about 2 years ago, I realized that I was a heel striker. My definition of heel striker was that my foot was striking in front of my center of gravity, and thus “stopping” me with every strike. I bought some Newtons, and focused on the positioning of my foot strike. I have to say that my running improved, and my knee pain, which had been an issue over time, decreased.
Last season, however, as I was finishing a 10k goal race - as I started my “kick”(it is all relative…) during the last half mile, - I found myself striking on my heel. My foot was not striking in front of my body and slowing me down, but instead I found myself using less energy alternating a mid foot strike with a heel strike. This situation was not thought out, or a plan, but simpy what my body pushed me to do under stress.
Since that race, I have found myself using a “heel” strike during many phases of running. Whether I am running intervals, or during an easy run, I am more likely to use the heel strike. I have been watching myself in the mirror(the beauty of treadmills), and it appears that my foot strike is still under my center of gravity, even when I land on my heel.
I am not sure why I am writing this, because, frankly, I do not need validation for this “discovery”. I know what feels right, and I also know that my knees are feelling very strong, and my times are good. I am just wondering if anyone else has found themselves progressing from a mid-foot stiker to a heel striker under their center of gravity.
mid-foot strikers just think they mid-foot strike, they still heel strike, unless you make a concious effort to land on your toes
look at all the top pros wearing newtons, they still heel strike
the more important thing is keeping a slight forward tilt, back straight, relaxed upper body, keep your shoulders back, soft calves, and you are good
all this fore/mid/heel is just marketing - just like global warming, it is mentioned to create an argument when there is nothing to argue to begin with
.
all this fore/mid/heel is just marketing - just like global warming, it is mentioned to create an argument when there is nothing to argue to begin with
all this fore/mid/heel is just marketing - just like global warming, it is mentioned to create an argument when there is nothing to argue to begin with
Congratulations. Dan thinks you’re an idiot.
It’s nice I happen to agree with him.
-Jot
Me too. I’m not a scientist, but I did sleep at a…
mid-foot strikers just think they mid-foot strike, they still heel strike, unless you make a concious effort to land on your toes
look at all the top pros wearing newtons, they still heel strike
the more important thing is keeping a slight forward tilt, back straight, relaxed upper body, keep your shoulders back, soft calves, and you are good
all this fore/mid/heel is just marketing - just like global warming, it is mentioned to create an argument when there is nothing to argue to begin with
absolutely right. you might want to be more specific and say “humans soley causing global warming” instead of global warming. i havent seen ANY credible scientific data supporting stating that proves humans caused it. but global warming does exist. this way you dont sound like a typical republican redneck.
and saying someone is an idiot because they dont believe in al gores lousy pseudo scientifical movie makes you more retarded.
back to the OP, heel strike my friend, at least at 90 cadence.
all this fore/mid/heel is just marketing - just like global warming, it is mentioned to create an argument when there is nothing to argue to begin with
LOL! That’s awesome. Although I think there is more to the fore/mid/heel thing than there is to global warming, which I still can’t figure out why people get so upset about it. I’m all for global warming…unfortunately it looks like an ice age is on it’s way…if history and real science are to be trusted.
The one thing I could never understand about the forefoot strike is that it seems to require crazy calf muscles and calf strength that I don’t think I’ll ever have. Am I striking incorrectly or is this natural?
forefoot striking is unnatural, youre absolutely right. the pro-forefoot striking ppl think that having a longer contact time with the ground is bad. i think its great, it means more shock absorption.
i always ask this question to the biology majors and it drives them nuts, “would you rather have global cooling or global warming.” i tease them with other things like “why do you recycle paper or plastic, you know youre wasting more precious resources doing that, right?”
in college this type of opinion makes you a crazy.
How did we cure global warming last time? Because it has happened in the past - all the scientists agree on that point at least. It could not have been a natural occurrence because we all know that humans cause global warming and if you don’t believe that you’re a bigot…no wait that’s someone winning an argument with a lib…you’re a retard… no wait that’s not PC…well you’re something that’s not very nice!
How did we cure global warming last time? Because it has happened in the past - all the scientists agree on that point at least. It could not have been a natural occurrence because we all know that humans cause global warming and if you don’t believe that you’re a bigot…no wait that’s someone winning an argument with a lib…you’re a retard… no wait that’s not PC…well you’re something that’s not very nice!
So how did we cure it last time?
…< crickets chirping >
…< grass growing >
…< paint drying >
Still waiting for that answer…
see, example of an ignorant liberal that swims in logical fallacies. there are too many things wrong with your argument to even list why youre wrong.
i really hope youre being sarcastic, then i wont feel sorry for you. but i doubt this, even your sig is neither profound nor clever.
heel strike for the win. unless you naturally midfoot strike then more power to you.
