On RW’s website Amby Burfoot cites several studies and ‘expert’ opinions that cast doubt on the effectiveness of forefoot stike running. Now that I think about it, I read an article in a recent Inside Tri by Joe Friel (of evoloution running) where he seemed to be backing off forefoot strike running. Okay, so all those improvements I made by trying a more forefoot strike were only in my head. Maybe I should quit reading about running and just run.
So what’s the suggested alternative? Heel striking?
Looks like heel stike to me. Also cites a study that among elites only about 2% are forefoot strikers, about 1/3 were midfoot and a whooping 60%+ were heel strikers. I don’t think about it as much now but about a year ago I tried to move forefoot some, thought I was successful but who knows?
AB: “The way I look at it, slow runners run on their heels, and really fast sprinters run on their forefeet (expending huge amounts of energy to stay up there), and the rest of us fall somewhere in between (but mostly on our heels for distance running)”
They actually advocate heel striking? Wow, I was joking. Seems like a prescription for stress fractures.
I think he’s careful not to advocate any ‘preferred’ technique. Rather he’s saying this is how runners actually run AND questioning claims of the Pose/Chi/Evolution running crowd (maybe I’ll skip the Pose running clinic afterall).
Very interesting - nearly 75% of the runners in an elite .5 marathon are heel-strikers, and of the 50 fastest that only drops to 62%.
Hasegawa, H., T. Yamauchi, and W.J. Kraemer. Foot strike patterns of runners at 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(3):888-893. 2007.
…
Rearfoot strike was observed in 74.9% of all analyzed runners, MFS in 23.7%, and FFS in 1.4%. The percentage of MFS was higher in the faster runners group, when all runners were ranked and divided into 50 runner groups at the 15.0-km point of the competition. In the top 50, which included up to the 69th place runner in actual order who passed the 15-km point at 45 minutes, 53 second (this speed represents 5.45 m.s(-1), or 15 minutes, 17 seconds per 5 km), RFS, MFS, and FFS were 62.0, 36.0, and 2.0%, respectively.
…
i think some of the reasons for forefoot striking were flawed.
one was that the impact went up the leg and hurt the knee and hip. well, if the impact forces are that bad why would you want to take them from the big old heel bone and leg muscles and have them absorbed by the little bones of the mid foot?
another was that you were braking when you heel strike. but there is a spring action in the muscles and tendons that absorbs that shock and return most of it. so only overstrider are really hurt by braking.
and lots more
Long live “us” heel strikers. Watch the elites in a marathon and see what I mean.
In the race coverage section of the latest triathlete magazine (could be inside tri but I am pretty sure it was triathlete) there is a photo of Natasha Badman during the run of the California 70.3 with her newtons on. She is a heel striker. Not a good advertisement for Newtons.
Major heel strike is like pole vaulting over the knee…hard on the knee joint. Yada, Yada, Yada.
I switched from heel to midfoot following an ankle sprain and it saved my run. Case by case is best as usual.
my .02 cents
i think some of the reasons for forefoot striking were flawed.
one was that the impact went up the leg and hurt the knee and hip. well, if the impact forces are that bad why would you want to take them from the big old heel bone and leg muscles and have them absorbed by the little bones of the mid foot?
My understanding has always been that flexion of the ankle joint transfers some (most) of this impact to the calf muscle, which is elastic. Bones are inelastic, or at least comparatively so, and don’t respond well to impact.
Also, there is no heel bone, not really. One could argue that the calcaneus or maybe the talcus are, but these are small bones, not long bones.
I read a lot about both sides of the equation and experimented. My personal opinion is: Try to run at a higher turnover rate,which basically eliminates the bobbing up and down motion and makes you feel more like gliding and expending less energy.Rest is bulll…
You can’t argue with results but I’ll try. If you’re running better (easier) it’s hard to know why, by concentrating on footstrike you may have improved your posture and decreased overstriding. I tried much the same thing a little over a year ago ( actually started right here http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/longrun/pose.html) Thought I was making good progress until I saw a video of my run (props to Rogue training/Carmen Troncosco in Austin) and darned if I wasn’t still landing on my heel. Carmen said not to worry, I rotated pretty quickly (for me anyway) onto my forefoot. More important was good posture and running in straight line, so I went with that and really hadn’t thought too much about it until the RW article. Having said that I wouldn’t quit what you’re doing (whatever it is) if you’re getting good results.
