I feel its also important to note, that with the massively cushioned shoes, its almost unnatural to do a visibly forefoot strike. Like you mentioned, the heel might touch first, but the load might still be applied mid/forefoot. And I know you talk about it. But I feel with different shoes those runners would run more front loaded. And so their stride really is more to the front.
Few considerations: 1) it's all about shoes: barefoot, almost every runner would strike with the forefoot 2) the shoes have a drop, so when the foot lands, inside, it is more to the front than how it looks from the outside 3) I think I remember studies showing how midsoles return more energy in the middle/rear part of the shoes (thus promoting landing there)
I think the forefoot enthusiasts in social media are an overrepresented hangover from the wide-ranging barefoot craze, which seems to me to remain strongest in gym/fitness circles esp in the US. I put 40 to 60 miles a week running/walking on a trail behind the house, and I see a LOT of runners of all speeds and experience. There are still a surprising number of runners out there running with that super obvious forefoot, landing-on-toes thing that really took off with Born to Run (some days maybe 10% of those I pass). (They are never the faster runners.) BtR remains really popular in the states despite the fact that much of the evidence in that book looks either strained or faked (eg persistence hunters "running" all day) and despite the now-falsified contention that barefoot runners would end up being faster due to increased efficiency. (The fastest runners are now using the thickest shoes permissible!) Watching elites, especially in the bouncing supershoes, the thing that always surprises me is how much roll there is in their landings. That's not something I remember seeing a decade ago -- maybe because the thinner, harder-foam flats used them didn't permit it or limited it? Correlating strike to injuries (let alone assigning causation) sounds like an impossible task and I'm roll my eyes at most of those low-N attempts. Why did this young female runner get dual tibial stress reactions? Here's a study that says forefoot striking increases tibial loading! Her calf muscles and achilles are sore too. Here's more studies saying that's common with forefoot strikers! But whoops, she's a heel striker. The real answer is more likely "She's a newer runner and this kind of thing is very common with mileage rampup."
Check something else: 1- foot strike in line narrower than shoulder width, on outer edge of foot (supination) and slight external hip rotation (slight bow-legged). 2- loading rolls ankle and hip inward and knee flex (pronation) 3- plyometric extension of all grounded leg joints, slight internal hip rotation to enable jump from big toe, re-arching of foot. 4- shoulder rotation equal and opposite to pelvis rotation balances motion.
Agree completely. Landing with a supinated foot and toeing off over 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th toes, rather than the big toe, are critical for economic running, in my experience. Landing with a supinated foot also greatly reduces the impact I feel when I first contact the ground, and toeing off over the more lateral toes seems to give me much more leverage and therefore force on toe-off. I basically feel much springier. Your suggestion of running with the feet narrower than shoulder width is a good way to ensure that you land with a supinated foot.
So good to get this sorted. Sometimes a runner passes me by and i think they just watched a video that you should exclusively use the forefoot to run. It looks quite exhausting and unnatural when people try to force forefoot striking, on the other hand they are maybe build like this. I must add for my running it depends on the shoe as well. It depends where the carbon or nylon plate is located or if there is one at all and how it works, in which direction, how responsive the sponge is and so on. With my nike vaporfly i feel i run more on the midfoot to forefoot and in the saucony speed more with the midfoot and heel. But it could be just imaginatory as well.
I know this is why my dad uses/used when he ran more, his Hoka's and has the model of cushioned trail ultra ruining Brooks makes when he ran more because due to the thick midsoles, he ends up more midfoot and less overstriding. He end up in the same stride in his super shoes with his racing pair of Onemix the model with the removable carbon plate. I got said specific model (right before he had an injury is taking two years to recover) becuse he uses heated insole with a plastic backing for his very high arches and thus may have not needed a carbon plate, at least the more curved carbon plate was not used if he used the carbon plates at all.
Heel strike is often considered 'the brakes" but that depends on how the center of gravity is regulated thru the whole cycle. Nice video and explanation. Let me watch the midfoot strikers a bit more. Long-distance vs middle-distance and sprint-distance probably differ but will also have to observe top athletes. I do suspect that midfoot strike, to heel and and then back to toe push sets up dreaded Achilles and calf injuries. Thanks for posting and listening.
