Forefoot Strike Better

slowsteady

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/06/20/new-study-favors-forefoot-strike/

This article suggests forefoot strike runners suffer only 40% of the repetitive strain injuries as rearfoot strikers, seems a big difference.

RoyMcC

The only bit of the article that raises my eyebrows is that, in the control group, there were no mid-foot strikers. Where on earth does the scale tip between heel and forefoot?

Lieberman is pretty much the authority on the evolution of running and its stresses on the body, and the conclusions are predictable. He's pretty much saying forget shoe type, gait analysis and the rest and just run in the most efficient manner.

RayCun

RoyMcC wrote: »

The only bit of the article that raises my eyebrows is that, in the control group, there were no mid-foot strikers. Where on earth does the scale tip between heel and forefoot?

from the full text

The plantar foot angle at foot strike was determined as the angle between earth horizontal and the plantar surface of the foot. The plantar foot angle was examined to determine the foot strike type using methods reported in Lieberman et al. Strikes in which the heel was the first part of the foot to contact the ground and the plantar angle was positive were categorized as RFS; strikes in which the ball of the foot contacts the ground first and the plantar angle was negative were classified as FFS; strikes in which the ball of the foot and heel landed simultaneously (within the 2-ms resolution available from the video) were classified as MFS. A minimum of three strikes was assessed for each runner. For the nine subjects who changed foot strike type with increased speed, the foot strike at which the subject ran the majority of their miles was used to classify that runner (four were classified as FFS runners and five as RFS runners).

tunguska

slowsteady wrote: »

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/06/20/new-study-favors-forefoot-strike/

This article suggests forefoot strike runners suffer only 40% of the repetitive strain injuries as rearfoot strikers, seems a big difference.

I've become a bit of a convert to this way of thinking myself. Makes sense at an intuitive level. Gonna be going full whack at minimalism after the marathon.

Hanley

Yeah I gotta say I'm all over the barefoot bandwagon too. Have been running 2+ times per week in Merrell Trail gloves, used them around The Connemara Challenege and generally just try to wear flats when possible and the differene is crazy.

Put on my Saucony Triumph's as a test last week and within 2 minutes my shins, knees and back were lighting up. I was noticeably louder and landing harder too.

I found the transition so easy and natural once i concentrated on good running form. I do have pretty good tissue quality and work a lot on mobility and glute activation work, and have been operating barefoot in a training capacity for BJJ on soft mats for the last 18 months (usually running 200+ meters 3-4x per week on them as a warm up) though.

So far this n=1 sample is proving barefoot rocks.

BobMac104

When i first started running 13/14 month ago I was convinved this was the only way to go and i still do think this is preferable however i dont think foot strike is as black and white as forefoot or heelstrike. Having joined a club and attended more and more races ive noticed that while some people do heel strike they are so smooth in the way they run that there is very little pounding while others who heel strike you can hear them coming miles away such is the noise they make. Some forefoot strikers also pound a bit but i think that has a lot to do with the type of runners thay are wearing and also Cadence is a huge part of it too i feel. If someone was just starting out and they asked me for my opinion I would still advise them to do a bit of reading on the subject and go for a nice light and flat shoe though. If you start out forefoot striking its going to be more natural than trying to transition later on

plodder

How did the two groups compare performance wise? What if the rear-foot strikers were just training harder than the fore-foot strikers?

MrCreosote

There needs to be a study that shows that changing from rear-foot to fore-foot running reduces that runner's injury risk.

This is not that study.

Hanley

MrCreosote wrote: »

There needs to be a study that shows that changing from rear-foot to fore-foot running reduces that runner's injury risk.

This is not that study.

This is where the SAIDs principle comes in. Any change in training style is going to result in microtrauma. The fitter you are (ie the longer youve had to adapt to the previous style), the greater the risk when moving from heel strike to forefoot strike. Mostly because a lot of people won't take the 9+ months or however long tends to be recommended to build up properly again and accumulate the base necessary.

I'd be fully confident that if the transition was managed properly (thru graduated reduction in heel height, incrementally increased mileage and dedicated soft tissue work) the result would be lower incidences of injury, but it's probably not something that'll happen.

Hell even tho I've gone barefoot for the most part I'm reluctant to recommend it to friends, family and clients because I know for the most part they won't manage it properly and will end up injured.

spurscormac

There was an article about barefoot in the fit magazine from today's indo. seemed more like faux advertising for vibrams to me. some good points, but i fundamentally disagree with the idea that you shouldnt graduate through the heel/toe drop over time.

sconhome

Whats really interesting about the whole debate is the position of the runners (people) in this.

The barefoot people floated out research that said cushioned shoes are bad for you, cause injury and so on and it was a majot crux of the argument against shoes. Reading the piece properly at the time it was the sense of protection that cushioned shoes gave that led to runners being overly dependent on the shock abosorption capacities of the shoes that led to the injuries.

That is, they took personal responsibility out of the equation leaving the shoe to do all the work. No modification of running style, habit, stretching etc.

The same argument is now happening for the barefoot industry. Lawsuits are being levied against the claims of 'injury-free running' where runners are suffering stress fractures and over use injuries because they didnt transition properly, didnt adjust their running style and became over dependent on the shoe doing all the work.

