posted Dec-17-2006 03:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
The other strategy is the quick 'dab' ...requires a much higher jump to travel the length of the stride

---

This is another reason for having a quick turnover. It minimizes the the vertical motion.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-17-2006 05:04 PM            

seriously, i read this thread with great interest. i have wondered if wearing shoes that "correct" my overpronation is a good idea, or if i should just allow my stride and strike to take their "natural" course.

however, the whole "natural" argument wears a little thin. we evolved without penicillin or the polio vaccine, but life is a lot better with 'em than without them. yes, i know that diseases evolve as well, but do you want to be the one to "take one for the team" and do without a vaccine or antibiotic because we want to keep germs from becoming resistant?

i do agree that equipment can often give a false sense of security or a false sense of invulnerability. however, we have always been an innovative bunch, and we invent gear because it gives us an advantage, whether that gear is armor, or a better sword, or a soldier's boot, or a runner's shoe.

(and i would contend that we absolutely did evolve playing football. it's called war.)

i'm sure if i ran barefooted on the concrete sidewalk i'd have excellent form, for about 100 yards. and then i'd turn around, go back inside, and get my running shoes. now, maybe doing that barefooted exercise would help me make better use of my running shoes, or move from stability shoes to neutral shoes, or something like that.

i may very well give it a try. i know it would give my crazy neighbors something to think about. we live next door to the Kravitzes, except they're married with homeschooled children. Mr. Kravitz was out in front of his house yesterday lighting up all the neighborhood traffic with a radar gun.

maybe i'll wait until he has his radar gun and go slogging past him barefooted. i can see his neighborhood espionage log entry now: "1:46 p.m. Fat neighbor lady next door just ran by with no shoes. speed: 5.2 mph. wonder if they are in financial difficulties. mental note: watch for foreclosure listing."

anyway, this has been an informative thread, and for the most part a mannerly one. thanks for the interesting posts.

------------------
Run strong. Run beautiful. Run Athena.
www.RunAthena.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 04:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reboot:
effzee;
Clearly a forefoot landing is not universally recommended and it is not anything like clear that it is preferable in any runner except a sprinter.

In your picture sequence, the footstrike is clearly and obviously in front of the CG. Further, it is also clear that a heel strike rather than a forefoot strike in the same sequence would place the strike location closer to the CG.

---

woooops, I was gone for a few days... I know it looks like his foot is landing in front but that's a very first moment of contact, of the sole of the shoe. The real foot "contact" occurs below his hip, he explains this on his cd-rom. And the placement can't be measured down to the micron, but it's still very close. And this is a clip of him running a very fast pace.

If he were to shift to his heels, btw, he would have to throw his legs out further in front of him. There's no way to land your heels below your CG. Not without considerable effort. Try it.

Anyway, I think semantics pays a role in this whole discussion. We, and pretty much everyone, agrees that a "midfoot" landing is the best. The nuances are in the fraction of a second that comes before the midfoot landing. Is the weight shifted to the balls or the heels?

You're right that there is a lot of contention and differing opinions. But, I've be re-trained into a "forefoot" runner and also been convinced that that foot placement is the end-sum of the larger equation of total running form. It's not the place to begin when working on your form.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 05:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianfie:
To me this means some amount of forefoot landing, but dropping quickly to the heel to stop the calves taking too much strain - and landing with a flexed knee.
However, why not land heel first and then transfer load to the forefoot?

---

Sounds good to me.

Why not land heel first - because the flexion, if that's the right word, in the foot translates to strain on muscles, ligaments, tendons and joints. That's part of the "braking" effect and also the increase in injury risk. But, if it's part of "mid-foot" landing, I have to admit, it's probably not a high risk or a problem but I'm still not 100% convinced. I really wonder if some people "think" they're landing the heels when in fact they are not, or if it just looks that way under certain circumstances...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 05:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by effzee:

You're right that there is a lot of contention and differing opinions. But, I've be re-trained into a "forefoot" runner and also been convinced that that foot placement is the end-sum of the larger equation of total running form. It's not the place to begin when working on your form.

---

Amen

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 09:43 AM            

To me landing on your heel makes you less efficient. I don't see how it would help. If you land on your heel it means more than likely your foot is striking the ground in front of your center of gravity and braking you.

