Here is an interesting short article in Lower Extremity Review where Joe Hamill, PhD, was asked about his thoughts on what the best running style was for the majority of runners. Joe will be lecturing on this same topic at the Biomechanics Summer School in Manchester, UK, next week.
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
http://www.lowerextremityreview.com...ot-strike-pattern-reduces-runners-injury-rate
By the way, why did the author call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" and did not call rearfoot strike pattern "natural" also, when every study done on the subject clearly shows that the vast majority of runners are rearfoot strikers? There are many barefoot runners who heel strike while running on softer surfaces......are they unnatural?
Tags:
Page 1 of 4
-
-
To label something as natural to imply that its better as its "natural" is a fallacious argument and does not stack up to scrutiny
HOWEVER, that does not mean that its not better or not ... it just means to argue that something is better because its natural is not a good argument .... for those that think it is, why aren't you talking your arsenic pills?
To label a running technique as "natural" is to use the fallacious argument of implying that something natural is better ... when in reality it may or may not be. -
Related threads:
Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study
Effects of forefoot running on chronic exertional compartment syndrome
Cadence of 180 steps/min to treat and reduce risk of running injury
Joint moments in forefoot vs rearfoot strike running
Meb Keflezighi Heel Strikes His Way to a 2:09 Boston Marathon
Sensitive/proprioceptive heel strike during running
Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race
Some barefoot runners heel strike first
Does running form matter?
Heel-Striking Running is More Energy Efficient Than Midfoot-Striking Running -
He may call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" but at least he is not spouting the premise that forefoot is for everyone, seems to make sense to me, after all there has always been different strike patterns and never one universal to all. Am I right in thinking he will also be giving this talk at the ISBS conference in ACU Melbourne next month? Craig I would be interested in attending one of your discussions also, have you any planned talks at Melbourne this year?
-
-
-
-
-
The other reference to 'natural' in the article is "when natural forefoot strikers switch to a rearfoot strike pattern". Again, I think the word natural is being applied to define how these people naturally run, not the natural way to run per se.
But, regardless of the semantics, doesn't foot strike depend a lot on speed, and other factors such as fatigue?
I know that when I run faster I tend to land midfoot, but undoubtedly towards the end of a marathon (assuming I'm still actually running by then) the heels are usually (and naturally) grounding first.
So, at what point during the marathon (or any run for that matter) is a runner more at risk from injury?
Without science to back me up (and without resorting to the obvious 'when he's crossing the road'), I'd say it was when the system was getting overloaded, but of course this might not necessarily be at the end of the race.
Is too much emphasis placed on the importance of foot strike both in terms of injury prevention and speed improvement? -
-
I thought it was interesting to see how the standpoint of the reader influences the interpretation of what has been written. -
I agree with Craig that the term "natural" in regards to running kinematics is a poor term to use and should be avoided at all costs since it is ambiguous, vague and non-specific. In addition, "natural" has that "feel good" meaning that the barefoot/minimalist runners love to sprinkle into their arguments to help bolster up their reasons for why traditional running shoes must be bad for you.
Just to refresh everyone's memory, here the author of the semi-fiction novel "Born to Run", Chris McDougall, made full use of the term "natural" in a vain attempt to strengthen his discussion about that "angry podiatrist" of his.
http://www.chrismcdougall.com/blog/2010/02/but-what-about-glass/
-
I find the now generalised term/use of "forefoot striking" a bit ambiguous personally... as well as tend to help create confusion within many dabbling in this area. Should the term "forefoot" be a collective term for any strike contact other than the heel? Or should there be an official breakdown of forefoot region striking into two classifications with the use of "midfoot"... with subsequent established guidelines to distinguish between the two - would this make things more confusing (i.e. to assess/distinguish)? Thus we then primarily have three types of strike patterns: heel, midfoot & forefoot (which is sort of already present)... with the later two harder to differentiate (particularly in distance running). The act of sprinting for most individuals would be easier to determine "forefoot striking".