I agree with the principles of forefoot / midfoot running and if barefoot running works for you as a means of changing this form of running, go for it. Just don't leave you head at home, listen to your body and let it adapt.

tunguska

spurscormac wrote: »

There was an article about barefoot in the fit magazine from today's indo. seemed more like faux advertising for vibrams to me. some good points, but i fundamentally disagree with the idea that you shouldnt graduate through the heel/toe drop over time.

Yeah Joe warne's article in yesterdays Indo. I thought it was pretty good, didnt strike me as shameless product promotion at all. There were a few pics of the 5 fingers alright but I think joe was telling it as he himself does it.
As for heel/toe graduation, Im curious about this myself. I reckon theres no clear cut timetable that'll work for everybody. Some people could go straight from support shoes to zero heels without any intermediate graduation, while others might have to work at it over an extended period of time. I think body weight would play a big role in how long it takes.

RacoonQueen

I'm not entirely sure people should be forcing their gait to change. People ask me about that all the time.
''What's the best way to run?''
"Put one foot in front of the other and do what ever feels natural."

That being said, I'm a minimalist shoe wearer. I do think minimlaist shoes are great and I sing their praises. I do think the cushioning and support in the shoes we have been wearing is the cause of many injuries but if people change their footwear gradually and continue to do what feels natural instead of forcing themselves to land on their forefoot or midfoot then they will probably progress to it anyway.

I'm a natural mid/forefoot striker but I still heel strike sometimes, even in my hattoris. Haven't had a running related injury(a serious one anyway) since I changed from heavy asics/mizuno to lighter shoes. I started changing my footwear shortly after recovering from my last injury, where I couldn't run at all.

Outside

I don't have relatively much running experience yet, only running the past 15ish months. I found when I started running I kept getting shin splints for longer distances. I though to myself, why do I get shin splints after 10k when there are people running 100miles races, never having to worry about shin splints. It was around then I realised I was running wrong and started to research running form.
Started reading about the POSE method and basically through watching video's online and various free material throughout the web I started to mimic that style. It felt very very strange at first. Pretty much midfoot running as efficiently as possible. I found this pretty much impossible with normal trainers because the heel cushioning was getting in the way of naturally striking forefoot. If I forced myself to strike forefoot with cushioned runners my calves and achilles were under serious pressure and I could feel it. As the POSE method suggests I tried barefoot for a couple of runs and running "POSE" came a lot more naturally. Chi running I think is a similar method? Thats when I made the switch to flat/no heel cushioning shoes. Initially sore calves, feet and the inside of my lower legs but I was very careful not to do damage. Listen to your body! When it got very sore I eased back a took a break. Your body adapts very quickly if you give it a chance! Been running this way now for about 7-8 months and legs are feeling great!
Feet are a lot stronger, no shin splints what so ever. I still find I have to be careful for long road distances or short fast 5k's (17:30 PB recently ), you can feel the planter fascia under pressure. Calves still get stiff after a race but gradually getting less and less. Stretching when ever I get the chance is key for the calves, they can get very tight. Recently did the Mourne Way Ultra 52 miler in a pair of Merrell Trail Gloves and they felt great, a joy to run with no cushioning strapped to your feet!

In short I found I was just simply running wrong. I don't believe you are born to know how to run properly WITH cushions on your feet. If we were barefoot all the time our feet would very quickly tell us how to run correctly through feedback. Cushioning hides this.
Some people have a naturally good running form anyway and get away with it. But for a lot of people I believe you have to force yourself to learn to run again (due to the negative impact cushioned shoes have had).

Just my experience so far, this might not suit everyone. You can't just go out a buy a pair of "barefoot shoe" and expect to be running naturally, you have to learn to run again which is very difficult initially.

sconhome

spurscormac wrote: »

There was an article about barefoot in the fit magazine from today's indo. seemed more like faux advertising for vibrams to me. some good points, but i fundamentally disagree with the idea that you shouldnt graduate through the heel/toe drop over time.

tunguska wrote: »

Yeah Joe warne's article in yesterdays Indo. I thought it was pretty good, didnt strike me as shameless product promotion at all. There were a few pics of the 5 fingers alright but I think joe was telling it as he himself does it.

Interesting spot by spurscormac.

I didn't read the piece but know of Joe's work in DCU. He is an advocate of barefoot running and form and is / has done a thesis on barefoot running form. His research brought him into the orbit of Barefoot Ireland and as such he has been the scientific support to the VFF argument in Ireland for certain. Joe has presented at barefoot clinics around the country and the guys have been good about explaining the scientific principles and helping people to understand the transitioning process.

But there is a link between the two, so hense the advertising link.

PaulieC

spurscormac wrote: »

There was an article about barefoot in the fit magazine from today's indo. seemed more like faux advertising for vibrams to me. some good points, but i fundamentally disagree with the idea that you shouldnt graduate through the heel/toe drop over time.

I would think that just because you fundamentally disagree with something doesn't make it wrong.

