Heel Striking
1 watcher
Sep 2012
1:42pm, 26 Sep 2012
4,444 posts
|
jonp
sorry, yes my mistake (I think there is also a YT video showing something similar). Nevertheless... However, all that The Saint (and the study) has shown is that 75% of elites in that race were heel strikers. (my guess it The Saint was trying to make the point therefore that, because 75% of elites are heel strikers, it must be the best way to run). But, all that is presented is factual *data* I could quite easily say for example that 75% of those elites get an injury each year, or 75% of them wear their shoes out more quickly, or 75% of them were slower than the top 25% of elites who didn't heel strike. You see the study doesn't tell us any of that therefore it is not really a study, just data! So my point to The Saint is don't present data if you are bemoaning no nobody else using re-produceable evidence based studies. Also the 2 guys from the website link are poor scientists (IMHO) in that they regularly pull up a study and then at the end make their own conclusions and pass that off as evidence. Just read the link he put up; the clue is in the last section with a heading "Personal opinion and implications of this study". Which is actually just personal opinion with no science base around it, exactly what The Saint is saying everyone else is doing!!! |
Sep 2012
1:51pm, 26 Sep 2012
1,278 posts
|
IanThinkRunning
I think that Harvard place does some sort of sciency stuff doesn't it? I think the term "injury free" is rather misleading and silly. But I also think it's not to be taken literally, as it is used in advertising and suchlike. I would say "drastically reduce the chances of you incurring injuries most commonly associated or attributed to running". Or something... Not quite a s snappy though I suppose. |
|
Sep 2012
2:01pm, 26 Sep 2012
4,445 posts
|
jonp
Ian, Harvard or no harvard. The blog that is presenting the study is commenting on data, and the authors are then adding their opinion as to what it means. This is incredibly ironic when the first 2/3 of the blog article is about how we must use science instead of opinion and then the concluding 1/3 is almost entirely opinion of the 2 authors, in complete contradiction to what were saying shouldn't happen!
|
|
Sep 2012
2:04pm, 26 Sep 2012
4,446 posts
|
jonp
BTW, I am also of the consensus on this thread that it's about overall body positioning that counts more than what actually touches ground first (i.e. bent knee, no straight legs etc). My posts are not about that, just the irony of what The Saint posted and commented about 
|
|
Sep 2012
2:53pm, 26 Sep 2012
1,282 posts
|
IanThinkRunning
Ok Jon! I didn't even look at what the Saint posted. My comments about Harvard were to highlight the fact that there may actually be something of substance in the stuff I posted about the studies done at Harvard in regards to heel strike running. And yes, I think we all agree that it isn't necessarily the heel strike per se BUT the positioning of other body parts and the timing with which a person hits the ground. It is just that usually, if a human extends their lower leg out in front then dorsiflexes the foot then it's highly likely that the heel will be the first point of contact. It is possible to run quite well with what looks like a heel strike (as CT said). But you would probably benefit from using a force plate to see what is actually going on there. |
|
Sep 2012
3:54pm, 26 Sep 2012
4,447 posts
|
jonp
^^ Sorry Ian, I misunderstood the Harvard reference Yes, totally agree with your 2nd paragraph. An over-reach of the lower leg normally results in a heel strike. |
|
Sep 2012
4:04pm, 26 Sep 2012
1,285 posts
|
IanThinkRunning
No worries Jon. One of my clients ran quite well apart from what looked like a heel strike. It puzzled me though to start with, as her knee was bent and she wasn't massively far ahead of her hips. Then I saw the big chunky heeled Nikes she had on! I asked her to remove the shoes and run again. Immediately the "heel strike" disappeared and she even started to run more under her hips after only ten minutes working on her posture. When I asked her to run in the shoes again, the heel was hitting the floor again. I concluded that her shoes were definitely getting in the way. Since switching to a lower profile shoe she has been running much better and enjoying it! |
|
Sep 2012
4:10pm, 26 Sep 2012
230 posts
|
AndrewS
Ian, I take your point about 'injury free' being a bit of a slogan. But I have seen it used on this very forum as being a result of adopting a certain type of running style. And that is misleading. Anyhow, my question stands... What is the evidence that midfoot/forefoot running results in any less injury than heel striking? This seems to be funadamental to the whole debate. If an average runner heel strikes, the loss of economy might be of little interest to him/her providing there is no corresponding increase in injury. |
|
Sep 2012
4:33pm, 26 Sep 2012
1,287 posts
|
IanThinkRunning
Andrew, and those who use it as such would presumably mean that the adoptee would be largely injury free or free of the injuries that previously afflicted them. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that running in a certain way will make you immune to injury. Anyone who moves around, regardless of whether they even run or not have some risk of getting injured. Have a look at the harvard link, read some of the research Lieberman has done and make up your own mind about whether heel strike running is good or bad. Of course, there will always be people who are happy with how they run and don't want to change. If that is so and they aren't injured then I see no reason to change. |
Related Threads
-
Plantar Fasciitis??
Mar 2024
-
Toe blisters - please help
Mar 2024
-
Raynaud's
Dec 2022
-
VERY wide feet
Jul 2022
-
Very sore foot, what should I do?
Jun 2022
-
Metatarsal heads dropping - any cures please?!
Jun 2022
-
Any advice before I surgically remove my own metatarsals?
Jun 2022
-
Corns
Apr 2022
-
Getting back after broken foot
Apr 2022
-
Best way to get heat onto the ankle at work?
Apr 2022
