out of ONE race as a precaution due to a tweaked hamstring. Smashed my knee into a steeplechase barrier at the AAUs 4 laps in with a 20 meter lead.

Junior year (1976) dropped a bowling ball on my foot the night before the Olympic Trials

Senior year (1977) strained peroneal ligament on indoor track had to miss one meet and take 10 days off. a week later anchored DMR from DFL to 3rd at NCAAs. Stress fracture, missed one meet, taped up foot and managed training very carefully.

As a pro:

1978 tweaked my soleus in a speed workout. Did miss any races, but wanted to.

1980 Sciatica, missed 6 weeks.

1981 Stepped in a whole on a frozen golf course, torn PF, which would severly limit my training for 14 months and continue to be with me for 4 years.

1983 Pulled gluteus medias muscle on easy training run, limited training for 5 months.

1984 Strained ligament in groin from wild monkey sex with girlfriend.

1986 tweaked soleus muscle

1989 sciatica, missed 6 weeks, strained ligament in groin, more wild monkey sex

In summation, Osgood Shlatters, a few muscle tweaks, smashing a barrier, a bowling ball, one stress fracture, stepping in a hole, sciatica and wild monkey sex.

How about you, what's your injury history?

What's actually shocking is that YOU don't already know about this. We aren't talking about some esoteric thing like whether it's better to run just above or just below the alleged anaerobic thrshold. How to run is "pretty fundamental" to the sport of track and field.

I don't want to imply any endorsement of POSE, which has been shown to cause a reduction in RE. But, since you asked, here are the facts about heel striking....

Here is evidence that Steve Magness knows substantially more about the sport than you do:

The scientific evidence in the above link is that forefoot striking leads to substantially greater RE than heel striking, but this is something coaches and physiologists have known for a long time. Pick up a copy of Coe/Martin and read the first chapter. On page 12:

I have an old version of the "TAC Track and Field Coaching Manual" from 1981, which says that faster runners land toward the balls of the feet, while slower runners tend to land toward (but it does not say "on") the heel.

What also bothers me in this whole thread is that I didn't see the word "midfoot" or "mid foot" until about post #170. However, many talented longer distance people--including Morceli--keep the foot dorsiflexed and strike with both the heel and the ball of the foot at the same time, as Ryan Hall explains:

And then there's the talk about Salazar. This season, of the top 15 people in the 1500, 8 were from Kenya and 4 were from the USA--we don't have the same depth, but our best people are right up there. We have a few coaches (Salazar, Jerry, Dr. Vigil, Mahon, Cook, Dr. Li) that are doing extremely well...but the gap behind them is very large. I fear a large part of the reason is the lack of knowledge like I see here.

Malmo, I corrected myself by saying you had solid mechanics, and I was comparing you to the truly outstanding HIPS FORWARD runners - Bekele, Coe, and especially El Caballo/Juantorena. They each had this )slight curve to their lower back. Hope that helps.

Malmo, for every Morceli, John Treacy, Rod Dixon's there are going to be 20 Carlos Lopes in the top echelon.

It is difficult to tell if someone is really heel-striking or not from the front or side....the best way to judge is video footage from behind.

Hope this clears things up for you.

SOF, as I stated before, you keep citing your hypothesis as proof that the hypothesis is true. You still haven't defined what "hips forward" means, and most important of all, why it matters?

I don't see any difference between my hips or Bekeles. We both run upright with a slight forward lean, "hips forward" whatever the hell that means. He lands on his forefoot, I don't (at least until I hit speeds of 4:20 mile)

Morceli, who ran at faster speeds than Bekeli, runs on his heels. He also runs upright 'hips forward' accordinly your completely vague and subjective terminolgy, with a slight forward lean.

What difference does it make? NONE.

coach d wrote:

Here is evidence that Steve Magness knows substantially more about the sport than you do:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2010/02/new-studies-on-footstrike-do-faster.html

The scientific evidence in the above link is that forefoot striking leads to substantially greater RE than heel striking, but this is something coaches and physiologists have known for a long time. Pick up a copy of Coe/Martin and read the first chapter. On page 12:

[quote]

"A majority of talented runners (60%) land on the forefoot, a sizeable number land on the midfoot(30%), and the remainder are rearfoot strikers (10%)."

(Cavanaugh, Pollock, and Lambda 1977)

Steve Magness? I don't think so. Not even in my pinky. This is the guy we all got to watch flail about miserably in real time for a decade. Perhaps he was too busy focusing on the extraneous to even come close to his best running - from high school?

There were no real conclusions in your citation at all - just more speculation. In fact there was not one fecund(sic

) bit of information there. But i do like the graound contact time information - empirical data that tells you exactly what you should already know. A person who touches with the heels first, of course is going to have longer ground contact, that doesn't speak to the relevance of whether it is good or bad. If the study would have noted, I'd be willing to bet that the lenght of time that the forefoot touches the ground for heel runners is exactly the same time as those forefoot runners. I'd bet the farm on it. Big whup. Tell me something I don't know.

The fact is, ground contact times are determined largely by cadence and forward velocity. Another statement of the obvious, just as knowing through empirical observation that ground contact of a hell striker is .02s more than forefoot strikes.

I suppose Magness' next revelation is that the sky is blue, most times?

malmo wrote:

SOF, as I stated before, you keep citing your hypothesis as proof that the hypothesis is true. You still haven't defined what "hips forward" means, and most important of all, why it matters?

I don't see any difference between my hips or Bekeles. We both run upright with a slight forward lean, "hips forward" whatever the hell that means. He lands on his forefoot, I don't (at least until I hit speeds of 4:20 mile)

Morceli, who ran at faster speeds than Bekeli, runs on his heels. He also runs upright 'hips forward' accordinly your completely vague and subjective terminolgy, with a slight forward lean.

What difference does it make? NONE.

Malmo, THIS!!!!!

Particularly STEP 1....experiment with it yourself.