Personally, I think midfoot running is best because I do it... it is natural for me as I seemed to had naturally self-selected this strike pattern as a youngster. Maybe the fact that I have been running for most of my life is the reason why I have retained this strike pattern as opposed to someone who may have been considered a midfoot striker as I child, then 30 years later in an attempt to gain fitness & lose weight decided to start up a running program & find that they are a "heel striker"... the shoes he/she is running in may also be an influencing factor as well (as no doubt other factors). Hence what is naturally “natural” for someone/anyone is rather ambiguous I feel. -
There are many factors affecting foot strike pattern. Depending on the influence of multiple interacting conditions placed on the runner, these conditions will encourage a certain strike pattern. The strike pattern that emerges while the runner does not try to consciously alter that pattern could be called "self-selected" or "natural". I would say that these terms also are a bit ambiguous.
Is the best foot strike pattern the one that occurs unconsciously to the runner that is affected by the multitude of variables placed on the runner? What if one of those variables clearly is affecting foot strike but not necessarily the most healthiest?
It seems obvious that the best foot strike pattern is the one that leads the individual to the healthiest outcome. This may be what is natural to the runner, what is self-selected by the runner, may not be part of the runner's consciousness or may be directly influenced by the runner.
In addition to not being able to designate one type of foot strike as best, how the runner gets there can't be designated as best either.
Over the past 40 yrs, I have let my natural instinct, subconscious, self-selecting decision making guide me about foot strike and it hasn't steered me wrong. I question the need for an individual to think they should change their foot strike pattern because of some magazine article says one type of foot strike is better.
The out soles of my running shoes tend to wear very evenly. There is some slightly heavier wear at different locations of my shoes but it depends on the shoes. The wear patterns definitely differ depending on the weight and heel height of the shoe. It is obvious to me that there is a different strike pattern depending on the shoe I wear and I suspect the best foot strike pattern is heavily influenced by the type of shoe the runner is wearing.
I have to laugh about those who hang their hat on the statistic saying that 80% of runners are heel strikers. That's certainly possible, especially if 80% of the runners used to derive this statistic were wearing shoes that encourage heel striking. What would be more interesting are the statistics that tell us about the relationship between foot strike and shoe type.
Dana -
Why do most running shoes have a raised cushioned heel? The most obvious answer is because running shoe companies realised that most people are heel strikers and intuitively thought that a shoe that provides shock attenuation would be popular...
Now there is this school of thought that most people heel strike because of the shoe!!!
By this reasoning, then heel striking would be almost unheard of before the modern running shoe... then why would footwear companies start to build shoes with cushioned heels???
I did a quick search and found this footage from the 1948 London Olympic marathon (well before the 'modern running shoe')-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nggdLX2LML4
I downloaded and had a closer look with kinovea- sure looks like a lot of heel striking to me...
On the topic- great video of the 1960 Tokyo marathon...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAOGnxzCqUo&feature=related
Abele Bikila heel striking in his minimalist shoes... nothing wrong with his form though!
I think the debate about footwear characteristics is healthy for sure, but there are a lot of arguments that are recurring that really don't stack up. -
In the 1990's, trail running became the flavor of the day. Consequently, the running shoe companies flooded the market with "trail running" shoes. In addition to providing the shoe in the color gray, adding a lugged outsole, a toe bumper and later, a plastic rock plate, a primary differentiating characteristic of a trail running shoe from the "road shoe" was that it had a "low profile". "Low Profile" was defined has having a thinner mid sole and less height difference between the heel and forefoot than the traditional "road running" shoe.
Why do you suppose that the running shoe companies designed trail shoes with a "low profile"?
Dana -
If by lower profile you mean height from the mid-sole to the top-line of the shoe, it may have been to do with some notions regarding the need for increased ankle complex motion required for traversing inclined terrain. If this was simply achieved by reducing mid-sole thickness, it may have been due to some notion that less cushioning should be needed due to the more compliant terrain. I really don't recall this as being a feature of these shoes anyway- I just recall them being pretty much identical, in a different colour way and a more highly ridged outer-sole to their road running counter-parts. Maybe Bartold can add more?
EDIT: thanks for adding the definition of low-profile to your post, Dana.
I also recall that early on, many of the manufacturers only offered "neutral" trail shoes with the idea that the variation in terrain negated the need for a multi-density mid-sole for off-road running. But then you started to get exceptions to this in shoes like the Saucony omni-trail, which if I recall, was identical in mid-sole characteristics to the regular Saucony omni.
