for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

More efficient running style

183 watchers

FenlandRunner Jan 2014 9:00pm, 27 Jan 2014 403 posts	Quote Pin FenlandRunner Food for thought? theendurancestore.com
Canute Jan 2014 9:46pm, 27 Jan 2014 859 posts	Quote Pin Canute The majority of the evidence shows that heel striking is more efficient than forefoot striking, especially at low and medium paces. At faster paces the advantage of heel striking is smaller and statistically insignificant. There is virtually no evidence that supports the recently popular notion that forefoot striking might be more efficient. There is an overview of the evidence at: runresearchjunkie.com For sprinters, forefoot is probably preferable because it allows generation of greater power. Ability to generate power is more important than efficient use of oxygen in short races. A substantial oxygen deficit can be tolerated for a brief period, so efficient use of oxygen is not a high priority.
GlennR Jan 2014 10:42am, 28 Jan 2014 8,842 posts	Quote Pin GlennR My work machine, which has some very sophisticated filters built in, says that that site has a malicious embedded link. Probably safe to visit but don't click on anything.
Canute Jan 2014 9:50pm, 28 Jan 2014 860 posts	Quote Pin Canute Thanks for the warning Glenn. I had been quite intrigued by the site, so it is a shame if it has an embedded harmful link. I hope no one has clicked on anything troublesome.
Tarahumara Jan 2014 10:02pm, 28 Jan 2014 1,254 posts	Quote Pin Tarahumara Well after viewing some old race photos from last year I see I still heel strike when driving hard... But now I don't care so thanks Canute
SPR Jan 2014 9:29am, 29 Jan 2014 19,009 posts	Quote Pin SPR Conclusions: The present study showed that habitually rearfoot striking runners are more economical than midfoot strikers. Foot strike pattern affected both contact and flight times, which may explain the differences in running economy.
Jhuff Jan 2014 9:58pm, 29 Jan 2014 3,734 posts	Quote Pin Jhuff """"Why did they find the results they did: I presume that to get up onto the midfoot, requires more muscular effort, so its less efficient""" Perhaps someone could enlighten these douchebags how on should properly and efficiently run on the midfoot.
Canute Jan 2014 11:05pm, 29 Jan 2014 861 posts	Quote Pin Canute Jeremy What reason have you to call these athletes douchebags? How do you think they should be trained? It is noteworthy in the published evidence regarding efficiency after change to Pose, Pose is associated with loss of efficiency. For example, Dallam and colleagues found that 12 weeks after changing to Pose, a group of 8 athletes were an average of 7.6 percent less efficient than before the change ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Dr Romanov had been the advisor on Pose coaching in that study, so presumable they got authentic Pose coaching. It is plausible that after more than 12 weeks the loss of efficiency in the Pose runners might be less. However, there is no published scientific evidence to indicate that the lost efficiency in the first 12 weeks of Pose is subsequently recovered. On the potentially positive side, the Pose runners did exhibit a decrease in their vertical oscillation. However, this potential advantage would be expected in any change of style in which cadence is increased, irrespective of any change in foot-strike. At higher cadence, the airborne time will decrease unless all of the decrease in step duration is achieve by reduction in stance time, which is improbable. Therefore the body will fall less far during airborne time, and vertical oscillation will be less.
Jhuff Jan 2014 3:33am, 30 Jan 2014 3,735 posts	Quote Pin Jhuff Canute, I was referring to the person who wrote the article on the website. I recommend people run via weight over the balls of the forefoot.
FenlandRunner Jan 2014 7:11am, 30 Jan 2014 435 posts	Quote Pin FenlandRunner Jeremy, that's slightly different. Striking and weighting are not the same.