heel or ball first?
Tanya Quinn
I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from
absolute scratch. I've improved a bit so far from being able to run
only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping. It was at quite
a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to
run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for
the future.
The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the
ground. (granted I've been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not
running shoes, which I don't have yet) I'm not overweight but tall for
a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard
not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work
itself out with more practice as I didn't have the practice most
people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing
it if at all possible)
So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them
say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your
foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first:
http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal
preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What
would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
Thanks for any tips.
Tanya
Pier-14
you can check out your local high schools, most of them have a track and if
you are lucky you can find one that is rubber coated. I have 3 nearby my
home that I know of. Good rubber soles hitting a rubber surface is
preferable to asphalt or cement any day. Good Luck!
"Tanya Quinn" <tdq...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:64a84a3a.03110...@posting.google.com...
Donovan Rebbechi
> The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the
> ground. (granted I've been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not
> running shoes, which I don't have yet)
Well that's your first problem right there. Get some proper running shoes.
Go to a proper running store, and peruse the google archives for discussion
on this topic.
> I'm not overweight but tall for
> a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard
> not to move that much vertically when I run.
Vertical motion is entirely a function of ground contact time and stride
rate. You don't want to increase ground contact time. As for stride rate,
faster stride rate means less vertical motion. Check your stride rate, and
if you take less than 180 strides per minute, you are overstriding and should
try to focus on taking shorter strides.
> So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them
> say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your
> foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first:
> http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the
heel touches lightly, then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone
rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel lifts off the ground, then you
push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the impact
even when your heel touches first.
> So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal
> preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What
> would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases
the amount of impact. The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an
accurate description of what happens) is that some people are too heavy or
not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force them to
adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury. It is better to work
on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and technique
than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Bill
on my own experience)
>
> > The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the
> > ground. (granted I've been running on the sidewalk and in athletic not
> > running shoes, which I don't have yet)
>
I know of runners who have ignored form and permanently damaged their
knees.
Or, try every other run on grass. If you dribble a ball, soccer style,
arround a grassy field for a while, you develop the support muscles needed
to survive on pavement. Accelerate between kicks by pumping the knees to
develop a strong running leg.
If your present shoes have plenty of room, or, you can use thinner socks,
adding a flat neoprene Spenco layer under your insoles can increase
cushioning.
>
> > I'm not overweight but tall for
> > a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard
> > not to move that much vertically when I run.
Think horizontal.
Since you are taller, your optimum stride rate may be less than 180/min. I
can demonstrate smooth nonbouncy quiet running at almost any reasonable
stride rate, with any type of foot plant and in "any" type of shoe. I bet
if you tried some drills to run quietly, you could find a way to reduce the
bounce. In order to do this you have to involve your quadriceps muscles
more, for starters. Running with too little knee flex, as if on sticks,
could be counterproductive.
Your legs "know" that the surface will not give and may be reluctant to
relax. Some drills to try: short faster running accelerations on grass or
sand, running with a lower center of gravity using more knee bend, hill
climbing, bounding, etc. Warming up by cycling, doing one-legged short-arc
squats, lunges, or step-downs on a staircase, may help recruit the quads.
Running uphill can help, as long as you are careful not to run downhill.
Training yourself to run downhill without "bouncing" is the ultimate test.
Even hiking hills could be great training for this.
>
> > So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them
> > say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your
> > foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first:
> > http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
>
> Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the
> heel touches lightly, then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone
> rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel lifts off the ground, then you
> push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the impact
> even when your heel touches first.
I like this explanation. If you pick up the pace enough, you might find the
initial contact point moving further forward on the foot. If you "reach"
forward by overextending your knee in order to cover more ground, you may
overstride. Rather, push off more effectively from behind to move yourself
more horizontally and less vertically. Some runners do train themselves to
run at 180 cadence and to use a forefootstrike, in order to improve and
protect themselves.
