I would expect midfoot striking would increase as a function of surface irregularity, but shoe choice would probably result in a stronger correlation. I suspect almost all of the runners in the 2012 WS were using a raised-heel trail shoe given there are so few zero drop options.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:52 AM UTC, Tuck wrote:
> Didn't the Japanese Marathon study find it was a lot higher?
> I'd expect that trail running would predispose to more of a midfoot > landing... But it may just depend on the terrain... How irregular the > surface is.
> On 11/10/12, Oblinkin <oblin...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > 88.9% for road marathoners at 10k in my study.
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM UTC-5, Tuck wrote:
> >> That's 90% vs 98% for road runners, correct?
> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Oblinkin > >> <oblin...@gmail.com<javascript:> > >> > wrote:
Also, I wonder how stride length related to foot strike patterns and CK levels. I would hypothesize the higher CK levels in the forefoot strikers was a function of bad form (not letting the heel touch enough), which beats the hell out of the calf muscles and often results in other unnecessary muscle engagement, like actively lifting the foot off the ground.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:52 AM UTC, Tuck wrote:
> Didn't the Japanese Marathon study find it was a lot higher?
> I'd expect that trail running would predispose to more of a midfoot > landing... But it may just depend on the terrain... How irregular the > surface is.
> On 11/10/12, Oblinkin <oblin...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > 88.9% for road marathoners at 10k in my study.
> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM UTC-5, Tuck wrote:
> >> That's 90% vs 98% for road runners, correct?
> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Oblinkin > >> <oblin...@gmail.com<javascript:> > >> > wrote:
I would be very careful in drawing any conclusion about ideal foot strike by watching current runners given the modern history of running shoes and the indoctrination of poor foot strikes....plus by just watching foot strikes alone without knowing each of the runners injury history gives it a pretty much useless way of drawing any useful conclusions...you can always "will you way to a decent time" but the real question for how long can you do that....
Carl
On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Jason Robillard <robilla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would expect midfoot striking would increase as a function of surface irregularity, but shoe choice would probably result in a stronger correlation. I suspect almost all of the runners in the 2012 WS were using a raised-heel trail shoe given there are so few zero drop options.
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:52 AM UTC, Tuck wrote:
>> Didn't the Japanese Marathon study find it was a lot higher?
>> I'd expect that trail running would predispose to more of a midfoot >> landing... But it may just depend on the terrain... How irregular the >> surface is.
>> On 11/10/12, Oblinkin <oblin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 88.9% for road marathoners at 10k in my study.
>> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM UTC-5, Tuck wrote:
>> >> That's 90% vs 98% for road runners, correct?
>> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Oblinkin >> >> <oblin...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> >> > wrote:
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 1:23:26 PM UTC-5, Viking Runner wrote:
> I would be very careful in drawing any conclusion about ideal foot strike > by watching current runners given the modern history of running shoes and > the indoctrination of poor foot strikes....plus by just watching foot > strikes alone without knowing each of the runners injury history gives it a > pretty much useless way of drawing any useful conclusions...you can always > "will you way to a decent time" but the real question for how long can you > do that....
> Carl
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Jason Robillard <robil...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote:
> I would expect midfoot striking would increase as a function of surface > irregularity, but shoe choice would probably result in a stronger > correlation. I suspect almost all of the runners in the 2012 WS were using > a raised-heel trail shoe given there are so few zero drop options.
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:52 AM UTC, Tuck wrote:
>> Didn't the Japanese Marathon study find it was a lot higher?
>> I'd expect that trail running would predispose to more of a midfoot >> landing... But it may just depend on the terrain... How irregular the >> surface is.
>> On 11/10/12, Oblinkin <oblin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 88.9% for road marathoners at 10k in my study.
>> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM UTC-5, Tuck wrote:
>> >> That's 90% vs 98% for road runners, correct?
>> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Oblinkin >> >> <oblin...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> >> > wrote:
I agree with part of this, Jason -- the part about landing poorly leading to incomplete leg extension, and the attendant "lifting" of the foot. What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground during running beats up the calves. I believe that the leg functions as a unit through all phases of the stride, and that a good extension will lead to a leg that recovers in a manner equivalent to its extension. Further, if the ankle is extended well in the extension phase of the stride, the forefoot will reach the ground first after recovery. When this happens, the muscle chain that will create extension is loaded as one comes over the foot. The knee and ankle will flex together, and, just as the knee reaches a limit of flexion, so will the ankle before the heel touches the ground. The Achilles tendon is incredibly strong and dense, as is the gastrocnemius. There is no reason the calves should get more beat up in running than do the quads and hamstrings. The Achilles tendon is not inherently weaker than is the patellar tendon, although lack of use surely weakens it.
Further, weight being deposited on the heel, even after a forefoot landing, creates a loss of tone in the muscles of leg extension, which will be very difficult to reproduce in the brief time when the weight shifts completely to the ball of the foot (which it should, if the lower leg is to be involved in leg extension.
My experience, and that of runners I work with is that the heel never reaches the ground in level running. The lower forces involved in uphill running result in more heel contract than does downhill running, because the force applied to the ball of the foot in moving up does not as rapidly stimulate the stretch reflexes in the leg.
Also, on a barefoot forum, we could perhaps dispense with the term "midfoot strike". There is no midfoot on which to land. One lands on the ball of the foot, on the heel, or on both together. Only when one wears a fat-soled shoe does there appear to be a midfoot strike, and even then it is an illusion. Weight will not be borne by the midfoot.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 11:57:21 AM UTC-5, Jason Robillard wrote:
> Also, I wonder how stride length related to foot strike patterns and CK > levels. I would hypothesize the higher CK levels in the forefoot strikers > was a function of bad form (not letting the heel touch enough), which beats > the hell out of the calf muscles and often results in other unnecessary > muscle engagement, like actively lifting the foot off the ground.
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 12:51:52 AM UTC, Tuck wrote:
>> Didn't the Japanese Marathon study find it was a lot higher?
>> I'd expect that trail running would predispose to more of a midfoot >> landing... But it may just depend on the terrain... How irregular the >> surface is.
>> On 11/10/12, Oblinkin <oblin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 88.9% for road marathoners at 10k in my study.
>> > On Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:01:39 PM UTC-5, Tuck wrote:
>> >> That's 90% vs 98% for road runners, correct?
>> >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Oblinkin >> >> <oblin...@gmail.com<javascript:> >> >> > wrote:
"What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground during running beats up the calves.".
Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than landing on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is silly (if done properly). The only reason I lose my ball-of-foot-landing-first is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to ensure the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I understand it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending on your ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always touch the ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the waist on inclines...
I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about how it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is the thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
The most common cause of injury I see in the population I work with stems from keeping the heel off the ground. I'm not suggesting the heel should * always* touch (steep uphill grade and very fast pace being two situations where it probably wouldn't). Is there a non-Pose coach, physiologist, or biomechanics expert that agrees the heel shouldn't touch the ground?
Regarding landing on the ball of the foot in ultras- it's all I do even in the tough hundos. Of course, I also let me heel touch when applicable.
Also, I agree that foot strike discussions are mostly pointless. There are far more important elements of gait.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC, JasonH wrote:
> "What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground > during running beats up the calves.".
> Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the > calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending > the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
> There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than landing > on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is silly > (if done properly). The only reason I lose my ball-of-foot-landing-first > is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
> I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to ensure > the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I understand > it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending on your > ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always touch the > ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the waist on > inclines...
> I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about how > it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is the > thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
Perhaps these individuals would benefit by knowing that it is okay to let their body weight land with a relaxed foot. If their foot is relaxed they can't hold their heel off the ground. The problem they are most likely suffering from is an improper leg recovery which causes the foot to be to forward of their weight/center. In an effort to avoid a heel landing they tighten their feet early which results in holding heel and body weight off the ground. I am just speculating of course ;-)
Other than racing flats, my first minimalist trainer was the NB MT101, a trail shoe with a fairly thin, hard sole, that had some heel drop. I noticed immediately that I needed to work to keep my heel from slamming into the ground, which hurt in these shoes with very hard cushioning. When the Merrell Trail Gloves came out, I realized that I could leave the whole thing alone -- the same thing running barefoot: I land naturally on the outer balls of my feet, and the weight of my leg is enough to give my calves some tone, which increases as my body weight comes over my foot. Both my knee and foot have ended their flexion by the time my body is over my foot, such that my heel never (or rarely) touches the ground. This what I see in videos of most natural barefoot runners.
