Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Michelle
May 14, 2013, 3:15:25 PM5/14/13
to
And the controversy continuesŠ
-- Michelle
http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
-between-heel-non-heel-strikers
Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
Injury studies are notoriously difficult to conduct. They take a lot of
time and money, and itąs always tough to find enough subjects to provide
the desired statistical power. Many injury studies include only a handful
to several dozen subjects.
Of course, the U.S. Army doesnąt have these limitations, at least not to
the same degree as other researchers and institutions. Thatąs why Army
studies are often considered so important.
Recently the U.S. Army tackled the forefoot-vs.-rearfoot question as it
related to the running strides of a few hundred soldiers, as well as their
2-mile times and reported injury incidence.
Result: The Army found no difference in performance or injury rates between
the two groups of runners.
The Army recruited 342 males into the study. They were filmed while running
to determine footstrike, with the outcome that 87% of the runners were
characterized as heel strikers, much as in other studies of runners at
large. The other 13% were labeled non-heel strikers. All presumably ran in
conventional, well-cushioned running shoes.
When given a 2-mile time-trial, the two groups produced identical times,
14:48 on average.
There were also no statistical differences between reports of injuries
between the two groups, or in number of days when training had to be
modified due to injury. Injury occurrences were drawn from a survey tool.
In both cases, there was a trend toward the non-heel strikers having more
problems.
The study was coordinated by U.S. Army researchers in Natick,
Massachusetts, and San Antonio, Texas. They will report their results later
this month at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
łNeither foot strike pattern is advantageous˛ for performance or injury
prevention, the research team concluded.
--
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put
it in D.
--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
-- Michelle
http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
-between-heel-non-heel-strikers
Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
Injury studies are notoriously difficult to conduct. They take a lot of
time and money, and itąs always tough to find enough subjects to provide
the desired statistical power. Many injury studies include only a handful
to several dozen subjects.
Of course, the U.S. Army doesnąt have these limitations, at least not to
the same degree as other researchers and institutions. Thatąs why Army
studies are often considered so important.
Recently the U.S. Army tackled the forefoot-vs.-rearfoot question as it
related to the running strides of a few hundred soldiers, as well as their
2-mile times and reported injury incidence.
Result: The Army found no difference in performance or injury rates between
the two groups of runners.
The Army recruited 342 males into the study. They were filmed while running
to determine footstrike, with the outcome that 87% of the runners were
characterized as heel strikers, much as in other studies of runners at
large. The other 13% were labeled non-heel strikers. All presumably ran in
conventional, well-cushioned running shoes.
When given a 2-mile time-trial, the two groups produced identical times,
14:48 on average.
There were also no statistical differences between reports of injuries
between the two groups, or in number of days when training had to be
modified due to injury. Injury occurrences were drawn from a survey tool.
In both cases, there was a trend toward the non-heel strikers having more
problems.
The study was coordinated by U.S. Army researchers in Natick,
Massachusetts, and San Antonio, Texas. They will report their results later
this month at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
łNeither foot strike pattern is advantageous˛ for performance or injury
prevention, the research team concluded.
--
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put
it in D.
--
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
Ed Prochak
May 15, 2013, 2:05:24 PM5/15/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:15:25 PM UTC-4, Michelle wrote:
> And the controversy continuesŠ
>
>
>
> -- Michelle
>
>
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
>
> -between-heel-non-heel-strikers
>
>
>
> Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
>
[]
> And the controversy continuesŠ
>
>
>
> -- Michelle
>
>
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
>
> -between-heel-non-heel-strikers
>
>
>
> Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
>
Maybe because we are an evolving species, we might be in a transition phase between foot strike types.
One comment on the web site was that the placement of the foot relative to the hip might be a more important factor. Lots of room for research.
I know that when I have more toe strike, I run faster. I tend to get more toe strike running barefoot. (there now I've brought up the other big controversy!)
Any way you do it, enjoy the run.
ed
Michelle
May 15, 2013, 2:33:42 PM5/15/13
to
In article <36b0174f-0f34-44f9...@googlegroups.com>,
That's what I try to do.
-- Michelle
PS You reminded me to change my .sig.
--
"Too soon we cross the finish line.
Too late we realize�the fun was in the running." -- Pogo
That's what I try to do.
-- Michelle
PS You reminded me to change my .sig.
--
"Too soon we cross the finish line.
Too late we realize�the fun was in the running." -- Pogo
Steve Freides
May 27, 2013, 7:48:22 PM5/27/13
to
Ed Prochak wrote:
> One comment on the web site was that the placement of the foot
> relative to the hip might be a more important factor.
Bingo - that's the important thing, whether your foot lands under your
> One comment on the web site was that the placement of the foot
> relative to the hip might be a more important factor.
center of mass or out in front of you.
-S-
Beach Runner
Jun 3, 2013, 9:32:35 PM6/3/13
to
Jos Bergervoet
Jun 4, 2013, 3:45:18 PM6/4/13
to
On 6/4/2013 3:32 AM, Beach Runner wrote:
> On May 27, 4:48 pm, "Steve Freides"<st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>> Ed Prochak wrote:
>>> One comment on the web site was that the placement of the foot
>>> relative to the hip might be a more important factor.
>>
>> Bingo - that's the important thing, whether your foot lands under your
>> center of mass or out in front of you.
>
> On May 27, 4:48 pm, "Steve Freides"<st...@kbnj.com> wrote:
>> Ed Prochak wrote:
>>> One comment on the web site was that the placement of the foot
>>> relative to the hip might be a more important factor.
>>
>> Bingo - that's the important thing, whether your foot lands under your
>> center of mass or out in front of you.
>
> Ok, should the foot strike ahead or under the center of mass?