>
> > So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal
> > preference issues, but the ball arguments seem to make sense. What
> > would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
>
> Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases
> the amount of impact. The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an
> accurate description of what happens) is that some people are too heavy or
> not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force them to
> adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury.
Makes sense.
It is better to work
> on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and
technique
> than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change.
Perhaps, study a model of how you want to look. For example, record
coverage of a Kenyan or Ethiopian female marathoner. Then convert this
visual input and imagine how it would feel. On your next session,
preferrably on a track, treadmill or grass, try exaggerating this form in
short spurts. Doing drills such as short-arc lunges or hill climbing can
help your muscles adapt.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Shoes come FIRST, then the running.
That would explain why you haven't gotten to the running yet. You're still not
done worshiping your pair of 2080s.
xenman
As others have said, get some good ruuning shoes. I'll also add
you should get them at a running store when the sales person
can view your gait. You probably won't find these stores at
you local mall. Failure to use a decent running shoe will
probably result in getting injured if you keep running.
The subject of heel striking or ball striking is subject to much
debate. I do not subscribe to the "one size fits all" theory of
heel/ball striking. Not every one has the same biomechanics
when they run. What works for some one else may not work
for you.
Now... If you think that you are having a lot of up and down
motion, then you probably do have too much of it.
Dave Andersen
> First of all do get running shoes, a midpriced model should do fine. Then if
> you can check out your local high schools, most of them have a track and if
> you are lucky you can find one that is rubber coated. I have 3 nearby my
> home that I know of. Good rubber soles hitting a rubber surface is
> preferable to asphalt or cement any day. Good Luck!
Yes and no. Do get running shoes, they make a very pleasant and
important difference.
But stay away from the track. The tight turning radius and
constant angle make you more prone to some injuries, and it's
_really boring_. The track is nice for occasional workouts when
you need to work on specific paces, which is wholly unnecessary
before you can run, say, 10 miles continuously. Hit the
{dirt,asphalt,roads} in that order of preference, and make your
runs fun.
-Dave
--
work: dga - at - lcs.mit.edu me: angio - at - pobox.com
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/
(note that my reply-to address is vaguely despammed...)
bulk emailers: I do not accept unsolicited email. Do not mail me.
DrLith
Do certainly take a look at all the suggestions you're getting, but then
also remember that what works for guys who can go for 26 miles at 7 minutes
a mile might not work as well for beginners who are running at half that
speed and still struggling to make one lap around a 1/4 mile track. Getting
up to a stride rate of 180 steps/minute may just not be possible at this
point. And even good runners find it hard to maintain good form when they're
tired and struggling, and at the point you're at, every step past the first
few dozen is tired and struggling!
That said, there's a couple mental tricks I've tried that I find help me
smooth out my form a little. First, don't think about whether you're going
to land on the heel or your ball. Think about not landing at all, but rather
just gliding forward. Especially, think about not pushing off. This may be
what Ozzie Gontag, the "form guru," refers to as "falling forward," but in
all honesty his writing style makes my head spin and I have a hard time
understanding him. The other one I try to practice some times is to lift my
knees more and try to pull my legs forward in front rather than just pushing
off in the back. I think both of these exercises help me to run with my
"whole leg," rather than just the "pushing off" muscles. And it's smoother,
perhaps in the same way that a car runs smoother with all cylinders firing,
rather than just 1 or 2.
I do find it takes more energy when I'm working on my form (the above tricks
do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can't maintain that kind
of pace for very far yet). So I do put in most of my miles just plodding
along doing my fat-lady shuffle. In my very non-expert opinion, so long as
you're not experiencing any lingering pain in your knees or shins after you
run, you're probably doing just fine for the stage you're in.
And most of all, good luck and keep at it! Do you have a 5K picked out yet?
"Tanya Quinn" <tdq...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:64a84a3a.03110...@posting.google.com...
Donovan Rebbechi
> Tanya:
> I do find it takes more energy when I'm working on my form (the above tricks
> do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can't maintain that kind
> of pace for very far yet).
