Running style for a duathlon

Go2Guy

Hi all
I've read all the threads and articles about running techniques, specifically whether to land heel first, mid-foot first or on the balls of your foot.

I am more into cycling but will be entering a duathlon in early summer. I really want to do a pb and so I'm trying to give myself every advantage possible. I've been putting in the hours on the bike and I am sprinkling that with some running. In the new year I will do some more running and some brick sessions.
But my question is this:
Would changing my technique (from heel to ball) be more or less beneficial or beneficial at all, given that my goal is very specific? It is 5km run, 20km cycle, 3km run.
I know I would have to do it very gradually and it would be tiring on the calf muscles initially but I can be disciplined if the end goal is improvement.

Any help would be great, thanks,
G

Go2Guy

Another thing! Could I use both running techniques...one for the 5km leg and the other for the 3km leg?
Again, any advice is welcome.
G

Nwm2

Go2Guy wrote: »

Hi all
I've read all the threads and articles about running techniques, specifically whether to land heel first, mid-foot first or on the balls of your foot.

I am more into cycling but will be entering a duathlon in early summer. I really want to do a pb and so I'm trying to give myself every advantage possible. I've been putting in the hours on the bike and I am sprinkling that with some running. In the new year I will do some more running and some brick sessions.
But my question is this:
Would changing my technique (from heel to ball) be more or less beneficial or beneficial at all, given that my goal is very specific? It is 5km run, 20km cycle, 3km run.
I know I would have to do it very gradually and it would be tiring on the calf muscles initially but I can be disciplined if the end goal is improvement.

Any help would be great, thanks,
G

Don't bother, good chances you will get injured and see no improvement even if you don't get injured.

At your stage there are far more important things to worry about than foot strike. You will be limited by your hours/miles spent running.

ThisRegard

Just run like you run normally.

RayCun

moved from A/R

tunney

more important would be your focusing on the bike.

You might be an uber biker fresh but if you hit the hit smoked after the run odds are you'll bike cr@p

RacoonQueen

A few people ask me about 'running technique' and I always tell them just to run. Where does this obsession recently with running technique come from? Is there any real need for concentration on run technique for long distance running or for anyone who isn't at the pointy end of things?

Nwm2

tunney wrote: »

more important would be your focusing on the bike.

You might be an uber biker fresh but if you hit the hit smoked after the run odds are you'll bike cr@p

Hate to disagree Mr T, but currently he is focusing on the bike and only doing a 'sprinkling' of running. Sounds like he needs more running, not more biking. I think he'll suffer on both bike and run unless he runs more (we're assuming this is run-bike-run).

Nwm2

Go2Guy wrote: »

Another thing! Could I use both running techniques...one for the 5km leg and the other for the 3km leg?
Again, any advice is welcome.
G

I accidentally did this once when I was looking at 'improving'. I ran the first leg focussing on mid-to-forefoot striking, but was too wrecked to do anything other than my normal gait on the second. From then on I gave up and stuck with what I knew.

(For what it's worth, I ran 18 min for a 5k using mid-to-forefoot and 37 min for 6 miles using normal gait, roughly equivalent performance I think and around the same timeframe, so I doubt I was getting much from the change, apart from calf problems. The faster people on here might well disagree).

But no, you should stick to how you are currently running and just run more.

PS I linked to this some time ago:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72235805

Go2Guy

Go2Guy wrote: »

Hi all

It is 5km run, 20km cycle, 3km run.

G

Yes it's a given that I need to work on my running, I'll be the first to admit it! But is there any merit in changing technique? I do find my hips and knees suffer a bit with soreness from time to time (I'm 30 by the way). So I thought if I changed to landing on the balls of my feet, it might lessen the impact and make me...faster?
G

sconhome

RacoonQueen wrote: »

A few people ask me about 'running technique' and I always tell them just to run. Where does this obsession recently with running technique come from? Is there any real need for concentration on run technique for long distance running or for anyone who isn't at the pointy end of things?

There is a real obsession with running technique and how to run 'properly'.

People are overthinking this far too much. Just run. Don't worry about heel, mid, fore foot striking. Get the shoes that are right for you and just run.

Just run.

I'd also agree with Tunney and focus less on the bike and definitely get plenty of practise running off the bike. Brick sessions are key to running of the bike. You may be able to thrash out a sub 30minute 20k but absolutely no use to you if you cant run the second leg.

sconhome

Go2Guy wrote: »

Yes it's a given that I need to work on my running, I'll be the first to admit it! But is there any merit in changing technique? I do find my hips and knees suffer a bit with soreness from time to time (I'm 30 by the way). So I thought if I changed to landing on the balls of my feet, it might lessen the impact and make me...faster?
G

Training will make you faster, changing your running technique will not.

tunney

Nwm2 wrote: »

Hate to disagree Mr T, but currently he is focusing on the bike and only doing a 'sprinkling' of running. Sounds like he needs more running, not more biking. I think he'll suffer on both bike and run unless he runs more (we're assuming this is run-bike-run).

