for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

More efficient running style

183 watchers

FR Sep 2013 12:36pm, 10 Sep 2013 16,771 posts	Quote Pin FR HOD, have a look at this en.wikipedia.org for HIIT. Not wishing to go over old ground, I believe that the basics to efficient running is consistent across all styles, religions, etc. I accepted long ago that I'll never, ever, have the aesthetic style of say, Jeremy, but in my own way believe progress has been made over the last few years by keeping in mind a few basic aims.
Hills of Death (HOD) Sep 2013 12:45pm, 10 Sep 2013 29,058 posts	Quote Pin Hills of Death (HOD) Yes I agree with this man ^
Canute Sep 2013 8:05am, 12 Sep 2013 765 posts	Quote Pin Canute At last! Some apparently good evidence regarding the efficiency of heel striking This study from Spain of two well matched groups of sub-elite distance runners shows that heel strikers are more efficient than midfoot strikers, across a range of speeds. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Heel s strikers were 5.4%,, 9.3% and 5.0% more economical than mid-foot strikers at speeds of 11, 13 and 15 km/h respectively. The difference was statistically significant at 11 and 13 km/hr, but only showed a trend towards significance at 15 Km/hr. This slightly smaller advantage of heel striking at higher speed is consistent with the observation that in most runners the point of contact at footfall moves forward along the sole of the foot as speed increases. Cadence did not differ between groups though as expected cadence increased with increasing speed in both groups. The heel strikers spent longer on stance. This would result in lower vertical forces and hence less elevation costs but on the other hand longer time on stance is associated with greater energy costs of braking. Both groups were well accustomed to the style of running they used during the study so the effects are not likely to be due to a recent change in style But in contrast, this study from Italy found no difference in efficiency between sub-elite heel strikers and mid foot strikers, tested only at a single speed of 14 Km/hr. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov I might be that by only studying one (fairly fast) speed the Italians failed to find the efficiency benefits of heel striking that the Spaniards found at the slightly slower paces of 11 and 13 Km/hr but I doubt this is the full explanation. It is probable that there were difference sin the runners involved. All the runners in the Spanish study were long distance runners who had recently run a half marathon whereas the runner sin the Italian study were described as distance runners. It is plausible that longer distance runners develop a more efficient heel striking style because heel striking requires less tension in the leg muscles and tends to be better suited for long distances. Just as in the Spanish study, the Italians found that heel strikers spent longer on stance, consistent with heel striking requiring less leg muscle tension. So can we draw any conclusion? I think these two studies both suggest that you should not change from heel striking to mid foot striking just to improve your efficiency. You might make it worse, even after you have adjusted to the change. The issue of which style is safer remains unanswered.
Garfield Sep 2013 8:25am, 12 Sep 2013 3,357 posts	Quote Pin Garfield Interesting reading Canute! It all depends on the person really and the case of if it works and they don't get injured from heel striking, don't try to fix it!
daviec Sep 2013 9:03am, 12 Sep 2013 3,262 posts	Quote Pin daviec I can't access the full text. How did they measure running economy? It would be nice to see a wider range of speeds at the top end as well. No significant difference at 15km/h and my half marathon pace is faster than that.
Canute Sep 2013 9:44am, 12 Sep 2013 766 posts	Quote Pin Canute Daviec In the Spanish study (which showed the improved efficiency for heel strikers) the runners ran on a treadmill allowing the measurement of expired gas composition to determine oxygen consumption. My own opinion (which I think is consistent with the claims of the study authors) is that heel striking is more efficient in long races and at speeds less than 15Km/hour. At faster speeds there is little evidence of difference in efficiency so at your HM pace it probably make little difference to efficiency. For middle distance runners, the evidence suggest that forefoot runners are faster than heel strikers – though this is probably not due to increased efficiency. The main issue at 800m is ability to develop power - you can afford to suffer substantial oxygen debt even though this can be painful. Efficient use of oxygen becomes a less important issue the shorter the race. For sprinters efficient use of oxygen matters very little at all
GlennR Sep 2013 11:06am, 13 Sep 2013 8,211 posts	Quote Pin GlennR Canute, I think what you've written in your final paragraph reflects something I've sometimes mentioned about the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness. A Honda Civic is much more efficient than a Formula 1 car but nothing like as effective at winning races.
Hills of Death (HOD) Sep 2013 11:23am, 13 Sep 2013 29,072 posts	Quote Pin Hills of Death (HOD) But they crash more Glenn
eL Bee! Sep 2013 11:26am, 13 Sep 2013 19,030 posts	Quote Pin eL Bee! Apparently if you take all the down force stuff of a formula 1 car and put the engine in something more aerodynamic, it's actually far more fuel efficient than road cars are. Heard that somewhere
GlennR Sep 2013 11:39am, 13 Sep 2013 8,213 posts	Quote Pin GlennR Up the pub probably, el Bee! A F1 engine at current spec (2.4 litre naturally aspirated) produces something in the order of 720 bhp. If it's possible to make that beat the 50 mpg I get out of my diesel Merc I'd be very surprised.