Going downhill, I naturally reach for the ground, which helps to distribute the force of descent, much as one would do jumping -- if one does a vertical standing jump, one will tend to straighten the legs and come back down on a straight leg, which in no way prevents shock absorbtion -- on the contrary, it gives you a longer shock so that forces are distributed over time, like a 9inch descent bike shock. Running downhill, when my foot touches the ground, my knee and ankle are nearly straight, but not held, so that there is no shock.
I can only talk with some certainty about my own case, and many that I have observed. Anatomical differences between individuals may certainly create differing degrees of flexion in landing. My heels naturally stay off the ground when I run. But ultras must require doing things to minimize effort and shock. I could never run one, so I can't speak to that. Too bad we can no longer see persistence hunters in action!
I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about how
> it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is the > thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
I couldn't agree more. I define running as the extension of the body from a fixed point. The foot stays where it is on the ground, and the body extends forward and up from it. Everything else follows from this.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10:40 PM UTC-5, Jason Robillard wrote:
> The most common cause of injury I see in the population I work with stems > from keeping the heel off the ground. I'm not suggesting the heel should * > always* touch (steep uphill grade and very fast pace being two situations > where it probably wouldn't). Is there a non-Pose coach, physiologist, or > biomechanics expert that agrees the heel shouldn't touch the ground?
> Regarding landing on the ball of the foot in ultras- it's all I do even in > the tough hundos. Of course, I also let me heel touch when applicable.
> Also, I agree that foot strike discussions are mostly pointless. There are > far more important elements of gait.
> ;-
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC, JasonH wrote:
>> "What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground >> during running beats up the calves.".
>> Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the >> calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending >> the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
>> There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than >> landing on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is >> silly (if done properly). The only reason I lose my >> ball-of-foot-landing-first is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
>> I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to ensure >> the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I understand >> it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending on your >> ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always touch the >> ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the waist on >> inclines...
>> I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about how >> it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is the >> thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
In my video of the NYC Barefoot Run, almost all barefoot runners that forefoot strike bring the heel to the ground after initial contact. Same goes for kids running barefoot. Same goes for African elites. That's enough evidence for me. That's not saying some people can't do just fine keeping the heel off the ground all the time, but I would not recommend it. There have been studies in which subjects are told to keep the heel off the ground and they experience tibial shock worse than that in heel strikers.
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10:40 PM UTC-5, Jason Robillard wrote:
> The most common cause of injury I see in the population I work with stems > from keeping the heel off the ground. I'm not suggesting the heel should * > always* touch (steep uphill grade and very fast pace being two situations > where it probably wouldn't). Is there a non-Pose coach, physiologist, or > biomechanics expert that agrees the heel shouldn't touch the ground?
> Regarding landing on the ball of the foot in ultras- it's all I do even in > the tough hundos. Of course, I also let me heel touch when applicable.
> Also, I agree that foot strike discussions are mostly pointless. There are > far more important elements of gait.
> ;-
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC, JasonH wrote:
>> "What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground >> during running beats up the calves.".
>> Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the >> calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending >> the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
>> There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than >> landing on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is >> silly (if done properly). The only reason I lose my >> ball-of-foot-landing-first is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
>> I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to ensure >> the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I understand >> it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending on your >> ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always touch the >> ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the waist on >> inclines...
>> I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about how >> it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is the >> thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my video of the NYC Barefoot Run, almost all barefoot runners that
> forefoot strike bring the heel to the ground after initial contact. Same
> goes for kids running barefoot. Same goes for African elites. That's enough
> evidence for me. That's not saying some people can't do just fine keeping
> the heel off the ground all the time, but I would not recommend it. There
> have been studies in which subjects are told to keep the heel off the
> ground and they experience tibial shock worse than that in heel strikers.