Sorry thats what I meant - run more!!

peter kern

Go2Guy wrote: »

Another thing! Could I use both running techniques...one for the 5km leg and the other for the 3km leg?
Again, any advice is welcome.
G

I would use a slightly lighter shoe for the 3 k leg and a bit more cushioniong for the 5 k leg.

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

There is a real obsession with running technique and how to run 'properly'.

People are overthinking this far too much. Just run. Don't worry about heel, mid, fore foot striking. Get the shoes that are right for you and just run.

Just run.

I'd also agree with Tunney and focus less on the bike and definitely get plenty of practise running off the bike. Brick sessions are key to running of the bike. You may be able to thrash out a sub 30minute 20k but absolutely no use to you if you cant run the second leg.

I thinking running is very technical. however people, imho, focus on the foot strike rather than what causes the foot strike. With bad technique comes injuries, lords knows I've been there!

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

I would use a slightly lighter shoes for the 3 k run and a bit more cushioniong for the 5 k run.

Excellent, the first use of ST pink I've seen. Great usage!!!

Go2Guy

amphkingwest wrote: »

Training will make you faster, changing your running technique will not.

How about training...but with a different technique!? Will that make you extra faster?

peter kern

to be fair the truth is, at your current level of knowledge you are best of not to change your technique at all. ( that is serious)

Enduro

Go2Guy wrote: »

How about training...but with a different technique!? Will that make you extra faster?

It'll probably make you slower unless you know exactly what you're doing and have a very valid underlying reason for changing your technique. It might even make you stopped completely, as you're more than likely going to induce an injury by battling against your natural running style.

As everyone says, just run. There are no shortcuts to putting in the training.

peter kern

RacoonQueen wrote: »

A few people ask me about 'running technique' and I always tell them just to run. Where does this obsession recently with running technique come from? Is there any real need for concentration on run technique for long distance running or for anyone who isn't at the pointy end of things?

I think tummey gives a good reply to your question, its not so much good or bad runner its more injured and not injured runner you should consider.
Sometimes spendinng time or money on prevention is better than spending money on a physio. Of course by far not all injuries are technique related but some of them are.
Otherwise I would agree if you are an social athlete and you dont have run injuries , dont bother to change technique, you get more improvement from running more.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

I thinking running is very technical. however people, imho, focus on the foot strike rather than what causes the foot strike. With bad technique comes injuries, lords knows I've been there!

We're in agreement on this. IMHO choise of shoes will infuence the foot strike removing the need to focus & allowing the person to relax more into running naturally generating better form & technique.

peter kern wrote: »

to be fair the truth is, at your current level of knowledge you are best of not to change your technique at all. ( that is serious)

^ This is more what I was getting at in my first response.

All too often I get to see people who are so wound up about 'learning' to run properly that it is inhibiting them from just running.

There is also a plethora of injuries arising from people trying to force proper techinique on themselves with no consideration for their shoes. Mechanically you can't go from a heelstrike in a Kayano to a nice forefoot strike in the same kayano without risking serious calf injury (especially) due to over-exaggeration of the 'lean' leading to calf and achilles problems.

Change inform or technique is easier when achieved through the selection of shoes suited to that form = minimalism.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

I would use a slightly lighter shoe for the 3 k leg and a bit more cushioniong for the 5 k leg.

Peter I like the way you're thinking. Two pairs of shoes to do the one job

Go2Guy

amphkingwest wrote: »

We're in agreement on this. IMHO choise of shoes will infuence the foot strike removing the need to focus & allowing the person to relax more into running naturally generating better form & technique.
.

Interesting you should mention shoe choice because that is how I got this notion in the first place. I got a good deal on a nice pair of zoots in January 2011. They are worn out and I was back in the same shop and got chatting the guy working there. We came across a pair of runners, Gravity Newton IIRC which "encourage" you onto the balls of your feet. So I started asking questions and he said it's the only way to fly blah blah so I started googling and boardsing (to be added to the oxford dictionary next year). I have to say, in general, it appears to me that the majority of the elites/pros DO NOT land on their heel. So that makes a curious amateur like myself think this must be the best method. Hence the question, should I adapt.
All the replies here send me in the no direction and I now most probably WILL NOT change. But for some reason I still feel that if someone had a real goal to maximise their potential, they should consider landing/striking further up the foot. Obviously you all answered the question specifically regarding my circumstances, but would you say the same for a guy/girl 18 years of age starting out in say triathlon or running? Would a change be a good thing there? Or is it the same thing...train hard and well etc?

Sorry if this is rambling, I'm just very curious now!

sconhome

The shoes the elite racers are using are racing flats, like the Newtons there is a major heel to toe profile reduction in the shoes they are wearing.