I’m not a run expert by any means, but I just got done reading the “Daniels Running Formula”. One of the visuals that he mentions in the book is “to picture running over the ground, rather than into the ground”… sort of a pedalling-like motion. For me, keeping that mental image and concentrating on keeping my turnover at around 180 has seemed to move me to more of a midfoot strike without consciously thinking about footstrike.
I am quite familiar with the alternative styles (pose, barefoot, chi, evolution running, gordon pirie’s teachings) and have read tons over the last 18 months on them and have switched a year+ back to forefooting.
Throughout this time I’ve increased my calf size tremendously (for me). My bad knee still hurts, though. I also have noticed that almost all elites DO heel strike. They do not do it as severely as most people, but almost all elites, including most people winning ironmans or 10ks or marathons all touch at least momentarily with the heel first. This leads me to believe that injury prevention lays in muscular and flexibility issues–overall balance mechanics, not the minutiae of the foot strike.
I’ve also read a lot about shoes. Recently I’ve played around with my flats again vs my stability Asics Kayanos and forefooting, midfoot, heel striking ball-heel-balling, etc. For my past couple of runs I’ve done what closely matches gordon pirie’s style, which is ball-heel-ball. I do use the forefoot to take some impact initially but then come down on the heel. This lets my ankle unlock a bit and pronation occur. I’m also doing this in running flats because having grown used to them in the past year+, when I go to full size trainers, my feeling on the ground is severely dulled–it just doesn’t feel right. If I get the scratch together, I will buy some neutral lightweight trainers (Asics Speedstar II). BTW, any store I’ve ever gone into has prescribed stability for me, but my knee problem is caused by a functional leg length issue and hip imbalance which causes my bad knee to pronate LESS than the good one, so why would I want stability? Anyhow…
**My conclusions to date: **running style can affect injury suceptibility. In most cases, the running style is of substantially less importance than a person’s innate suceptibility, which I’m hopeful can in many people (particularly myself) be overridden by thorough physical therapy, diligence, etc. There are people who cannot run with perfect pose style without pain and there are heel strikers who run 100 miles/week as heel strikers and never feel it. I think those of us with injures are generally not looking at the root cause, which is not our shoes and not our running style. It’s US. BTW, I still have never heard a good reason why our shoes have beefed up heels. I am positive this messes up stride mechanics and explains why it is harder to mid or forefoot strike in heavy shoes.
well, if the impact forces are that bad why would you want to take them from the big old heel bone and leg muscles and have them absorbed by the little bones of the mid foot?
Having said that I wouldn’t quit what you’re doing (whatever it is) if you’re getting good results.
This is VERY true.
I just LOVE this dialogue/thread that comes up every 4 months or so … 
I really do …
So much fun to read people’s opinions/perception, anecdotes, etc.
The human foot is endowed with several elastic energy return mechanisms. The plantar fascia returns about 17% per stride, the achilles tendon returns about 35% per stride. That’s free energy return per stride from the elastic structures in your foot, if you load them correctly. If you heel strike you do not load your achilles and plantar fascia to the same extent as a fore/midfoot strike. I’m not aware of any actual live human studies that have been able to show increased effeciency of forefoot running, however. I have a colleague who tried to show this but ended up with mixed results. A hard experiment to do, I think.
That journal is from Aug 2007, so there’s SOMETHING new.
: I just LOVE this dialogue/thread that comes up every 4 months or so …
I really do …
So much fun to read people’s opinions/perception, anecdotes, etc.
Team Planet X Tyros
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD
rroof, please jump into the fray. expert advice is sometimes welcome here on slowtwitch.
I think 4 mos is an arbitrary figure and not well supported in the literature
.