Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Reference Needed on Change in Footstrike Pattern with Different Running Speeds

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Apr 14, 2013.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    I have been asked to write a paper on footstrike patterns and running form and I have searched already, for some time, to find a scientific research study that showed a change in footstrike pattern (i.e. rearfoot, midfoot, forefoot striking) with changes in running velocity.

    Even though there are plenty of anecdotal accounts from coaches, clinicians, etc that as runners go from a jog, to a run and on to a sprint, that they will tend to land more toward their forefoot as running speed increases, I have not been able to find a single scientific study that has actually measured this reported footstrike change. Even though I have been reading the scientific literature on running biomechanics since the 1980s, I can't recall any papers that actually measured this in a research environment.

    Does anyone know of any reference in this regard? I would be most appreciative.:drinks
  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Good point; I do not recall any reference either!

    I usually defer to Noakes' Lore of Running for question like that - I just checked and there is nothing in it.

    Having said that, even if there was evidence, it would be very subject specific.
    Look at the image from Iain Hunter that I put on my blog from the mens 10k at US Olympic trials - they running very fast and look at the variability.
  3. I just spent another hour looking for references on this subject on google scholar and found none. It's hard to believe that this research has never been done!
  4. drdebrule

    drdebrule Active Member

    Thanks for calling attention to this Kevin. I looked into this about 4-5 years ago and found nothing about variable running speed and strike pattern. Sorry, just tumbleweed blowing. My gut feeling is that someone did a study like this in the dinosaur ages before google and medline. Maybe it is stuck in a thesis? I hope you can find it.

    Perhaps we also need to look more critically at how we define forefoot vs. midfoot vs. rearfoot strike patterns. There was a paper last year in Gait and Posture by Altman and Davis looking at this question. They suggested defining stike pattern using COP location at initial contact as a percentage of foot length. They were reporting as a percentage instead of just the same 3 categories, which made a lot of sense to me. I feel we need more consistency when defining this problem and think some of the studies without a force plate offer interesting, but limited information. Maybe this paper should focus more about how we define the problem. At least that would give you something to write about. Sorry, maybe not what you wanted to hear.
  5. Kevin,

    Found this which may help:

    "For the ankle, a shoe effect was significant (F 2,16 = 19.0, P < .001, β = .01), such that subjects landed in approximately 12° more dorsiflexion when wearing either low-cost ( P < .001) or high-cost ( P < .001) shoes compared with the barefoot condition. No difference was noted between types of shoe ( P = .63; Figure 4). No main effect for speed (F 1,16 = 3.57, P = .09, β = .63) or interaction effect (F 2,16 = 1.64, P = .23, β = .60) was demonstrated.

  6. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    These papers might be helpful
    1) Relationship between vertical ground reaction force and speed during walking, slow jogging, and running

    2) The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running

    3) Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.

  7. See figure 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021929099001335

    Again, see fig. 3. http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Knee and ankle joint stiffness in.pdf

    And from here: https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/download/2611/2457
    we get: "A more forward foot strike has been associated with increased running speed (Nigg, Denoth. Ken, Luethi, Smith & Stacoff. 1984)."

    And from here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0052548

    we get: "For example, Nigg and colleagues [21] showed that when habitually shod runners increase speed, they alter the position of their foot at strike in order to cope with the higher collision forces associated with that greater speed. This hypothesis was supported by Keller and colleagues [22], who reported that habitually shod runners who used predominantly a RFS when running at speeds 5 m/s or slower, preferred a FFS at 6 m/s or faster. Together, these studies suggest that foot strike patterns are at least in part dependent upon running speed."

    Here's those refs:
    21. Nigg BM, Bahlsen HA, Luethi SM, Stokes S (1987) The influence of running velocity and midsole hardness on external impact forces in heel-toe running. J Biomech 20: 951–959.
    22. Keller TS, Weisberger AM, Ray JL, Hasan SS, Shiavi RG, et al. (1996) Relationship between vertical ground reaction force and speed during walking, slow jogging, and running. Clin Biomech 11: 253–259.