If this happens you should probably take a shorter stride so that your foot lands directly under your body. That way there is no braking action. If your foot lands directly under you then you will land on your midfoot. To accomplish this you can slow down when running which will give you a shorter stride. Then once you are good at that you can speed up your stride rate which is the efficient way to run (180 strides per minute is ideal from what I have read).

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 10:03 AM            

There is a dual function to the landing leg. It must fully absorb the downward velocity and fully reverse it to upward velocity. The second function is to convey the body through the stride with zero change if forward velocity (ignoring air resistance).

The foot plant could range from near zero time on the ground to near 100% of the stride time on the ground. In the former case, the foot would need to hammer down hard and fast and directly over the CG. Just slightly behind the CG if one wants to consider the need to overcome air resistance. As the time on the ground is increased from near zero, the landing point must move farther forward and the liftoff point must move farther back from the CG since the average vertical force direction must be directly up through the CG. It would be virtually impossible to have the foot plant be always under or behind the CG or the runner would do a face plant. In reality, all the downward velocity is removed while the foot is in front of the CG and all the upward velocity is imparted while the foot is behind the CG.

The picture sequence represented by the animated gif above clearly demonstrates this. The foot landing is clearly in front of the CG as indicated by the shadow in the second from last frame. Even in the last frame, the CG may not yet be over the CG and that frame is well into the foot plant time.

In another picture sequence presented by figbash in this thread http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022371.shtml the foot plant is again clearly in front of the CG. The sequence begins with the foot plant in the pictures on the right and the CG is only just over the planted foot by the second picture. In the second picture from the right, the stride is so far advanced that the off leg is passing the planted foot and it is only at this time the CG is over the planted foot.

Regarding the foot landing. I don’t believe the part of the foot that strikes first has any influence on the amount of braking. Certainly stride length will affect any braking but for any given stride length, it appears intuitive that a landing farther froward on the foot would create more braking. In any case, it is not at all clear that the position of the foot affects braking. A treadmill with horizontal strain gauges on the mounting pads would give a good indication of how much braking takes place with the different foot strikes.

Perhaps more important than braking is the strain on the various parts of the body created by the different foot strike styles. Clearly it is possible to land anywhere from the toes to the heel. The softer the landing is the less the impact load on various joints. I think everyone will agree a toe landing would be the softest. But that softness is accomplished by having various muscles and tendons absorb the energy. That may be easy on the joint but puts a tremendous strain on the muscles – in this case the calf muscles. Since these muscles are also used for liftoff, that puts a tremendous burden on them.

The second softest landing would be a heel strike. The heel strike allows the forefoot to be gradually lowered to the ground. Again this eases the joints but puts a strain on muscles – in this case, those near the shin. These are also the muscles that lift the forefoot and they also are used during the time just after liftoff while the foot is being brought forward. But they are not heavily used.

Landing midfoot offers very little shock absorption. The foot can roll from outside to inside but it is not as effective as a heel or toe strike and it is not obvious that the roll is a good thing. Some runners may be very limited in their ability to roll the foot in this manner. This type of landing leaves all the shock absorption to the joints and the knee. Modern shoes will no doubt help this situation but I suggest a heel strike (but not a heavy heel strike) is most likely best for most runners.

------------------
gotta run...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 02:34 PM            

I am not sure if the midfoot or heel is best but from what I have read most article say landing on the ball or midfoot is best.

And since I have been running without shoes my speed with shoes has improved greatly. So perhaps I still am landing on the edge of my heel softly when I run with shoes but my muscle strength has been much improved from the non shoe running and has made me faster.

Whatever the answer you cannot run easily on your heels if you don't have shoes.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 03:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reboot:
But that softness is accomplished by having various muscles and tendons absorb the energy. That may be easy on the joint but puts a tremendous strain on the muscles – in this case the calf muscles. Since these muscles are also used for liftoff, that puts a tremendous burden on them.

---

In order for one to run fast and efficiently, it is important to not "absorb" energy, but to store as much as possible for a fraction of a second so it can be utilized for forward motion. This is what the lower legs and feet are good at, but which the knees and hips are not good at. Yes, this puts a lot of stress on the lower legs and feet and why it is important for one to take time when transitioning from a heel first stride to a forefoot or mid-foot first stride. It is also why somebody who has problems with foot or lower leg injuries should forget about a forefoot landing.