Do you mean "pace" as in "stride rate" or "speed" ? Because trying to shorten
ones stride is another good way to increase stride rate (without speeding up)
Cheers,
Miss Anne Thrope
If it's bungy jumping or sex, it's balls first.
Lyndon
>I do find it takes more energy when I'm working on my form (the above tricks
>do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can't maintain that kind
>of pace for very far yet). So I do put in most of my miles just plodding
>along doing my fat-lady shuffle. In my very non-expert opinion, so long as
>you're not experiencing any lingering pain in your knees or shins after you
>run, you're probably doing just fine for the stage you're in.
Valid point, and for that reason, I do things differently with beginning
runners.
You really want to work on form from day one. Practice does not make perfect,
it makes *permanent*, and you don't want to make mistakes permanent or
difficult to correct later. You might get away with shuffling on 5 miles per
week, but if you up this to 25-50 miles/wk, you end up with injuries. The
catch here is that it is difficult to work on form if you don't have enough
stamina to hold that form together long enough to work on it. Also, as others
have noted, it is more difficult to "do" the form at slow speeds than it is at
faster speeds. Catch-22.
So I have athletes doing form drills from day 1, but don't have them
concentrate on form during regular running (conditioning) until some endurance
is built first. For incoming 10th-graders that have not been in a running
program before, I use a walk-to-run program. The object here is to cover some
distance. They do 3 miles a day, five days a week, starting with walking when
necessary, and gradually replacing the walking with running. When they can
cover 15-20 miles/wk of running (some stop breaks permitted), we start
intervals.
The form work consists of basic drills as part of the warmup. We do these on a
track, but you can do these on any kind of field or fairly soft surface (I
would not do them on concrete). Each drill only lasts for 30-40 meters, so
aerobic fitness is not required. You do not have to move forward very fast,
but the emphasis is on leg motion, and leg motion should be fairly quick. The
basic drills are:
High Knees. Raise your knees high in a quick movement until your thigh (upper
leg) is parallel with the ground.
Butt Kicks. Like High Knees, except you use an exaggerated backswing, and you
try to kick your posterior with the back of your heel.
Quick Feet. Like High Knees, except you barely lift you feet above the ground
and you try to move your feet up and down as rapidly as possible.
If you do the drills right, it is virtually impossible to heel-strike. You
will practice forefoot/midfoot landings and striking the ground quickly with
minimum contact time (this is important). You also do some strides: accelerate
smoothly over 50 meters, then run 30 meters at a quick but not sprint pace,
then slow down to a stop. Only do 1-2 in the beginnning with plenty of rest.
Concentrate on relaxation and running with "perfect" form.
If you do these kinds of drills regularly, your form will improve during
regular running, and building endurance will become easier. Eventually, you
concentrate on your form during easy running.
Lyndon
"Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach
Brooks Johnson
Dot
> Tanya:
>
Getting
> up to a stride rate of 180 steps/minute may just not be possible at this
> point.
Perhaps, and 180 may not be the ideal for all. But as a beginner (to
structured running but had done a bunch of after-work jogging for many
years previously) a couple years ago I began switching from *my*
clod-hopping shuffle to 180 steps/min and it made running much easier
*for me*. This primarily happened by shortening my stride. This forced
the fore-, mid-foot landing with minimal thought.
In the gradient from marching in place (forefoot landing) to huge
strides (heel strike), smaller steps puts you closer to marching in
place. I think my cadence on trails at night may have slipped to <180,
but during the day on dry trails, I'm in the 170-180 range most of the
time without doing anything special.
And even good runners find it hard to maintain good form when they're
> tired and struggling, and at the point you're at, every step past the first
> few dozen is tired and struggling!
Right on both counts, but this is why people train and strive to
improve, as you have recognized. But a change in form may require
adjustments by body that it will need time to accommodate.
>
> I do find it takes more energy when I'm working on my form (the above tricks
> do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can't maintain that kind
> of pace for very far yet).
Right. Anything new will probably take more energy until the muscles
figure out what they're supposed to do and become more efficient. Keep
at it to build the endurance with what may be better form for you.