Slightly before. And when it lifts it is
a bit more behind the center of mass. So
on average the support point is a bit behind
the center of mass, which give a little bit
of forward force. Only a little is needed to
overcome the air drag.
If your strike would already be below (or
even behind) the center of mass, then on
average the support point would be quite
far behind the center of mass and you would
quickly topple over. Unless of course you
are running against a strong head wind.
Then you need a much stronger forward force
than usual and striking below, or even
behind the center of mass would be needed.
Also when you are pulling a heavy load.
--
Jos
Michael
Jun 4, 2013, 5:46:49 PM6/4/13
to
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:15:25 PM UTC-5, Michelle wrote:
> And the controversy continuesŠ
>
>
>
> -- Michelle
>
>
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
>
> -between-heel-non-heel-strikers
>
>
>
> Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
>
> Injury studies are notoriously difficult to conduct. They take a lot of
>
> time and money, and it¹s always tough to find enough subjects to provide
> And the controversy continuesŠ
>
>
>
> -- Michelle
>
>
>
> http://www.runnersworld.com/injury-prevention-recovery/study-few-differences
>
> -between-heel-non-heel-strikers
>
>
>
> Study: Few Differences Between Heel, Non-Heel Strikers
>
> Injury studies are notoriously difficult to conduct. They take a lot of
>
>
> the desired statistical power. Many injury studies include only a handful
>
> to several dozen subjects.
>
>
>
> Of course, the U.S. Army doesn¹t have these limitations, at least not to
> the desired statistical power. Many injury studies include only a handful
>
> to several dozen subjects.
>
>
>
>
> the same degree as other researchers and institutions. That¹s why Army
>
> studies are often considered so important.
>
>
>
> Recently the U.S. Army tackled the forefoot-vs.-rearfoot question as it
>
> related to the running strides of a few hundred soldiers, as well as their
>
> 2-mile times and reported injury incidence.
>
>
>
> Result: The Army found no difference in performance or injury rates between
>
> the two groups of runners.
>
>
>
> The Army recruited 342 males into the study. They were filmed while running
>
> to determine footstrike, with the outcome that 87% of the runners were
>
> characterized as heel strikers, much as in other studies of runners at
>
> large. The other 13% were labeled non-heel strikers. All presumably ran in
>
> conventional, well-cushioned running shoes.
>
>
>
> When given a 2-mile time-trial, the two groups produced identical times,
>
> 14:48 on average.
>
>
>
> There were also no statistical differences between reports of injuries
>
> between the two groups, or in number of days when training had to be
>
> modified due to injury. Injury occurrences were drawn from a survey tool.
>
> In both cases, there was a trend toward the non-heel strikers having more
>
> problems.
>
>
>
> The study was coordinated by U.S. Army researchers in Natick,
>
> Massachusetts, and San Antonio, Texas. They will report their results later
>
> this month at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in
>
> Indianapolis, Indiana.
>
>
>
> ³Neither foot strike pattern is advantageous² for performance or injury
> studies are often considered so important.
>
>
>
> Recently the U.S. Army tackled the forefoot-vs.-rearfoot question as it
>
> related to the running strides of a few hundred soldiers, as well as their
>
> 2-mile times and reported injury incidence.
>
>
>
> Result: The Army found no difference in performance or injury rates between
>
> the two groups of runners.
>
>
>
> The Army recruited 342 males into the study. They were filmed while running
>
> to determine footstrike, with the outcome that 87% of the runners were
>
> characterized as heel strikers, much as in other studies of runners at
>
> large. The other 13% were labeled non-heel strikers. All presumably ran in
>
> conventional, well-cushioned running shoes.
>
>
>
> When given a 2-mile time-trial, the two groups produced identical times,
>
> 14:48 on average.
>
>
>
> There were also no statistical differences between reports of injuries
>
> between the two groups, or in number of days when training had to be
>
> modified due to injury. Injury occurrences were drawn from a survey tool.
>
> In both cases, there was a trend toward the non-heel strikers having more
>
> problems.
>
>
>
> The study was coordinated by U.S. Army researchers in Natick,
>
> Massachusetts, and San Antonio, Texas. They will report their results later
>
> this month at the American College of Sports Medicine annual meeting in
>
> Indianapolis, Indiana.
>
>
>
>
> prevention, the research team concluded.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put
>
> it in D.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
>
> People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
There is an important that is not apparent in this article. I will most definitely seek out the study itself.
> prevention, the research team concluded.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put
>
> it in D.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
>
> People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
How do the researchers determine the non-heel strikers? If the researchers ask normal heel-strikers to strike on the forefoot for the sake of the study, then there will most definitely be injuries, probably serious injuries. The transition from heel-strike running to forefoot striking can take as few as six weeks and sometimes for years before a forefoot striker is running correctly.
Even when people are self-styled forefoot strikers, they sometimes do it wrong, as others on this thread have point out. When you see a forefoot striker landing far in front of his center of gravity, you know that he's an injury in the making.
I would be more convinced if the study looked at groups of people who become proficient under the tutelage of Nicholas Romanov or Lee Saxby.
Mike
Steve Freides
Jun 6, 2013, 2:07:24 PM6/6/13
to
happens when you march in place.
Of course, this is complicated by the fact that you're not marching in
place but moving forward, so determining exactly what's going on can be
tricky, but the principle is that you want your foot landing underneath
you.
One thing I've found interesting is watching professional baseball
players run on the field. The speediest of them, generally outfielders,
have a pretty pronounced ball-of-the-foot landing, even when they're not
running quickly, e.g., when they're trotting in after an inning is over.
These are people who have, IMHO, great, natural running form. What's
nice is that you can actually get a pretty good look at their footstrike
if you watch baseball on television.
Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.
-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
0 new messages