It is perfectly reasonable for a person to transition from a pair of Nike Shox to a pair of VFFs. As long as they are prepared to basically start running again from scratch. To do it correctly you would need to start running from about .5k a couple of times a week, increasing it very gradually. I think your point might be that you can't do an all out transition and continue running the same distances as you currently do ?

spurscormac

tunguska wrote: »

Yeah Joe warne's article in yesterdays Indo. I thought it was pretty good, didnt strike me as shameless product promotion at all. There were a few pics of the 5 fingers alright but I think joe was telling it as he himself does it.
As for heel/toe graduation, Im curious about this myself. I reckon theres no clear cut timetable that'll work for everybody. Some people could go straight from support shoes to zero heels without any intermediate graduation, while others might have to work at it over an extended period of time. I think body weight would play a big role in how long it takes.

Regarding the photos, as I remember, the main picture was of the author in VFFs, then there was another picture of a VFF sponsored run in a Dublin park (funnily enough, someone in the background had a major heelstrike), and there was an inset focusing on someone's VFFs.

I'm a believer in the whole minimalist ideal, and its place in encouraging proper running form.
However, I draw the line at encouraging jumping straight in at the deep end with a zero drop shoe.
The whole theme of the article was about how with cushioned & heeled shoes & runners, we've untaught our feet how to work properly & there is a lack in muscle structure because of this.

The idea that to prevent injuries you should go straight from a 12 or 14mm heel/toe drop to zero and not suffer problems is one that doesn't stack up IMO.
He states that the only reason to graduate is to allow shoe companies to sell you more shoes. Well over the course of time that you're transitioning, you'll need new shoes anyway, so isn't transitioning a good idea to slowly make the transition without unnecessary achilles or calf problems?

AKW raises an interesting point, of which I wasn't aware. He appears to have links to some interested parties in the movement.
Could these links to the industry be contributing to his opinion?

The alternative to a graduated approach, without risking injury, is to seriously cut back the mileage, and effectively quit racing for the duration of transition.
I don't think too many people, in the recreational running sphere & especially in the competitive side, would be willing to sacrifice that time out from races.

For what its worth, & I've stated this on here before, I've gone from 12mm to 9mm, and just moved on to 6mm drop. It was during the Chi Running course that I realised the shoes weren't helping with my form and led me to research options more. I try to incorporate chi techniques as I train.
Outside of running I try to wear flat shoes with as little heel as possible to prevent any issues from everyday walking.
I'm 6 months into my transition, not suffered any achilles or calf issues so far, haven't experienced the knee niggles I used to in my support shoes & have runs races ranging from 5k to HM.

spurscormac

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I would think that just because you fundamentally disagree with something doesn't make it wrong.

It is perfectly reasonable for a person to transition from a pair of Nike Shox to a pair of VFFs. As long as they are prepared to basically start running again from scratch. To do it correctly you would need to start running from about .5k a couple of times a week, increasing it very gradually. I think your point might be that you can't do an all out transition and continue running the same distances as you currently do ?

Yeah - I've clarified my point some more in my post just now - last nights one was a quick post from my phone where I was too lazy to go into detail.

As for the claim in the article that people should move straight to barefoot, that should have been more detailed with regard to the need to start very slowly.

Hanley

This thread is awesome. Really balanced and sensible opinions. Kudos all!!

jeawan

This Thread is a pretty good read tbh. Speaking from myself done allot of running and other sports and i have really bad knee and shin pain up too two years ago when i changed my style of running to mid/forefoot strike .

Now i have none and i really think it is the changing in running style i do Run in invo8 f-lites 195's and find them brilliant really comfi and nice to run in i have also run in 5 fingers and still do i cannot run in normal runner anymore they are just not comfortable . i am a big believer now in the different running style but also what other people have said you need to listen to your own body when running .

BobMac104

This has to be the most balanced thread on this subject ive read.

dinneenp

no such thing as a stupid question....but
If someone adapts to barefoot running technique but they're playing football/soccer would they run the barefoot tecnhinque while playing too or revert back to the trainer/back of heel running?

BobMac104

its a good point dinneen and since i became interested in this kinda thing i tend to watch footstrike of players in rugby or soccer or GAA etc. As the ground is so forgiving id say what we would consider running injuries would be greatly reduced. In rugby especially the really fast lads tend more to have a forefoot strike compared to bigger heaver players (a sweeping statment i know). Luke Fitzgerald has a great running form actually. but its difficult to be sure as they seldom get chance to really open up.

spurscormac

With regard to field sports, they tend to be more sprint based - short fast runs interspersed with longer periods of rest (obviously still jogging about a bit).

I think most people when sprinting will be up on their forefoot naturally, and thinking back to when I played, I don't remember boots having built up heels.

Also, ankles and feet are prone to different forces than regular running, due to twisting, turning & sharp stopping that comes with these sports.
I really noticed this back in december when I played a park game for the first time in a few years.

Hanley

dinneenp wrote: »

no such thing as a stupid question....but
If someone adapts to barefoot running technique but they're playing football/soccer would they run the barefoot tecnhinque while playing too or revert back to the trainer/back of heel running?

Field sports? You live on your toes, you die on your heels.

Same story with sprinters etc.