So I do put in most of my miles just plodding
> along doing my fat-lady shuffle.
Just a thought since Lyndon's already replied with some drills. I find
that my form may fall off in the spring after a winter of running in
snow (ok, most winters, last year's lack of winter in Alaska was an
exception I hope isn't going to be repeated) and may decline in summer
since I only run sporadically then. During fall when I'm recovering from
and rebuilding after my field season, I try to emphasize form work while
my runs are still short. I may do additional strength training to focus
on some muscle imbalances or weaknesses I may have noticed in the
preceding year. I have some achilles issues (part structural, part
functional) that can be exaggerated by improper form. Ironically, I find
certain flavors of hills to be very helpful for form *and* my achilles.
Tanya,
>
> "Tanya Quinn" <tdq...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:64a84a3a.03110...@posting.google.com...
>
>>
>>So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them
>>say that you should be hitting the ground first on the ball of your
>>foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit heel first:
>>http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
Frequently there are differing opinions that can be confusing. I had
learned about mid-foot striking here first, then found a bunch of books
(and my PT) that advocated heel first - which by then seemed totally
illogical. (I did convert my PT to my way of thinking at least for me)
Some said that forefoot-first landings were likely to injure calves and
achilles. And that may be true if one doesn't take the time to build the
appropriate muscles and connective tissues.
Good luck to both of you as you experiment with running.
Dot
(sorry for combining 2 responses in one but I've been out for awhile)
--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope
Ozzie Gontang
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <bokjdv$b32$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, DrLith
<drl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That said, there's a couple mental tricks I've tried that I find help me
> smooth out my form a little. First, don't think about whether you're going
> to land on the heel or your ball. Think about not landing at all, but rather
> just gliding forward. Especially, think about not pushing off. This may be
> what Ozzie Gontag, the "form guru," refers to as "falling forward," but in
> all honesty his writing style makes my head spin and I have a hard time
> understanding him. The other one I try to practice some times is to lift my
> knees more and try to pull my legs forward in front rather than just pushing
> off in the back. I think both of these exercises help me to run with my
> "whole leg," rather than just the "pushing off" muscles. And it's smoother,
> perhaps in the same way that a car runs smoother with all cylinders firing,
> rather than just 1 or 2.
Dr. L,
Came here almost 8 years ago to have my answers questioned.
Ask the questions to have me state more clearly what is "head spinning."
You've done a nice set of images and pictures to help Tanya.
If you want to start a dialogue to have me clear up my explanations
better, email me so I'll know that you've started the questions.
Is a dialogue over at RunnersWorld Forum that talked about running
forma and style, it may be of some help to Tanya.
http://rwforums.rodale.com/thread.jsp?forum=22&thread=121483
Look forward to learning from you.
In health and on the run,
Ozzie Gontang
Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
Mindful Running: http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
DrLith
"Donovan Rebbechi" <ab...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbqsij0...@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <bokjdv$b32$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>, DrLith wrote:
> > Tanya:
>
> > I do find it takes more energy when I'm working on my form (the above
tricks
> > do cause me to increase my stride rate, and I just can't maintain that
kind
> > of pace for very far yet).
>
> Do you mean "pace" as in "stride rate" or "speed" ? Because trying to
shorten
> ones stride is another good way to increase stride rate (without speeding
up)
Usually both, although I've also tried increasing my stride rate and
shortening my stride length. Ugh. That little pixy prance feels awkward,
uncomfortable, and unpleasant, and no sort of thing that I could maintain
for any length of time. Maybe some day. But since the mere act of running is
still uncomfortable for me even under the best of circumstances, I try not
to introduce any more unpleasantness than is strictly necessary, just so
I'll keep at it.
Donovan Rebbechi
> Frequently there are differing opinions that can be confusing. I had
> learned about mid-foot striking here first, then found a bunch of books
> (and my PT) that advocated heel first - which by then seemed totally
> illogical.