Unfortunately, shoes these days are designed to absorb shock rather than let the feet and lower legs store that energy. Racing flats are faster not only because they are lighter, but because they allow the feet and legs do a better job of storing energy that can be used for forward motion.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichiganFlyer:
reboot....I am glad you are debating the subject but are you sure the heel is the best place to land or are you just trying to convince yourself of that?

I am not sure if the midfoot or heel is best but from what I have read most article say landing on the ball or midfoot is best.

And since I have been running without shoes my speed with shoes has improved greatly. So perhaps I still am landing on the edge of my heel softly when I run with shoes but my muscle strength has been much improved from the non shoe running and has made me faster.

Whatever the answer you cannot run easily on your heels if you don't have shoes.

---

It is very difficult to respond since it is not clear exactly what you are saying. I am not convinced that "most" articles recommend a forefoot landing except for sprinters. In my experience, most articles acknowledge that a heel strike is common and recommend attempting something closer to a midfoot strike.

Improved speed in endurance running is not related to strength. Every distance runner can run (for short distance) substantially faster than their distance pace. If your distance pace has improved, it has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with endurance.

------------------
gotta run...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VictorN:
In order for one to run fast and efficiently, it is important to not "absorb" energy, but to store as much as possible for a fraction of a second so it can be utilized for forward motion. This is what the lower legs and feet are good at, but which the knees and hips are not good at. Yes, this puts a lot of stress on the lower legs and feet and why it is important for one to take time when transitioning from a heel first stride to a forefoot or mid-foot first stride. It is also why somebody who has problems with foot or lower leg injuries should forget about a forefoot landing.

Unfortunately, shoes these days are designed to absorb shock rather than let the feet and lower legs store that energy. Racing flats are faster not only because they are lighter, but because they allow the feet and legs do a better job of storing energy that can be used for forward motion.

Victor

---

First of all, I think you are very wrong in your assertion that the muscles can absorb energy during a contraction and return any significant part of that energy as a spring would do. The full downward velocity must be absorbed and a comparable upward velocity must be imparted. You are going to have to substantiate that any of the absorbed energy is returned during the launch phase.

Some body structures have some rebound capability like, cartilage, but that is probably smaller in total than the rebound capability of your shoes. In any case, I cannot see how either the returned energy from your shoes or your cartilage could possibly help and certainly not in imparting forward momentum.

Without some kind of explanation of the mechanism by which energy can be stored in any structure of the feet and then returned on demand, so it can be effectively utilized to aid the running effort, and do so in a way that is not equally available to a shod runner, then your claim is simply a conclusion without foundation.

------------------
gotta run...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 05:24 PM               

Most elite runners tend to land mid-foot. This mid-foot landing appears to be very effective for running a fast pace. Alberto Salazar, who I believe ran a 2:08 something marathon in the eighty's was a heel striker. That footstrike was the best for him. Not everyone. There is a lot of debate on this. ie. the "Pose" method.

For me, I notice my foot strike changes with my pace. When I'm out running a 9:00 minute pace I sit back a little with somewhat of a shuffle landing slightly off the heel. When I'm running a 7:00 minute pace, I'm a little more up on the forefoot with alittle more of a mid-foot landing. I have tried to switch this up and it just feels wrong.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 08:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reboot:
First of all, I think you are very wrong in your assertion that the muscles can absorb energy during a contraction and return any significant part of that energy as a spring would do. The full downward velocity must be absorbed and a comparable upward velocity must be imparted. You are going to have to substantiate that any of the absorbed energy is returned during the launch phase.

---

Unfortunately, the best discussions on this topic that I know of are in print and not on the web. You should pick up a copy of Explosive Running by Michael Yessis for a full discussion. Thomas Miller also discusses the "elastic component of the stretched muscles" and the releasing of "polymetric energy" in the section called "Supplementary Energy Sources" in his great book Programmed to Run.

And then, of course, there is Noakes who in Lore of Running states "the muscles of the landing leg store impact energy as they contract eccentrically to absorb the shock of landing"; "elastic recoil provided by the tendons contributes a significant proportion (about 30%) of the energy for propulsion"; and "running is really a series of bounces in which muscles, tendons, and ligaments alternatively store and release the energy absorbed as the feet hit the ground."