    Indeed within their own study they state: "Our results indicate that not all habitually unshod people prefer a FFS or MFS at their preferred endurance running speeds. Rather, the Daasanach subjects in this study preferred a RFS at their self-selected endurance running speeds, and thus differed from the Kalenjin runners studied by Lieberman and colleagues [15]. It is intriguing to note that the Daasanach resembled habitually shod runners in that they showed a tendency to switch to a MFS or FFS at sprinting speeds [21], [22]. Several factors could explain the different foot strike patterns observed in these two habitually unshod Kenyan populations. For example, running speeds differed in the two studies. The Daasanach in our study selected endurance running speeds that averaged about 3.3 m/s (8:08 per mile), while the Kalenjin runners in theirs [15] averaged speeds of about 5.1–5.9 m/s (4:33–5:16 per mile). Among the Daasanach, although it was never the predominant pattern, we did observe a higher frequency of FFS running at speeds greater than their preferred endurance running paces. However, speed alone cannot explain these differences because recent research among Kalenjin runners indicates that they predominantly FFS at a wide range of speeds (2.4–6.0 m/s; 4:28–11:11 per mile), with no significant effects of running speed on strike type [DE Lieberman, personal communication]." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0052548

    (I wouldn't take the personal communication with Lieberman as evidence that Kalenjin runners predominantly FFS strike over a wide range of speeds though).

    And: http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2005/pdf/0037.pdf

    You owe me a pint Prof. Kirby.
  8. I just did (briefly). She wrote: "Second, many RF runners tend to shift to a MF or FF pattern with increasing running speeds (Cavanagh and Lafortune, 1980; Mason, 1980; Slavin and Hamill, 1992). It has been suggested that switching footfall patterns at high running speeds may be an energy saving mechanism to continue increasing running speed when oxygen consumption cannot be increased further (Nigg et al., 1984). However, Cavanagh and Lafortune (1980) found that individual differences in initial contact point and pressure distribution under the foot are large enough to suggest there may not be a relationship between initial contact point and absolute speed."

    Cavanagh PR and Lafortune MA. Ground Reaction Forces in Distance Running. J Biomech. 1980; 13(5):397-406. http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/ricard/...ound reaction forces in distance running .pdf

    Mason B. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1980.

    Slavin M and Hamill J. Alterations in Footstrike Pattern in Distance Running. The Xth Symposium of the International Society of Biomechanics In Sports. 1992. 53- 57. (This seems to be from an unpublished masters thesis).

    Caveat emptor: from all of the references I've found for you Kevin, there does not seem to be that much hard data.
    Indeed, when one actually reads the references, you'll see that what they actually examined, and what they actually said may not even support the statement they were used to reference. For example, Gruber (above) stated that: "many RF runners tend to shift to a MF or FF pattern with increasing running speeds" and used Cavanagh and Lafortune to reference this. When one reads Cavanagh and Lafortune, it is apparent that what they actually said was: "Many authorities on running have held the view that so-called 'heel-toe' running is characteristic of slower speeds while 'toe' running occurs at higher speeds (Doherty, 1971, p. 365). It is clear from the range shown in Fig. 4, which is from a single speed of running, that there is a continuum of initial contact points which covers the entire posterior 60% of shoe length. There may well be systematic changes in the initial contact point and subsequent pressure distribution as running speed increases, but the individual differences are clearly great enough to make any general statement relating initial contact point and absolute speed invalid." [the absolute speed at which transition occurs will likely vary from individual to individual, you ran them all at the same speed- doh! See below. Spooner 2013]

    N.B. From Cavanagh and LaFortune's methods: "subjects were given as many practice runs as needed to consistently land in the region of the force platform with the right foot and to achieve a steady running speed of approximately 4.5 m s- '. This pace represents a time of 6 min for one mile which would result in a marathon of 2 hr 37 min. Over shorter distances it is a training pace that the average competitive distance runner may use. Once the subjects were acclimated to the experimental requirements, they were instructed to run at a steady speed through the test area without adjusting their stride to land on the force platform. If the speed was outside the desired range (4.12-4.87 m s- I) or if part of the foot was outside the force platform area during support the data were discarded." In other words, these authors did not examine different running speeds, rather the actively sought to standardise it. Hence, they were at best hypothesising.
  9. Sicknote

    Sicknote Active Member

    You would be wasting your time.