One of the sources of confusion is that the terminology that is used to discuss
running biomechanics is simply nonsensical. When confusion and ignorance is
built into the language, even people who know what they're talking about (and
they are few and far between) will struggle to find a simple way to express
this, which is partly why some find Ozzie's descriptions long-winded and
confusing. The problem is that it isn't simple at all, and the common language
used does more harm than good, so one must resort to detailed technical
descriptions and various sorts of imagery.
There is really no such thing as a "midfoot" strike -- either the ball or heel
has to touch the ground first. The "midfoot" doesn't touch, let alone "strike"
the ground. It seems that "midfoot strike" is the term used to refer to the
heel and ball landing at almost exactly the same time, close enough that it
gets difficult to tell which one touches first. (Actually, a midfoot strike is
really a "heel strike" done right: with proper pronation, good turnover, and
the ball absorbing most of the shock)
The term "heel strike" is also problematic, because the heel doesn't really
"strike" the ground at all when one runs at close to 180 strides/minute.
(already explained pronation etc in other posts) The term "heel strike" seems
to be often (ab)used to mean overstriding and landing heavily with a lot of
braking. Why not just call this "overstriding" as opposed to "heel striking" ?
Beats me. I doubt that those who say that you should "land heel first" have
overstriding in mind, they are probably thinking of a (gag) "midfoot strike".
Ed prochak
One training tool I learned, and still try (sporatically) to us, is a
quick step.
rather than trying to increase stride rate for long periods of time,
this exercise tries to get better form and rate for a little at a
time. And it kind of fits the gradual development usually advocated
for improvements.
Best done on a track. After a little warmup
run your usual training pace
every ten steps, take a quick step. (If you were ever in the Army, it
is like a Change-step.)
So it's like
left and right and
left and right and
left and right and
left and right and
left and right and
left (the quick step happens here)
right and left and
right and left and
...
If you were "leading" with your left foot before the quickstep, you
are "leading" with your right foot after it. By taking several steps
between quicksteps, gives you time to mentally prepare for it. It give
you a chance to exercise the fast turnover without the struggle to
maintain it.
As you use this you can gradually reduce the number of "slow" steps in
between until you entire session is quicksteps, IOW, at that point
you've changed your stride rate to a faster one.
Even if you don't completely change your stride rate, this does seem
to help running form. The quick step almost forces you to run lighter
and on your toes.
HTH
Ed
Tanya Quinn
Thanks for all the pointers! Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I
haven't had much chance to put anything into practice between having a
cold and it being cold and rainy. I realize that it is optimal to
start with a decent pair of shoes. I'm having trouble locating some as
I have unusual sized feet. I went to a real running store and after
observing my gait the salesperson said I definitely need motion
control shoes. However she was unable to find anything in stock
suitable for me to try on, and suggested I try a New Balance store.
New Balance makes shoes that will probably fit me, I'm just currently
playing hunt the shoe to actually try some on, and plan to visit one
of their stores soon. I noticed the running store had signups for
beginner running classes, so I'll likely try that out if I can find
some shoes. To get some feedback from someone who can see my run, and
for the regular practice. As the classes start in January I'm a bit
unsure though about mucking up the hard-to-find new shoes in snow
though..
I guess I should just run what seems natural at first before worrying
too much about optimal form early on. I don't have a 5K picked out
yet, but if I take the class they run one at the end. I'm hoping to be
able to participate in a triathlon or duathlon next summer. I cycle
avidly but running is new for me. I do end up walking quite a bit as
well so I don't think I need extra walking practice first. I probably
should go out longer when I try to walk and run, and focus more on
time and running as much as I can rather than trying to be able to run
a fixed distance without stopping, then I guess the distance will
follow.
Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas - hoping to try them out and
really get into and enjoy running, something I previously just thought
was a torture device.
tdq...@rogers.com (Tanya Quinn) wrote in message news:<64a84a3a.03110...@posting.google.com>...
Beach
Even 15 minutes was much too long for a change of style. The
once every few steps sounds like a better idea!