Manufacturing a road and trail version of the same shoe, with a different heel height differential would require the use of different lasts for the two variants of the shoe, in addition to modifications of the upper pattern. This is expensive for the manufacturer. I can't imagine they did this, rather I suspect the two versions employed the same last, but I'm happy to be corrected- what do you say, Bartold? -
Well if the above is the actual answer (& the sole answer) - then that is pretty lame (bordering on moronic) reasoning in my view... in fact the reasoning annoys me (particularly when we are referring to what I would think are educated researchers probably being paid handsomely). I thought there was another reason - something to do with ankle equinus??? (which is still poor reasoning) Anyway, whilst we're on the topic - can someone out there tell us (or at least me) once & for all why there has been a heel to forefoot pitch of up to 12mm (any higher reports out there???) added to running shoes? Thanks.
Your subsequent evidence following the above quote would tell us that this isn't the sole reasoning... but I feel it certainly is an influencing/exacerbating factor, particularly by those who do not know how to run properly (relative to their physiology). -
I was just asking Craig T. a question since he seemed to know the reasoning behind the shoe companies products.
I agree, some of the shoes labeled as "trail running" weren't much more than a gray or brown version of their road shoe with possibly more aggressive tread.
Yes, the supporting surface of the shoe was sometimes cut deeper around the ankle to provide more mobility but that was NOT what the shoe companies described as "low profile". I know from experience, in spite of the material cut lower around the ankle, I often still had a problem with the shoes rubbing when I was running on really rugged terrain.
Some "trail shoes" were also stiffer, more ridged than road shoes to provide more protection from rocks and provided more stability on uneven surfaces.
Sorry, you can't remember "low profile" as a characteristic, it was actually used ad-nauseum to describe a given pair of trail shoes. Almost as excessive as we hear heel drop today.
Speaking of Bartold, I recently bought a pair of Asics Fuji Racers. They are an outstanding pair of trail shoes, especially for longer trail runs over 25 miles or so. They even have a low "heel drop" of 6mm! Amazing!
Dana -
What is the heel-height differential of the road version of the Asics fuji racer? Let me guess.... 6mm. 'cause it built on the same last because lasts are expensive.
Anyway, lets await the view of someone who actually works for a running shoe manufacturer. Unless of course you already have all the answers, Dana and were trying to teach Craig here?
Here's an interesting point that arises from Dana's post: he seems to believe that a lower heel height differential is "amazing", what advantages might a lower heel height differential offer over a shoe with a higher heel height differential? It's not as simple as weight, since we could have a shoe with a higher heel height differential that is lighter than a shoe with a lower heel height differential. So what is the advantage, if any? Moreover, if you're a forefoot strike runner, does it matter at all? -
Regarding the edit I made, it was to fix a grammar error. At least one of the many that I caught. Sorry, hard for me to see mistakes in the post in the little message window. Do you have a problem with people fixing grammar mistakes?
Being built on the same last has nothing to do with the mid sole or the heel height. The last is the mold of the foot that the upper is built on which determines the shape of the upper. It is later attached to the mid sole which determines the heel height. Got it?
Simon, I suspect you've done little or no running on trails. If you had, you would understand the implications of wearing shoes with high heels. I never claimed to be a forefoot striker, where are you getting that from? Regardless of what type of foot striker you are, with trail shoes, heel height differential makes all the difference. The last thing you want is to have big heels getting in your way, catching rocks, twisting ankles, affecting balance, etc. Of course, a little experience and common sense would tell you that. Or, you could take a look at the heels on a pair of fell running shoes, you might learn something.
Dana -
The reality is, you stated that when they were introduced, trail running shoes had a smaller heel height differential than their road running counter-parts. I don't believe you- because you have no expertise in the subject what-so-ever. So I'm calling you on it. Evidence? None forthcoming; so you go on the offensive. So, what was the difference in heel height differential in trail shoes versus the road running versions of the same shoe in the early 90's, can we hear from someone who actually knows, rather than from someone who makes the coffeee at IBM, has no friends, smells of sweat and weighs trainers as a hobby, please?