    Different strokes for different folks.
  10. Agreed, but there does appear to be something going on at around 30% above self-selected running speed, according to these guys- http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2005/pdf/0037.pdf Using percentiles may help to normalise for some of the between subject variation.
  11. The only time I wasted today was reading your posting.:butcher::mad::boxing:
  12. Thanks for all your hard work and effort in my regard, Simon! I'm going to track down some of these references you gave me and see if they actually measured the change in footstrike patterns or not. I think I owe you at least a few pints. When you coming over to sunny California so I can pay up?:drinks:drinks

    By the way, I e-mailed Joe Hamill on this same subject and just heard from him today that he knows of no research that has been done on alterations in footstrike pattern with changes in running velocity. However, he said that not all subjects may show the same response and that he is currently doing some research on this subject.
  13. Michael:

    Cavanagh and Lafortune were the first, in 1980, to divide the length of a shoe into three parts to classify the footstrike pattern of subjects based on force plate data in their landmark paper, attached below (Cavanagh PR, Lafortune MA: Ground reaction forces in distance running. J Biomechanics, 13, 397–406, 1980).

    The "percentage of shoe length" for quantifying the actual anterior-position of footstrike on the shoe sole was actually first used by Cavanagh and Lafortune over three decades ago in their 1980 study. This percentage of shoe length is now known as "strike index" in the running biomechanics literature and many have claimed that Cavanagh and Lafortune originated this term. However, if you look closely at their paper, they did not use the term "strike index" in their 1980 paper.

    However, the term "strike index" was first used in the scientific literature seven years later by Keith Williams and Peter Cavanagh in their paper on factors affecting running economy (Williams KR, Cavanagh PR: Relationship between distance running mechanics, running economy, and performance. J Appl Physio, 63(3):1236-1245, 1987). I have helped Keith with a few of his research projects at UC Davis (my alma mater). Keith is the head of the Kinesiology Department at UC Davis.
  14. More from Michael Slavin and Joe Hamill.

    Attached Files:

  15. Grahamc

    Grahamc Member


    Forgive an unqualified person responding, but how scientific does this need to be? Why don't you film some people running at different speeds? It's then pretty simple to determine foot strike position and how it alters according to speed. In fact I was watching this process just the other day; it was very easy to see.
    It prompts the questions: at what point does simple observation become science and when is the reliance on science superfluous?

    And although this proves very little, it's delightful to watch: http://youtu.be/4QrlPmK4B94

  16. Graham,

    How would you suggest I reference this in the scientific review paper I am writing?
  17. Grahamc

    Grahamc Member


    Good point. As mentioned, how scientific does this need to be? From the original question it appears that you are looking for science to show "a change in footstrike pattern (i.e. rearfoot, midfoot, forefoot striking) with changes in running velocity". My point is that you don't need science to show it. I'd go further and say that a scientific study might cloud the issue anyway. Is there not a chance (depending on how the study was conducted) that a study subject might run in a different way to how they normally run?

  18. Graham:

    What am I to say in my paper that will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, "According to my numerous observations and a video I saw on the internet, and in my discussions with Graham on Podiatry Arena, runners will foot strike more anteriorly with increasing running velocities"...?

    And how might "scientific study cloud the issue", Graham? Are you suggesting we should not use the scientific method anymore when analyzing foot and lower extremity biomechanics and just simply publish our anecdotal accounts of everything we do and see?

    Have you ever written a paper for a peer-reviewed journal or been asked to review papers for publication in a medical or scientific journal, Graham? Have you ever performed a scientific experiment? Scientific journals require references to previous scientific publications, not anecdotal observations of what someone saw on a video on the internet, to carry sufficient weight that then allows the author(s) of the submitted manuscript to be able to make statements that are based on reasonable scientific certainty, which, in turn, then allows a reviewer accept that paper for publication.

    I would suggest that you review these articles:

    Scientific Method

    Anecdotal Evidence
  19. Thanks to Dr. Spooner, I looked at one of my old papers and found a reference on my topic of interest from Mann and Hagy from over three decades ago (Mann RA, Hagy J: Biomechanics of walking, running and sprinting. Am J Sports Med, 8(5):345-350, 1980).