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10:40 PM UTC-5, Jason Robillard wrote:
>> The most common cause of injury I see in the population I work with stems
>> from keeping the heel off the ground. I'm not suggesting the heel should
>> *always* touch (steep uphill grade and very fast pace being two
>> situations where it probably wouldn't). Is there a non-Pose coach,
>> physiologist, or biomechanics expert that agrees the heel shouldn't touch
>> the ground?
>> Regarding landing on the ball of the foot in ultras- it's all I do even
>> in the tough hundos. Of course, I also let me heel touch when applicable.
>> Also, I agree that foot strike discussions are mostly pointless. There
>> are far more important elements of gait.
>> ;-
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC, JasonH wrote:
>>> "What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground
>>> during running beats up the calves.".
>>> Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the
>>> calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending
>>> the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
>>> There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than
>>> landing on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is
>>> silly (if done properly). The only reason I lose my
>>> ball-of-foot-landing-first is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
>>> I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to
>>> ensure the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I
>>> understand it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending
>>> on your ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always
>>> touch the ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the
>>> waist on inclines...
>>> I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about
>>> how it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is
>>> the thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
And keep in mind, the heel touching the ground doesn't mean that the gastroc and soleus will fully unload (unspring). If your heel doesn't touch the ground, or only just "kisses" the ground but doesn't take on any weight, then 100% of the weight is born by the ball of foot (and toes?). If you don't have any tension in your achilles at mid-stance, it means the weight is 100% on the heel. But who would fully unload their calves?
I seem to recall that the center of GRF tends to be roughly mid-foot, even in forefoot strikers, indicating that the weight is roughly equally distributed between heel and ball. "Roughly" is the key word here. You can touch down your heel and still have the ball of foot taking 75% of the load. So it's quite possible to keep the achilles loaded ("sprung"), to store and return elastic recoil, even if your heel touches the ground. You might be able to get a little more elastic recoil if you don't touch the heel down, but then you've got that much more strain that your calves and achilles have to take, without any rest, during the stance.
Whether the heel should take 25% or 50% is up for debate, but I don't see how 0% is supportable. At best, you get a tiny advantage in economy, and yet it requires so much more stamina from the calves. Some athletes might be able to take it for ultras, but for the general weekend warrior, I doubt it's optimal.
On Monday, November 12, 2012 2:49:12 PM UTC-8, Oblinkin wrote:
> In my video of the NYC Barefoot Run, almost all barefoot runners that > forefoot strike bring the heel to the ground after initial contact. Same > goes for kids running barefoot. Same goes for African elites. That's enough > evidence for me. That's not saying some people can't do just fine keeping > the heel off the ground all the time, but I would not recommend it. There > have been studies in which subjects are told to keep the heel off the > ground and they experience tibial shock worse than that in heel strikers.
> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:10:40 PM UTC-5, Jason Robillard wrote:
>> The most common cause of injury I see in the population I work with stems >> from keeping the heel off the ground. I'm not suggesting the heel should >> *always* touch (steep uphill grade and very fast pace being two >> situations where it probably wouldn't). Is there a non-Pose coach, >> physiologist, or biomechanics expert that agrees the heel shouldn't touch >> the ground?
>> Regarding landing on the ball of the foot in ultras- it's all I do even >> in the tough hundos. Of course, I also let me heel touch when applicable.
>> Also, I agree that foot strike discussions are mostly pointless. There >> are far more important elements of gait.
>> ;-
>> On Sunday, November 11, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC, JasonH wrote:
>>> "What I don't agree with is the idea that heels not touching the ground >>> during running beats up the calves.".
>>> Thanks Lawrence, you said it better than I wanted to. "Beating up the >>> calves" only happens when one "tries" to land on the forefoot by extending >>> the leg and plantar flexing the foot.
>>> There seems to be a persistent myth going around ultrarunners than >>> landing on the ball of the foot is not 'maintainable' in an ultra which is >>> silly (if done properly). The only reason I lose my >>> ball-of-foot-landing-first is when my core strength/lean starts to wane.