Sure, I've run on trails Dana. I just don't find the need to masturbate over this in the same way that you seem to need to. Have you ever played rugby, Dana? Have you ever smoked a Cuban cigar? Have you ever been to Butlins? I suspect you've done little if any of these things, Dana. These questions are about as relevant here. And shoes with a 10mm heel height differential are not really "high heels" in anyones book, other than obsessive compulsives, like you. I bet that 4mm difference really stokes your run, Dana. And that I don't keep up to date on every single model of shoe that every single manufacture produces makes me very happy to know that I have a life. Thanks, Dana. The fact that you can tell everyone the weight of all of these running shoes in Oz's doesn't make you superior to me, it just makes you sad; for the record. Which event are you running in the olympics this summer, Dana? In your fantasies you may live out this idea that you are some sort of great athlete, with profound knowledge of running biomechanics and sports shoe design, but in reality, you are a no-one who works at IBM, making the coffffeee.
So, for anyone who actually understands lower limb biomechanics and can conjure an ounce of respect around here, what might be the advantage of a smaller heel height differential? -
I'm sitting here at Terminal C6 on an 8 hour layover at Dulles Airport in Washington, DC, on my way over to Manchester for Biomechanics Summer School. Pam is asleep on the benches next to me and I'm killing time on my laptop. So...all of a sudden.... I read this statement you just made on "trail running" and let out this loud laugh in the terminal...... everyone turned around to look at me to see what was going on. Pretty funny...even with the extra long layover.:morning:
I'll be remembering this one for years to come. Thanks mate!:drinks -
Simon, believe it or not, you have a lot to learn.
Dana -
Simple minds are easily entertained. -
Eric -
-
Is there any research examining the biomechanical differences between running in a 12mm drop running shoe as opposed to a lower 0-4mm drop shoe? I posed a similar question on another outdated forum so hopefully someone here may respond. I know Ben-Hur has strong opinions on the issue and I am interested to see what the general consensus is? As I mentioned earlier I work in a specialist footwear store and I am looking to better understand the dynamics of the shoes.
-
Hi Matt
I don't know about you , but I rarely advise someone to choose a running shoe because of its high level of 'cushioning'over another running shoe. I have, however, suggested footwear changes for many people due to my belief that the shoe they are in is too soft.
I have been in the Middle East now for 5 years (!!!). I regularly see athletes running in shoes which are very flexible and have no heel- they can be cheap shoes from the supermarket or often indoor football shoes - apart from the price tag, they could be minimalist!. The simplest thing I often do is advise on better footwear and have positive results...
I believe if there is a negative effect on 'primordial foot function' in the 21st century, then it is the environment, not the shoe. The vast majority of runners run on a surface that does not vary, so the tissues are stressed in virtually the same manner with every step. Some people may have the right adaptations to be able to handle this load, other will benefit from some help...
However I think it is interesting to think of who the original versions of modern shoes were made for- I would think they would be regarded as higher level athletes than most recreational joggers nowadays.
I am not sure where I heard this- perhaps Jack Taunton at PFOLA- the average age is higher and average time is slower in the major marathons than it was 30 years ago (as well as more participants). This needs to be remembered when people highlight that there is a 'continued high injury rate in runners despite advances in shoe technology' (would like to be able to reference those figures...)
Lets think hypothetically-
Take 2 groups of novice runners and tell them to start training for a 10km race. They are not to be coached or advised about anything. They are either given a zero drop minimalist shoe with no torsional stability or a stability running shoe (I personally would suggest an Asics GT 21XX series as a 'suit most people without doing much harm shoe).
Which group would more likely be injured?
I personally would not be comfortable making a broad recommendation of a minimalist shoe without a lot of caveats... -
[QUOTEIn the 1990's, trail running became the flavor of the day. Consequently, the running shoe companies flooded the market with "trail running" shoes. In addition to providing the shoe in the color gray, adding a lugged outsole, a toe bumper and later, a plastic rock plate, a primary differentiating characteristic of a trail running shoe from the "road shoe" was that it had a "low profile". "Low Profile" was defined has having a thinner mid sole and less height difference between the heel and forefoot than the traditional "road running" shoe.