    Here's to you, Simon!:drinks:drinks:drinks
  20. Sobhan:

    Thanks very much for that first reference (Keller TS, Weisberger AM, Ray JL, Hasan SS, Shiavi RG, Spengler DM: Relationship between vertical ground reaction force and speed during walking, slow jogging, and running. Clin Biomech, 11(5):253-259, 1996).

    So far, it is the best paper demonstrating the change in foot strike pattern with increasing running velocities.

    I owe you a few!!:drinks:drinks

    Here is a cool graph from the paper.
  21. mgooch

    mgooch Member

    While not as directly related as the Keller study mentioned above, the paper by Hatala, et al., does note that midfoot and forefoot footstrike percentages increased significantly with speed in their sample population.

    Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, Richmond BG (2013) Variation in Foot Strike Patterns during Running among Habitually Barefoot
    Populations. PLoS ONE 8(1): e52548. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052548

    Also, the Larson, et al. study does address the shift in footstrike from the 10km point to 32km point during the Manchester City Marathon during which they note: "a large percentage of runners switched from midfoot and forefoot foot strikes to 10km to rearfoot strikes at 32km."

    Peter Larson , Erin Higgins , Justin Kaminski , Tamara Decker , Janine Preble , Daniela Lyons , Kevin McIntyre & Adam Normile (2011): Foot strike patterns of recreational and sub-elite runners in a long-distance road race,
    Journal of Sports Sciences, 29:15, 1665-167

  22. Matt:

    I agree that the Hatala study does suggest the correlation of footstrike pattern to speed but don't think the Larson study helps since they didn't correlate footstrike patterns to running speed.
  23. Grahamc

    Grahamc Member

    Whoa Kevin, have you been blinded by the light?

    I guess I need to simplify my point:
    Do we need science to tell us that if we sit on the stove we'll burn our arse?
    Your opening post was requesting studies on foot strike and running speed.
    I asked some questions because I was interested to know the answers. I asked you because I thought you might help. Instead you appear to have chomped on some bait that was never set.
    I'm not suggesting that you use any video on You Tube in your paper, nor cite your communication with me in your paper neither (you must think I'm dumber than I really am). I merely posted the link to the video because I thought it gave a nice example of what simple observation can tell us.
    However, I did suggest that in the absence of readily available scientific data you could study this yourself without too much trouble by filming runners when they run at different speeds. I think this could produce some quite meaningful and useful results. How you referenced this exercise would of course be up to you; you are the expert. This then prompted my own question about when does observation become science? If sensible, controlled observation and recording tells us what we want to know, where is the need for science; or is that science itself?

    The reason I say that science can cloud the issue would, I'd have thought, been obvious to you of all people. But maybe I need to make it more plain. Not all science is good science (this might sound patronising, but I'm excusing myself because you started it). I do have a tiny little bit of experience of scientific studies. Yet even within that I have seen faulty equipment, recording probes falling off or even out of the body, inconsistent measuring practices, researchers with their own agendas, etc, etc, as I'm sure you have seen similar too. I seem to remember something on this forum about bad science.
    But it's not only that, even within this post there is a good example of how science could be misinterpreted.

    I thought your opening post was interesting and it made me want to explore the necessity for science in certain circumstances; in short I was seeking knowledge (yes I know, I have a lot to learn).
    What I found were patronising, childish, idiotic comments from you.
    Perhaps, once in a while, you should climb down from your ivory tower Kevin, because languishing up there and spitting out such condescending drivel could make you look stupid, defensive and fragile, and I don't believe you are all of those.

    Given that you like to point others in the direction of wikipedia to discover the bleedin' obvious, perhaps you be interested in the response of a colleague on reading your words:
    A review of post #20

  24. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    Glad it helped a bit! You owe me only a good review on the topic :drinks
  25. Graham:

    Sorry if I offended but obviously you are not seeing my point that when writing for a scientific/medical journal, one can't simply use anecdotal observations for references if one wants to support an argument with significant weight. Video taping one runner, running at one speed, does not support the argument. In addition, being as busy as I am, taking a month off out of my busy practice to do a proper study simply is not practical or possible.