>>> I also hesitate whenever I see barefoot runners give the advice to >>> ensure the heels touching the ground (after the forefoot of course). I >>> understand it can be a good training tool to relax the ankles but depending >>> on your ankle flexibility (among other things) forcing the heel to always >>> touch the ground in any situation will invariably lead to bending at the >>> waist on inclines...
>>> I find it odd that of all the talk of foot strikes no one talks about >>> how it is what our bodyweight is doing that matters the most since that is >>> the thing we are trying to move down the road, not just our feet.
There is a different between 'keeping the heel off the ground' and the 'heel being off the ground' due to body weight placement. Language is very important when discussing these things since they translate directly to perception. Yes, holding the heel off the ground is a very bad idea.
On Monday, November 12, 2012 4:11:55 PM UTC-7, JasonH wrote:
> There is a different between 'keeping the heel off the ground' and the > 'heel being off the ground' due to body weight placement. Language is very > important when discussing these things since they translate directly to > perception. Yes, holding the heel off the ground is a very bad idea.
+1 And just as bad is forcing it to contact the ground. Forget the dang things.
That little black-and-white diamond is the Center of Pressure of the foot.
You can see it hits the mid-point of the foot, indicating that pressure is
evenly distributed between the fore and rear of the foot, for an instant,
at least.
here are my personal results! sorry it is a little long!
Hello William,
As you may recall, we collected filming data at the 2012 Western States Endurance Run (WSER) to analyze foot strike pattern. This email summarizes the overall as well as your individual results.
Our interest in the study was four-fold.
1. We wanted to characterize foot strike patterns of ultramarathon runners during a 100 mile trail run. 2. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern, stride rate, and stride length changed over the course of the run. 3. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern was related to performance. 4. We wanted to determine if creatine kinase (CK, an indication of the extent of muscle damage) concentration was related to a runner's foot strike pattern.
There were 4 filming zones - 1 prior to the Lyon Ridge aid station (10.2 miles); 2 after the Michigan Bluff aid station - 1 on a level running surface (56.1 miles), 1 on a 9% downhill grade (56.4 miles); and 1 prior to the finish line (100.1 miles).
The overall results of the study are summarized as follows:
1. The rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80-90% at each of the 4 sites. This is slightly less than previously observed in a marathon. Rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80% at 10.2 miles. It increased to 90% at 56.1 miles, then decreased to approximately 85% on the track near the finish line.
2. Stride length was longest at 10.2 miles, decreased at 56.1 miles, then increased at the finish, but was still shorter than the stride length observed at 10.2 miles. Stride rate was highest at 10.2 miles. It decreased at 56.1 miles and remained similar at the finish.
3. Overall, a specific foot strike pattern was not related to better performance.
4. There was evidence of lower blood CK concentrations among those using a rear-foot strike pattern compared with runners using a mid-foot or fore-foot strike pattern.
Individually, your foot strike pattern, stride length, and stride rate at each site are included below. Foot strike patterns were classified as rear-foot strike (RFS), mid-foot strike (MFS), fore-foot strike (FFS), a combination of mid-foot and fore-foot strike (NON-RFS), a combination of rear-foot and non rear-foot strike (MIXED RFS/NON RFS), or undetermined (UNCLASSIFIED). NOT DETERMINED will appear when stride length and stride rate could not be determined. Averages for stride length and stride rate are included (in parentheses) at each site for your reference.
Thank you for your participation in the 2012 Western States Endurance Run and our research. We will be presenting our findings at a national sports medicine conference and publishing the work in a sports medicine journal. ).
We look forward to seeing you on the Western States trails again.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, RunGreen <willyon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> here are my personal results! sorry it is a little long!
> Hello William,
> As you may recall, we collected filming data at the 2012 Western States
> Endurance Run (WSER) to analyze foot strike pattern. This email summarizes
> the overall as well as your individual results.
> Our interest in the study was four-fold.
> 1. We wanted to characterize foot strike patterns of ultramarathon runners
> during a 100 mile trail run.
> 2. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern, stride rate, and stride
> length changed over the course of the run.
> 3. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern was related to
> performance.
> 4. We wanted to determine if creatine kinase (CK, an indication of the
> extent of muscle damage) concentration was related to a runner's foot
> strike pattern.