I have recently undergone this same “transition” and I think it’s mostly to do with the construction of my shoes, with the heel being lifted compared to the forefoot. When I run in flat tennis shoes, my foot pretty much falls flat against the ground.
Holy Crap. I have not checked the forum in a while, and it seems I inadvertently started a thread about climate change - go figure. All I know is that it was way too hot in the little hotel gym this morning, I am pretty sure that the root cause was human because the thermostat was locked.
I actually like my Newtons. I am obviously not a running expert, and I only wear them every 10 runs or so, but they did(and still do) help me become more aware of striking my foot more under my center of gravity, and while I am sure I could have learned that without the shoes - they did help me. I am not certain that the “chamber” returns any more energy than normal running shoes, but for a while I was convinced that I was more springy in the Newtons.
My run this morning was a threshold pace, and once again I found myself both heel and midfoot striking, but more and more I strike with the heel unless I am doing speedwork.
Your body will always and naturally try to find the most effecient movement possible. Heel-to-toe walking as a very effecient way to move across the ground for humans. When we’re running, if the body can, it will return to heel-to-toe running to save energy. While wearing shoes, this can cause some problems. If we were running barefoot, it wouldn’t (and YES, you can run heel-to-toe barefoot)
Newtons: there is little to nothing to the lugs on the front. what they’ve stumbled on is having the heel and forefoot at the same level. At some point in shoe history, someone decided to raise the heel above the forefoot. Newton simply leveled theri shoe by adding those lugs on the forefoot. In the end htough, the body will adapt to the shoe and return to a heel-to-toe path in the newtons as well. Problem is those lugs can create a HUGE imbalance in the gait. Some of the worst shoe-caused gait problems I’ve ever seen were in newtons. But if they work for you… no problems… except for switching around shoes can put a lot of stress on the back of the leg because the newtons will ask theback of the leg to be longer (heel level with forefoot)
Bottom line. If you’re not having problems with your shoe setup, dont worry about it. The more you think about your gait, the more you’ll mess it up. If you really want to change the way your foot strike the ground when running, run barefoot. Tredmill is a great place to do it. So is a track.
the reason you even started “heel strikeing” in the sense that you’re putting on the brakes and slamming into the ground, is becasue there was CUSHION under your foot. if I set up a stone pillar 6’ tall and 1’ around and told you to run at it full speed and knock it over, you wouldn’t lead with your head or shoulder cause it would break your bones. You’d probably do some sort of “catch” with the hands and soften the blow with your arms. Now, if I gave you full NFL pads and had you do the same thing, you could go head first and really give that thing a shot. SO… if I ask you to run on the stone earth, do you think your feet and legs would find different ways of doing the same thing if you added padding to the bottom of your foot? Would you slam your heel into the ground if there was no cushion to aid the strike? NO! You would gently place the heel on the ground and transition smoothly from heel-to-toe and “catch” the weight and impact using more of the lower leg and the brilliant structure that the foot/leg combo is.
Bottom line: If your shoes are working for you AND you’re not getting injured AND your training and results are where you want them to be, you’re fine. Stop thinking about it and focus on the training plan and make that complete. BUT if you have some problems OR battle being injured OR think your favorite shoes might be changed some day… try running barefoot. Best “form” work you can do. Just a few minutes a run can make a world of change.
2 years ago you found that you were an ‘overstrider’ not to be confused with heel striking. Overstriding will be inefficient as well as damaging regardless of what part of your foot hits first.
Landing on your heel can be a good way to add a few inches to each stride…consider that there is one perfect ideal spot for your foot to hit determined by your speed. You can either hit that spot with your toes, or your heel. If you hit that spot with your heel then you have a stride that is 5-6 inches longer. If doing this, it’s important that when the heel hits, you don’t let the toe of the foot support any body weight until after your body has moved forward over the toe or it adds breaking forces. A dead giveaway that this is happening is if your toe audibly slaps the ground. IMO, this is what’s generally happening in cases where heel striking is disparaged.
For those of us who are leg-speed limited we will transition to heel striking at our fastest sprint pace. My case in point: when running a 400m in the 56 second timeframe (high school days) The first 25+ meters had me accelerating on my toes, but once I reached my maximum cruising speed my legs reached their turnover limit. I would then transition to a light heel strike to get another 5" from each turnover.
Thank you and Dr Dubbs for the insight. I agree that “overstrider” was a more accurate description of my previous running stride. Very interesting point on the heel strike providing a longer stride at a given turnover rate. I am now wondering what type of shoe could lengthen my foot…
My son runs the 400, and as I try to picture it, he does settle into a flatter strike at about the 150 mark.
Again - my thanks to all on the thoughts and input you have helped me understand the mechanics of my return to heel striking