Heel or forefoot strike better? get angry...NOW! (Read 212 times)

I just watched a bunch of "gait analysis" and "improve your form" videos on youtube out of curiosity.

Every single one that was promoting midfoot strike made the claim that the initial contact point was under the body and therefor better. However, every single video when paused showed that the initial contact point was almost exactly as far ahead of the center of gravity as the heel strikers they were using in side by side videos as examples of what not to do! A few of the videos obviously cheated to justify their opinions by freezing the frame when the body came over the foot, and not when it made initial forefoot contact. And their "measuring systems" showing angles of legs were drawn FREEHAND and at discretionary starting points that exaggerated the angles or reduced them, depending on what best fit their opinion. The main visual difference was the upward angle of the toes: the further up they were pointed the more toward the heel was the initial contact.

These weren't all done by armchair coaches and "biomimetricists", some were by motion study departments at universities and training centers.

A bunch of other flaws in their examples, such as using a side-by-side comparison to an elite runner; but the elite runner was running at a MUCH faster pace than their heel striking mid-pack example.

What did I armchair-conclude from this? That the faster the pace the less the runner points their toes upward, that initial contact is about the same in relation to body's center of gravity with either heel or midfoot striking, and that initial ground contact directly under or behind the body's center of gravity would result in people falling on their face.

I'm open to info on footstrike that doesn't include pygmys or ostriches.

I agree with 'just run'.

However, pace is important.  Forward momentum and good turnover means less 'up and down' so the initial point of contact isn't where the bulk of the energy transfer occurs.  It's under the center of gravity.  Or more accurately, it accumulates from initial point of contact through the center of gravity, then returns at the point of push off.

The slower you go, then more direct downward force is absorbed directly at the point of contact.

Or something like that.

Another vote for 'Just run'.

 

Hairy toes...I just love hairy toes...

I am a proud heel striker

I do agree with "just run" but the one thing I would point to is cadence. That's a part of my form I'm constantly working at. The biggest difference for me in injuries came from when I increased my cadence to its current 175-185 (depending on pace). I like checking out other runners' cadence when I'm running, and I would say probably less than 10% of them are above 170, even if they're running near my pace.

 

 

Pick one.

Hello there Internet poster! Thank you for adding significant value to this thread! Please make sure to correct any grammar and spelling mistakes made as well, your input is much appreciated!

 

It may not be cadence per se, but you possibly altered your stride/form in an attempt to increase your cadence.

That certainly may be the case, they can be related. Often picking up your cadence leads to more midfoot/forefoot striking. I guess my point was more that I focused on that and any benefits I got from not heel striking (if there are any) came along for the ride.

My cadence is usually averages about 88 (176 the way you guys measure it) at 7:30-8:30, and about 90-92 at 6:00-6:30. People with a low cadence are often bounding; wasting a lot of energy going up instead of forward.

anecdote; a guy in my FB Master Milers group was getting some online coaching, and the coach wanted him to REDUCE his cadence at the same speed as a way to "correct" his form. It was something really slow, like 82 at 6:00 pace. The guy got injured after one session doing that and has been out for the whole summer. I think he was planning on going to Malaga, too.