> There were 4 filming zones - 1 prior to the Lyon Ridge aid station (10.2
> miles); 2 after the Michigan Bluff aid station - 1 on a level running
> surface (56.1 miles), 1 on a 9% downhill grade (56.4 miles); and 1 prior to
> the finish line (100.1 miles).
> The overall results of the study are summarized as follows:
> 1. The rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80-90% at each of the
> 4 sites. This is slightly less than previously observed in a marathon.
> Rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80% at 10.2 miles. It
> increased to 90% at 56.1 miles, then decreased to approximately 85% on the
> track near the finish line.
> 2. Stride length was longest at 10.2 miles, decreased at 56.1 miles, then
> increased at the finish, but was still shorter than the stride length
> observed at 10.2 miles. Stride rate was highest at 10.2 miles. It
> decreased at 56.1 miles and remained similar at the finish.
> 3. Overall, a specific foot strike pattern was not related to better
> performance.
> 4. There was evidence of lower blood CK concentrations among those using a
> rear-foot strike pattern compared with runners using a mid-foot or
> fore-foot strike pattern.
> Individually, your foot strike pattern, stride length, and stride rate at
> each site are included below. Foot strike patterns were classified as
> rear-foot strike (RFS), mid-foot strike (MFS), fore-foot strike (FFS), a
> combination of mid-foot and fore-foot strike (NON-RFS), a combination of
> rear-foot and non rear-foot strike (MIXED RFS/NON RFS), or undetermined
> (UNCLASSIFIED). NOT DETERMINED will appear when stride length and stride
> rate could not be determined. Averages for stride length and stride rate
> are included (in parentheses) at each site for your reference.
> Thank you for your participation in the 2012 Western States Endurance Run
> and our research. We will be presenting our findings at a national sports
> medicine conference and publishing the work in a sports medicine journal.
> ).
> We look forward to seeing you on the Western States trails again.
> Sincerely,
> Marty Hoffman, MD
> Mark Kasmer, MD
> Jeremy Wren, MD
> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:43:46 PM UTC-8, Oblinkin wrote:
On Monday, November 12, 2012 7:38:52 PM UTC-8, Tuck wrote:
> Congrats, you're an outlier. ;)
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, RunGreen <willy...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote:
>> here are my personal results! sorry it is a little long!
>> Hello William,
>> As you may recall, we collected filming data at the 2012 Western States >> Endurance Run (WSER) to analyze foot strike pattern. This email summarizes >> the overall as well as your individual results.
>> Our interest in the study was four-fold.
>> 1. We wanted to characterize foot strike patterns of ultramarathon >> runners during a 100 mile trail run. >> 2. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern, stride rate, and stride >> length changed over the course of the run. >> 3. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern was related to >> performance. >> 4. We wanted to determine if creatine kinase (CK, an indication of the >> extent of muscle damage) concentration was related to a runner's foot >> strike pattern.
>> There were 4 filming zones - 1 prior to the Lyon Ridge aid station (10.2 >> miles); 2 after the Michigan Bluff aid station - 1 on a level running >> surface (56.1 miles), 1 on a 9% downhill grade (56.4 miles); and 1 prior to >> the finish line (100.1 miles).
>> The overall results of the study are summarized as follows:
>> 1. The rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80-90% at each of >> the 4 sites. This is slightly less than previously observed in a marathon. >> Rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80% at 10.2 miles. It >> increased to 90% at 56.1 miles, then decreased to approximately 85% on the >> track near the finish line.
>> 2. Stride length was longest at 10.2 miles, decreased at 56.1 miles, then >> increased at the finish, but was still shorter than the stride length >> observed at 10.2 miles. Stride rate was highest at 10.2 miles. It >> decreased at 56.1 miles and remained similar at the finish.
>> 3. Overall, a specific foot strike pattern was not related to better >> performance.
>> 4. There was evidence of lower blood CK concentrations among those using >> a rear-foot strike pattern compared with runners using a mid-foot or >> fore-foot strike pattern.