I won't bother with a google search, but this article is one I commonly refer to for various reasons. The link goes to the second page, which is relevant to this discussion, but the whole article is worth reading. http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0950b.htm
Here is the most relevant quote:

quote:

---

"...for humans efficiency during running soars from the 25% achieved during biking to 50%!...Each time a human foot hits the ground while running, energy is stored as ‘elastic strain energy’ by the key ‘springs’ in the human leg – mainly the connective-tissue strips which run along the bottom of the foot, the Achilles tendon and its associated muscles, the relevant muscles and tendons around the knee and the relevant muscles and tendons surrounding the hip. All of these structures are stretched when the foot hits the ground, and this stretching process stores energy – i.e. increases the potential energy of the leg."

---

Believe!
Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 08:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reboot:
I’m going to chime in again and attempt to make a couple of points. First, I claim a runner must land with the leading foot in front of the CG. Second, a heel strike is the most desirable landing form.

There is a dual function to the landing leg. It must fully absorb the downward velocity and fully reverse it to upward velocity. The second function is to convey the body through the stride with zero change if forward velocity (ignoring air resistance).

The foot plant could range from near zero time on the ground to near 100% of the stride time on the ground. In the former case, the foot would need to hammer down hard and fast and directly over the CG. Just slightly behind the CG if one wants to consider the need to overcome air resistance. As the time on the ground is increased from near zero, the landing point must move farther forward and the liftoff point must move farther back from the CG since the average vertical force direction must be directly up through the CG. It would be virtually impossible to have the foot plant be always under or behind the CG or the runner would do a face plant. In reality, all the downward velocity is removed while the foot is in front of the CG and all the upward velocity is imparted while the foot is behind the CG.

The picture sequence represented by the animated gif above clearly demonstrates this. The foot landing is clearly in front of the CG as indicated by the shadow in the second from last frame. Even in the last frame, the CG may not yet be over the CG and that frame is well into the foot plant time.

In another picture sequence presented by figbash in this thread http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum6/HTML/022371.shtml the foot plant is again clearly in front of the CG. The sequence begins with the foot plant in the pictures on the right and the CG is only just over the planted foot by the second picture. In the second picture from the right, the stride is so far advanced that the off leg is passing the planted foot and it is only at this time the CG is over the planted foot.

Regarding the foot landing. I don’t believe the part of the foot that strikes first has any influence on the amount of braking. Certainly stride length will affect any braking but for any given stride length, it appears intuitive that a landing farther froward on the foot would create more braking. In any case, it is not at all clear that the position of the foot affects braking. A treadmill with horizontal strain gauges on the mounting pads would give a good indication of how much braking takes place with the different foot strikes.

Perhaps more important than braking is the strain on the various parts of the body created by the different foot strike styles. Clearly it is possible to land anywhere from the toes to the heel. The softer the landing is the less the impact load on various joints. I think everyone will agree a toe landing would be the softest. But that softness is accomplished by having various muscles and tendons absorb the energy. That may be easy on the joint but puts a tremendous strain on the muscles – in this case the calf muscles. Since these muscles are also used for liftoff, that puts a tremendous burden on them.

The second softest landing would be a heel strike. The heel strike allows the forefoot to be gradually lowered to the ground. Again this eases the joints but puts a strain on muscles – in this case, those near the shin. These are also the muscles that lift the forefoot and they also are used during the time just after liftoff while the foot is being brought forward. But they are not heavily used.

Landing midfoot offers very little shock absorption. The foot can roll from outside to inside but it is not as effective as a heel or toe strike and it is not obvious that the roll is a good thing. Some runners may be very limited in their ability to roll the foot in this manner. This type of landing leaves all the shock absorption to the joints and the knee. Modern shoes will no doubt help this situation but I suggest a heel strike (but not a heavy heel strike) is most likely best for most runners.

---

The runner in the sequence that I provided is planting her foot even with the front of her body which does indeed put it ahead of her center of gravity and that is one of the few things we agree on. The first part of her foot to touch the ground is not her heel at all, but her mid-foot; specifically the outside of her mid-foot. At this point, her foot is in suppination and as weight is applied it rolls in or pronates to absorb the shock of impact. The animated GIF that effzee provided shows pecisely the same thing as does the sequence of Jim Ryun in the book Programmed to Run. The foot then transitions through the midsupport to takeoff and leaves the ground off the ball. The heel plays absolutely no part in shock absorption. An interesting bit of data to support this comes from the same book that the pictures came from (credited above), and I quote: "The majority of talented runners (60%) land on the forefoot, a sizeable number (30%) land on the midfoot, and the remaining (10%) are rearfoot strikers. The forefoot is better able to absorb stress than the rearfoot, an advantage for forefoot strikers."