    I'm not looking for anecdotal evidence, I'm looking for research evidence for my paper to support an important argument in my paper. This is the method by which we are expected to write peer-reviewed scientific/medical papers in this day and age.:drinks
  26. Sobhan:

    Not just a bit, the Keller et al study is the best reference I have on the subject currently (Keller TS, Weisberger AM, Ray JL, Hasan SS, Shiavi RG, Spengler DM: Relationship between vertical ground reaction force and speed during walking, slow jogging, and running. Clin Biomech, 11(5):253-259, 1996).

    When one looks at Lieberman et al's research on barefoot Kenyan runners, who were measured while running at a sub 5:00/mile pace, and see that Lieberman et al then concludes that all barefoot runners prefer to forefoot strike, something is very wrong. Of course, it also seems suspicious to me that all of Dan Lieberman's running research over the past few years, including this one, has been funded by Vibram.

    This paper by Lieberman et al, more than any other, has been quoted by and has influenced many people to think that rearfoot striking running is bad and forefoot striking running is good since rearfoot striking running, according to Lieberman et al, is "less natural" because his sub 5:00/mile barefoot runners landed on their forefoot when running, not their rearfoot. One of the aims of my article is to show the fallacy of the argument of Lieberman et al. It is, therefore, very important that I have solid research data on the changes in foot strike patterns with changes in running velocity to have a good foundation to base my argument on.

    Thanks again to you and Dr. Spooner for all of your valuable help in this matter.:drinks
  27. For anyone following, 5 minutes per mile = 5.36448 metres per second, see the graph from the Keller paper Kevin posted above. The Kenyan runners in the Liebermann study were running faster than this...

    However, when one reviews Lieberman's results (table 1) it is clear that the habitually barefoot group from the USA, despite running slower than the Kenyans (3.9 =/- 0.4 ms>1) when barefoot, still demonstrated a higher proportion of forefoot strikes (75 % of 8 subjects) when barefoot than when shod. So, speed could be a confounding factor with the Lieberman study, but one cannot ignore the influence of habitual use of footwear on foot strike pattern when we compare with the data from the habitual shoe-wearing groups, Kevin. Really you need to compare the velocity within each of Lieberman's groups to see if they are different and then compare the within group shod versus barefoot results. And... these basically show an effect for footwear in those not used to wearing shoes, despite not a lot of difference in the within group speeds.

    For example, lets take the "recently shod Kenyan group" from Lieberman's study: when barefoot the average speed was 5.9 +/- 0.6 ms>1, when shod it was 5.7 +/- 0.6 ms>1 (I'd wager statistically not different). i.e. very little difference in running speed in real terms given the sample size, however, we see 91% of them forefoot striking when running barefoot, but only 54% striking forefoot first when shod. So, is it the difference in speed that is changing the foot strike characteristics within this group, or the addition of shoes? My money is on the shoes, sorry Kevin.

    I look forward to your counter-argument, my friend.

    But what you can't then do is start comparing the foot strike patterns of Kenyans running at 5.9 and 5.7 ms>1 with the shod Americans running at 4.0 +/- 0.3 (barefoot) and 4.2 +/- 0.3 (shod) ms>1 because we have data suggesting speed as a confounding variable. Hope that makes sense- it's about within versus between sub-group comparisons- right?
  28. No argument from me here. The point is how does Lieberman justify making this statement in their abstract when injury rates were not studied?

  29. They can't, end of story.

    If I were building a predictive model for foot strike position during running, I'd first build a qualitative model of the variables I considered important. Here's a starter for 10:

    foot strike position = a function of: velocity + shoe geometry + shoe stiffness + surface stiffness + surface geometry + ankle joint range of motion + (leg length/ stride length) + ....

    Feel free to add in the variables y'all.
  30. The bottom line is that Lieberman et al can't make these conclusions.....but they did.

    1. They ran their barefoot subjects at speeds much faster than most recreational runnners can even run a single mile in....

    2. They then saw that their barefoot runners were forefoot strikers....

    3. They then noted that their barefoot runners had decreased "impact forces"...

    4. But we already have known, for the past thirty years, that, by definition, forefoot striking runners do not exhibit an impact peak in running.....