I have one polemic to running technique: The only thing that really matters for having good (effective) running form is the moment where one foot is on the ground - only these moments have effect on moving forward. So you should only concentrate on these moments - to be effective at these moments - and you will be effective in running. But it doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want in the rest of the time (ie when both feet are off the ground) - in these moments you should make such movements to be effective at the time when one foot will be on the ground. (Ie when both feet are off the ground you should prepare your body (placing body parts on the correct positions) for the only important phase - ground contact). It is just my opinion but probably it is true. And if this is so - what should I do at the time when the foot is on the ground - to have as good running form as possible?
When I showe ultralegend Scott Jurek a picture clearly showing him heel striking out in the middle of Death Valley in on of his Badwater wins, he said, "nope, it's milliseconds of difference and impossible to tell with the foot inside shoes and socks."
If you want to know how your foot strikes, just check the wear pattern on your shoes. I remember when Vaporfly's first became available to the general public and people were all over social media posting photos of shredded heels after less than 100km of running. They are clearly not suited to heavy heel strikers, which is the vast majority of recreational runners. Incidentally, my 4 year old pair are just about ready for replacement because the mid-sole rubber is worn away, but the heels are barely touched. Slight heel striking is fine, but watching a slow heavy heel striker is truly painful to watch. Interestingly, and this is of course only anecdotal, but it seems that among recreational runners it's the women who are more likely to be forefoot strikers. Anyone else noticed this?
You will have a better look with my slow motion of the stride of the top 10 male marathoners at the Paris Olympics : ruclips.net/video/mdNtmvJMHJA/видео.htmlsi=nf6mJwG3aIQyGxgM This classification based on the visual analysis is almost 100% useless. The key point is whether the elites are aiming at hitting the ground first with their heel and then roll over their foot to the forefoot (which is the heel strike from a cinematic point of view) or whether the elites are aiming at hitting the ground with their midfoot (midfoot strike). The question should be asked to these elites : which pattern are you trying to make ? Watching the video of their foot strike on the ground will not give you the answer.
Strange, half of the "heel" landings in your video seems to me like midfoot land in very last moment before touching the ground + elevated heel space in shoes add to this misconception aswell... 🤷♂️ If they have normal shoes I think we could see all the heel landings more like midfoot landings...
Nice video with accompanied slow motion. Fortunatelly there was no slow motion from walk race - otherwise we would see that all racers are running and so should be disqualified. :-) (Not so true - slow motions are forbidden in the rules of walking... strange rules... :-)) But this channel is not about race walking.
You're not kidding about RW. I watched an elite high school contest and it was trivial to get a photo of the leaders with both feet off the ground but of course the official rules are that this cheating must be visible to the naked eye. Ugh. An event where the challenge is to cheat the most while keeping it imperceptible.
Heel/midfoot strikes, no barefoot shoes, some consumption of carbohydrates in the week leading to the race, nobody smoking marijuana, no lion's breath in the last kms. What a bunch of amateurs.
I find this conversation a nothingburger since you are not even taking the heel to toe differential into the conversation and even if it looks like they are heel striking they are not this is due to the foam (stack height) and the differential in heel rise since very few shoes are zero drop. Having videoed runners with a 2,000 fps few here and I say few heel strike it’s a mirage…sure many recreational runners do heel strike but most elite don’t. Fwiw
What is important to remember, these shoes are there to help athletes run the quickest time possible. It's got nothing to do with what is good for you. So if you aren't planning on winning the Olympics you are probably better off not using these shoes.
Actually no part of their foot ever touches the ground. You're talking about what part of their shoe touches the ground. There is a large block of foam between the foot and the ground, and the foam block is typically (always with these shoes) is thicker in the heel than in the forefoot. The orientation of the shoe is slightly different than that of the actual foot. The ankle is slightly plantar-flexed when the shoe is in a neutral position.
@@ednayokum8588 ok let me give you a more extreme example so you can see the point I'm making: suppose a runner is wearing shoes with high heels 👠. Then even if the foot itself is plantar-flexed, an observer would see what appears to be a neutral foot position with a heel strike. Since most modern shoes have a significant heel lift, and especially the super shoes, I believe that is a relevant factor.