It sounds like you and your contrary opinions about heel striking reside in the 10% segment.

Tom

------------------
My Profile
My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 09:56 PM               

-b

IP: Logged

posted Dec-18-2006 10:02 PM               

“Ideally your foot should strike so that it’s directly beneath your hips at the time your weight first comes fully on it (that is, when your shoe is fully on the ground), moving straight down at the moment it hits the pavement. But it’s OK if your foot lands a few inches forward from this ideal position. A good distance-running stride also lands with the foot slightly back on the heel or up on the forefoot, not far back on the heel or way up on the toes.” ….
“Rather than worrying too much about what part of your foot hits first, concentrate on getting it to land directly beneath your hips.”

Quotes are taken from pages 56-57 of the book I have. What sticks out to me is not where your initial foot strike is – but rather when your foot is fully weighted. THAT is when it is supposed to be fairly close to COG…

Pat

IP: Logged

posted Dec-19-2006 08:46 PM               

------------------
"Life is a marathon not a sprint"
My User Profile

IP: Logged

posted Dec-19-2006 08:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by serjey:
I was wondering if you land with midfoot wouldn't that be stomping?

---

No. The stomping sound happens when you land heel first and the front of your foot slaps the ground (this is also what causes shin splints). If you land on the ball of your foot or your midfoot, you can run very quietly.

Tom

------------------
My Profile
My Running Log

IP: Logged

posted Dec-19-2006 09:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by serjey:
I was wondering if you land with midfoot wouldn't that be stomping?

---

That depends on whether you are trying to squish a really icky bug or not.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-19-2006 10:11 PM            

------------------
Run strong. Run beautiful. Run Athena.
www.RunAthena.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-21-2006 09:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by VictorN:
Believe!
Victor

---

I have typed my reply twice and had it go to the great bit bucket in the sky. This last time, I actually saved it so I hope it workes this time.

Your reference URL makes a good point in support of "elastic recoil provided by the tendons contributes a significant proportion (about 30%) of the energy for propulsion". I will concede the tendons and other connective tissue like ligaments can absorb and return energy. I still dispute the claim that muscle will do so and I find it hard to believe the amount of energy returned is as high as 25 or 30 percent. In tha absence of any evidence to the contrary, I will not attempt to argue the point. Sufficient to say that a significant portion of the landing forces are absorbed and returned.

As to how this applies to the discussion at hand (heel strike vs mid foot), there a couple of observations.

It is impossible to determine from the reference that any absorbed/returned energy is more available to a barefoot runner than a shod runner.

The heel strike will no doubt result in the muscle absorption of some of the landing energy and that energy will mostly (perhaps all) be unavailable for return. The muscle doing the absorption is attached at the front of the shin and is prone to shin splints. Thus the heel strike style is more prone to shin splint injury.

The mid foot landing has available for return, all the additional energy that a heel strike extracts from the landing, quite possibly making the mid foot landing a more energy efficient running style. (But, again, there is no reason to assume barefoot is better than shod).

The heel strike technique is a softer landing while the mid foot style must repeatedly load and unload the connective tissue of the foot to a greater extent. That repetitive loading and unloading makes the mid foot landing more prone to repetitive use injury.

My conclusion was, and continues to be, that a heel strike (but not a heavy heel strike) is best for most runners. It offers the widest distribution of the landing shock at a relatively small additional energy cost.

------------------
gotta run...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-21-2006 09:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by figbash:
The runner in the sequence that I provided is planting her foot even with the front of her body which does indeed put it ahead of her center of gravity and that is one of the few things we agree on. The first part of her foot to touch the ground is not her heel at all, but her mid-foot; specifically the outside of her mid-foot. At this point, her foot is in suppination and as weight is applied it rolls in or pronates to absorb the shock of impact. The animated GIF that effzee provided shows pecisely the same thing as does the sequence of Jim Ryun in the book Programmed to Run. The foot then transitions through the midsupport to takeoff and leaves the ground off the ball. The heel plays absolutely no part in shock absorption. An interesting bit of data to support this comes from the same book that the pictures came from (credited above), and I quote: "The majority of talented runners (60%) land on the forefoot, a sizeable number (30%) land on the midfoot, and the remaining (10%) are rearfoot strikers. The forefoot is better able to absorb stress than the rearfoot, an advantage for forefoot strikers."