    5. They then assume that all our ancestors, when running at all speeds were forefoot strikers, even though it has been shown for over thirty years that running velocity is an important determinant of footstrike patterns.....

    6. They didn't let their subjects run at the more normal recreational running speeds that showed that barefoot runners prefer to heel strike at slower running speeds (Hatala KG, Dingwall HL, Wunderlich RE, Richmond BG (2013) Variation in Foot Strike Patterns during Running among Habitually Barefoot Populations. PLoS ONE 8(1): e52548. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052548).....

    7. Why....because if they had run their barefoot runners slower they then would have seen impact force peaks, instead of only propulsive force peaks in the force plate data, and would not have been able to say that barefoot runners don't have "collisions" with the ground...

    6. And, finally, after all of these manipulations of the materials and methods of their research , Dan Lieberman and his coworkers make the following conclusion?.....

    Go figure......:wacko::confused::mad:
  31. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    Dear Kevin,
    I had a short discussion with Dr. Lieberman on minimalist shoes two months ago here in the Netehrlands. To me he is a nice and open minded scientist, and I am not sure if most of his research has been funded by Vibram. I agree that strong conclusions have been made based on one study though. We still need more scientefic evidence on barefoot/minimalist running. As someone who are a little familiar with the topic and the literature I guess one of the conclusions of your review will be "more research is needed". It is very soon for strong conclusions from both sides. Looking forward to reading your review.
  32. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    I am not sure if all of Lieberman`s works have been funded by Vibram. At least this is not what I heard from him 2-3 months ago when he was here in the Netherlands. I agree that strong conclusions have been made based on one study though. As someone who is alittle familiar with the topic and literature, I think one of the conclusions of your review would be "more reasech is needed".
    Looking forward to reading it ;)
    All the best
  33. Sobhan:

    Here is what I did say in an earlier post:

    Now, let's look at Dan Lieberman's running research papers over the past three years:

    Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.

    Effects of Footwear and Strike Type on Running Economy

    Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: A Retrospective Study

    Given, he has also done other anthropological papers regarding running in early humans that were not funded by Vibram that involved more hypotheses, versus actual running biomechanics research on live humans. But certainly, Lieberman's high profile papers that always tend to point toward barefoot and minimal shoes being better for runners, producing less injuries (and the papers of his that always seem to get the most press) have all been funded by Vibram since 2010. I would love to know how much money Vibram has actually given to Lieberman for his lab and his research. My guess it wasn't just a free pair of FiveFinger shoes.:cool:
  34. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    I had a discussion with him about 10 minutes on minimalist shoes. He is an open minded guy and to me a real scientist. The fact that some companies like leiberman`s idea and support it, does not mean that the idea belong to them.
    Just one point about the study of Keller et al. It is possible that for higher speeds people remain still heel strikers when they run with shoes (due to heel cushioning). The story for barefoot runners might be different. As I said we still need some good work in this area. Who knows maybe in the future we will do a nice study together :)
  35. Sobhan:

    You may want to read Simon Bartold's account of his debate with Dan Lieberman and Benno Nigg from November 28, 2011 and let you see if this changes your opinions of the man:


    post #142

    To which Craig Payne replied:

    And here is what Lieberman said on his Harvard website about heel striking:

    Hmmm....there seems to be a pattern emerging...

    After reading this again, now a few years later, something is definitely fishy at Harvard....
  36. Might want to compare the ideas in that table to the results presented in the Kleindiest study here: http://www.biomechanics-education.com/journals/Knee Adduction FFS.pdf

    Question: what is the significance of the biphasic anterior- posterior shear force observed in forefoot strike running as exemplified in figure 4.?

    For those not used to looking at these kind of graphs, the best analogy I can think of is that it's like driving in a car, hitting the brakes hard, putting your foot back on the gas, then hitting the brakes hard again, then putting your foot back on the gas. Why does this biphasic "braking" classically occur in forefoot strike running but not rearfoot strike running?
  37. sobhani_sobhan

    sobhani_sobhan Active Member

    Quite a story! Sometimes scientific world confuses me :)))
  38. Nothing to be confused about....scientists are just men and women....with good intelligence.... and exceptionally large egos...:cool:

Share This Page