@@ebrensiexcept that most runners seem to be wearing mostly the same types of shoes. I generally don’t see, sandals or high heels or boots or air Jordans. The point you are trying to make is such a small factor for most runners it’s irrelevant. And what we are comparing/discussing is runners running. Not people walking in general, in a vastly different set of possible shoes/not shoes combinations. I think you could use to watch the video again. Because you are missing the main point. Runners will all strike the ground differently based upon a variety of factors. Mostly because of body differences, pace, and maybe even shoe type. Therefore we should be less concerned with where we are striking and more concerned with other aspects of running mechanics.
I think you wrong, there is correlation between heel strikers and prone to get more knee, plantar, injuries. therefore is vital the way you strike, as you see in your video more of young runners are heel strikers, but if you look studies about mature runners you will see that most of them are midfoot strikers. So in a nuthsell, you just show us part of the broad picture, that heel strikers (usually associated with shoes brands) are good runners too, but you did not show the problem to be a heel striker. I hope you take this into account
Forefoot strikers get more foot and calf injuries. You cannot change the amount of forces, only their distribution. Heel striking won't hurt you as long as you don't go overboard with mileage/intensity (and that is relevant for any type of foot strike) and if you land on heel under your center of mass line and the loading occurs on the mid- and forefoot. Midfoot and forefoot strike is just inefficient and unnecessary shortening of your stride length.
@@h4xi0rek I don't know where you got the information about forefoot strikers got more injury, but it's totally wrong, the only thing agree with you is landing on center of mass, something that can't be done if you heelstriker, as it goes against biomechanics. and FYI forefoot strikers don't land in in BOF, but in the inner ball of foot (5th met) and recall mechanism is more efficient in mid-forefoot strikers. If you not a frefoot striker then you should find info and not just opion without facts. if you need research about what I said I have researchers, plus I diagnosticated knee ostioarthritis and barefoot change my live and now i running without knee problems.
Can we all agree to watch the video and listen carefully before commenting. Some of you might need a second viewing as well.
I feel its also important to note, that with the massively cushioned shoes, its almost unnatural to do a visibly forefoot strike. Like you mentioned, the heel might touch first, but the load might still be applied mid/forefoot.
And I know you talk about it. But I feel with different shoes those runners would run more front loaded. And so their stride really is more to the front.
I was watching thinking he was going to say this the whole time. The Nike vapor flys absolutely work this way.
Few considerations:
1) it's all about shoes: barefoot, almost every runner would strike with the forefoot
2) the shoes have a drop, so when the foot lands, inside, it is more to the front than how it looks from the outside
3) I think I remember studies showing how midsoles return more energy in the middle/rear part of the shoes (thus promoting landing there)
I went to the comment section looking for wild speculations without empirical evidence and was not disappointed…
We live in the best of times, we don't need experts anymore, we have the comments section.
I think the forefoot enthusiasts in social media are an overrepresented hangover from the wide-ranging barefoot craze, which seems to me to remain strongest in gym/fitness circles esp in the US. I put 40 to 60 miles a week running/walking on a trail behind the house, and I see a LOT of runners of all speeds and experience. There are still a surprising number of runners out there running with that super obvious forefoot, landing-on-toes thing that really took off with Born to Run (some days maybe 10% of those I pass). (They are never the faster runners.) BtR remains really popular in the states despite the fact that much of the evidence in that book looks either strained or faked (eg persistence hunters "running" all day) and despite the now-falsified contention that barefoot runners would end up being faster due to increased efficiency. (The fastest runners are now using the thickest shoes permissible!) Watching elites, especially in the bouncing supershoes, the thing that always surprises me is how much roll there is in their landings. That's not something I remember seeing a decade ago -- maybe because the thinner, harder-foam flats used them didn't permit it or limited it? Correlating strike to injuries (let alone assigning causation) sounds like an impossible task and I'm roll my eyes at most of those low-N attempts. Why did this young female runner get dual tibial stress reactions? Here's a study that says forefoot striking increases tibial loading! Her calf muscles and achilles are sore too. Here's more studies saying that's common with forefoot strikers! But whoops, she's a heel striker. The real answer is more likely "She's a newer runner and this kind of thing is very common with mileage rampup."
Check something else:
1- foot strike in line narrower than shoulder width, on outer edge of foot (supination) and slight external hip rotation (slight bow-legged).
2- loading rolls ankle and hip inward and knee flex (pronation)
3- plyometric extension of all grounded leg joints, slight internal hip rotation to enable jump from big toe, re-arching of foot.
4- shoulder rotation equal and opposite to pelvis rotation balances motion.