>> Individually, your foot strike pattern, stride length, and stride rate at >> each site are included below. Foot strike patterns were classified as >> rear-foot strike (RFS), mid-foot strike (MFS), fore-foot strike (FFS), a >> combination of mid-foot and fore-foot strike (NON-RFS), a combination of >> rear-foot and non rear-foot strike (MIXED RFS/NON RFS), or undetermined >> (UNCLASSIFIED). NOT DETERMINED will appear when stride length and stride >> rate could not be determined. Averages for stride length and stride rate >> are included (in parentheses) at each site for your reference.
>> Thank you for your participation in the 2012 Western States Endurance Run >> and our research. We will be presenting our findings at a national sports >> medicine conference and publishing the work in a sports medicine journal. >> ).
>> We look forward to seeing you on the Western States trails again.
>> Sincerely,
>> Marty Hoffman, MD >> Mark Kasmer, MD >> Jeremy Wren, MD
>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:43:46 PM UTC-8, Oblinkin wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM, RunGreen <willyon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ha ha! i wonder what was on the feet of the other outliers?
> On Monday, November 12, 2012 7:38:52 PM UTC-8, Tuck wrote:
>> Congrats, you're an outlier. ;)
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM, RunGreen <willy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> here are my personal results! sorry it is a little long!
>>> Hello William,
>>> As you may recall, we collected filming data at the 2012 Western States
>>> Endurance Run (WSER) to analyze foot strike pattern. This email summarizes
>>> the overall as well as your individual results.
>>> Our interest in the study was four-fold.
>>> 1. We wanted to characterize foot strike patterns of ultramarathon
>>> runners during a 100 mile trail run.
>>> 2. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern, stride rate, and
>>> stride length changed over the course of the run.
>>> 3. We wanted to determine if foot strike pattern was related to
>>> performance.
>>> 4. We wanted to determine if creatine kinase (CK, an indication of the
>>> extent of muscle damage) concentration was related to a runner's foot
>>> strike pattern.
>>> There were 4 filming zones - 1 prior to the Lyon Ridge aid station
>>> (10.2 miles); 2 after the Michigan Bluff aid station - 1 on a level running
>>> surface (56.1 miles), 1 on a 9% downhill grade (56.4 miles); and 1 prior to
>>> the finish line (100.1 miles).
>>> The overall results of the study are summarized as follows:
>>> 1. The rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80-90% at each of
>>> the 4 sites. This is slightly less than previously observed in a marathon.
>>> Rear-foot strike prevalence was approximately 80% at 10.2 miles. It
>>> increased to 90% at 56.1 miles, then decreased to approximately 85% on the
>>> track near the finish line.
>>> 2. Stride length was longest at 10.2 miles, decreased at 56.1 miles,
>>> then increased at the finish, but was still shorter than the stride length
>>> observed at 10.2 miles. Stride rate was highest at 10.2 miles. It
>>> decreased at 56.1 miles and remained similar at the finish.
>>> 3. Overall, a specific foot strike pattern was not related to better
>>> performance.
>>> 4. There was evidence of lower blood CK concentrations among those using
>>> a rear-foot strike pattern compared with runners using a mid-foot or
>>> fore-foot strike pattern.
>>> Individually, your foot strike pattern, stride length, and stride rate
>>> at each site are included below. Foot strike patterns were classified as
>>> rear-foot strike (RFS), mid-foot strike (MFS), fore-foot strike (FFS), a
>>> combination of mid-foot and fore-foot strike (NON-RFS), a combination of
>>> rear-foot and non rear-foot strike (MIXED RFS/NON RFS), or undetermined
>>> (UNCLASSIFIED). NOT DETERMINED will appear when stride length and stride
>>> rate could not be determined. Averages for stride length and stride rate
>>> are included (in parentheses) at each site for your reference.
>>> Thank you for your participation in the 2012 Western States Endurance
>>> Run and our research. We will be presenting our findings at a national
>>> sports medicine conference and publishing the work in a sports medicine
>>> journal. ).
>>> We look forward to seeing you on the Western States trails again.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Marty Hoffman, MD
>>> Mark Kasmer, MD
>>> Jeremy Wren, MD
>>> On Saturday, November 10, 2012 12:43:46 PM UTC-8, Oblinkin wrote:
