The Pose (Read 1858 times)

Ross Tucker Thank you for your input. There are a few things I need to clear up here because it seem to me as if we are arguing in a circle and going nowhere. 1.I am not an advocate of Pose. In fact, I fundamentally disagree with his idea of suggesting that there is one way for everyone to run. 2.My argument from the beginning is that a lot of people criticizing Pose go over board to the point of doing the opposite trying to suggest that no one should be landing on the ball or front of there foot. (That is not the case for you Ross) I know that is the way I run naturally and I was misled in to changing and just as how I would not want to tell people to run Pose I do not think it is fair to be also misleading people who run that way naturally. 3.In the first article you wrote I quote “But studies actually show the OPPOSITE - in one study, 75% of elite runners (running at 3min/km in a 21km race) landed on the HEEL!” I read that to mean that 75% of elite runners were Heel strikers. I am well aware that I am not a scientist, neither can I site any opposing study at lest not off hand. However, from my personal experience and I have been around many top runners I find this study very difficult to believe. In your response or in your follow up article you wrote, “The final point in this regard is that 75% of elite athletes are heel strikers, according to the latest study from Japan. I referred to this study the other day, but what was found was that 75% of runners in a 21km race, running at 3min/km, were heel strikers.” This I cannot disagree with because as I said in an earlier post the way the elite run could largely have to do with genetics. I am not sure if in this study a large pool of the runners were Japanese. Nobby is from Japan and he can maybe comment and give his opinion here. I am a person of color I was born and raised in Jamaica I went to University with a lot of Africans, Nigerians, Ethiopians, and Kenyans. I now live in Canada and I still run with many people from this ethnic background from my PERSONAL observation (NOT SCIENTIFIC SO TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT) I find it hard to believe that 75% of elite runners (that is the world wide population now) heel strike. Possibly, my observation is clouded by the group of runners I am observing. 4. Whether or not the majority of elite forefoot strike or heel strike in my opinion does not prove one method of running to be better than the other is. Hence my question why reference it in the article. Dragon76 Thanks for the post identifying the study: I have copied it below Laboratory of Exercise Science, Department of Business Management, Ryukoku University, Kyoto, Japan. hiroshi515@aol.com There are various recommendations by many coaches regarding foot-landing techniques in distance running that are meant to improve running performance and prevent injuries. Several studies have investigated the kinematic and kinetic differences between rearfoot strike (RFS), midfoot strike (MFS), and forefoot strike (FFS) patterns at foot landing and their effects on running efficiency on a treadmill and over ground conditions. However, little is known about the actual condition of the foot strike pattern during an actual road race at the elite level of competition. The purpose of the present study was to document actual foot strike patterns during a half marathon in which elite international level runners, including Olympians, compete. Four hundred fifteen runners were filmed by 2 120-Hz video cameras in the height of 0.15 m placed at the 15.0-km point and obtained sagittal foot landing and taking off images for 283 runners. 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 x s(-1), or 15 minutes, 17 seconds per 5 km), RFS, MFS, and FFS were 62.0, 36.0, and 2.0%, respectively. Contact time (CT) clearly increased for the slower runners, or the placement order increased (r = 0.71, p < or="0.05)." the="" ct="" for="" rfs="" +="" ffs="" for="" every="" 50="" runners="" group="" significantly="" increased="" with="" increase="" of="" the="" placement="" order.="" the="" ct="" for="" rfs="" was="" significantly="" longer="" than="" mfs="" +="" ffs="" (200.0="" +/-="" 21.3="" vs.="" 183.0="" +/-="" 16="" millisecond).="" apparent="" inversion="" (inv)="" of="" the="" foot="" at="" the="" foot="" strike="" was="" observed="" in="" 42%="" of="" all="" runners.="" the="" percentage="" of="" inv="" for="" mfs="" was="" higher="" than="" for="" rfs="" and="" ffs="" (62.5,="" 32.0,="" and="" 50%,="" respectively).="" the="" ct="" with="" inv="" for="" mfs="" +="" ffs="" was="" significantly="" shorter="" than="" the="" ct="" with="" and="" without="" inv="" for="" rfs.="" furthermore,="" the="" ct="" with="" inv="" was="" significantly="" shorter="" than="" push-off="" time="" without="" inv="" for="" rfs.="" the="" findings="" of="" this="" study="" indicate="" that="" foot="" strike="" patterns="" are="" related="" to="" running="" speed.="" the="" percentage="" of="" rfs="" increases="" with="" the="" decreasing="" of="" the="" running="" speed;="" conversely,="" the="" percentage="" of="" mfs="" increases="" as="" the="" running="" speed="" increases.="" a="" shorter="" contact="" time="" and="" a="" higher="" frequency="" of="" inversion="" at="" the="" foot="" contact="" might="" contribute="" to="" higher="" running="" /> Dr Tucker It is difficult for me to argue with you because I do not have the academic credentials as you do. However, reading this I came away with a different opinion than the one I got in your article. What I surmise from the study were the following: 1. Four hundred fifteen runners were filmed. 2. Two 120-Hz video cameras in the height of 0.15 m placed at the 15.0-km point and obtained sagittal foot landing and taking off images for 283 runners. 3. Rearfoot strike was observed in 74.9% of all analyzed runners. 4. The percentage of MFS (Mid Foot Strike )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 5. Contact time (CT) clearly increased for the slower runners. 6. The CT for RFS was significantly longer than MFS + FFS (200.0 +/- 21.3 vs. 183.0 +/- 16 millisecond). The study conclude that: 1. The findings of this study indicate that foot strike patterns are related to running speed. The percentage of RFS (Rear foot Strike) increases with the decreasing of the running speed; conversely, the percentage of MFS (Mid foot Strike) increases as the running speed increases. 2. A shorter contact time and a higher frequency of inversion at the foot contact might contribute to higher running economy. Now I am not sure of the definition of Mid foot strike versus Fore foot strike as indicated in this study as compared to how lay people speak of Fore foot running or toe running. Therefore, this is one item I would need to have cleared up. However I do not see how this completely square with what you said in your article. The picture was taken only at one point the 15-km point of 283 runners. I am not sure that this was then a good enough study to make your point. They also conclude “The percentage of MFS was higher in the faster runners group” Additionally, whether or not the mid foot strikers were faster or slower I am not prepared to accept makes one method better. I think we both agree on this. I also think we agree that teaching Pose as a one size fits all is also fraught with problems. I hope that you are willing to accept that many runners do fore, mid foot or toe run what ever it is called and this is natural for this group and there is also a problem telling those folks to change there gait. Finally as a side, correct me if I am wrong you guys all seem to think Kenenisa Bekele is a heel striker. I do not see that in the video posted but I am not going to argue using that as proof. Dr Ross let me know if that is what you think.

Dude. Just go run.

Thanks for saying that - I found myself getting a knot in my stomach, wondering if I should be doing more study about running! I will just forget all this stuff and go change into my running clothes right now.

Maybe he's just not a runner and is studying the science of it before getting his arse out there ... Like JK said...dude get out and run!

Interesting... Landing on the midfoot as I usually do, still means that the heel hits too. No braking force http://kirstyexner.com/articles/Running_technique.htm

In running, you bring the swing leg up and in front of your body, and then bring it back for your landing. You do this for an important reason; it reduces the braking force of your landing. Keep in mind, when you are traveling forward your body has inertia (or momentum) like a flywheel. This means that while your body is in motion, it will continue in that direction unless it is prevented by some other force. If you landed on your heel in front of your body, it would block your forward progress. As a result, you would experience a shock to your body which, if repeated many times, will lead to an injury. Further, if you land on your heel with your feet pointing too far upward, this means you did not bring your foot back in a pawback motion. As a result, the inertia of your body goes into your foot, which creates tremendous landing forces. To prove this, take a small running step and land on your heel with your toes high (don't take a big step, because you can jar your body severely). You will now understand the big force you can experience with this faulty technique. This is why running shoes have built-up heels. They must absorb this force. From the forward leg position, if you bring your leg backward you will find you can still land on your heel. But it is the front part of your heel, rather than the back part. In this case, immediately on landing you will feel much less force. In addition, you will bring into play the muscles in the buttock and back of your thigh to push you forward during the support phase (while your leg is in contact with the ground). Because of this, you will run faster. These muscles help to bring your center of gravity forward, so that when you push off with your ankle the forces will be directed forward, not upward. For example, sprinters who use pawback effectively have only about an inch and a half of vertical movement of their bodies.