|
Jan 2014
10:18am, 30 Jan 2014
862 posts
|
Canute
Jeremy,
Sorry I was misled by your use of the plural ‘douchebags’ to refer to a single person.
The key point I was wishing to draw attention to is that the decrease in efficiency in the midfoot strikers relative to the heel strikers in the paper discussed on the runresearchjunkie website was approximately the same amount as the decrease in efficiency associated with changing to Pose style. The similarity of the decrease in efficiency adds strength to the conclusion that heel striking is more efficient at the slow and medium paces.
This does not mean that foot-strike does not matter. Evidence based on the forces and torques at the knee and ankle indicates that it is likely that for runners prone to knee problems landing further forward on the foot might be better. On the other hand, for runners prone to Achilles, ankle or metatarsal problem it might be better to strike further back (i.e heel-strike). While heel striking is probably more efficient for distance runners, for most people avoiding injury is more important than the relatively small difference in efficiency due to differences in foot-strike.
So if a runner suffers repeated injury it might be worth changing style. If not, changing is probably not worth the risks associated with change, even though heel striking is probably a bit more efficient.
|
|
Jan 2014
10:57am, 30 Jan 2014
4,235 posts
|
paul the builder
I see it here, and I see it elsewhere too, and I don't understand. Why are proponents of Pose so unwilling to countenance the idea that Pose may be a slightly less efficient method of running? (Although I suppose the title of this thread contains a pre-supposition in that direction)
Efficiency is only one parameter of running, not the complete all-encompassing performance statement. It covers a few things, but not everything. No-one in the 'traditional' running camp minds that Pose proved to reduce vertical oscillation, for example. We don't argue with that finding.
Efficiency surely doesn't matter at all in short distance or middle distance running. And it's only one of a number of factors which are important in long distance running (off the top of my head - thermal regulation, fuelling/hydration, race tactics/plan execution, cramp/fatigue avoidance in-race, injury avoidance pre-race). It's not a silver bullet. So why so reluctant to cede ground here?
|
|
Jan 2014
11:01am, 30 Jan 2014
3,670 posts
|
daviec
Yep, seems a bit odd to me. I'm not concerned with small advantages in efficiency. Surely we want to train without injury and race as fast as possible. Neither requires optimum efficiency.
|
|
Jan 2014
11:08am, 30 Jan 2014
4,236 posts
|
paul the builder
Even if you and I *were* highly concerned with efficiency davie (and I guess we probably should be keeping an eye on it at least, as longer distance runners) - we're a very small subset of the total running world. Most runners are not running marathons.
Pose could still sell itself to vast numbers of recreational runners and mid-distance runners, with the message of "struggling with injuries? Try a change of running style!"
|
|
Jan 2014
11:13am, 30 Jan 2014
19,284 posts
|
eL Bee!
To be fair, most of the people I have worked with have had a history of persistent injuries, all of which could be put down to something they were 'doing' in their gait cycle, and Pose Method provided a structure and efficiency of movement (as opposed to efficency of O2 utilisation) which has allowed them to run in way in which those persistent injuries no longer happen.
|
|
Jan 2014
1:05pm, 30 Jan 2014
4,501 posts
|
jonp
hallelujah to the last bunch of posts. Running - learning, teaching, improving is really not about the "where does my foot land" argument, which mostly completely misses the point. Arguably the relationship of joint positioning is actually what really matters.
Also agree with the above that for the vast majority of people out there, they are concerned with being able to run throughout their lifetime without having to stop doing it because their joints gave way. There are only a small amount of the running populace that would give two hoots about slight changes in economy - as long as they know they can keep running. For most people they can get far better improvements in their racing time through applying better training plans, much more than the difference between heel or forefoot.
As an aside, the guy that writes that blog (that was linked) *is* a complete douchebag :), would have been better to link the study article itself instead of indirectly through the rants of that chap - who is off putting whichever side of the argument you want to take.
|
|
Jan 2014
2:15pm, 30 Jan 2014
863 posts
|
Canute
Great. We appear to have near consensus that the difference in efficiency in oxygen utilization between different foot-strike styles is less important than injury risk for many recreational runners.
I am not so sure that we have consensus on calling people douchebag(s). I had linked to the original research by Ogueta-Alday and colleagues on this thread last September shortly after the article was published, and we discussed it here in some detail at that time. The reason I linked to runresearchjunkie this time was that he refers to several other studies that are discussed in greater detail in his other posts The important issue is that a single study can often be misleading. Whatever one might think of the personal style of runresearchjunkie, I like the fact that he has assembled a lot of evidence. At this stage I think the bulk of the evidence from several studies is that heel striking is a bit more efficient, though I am still reluctant to draw a final conclusion. However, if as Glenn pointed out, there might be a bad link embedded in the runresearchjunkie site, I do not recommend any further exploration of that site.
The bottom line is that for most recreational runners, we now have enough evidence to know that any difference in efficiency is small (ie less than 10%). However, for anyone interested in the fine details, especially for marathoners aiming for their best possible performance, I think it is worth being aware of where the evidence is leading.
|
|
Jan 2014
2:20pm, 30 Jan 2014
3,736 posts
|
Jhuff
Jonp, well put!! 
|
|
Jan 2014
2:22pm, 30 Jan 2014
3,737 posts
|
Jhuff
Canute, can you give me your definition of what "heel strike" means?
|
|
Jan 2014
2:49pm, 30 Jan 2014
864 posts
|
Canute
Jeremy,Jeremy
In the majority the studies we have been referring to, heel strike refers to the heel being the part of the foot that makes first contact with the ground at footfall. The point of first contact does play a large part in determining the distribution of load across the foot over the stance period. However various factors, including the degree of flexion at the various joints of the leg at different stages of the stance period, also influence the distribution of the load during stance.
My own natural tendency is to land on midfoot, with the heel taking only a small part of the load. The sensation from my foot indicates that my forefoot bears a heavier load than my heel. In fact I think that the orientation of my foot might be regarded as fairly orthodox in the Pose community – at least since about 2004, by which stage the danger of the earlier emphasis on BOF landing had been acknowledged by many Pose coaches . However at times when my arthritis is troublesome I adjust the distribution of load as required to minimise stress at the site where the pain is greatest.
|