If by chance any of them wore a pair of standard technical trainers, Mizuno Inspire (for example) they will be less likely to land with a clear heel.

The shoes make a huge difference to how you will naturally land or push off without having to force the issue. The advice you received makes sense, but as I said earlier, far too many people are taking up running and getting caught up in the whole 'how best to run' senario.

Just run

*in the correct shoes for your gait, I have to add.

peter kern

when most peoples use newtons in an ironman it pronounces heel striking ;-)

amphkingwest wrote: »

The shoes the elite racers are using are racing flats, like the Newtons there is a major heel to toe profile reduction in the shoes they are wearing.

If by chance any of them wore a pair of standard technical trainers, Mizuno Inspire (for example) they will be less likely to land with a clear heel.

The shoes make a huge difference to how you will naturally land or push off without having to force the issue. The advice you received makes sense, but as I said earlier, far too many people are taking up running and getting caught up in the whole 'how best to run' senario.

Just run

*in the correct shoes for your gait, I have to add.

ThisRegard

There's a slo-mo video recorded by someone researching foot strike amongst top athletes that disprove the theory that all top athletes land on their forefoot.

It was only posted here, or the real running forum, recently.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

when most peoples use newtons in an ironman it pronounces heel striking ;-)

Despite common misconceptions there is nothing wrong with heelstriking.

The heelstrike with a straight leg is the problem which results in the braking effect and shock loading which everyone speaks of. If you are running relaxed a heelstrike functions as part of a complete shock absorbing system which includes a bent knee and the foot will roll heel to toe in a controlled manner.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

Despite common misconceptions there is nothing wrong with heelstriking.

The heelstrike with a straight leg is the problem which results in the braking effect and shock loading which everyone speaks of. If you are running relaxed a heelstrike functions as part of a complete shock absorbing system which includes a bent knee and the foot will roll heel to toe in a controlled manner.

So we are agreed that newtons pronounce heelstriking,when athletes are tired '). So you agree your claim that flat profiled shoes make running on toes easier is partially wrong.
I certainly did not claim heelstriking is bad.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

Despite common misconceptions there is nothing wrong with heelstriking.

The heelstrike with a straight leg is the problem which results in the braking effect and shock loading which everyone speaks of. If you are running relaxed a heelstrike functions as part of a complete shock absorbing system which includes a bent knee and the foot will roll heel to toe in a controlled manner.

So we are agreed that newtons pronounce heelstriking,when athletes are tired '). So you agree your claim that flat profiled shoes make running on toes easier is partially wrong.
I certainly did not claim heelstriking is bad.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

So we are agreed that newtons pronounce heelstriking,when athletes are tired ').

Happens to all athletes regardless of what shoes they wear. Noe exclusive to Newtons. It's more of an issue when people see others heelstriking in a shoe that is supposed to eliminate heelstriking.

peter kern wrote: »

So you agree your claim that flat profiled shoes make running on toes easier is partially wrong.

No, sorry.

As I intended above, not to drag OP off topic and cause confusion, lower heel to toe profile make it easier to run forefoot, but when the athlete is tired fatique will cause posture to slump and a pronounced drop back to rear foot striking. << This is what is going to lead to injury as by their nature low H-T shoes will have little or no protection in the heel area to guide or support subtalar over pronation.

peter kern wrote: »

I certainly did not claim heelstriking is bad.

I agree, you didn't, I was just pointing out that it is a misconception, generally, that heelstriking is the work of the Devil.

Reiterating Tunney's point (not at you Peter, cos you know) running is very technical.

Analysis = paralysis.

Just run!

peter kern

So you agree your claim that flat profiled shoes make running on toes easier is partially wrong.
No, sorry.

As I intended above, not to drag OP off topic and cause confusion, lower heel to toe profile make it easier to run forefoot, but when the athlete is tired fatique will cause posture to slump and a pronounced drop back to rear foot striking. << This is what is going to lead to injury as by their nature low H-T shoes will have little or no protection in the heel area to guide or support subtalar over pronation.



I still think we agree, and say the same thing.
you say
'but when the athlete is tired fatique will cause posture to slump and a pronounced drop back to rear foot striking'.

To me , it really dosnt sound that you say they ALWAYS make easier. only when athlete is fresh.SO you cant say its always easeir to run on the toes with those shoes.

You even go s far to say that they cause more injuries if somebody that tries to land onthe toes with those shoes gets tired . I cant agree or disagree with that statement , as no studies about runners give me enough conclusions to comment.

sconhome

We'd need a separate thread for this discussion.

I agree to agree and disagree in equal measures.

peter kern

i would be happy to come over one tuesday morning as this is something i am highly interested in. I am sure it would be worth a while for both of us .

sconhome

Any time you're around Peter do drop in. I'll PM my mobile to you.