Why do you suppose that the running shoe companies designed trail shoes with a "low profile"?][/QUOTE]
I have to agree with Simon that most trails shoes that I saw were running shoes with some slight modifications. I think that the specific trail running designed shoes would have a low profile for the exact reason that Eric stated. -
-
As I intimated you can manipulate it a little with mid/ outersole configuration, but you then start altering toe-spring and heel pitch etc.
Here's a last for a high heel shoe, sure you could put a midsole with a 4mm heel-height differential on the lasted upper, but you'd end up with one hell of a toe-spring and a negative heel pitch at the heel seat. Shoe-manufacturers wouldn't do this because it screws up the geometry of the shoe.
You ever worked for a shoe-manufacurer and/ or in last design, Dana? Well I have, so you can keep your bullsh1t answers for someone else.Attached Files:
-
-
Regarding your question, "what might be the advantage of a smaller heel height differential?" Is there a reason your question presumes there might be an ADVANTAGE to a smaller heel height differential? Do you think there is an advantage or is it just a poorly written question? If you can clarify the question, so that it makes sense, I'll give you an answer.
Dana -
BTW, in my previous post, I attached an image of a high-heeled shoe last so that the concept was blatantly obvious, even to those who have no working knowledge of shoe last design. Since you had said:Attached Files:
-
-
You have twisted what I asked about your question so it is pointless for me to try to answer. You really don't want an answer as much as just a response. Being as predictable as you are, I know why you asked the question, too bad I'm not going to give you any satisfaction by responding to this one. Besides, the response I would give you would just frustrate you into spewing vulgar insults.
You have spent a lot of time studying and reading about the biomechanics of running but it is obvious to me that in spite of knowing the mechanics from what is written in books, you know little about running. It is obvious when you speak of running how little you really know. I doubt you even understand what I'm even talking about.
What I don't get is that you have spent so much time getting your degrees, then making a profession out treating and trying to heal people whom many of which are runners. Why the interest in running? You are not a runner and you obviously have a great disdain for runners, yet you've made a career out of healing them?
what? I can understand why prostituting yourself to help people you hate would make you angry. Maybe a new profession would help, how about making coffee?
Sincerely yours,
Dana -
-
Simon:
Why even bother trying to have an intelligent discussion with him? He isn't worth your time. He is just here, like a few others, to insult the intelligence and frustrate the few people who have called him out on his utter lack of medical education and total lack of clinical experience in biomechanics and treating patients, even though he has said a number of times he will never post here again on Podiatry Arena. Don't even respond to him....he is a nobody, both in running and in biomechanics. -
Claiming that most people heel strike is ignoring the human population as a whole. Having lived, worked and observed runners for 40 years across Asia, Africa, Europe, the US and Pacific rim my observation is that only one in seven humans on the planet (the affluent billion) heel strike "naturally."
I believe humans adapt to their environment, including a soft surface and altered geometry under their foot. Watch old film footage of runners before cushioned shoes were available, or talk to the old guys. No straight leg, over striding gaits ("heel striking") unless braking. Or go and live in a habitually barefoot culture and you will see overwhelmingly that they do not heel striking.
If you measure running economy, the heel strike style is very inefficient (mechanically and bio-mechanically.) There is nothing intrinsically wrong or bad about engaging the ground with the heel, it's the loading sequence and motor patterns that have the big effects. -
OK, Craig, time to rename Podiatry Arena to.....
Barefoot/Minimalist Know-Nothing Runner Blogsite:butcher::craig::deadhorse: -
"Sure, I've run on trails Dana. I just don't find the need to masturbate over this in the same way that you seem to need to."
These guys are actually proud of themselves, incredible.
In reality, for anyone who finds the need to call themselves a "medical professional" is nothing more than an MD wanna be who failed to make it to being a real doctor.
Kevin will also tell you 20 times over the next few weeks that he ran a 2:48 marathon over 30 years ago so that qualifies him to be a runner.
In reality, Kevin can't run more than a few miles at a time at this point without becoming injured. A runner who lives in the past is nothing but a runner wanna be in the present.
Dana
Page 1 of 4
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Rearfoot Midfoot Forefoot
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 2,752
-
- Replies:
- 4
- Views:
- 19,441
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 11,617
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 6,573
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 280
-
- Replies:
- 17
- Views:
- 3,334
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 923