It sounds like you and your contrary opinions about heel striking reside in the 10% segment.

Tom

---

If it is true that 90% of talented runners use a mid or forefoot landing, they must make a special effort to avoid having their picture taken at footstrike. Heel striker, on the other hand seem to be a favourite target of photographers. Possibly untalented runners are always inserting them selfs in the photographers line of sight.

------------------
gotta run...

IP: Logged

posted Dec-22-2006 08:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by reboot:
If it is true that 90% of talented runners use a mid or forefoot landing, they must make a special effort to avoid having their picture taken at footstrike. Heel striker, on the other hand seem to be a favourite target of photographers. Possibly untalented runners are always inserting them selfs in the photographers line of sight.

---

Like I said before, it is very difficult to capture a runner foostrike in a static image, especially that of a fast runner. What may appear to be an eventual heel strike may in fact be a mid-foot landing a small fraction of a second after a photo is taken.

For example, look at the photos of Seb Coe in the slowtwitch link I provided earlier. There are eight photos of Coe completing a complete stride. If you assume his right leg completes 90 cycles per minute, a very conservative assumption, then there is only 8.3 hundredths of a second between each photo. ( (60s/90)/8=0.083 seconds ) Now look at image #7. It looks like Coe is going to crash down on that heel of his. Now look at image #8. That right foot has traveled a long way in 0.083 seconds. At some point between #7 and #8 his right foot touched down…lets assume that it happened half way between those two images. That means it happened 0.0415 seconds after image #7. Given these amazingly short time frames, it is not surprising that you rarely see images of a runner's actual foot strike.

Now look at Coe's hamstring in image #7. It is clearly engaged…he is rapidly whipping that right foot backwards. Given that, and the fact that his toe is already even if not lower than his heel, it is likely that he will land on the ball of his foot or mid-foot. Finally, compare image #3 and #7. Lots of people might look at #7 in isolation and say "heel striker" or "overstrider", but image #3, which probably occurs a hundredth of a second or so later in his stride than #7 and you can clearly see he will land on the ball of his foot.

So this was a long winded way of saying that you shouldn't take too much away from static images.

Victor

------------------
www.competitiverunner.com

IP: Logged

posted Dec-23-2006 10:55 PM               

When the shin splints hit me the worst I spent 2 weeks doing slow jogs at home barefooted and trying to learn how to walk and jog slowly in that stance. I don't have shin splints problems anymore. I am not too sure where exactly I land now, it is kind of mid-out of the foot.

Well I see a lot of well thought out perspectives as to which stance might be better but personally from experience, heel striking puts too much pressure on the shins and severely upsets the balance of the muscle strengths in the lower leg, leading to quite a lot of possible injuries.

IP: Logged

posted Dec-24-2006 01:13 PM               

Just some thoughts:

(1) If we look at the foot and the muscles/tendons absorbing the shock of landing as a third class lever, as all skeletal muscle systems are, then the lever arm would be longer if we landed on the forefoot compared with landing at the BOTTOM OF THE heel. The lever arm for a forefoot landing is between the metatarsals and the ankle joint, and the lever arm for a heel landing is between the heel contact and the ankle joint. Since forefoot landing requires a longer lever arm (with the calves) to absorb the shock of landing compared to a heel landing where the lever arm is shorter (using the shin muscles), forefoot landing must be less ECONOMICAL in absorbing shock.

(2) What is far more important to determine the distribution of loads on landing seems to be the velocity of the foot: Is the foot travelling forwards relative to the body, stationary relative to the body, or backwards, and at what speed, on landing. It would seem that a foot that is travelling at equal or greater speeds BACKWARDS would make for the most effficient technique producing the least amount of breaking and the greatest amount of propulsion.

(3) I have read everywhere of it being said that since it is more natural to land on the forefoot when running barefeet, that it must be the correct way to run. But I have been thinking of an alternative argument: We think it is natual to land on our forefeet barefooted because we are running on hard surfaces. How do we know that early barefoot runners ran on hard surfaces and not soft surfaces?

Perhaps our feet were not designed to run on hard surfaces and that is the reason heel landing on hard surfaces hurt? Could it not be that landing on the heels ON SOFT SURFACES was the most natural technique of running?

Could it not be possible that early runners landed on the bottom of their heels because they ran on SOFT surfaces and therefore that didn't hurt the way we do when we run on hard surfaces? I have never seen this brought up before.

IP: Logged