Agree completely. Landing with a supinated foot and toeing off over 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th toes, rather than the big toe, are critical for economic running, in my experience. Landing with a supinated foot also greatly reduces the impact I feel when I first contact the ground, and toeing off over the more lateral toes seems to give me much more leverage and therefore force on toe-off. I basically feel much springier. Your suggestion of running with the feet narrower than shoulder width is a good way to ensure that you land with a supinated foot.
So good to get this sorted. Sometimes a runner passes me by and i think they just watched a video that you should exclusively use the forefoot to run. It looks quite exhausting and unnatural when people try to force forefoot striking, on the other hand they are maybe build like this. I must add for my running it depends on the shoe as well. It depends where the carbon or nylon plate is located or if there is one at all and how it works, in which direction, how responsive the sponge is and so on. With my nike vaporfly i feel i run more on the midfoot to forefoot and in the saucony speed more with the midfoot and heel. But it could be just imaginatory as well.
I know this is why my dad uses/used when he ran more, his Hoka's and has the model of cushioned trail ultra ruining Brooks makes when he ran more because due to the thick midsoles, he ends up more midfoot and less overstriding. He end up in the same stride in his super shoes with his racing pair of Onemix the model with the removable carbon plate. I got said specific model (right before he had an injury is taking two years to recover) becuse he uses heated insole with a plastic backing for his very high arches and thus may have not needed a carbon plate, at least the more curved carbon plate was not used if he used the carbon plates at all.
Heel strike is often considered 'the brakes" but that depends on how the center of gravity is regulated thru the whole cycle. Nice video and explanation. Let me watch the midfoot strikers a bit more. Long-distance vs middle-distance and sprint-distance probably differ but will also have to observe top athletes. I do suspect that midfoot strike, to heel and and then back to toe push sets up dreaded Achilles and calf injuries.
Thanks for posting and listening.
I have one polemic to running technique:
The only thing that really matters for having good (effective) running form is the moment where one foot is on the ground - only these moments have effect on moving forward. So you should only concentrate on these moments - to be effective at these moments - and you will be effective in running.
But it doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want in the rest of the time (ie when both feet are off the ground) - in these moments you should make such movements to be effective at the time when one foot will be on the ground. (Ie when both feet are off the ground you should prepare your body (placing body parts on the correct positions) for the only important phase - ground contact).
It is just my opinion but probably it is true. And if this is so - what should I do at the time when the foot is on the ground - to have as good running form as possible?
As a barefoot runner, I have many pictures of me supposedly "heel striking" but heel striking is too painful and I never have.
Even when they heel strike, their turn over is quite quick.
When I showe ultralegend Scott Jurek a picture clearly showing him heel striking out in the middle of Death Valley in on of his Badwater wins, he said, "nope, it's milliseconds of difference and impossible to tell with the foot inside shoes and socks."
If you want to know how your foot strikes, just check the wear pattern on your shoes. I remember when Vaporfly's first became available to the general public and people were all over social media posting photos of shredded heels after less than 100km of running. They are clearly not suited to heavy heel strikers, which is the vast majority of recreational runners. Incidentally, my 4 year old pair are just about ready for replacement because the mid-sole rubber is worn away, but the heels are barely touched. Slight heel striking is fine, but watching a slow heavy heel striker is truly painful to watch. Interestingly, and this is of course only anecdotal, but it seems that among recreational runners it's the women who are more likely to be forefoot strikers. Anyone else noticed this?
Shoes designed to propel you forward from the heel, mid to the toe are used that way shocker!
Does it has anything to do with the hamstring muscles?
I probably hit heel but I feel the force in the mid foot like you said
You will have a better look with my slow motion of the stride of the top 10 male marathoners at the Paris Olympics : ruclips.net/video/mdNtmvJMHJA/видео.htmlsi=nf6mJwG3aIQyGxgM This classification based on the visual analysis is almost 100% useless. The key point is whether the elites are aiming at hitting the ground first with their heel and then roll over their foot to the forefoot (which is the heel strike from a cinematic point of view) or whether the elites are aiming at hitting the ground with their midfoot (midfoot strike). The question should be asked to these elites : which pattern are you trying to make ? Watching the video of their foot strike on the ground will not give you the answer.
Strange, half of the "heel" landings in your video seems to me like midfoot land in very last moment before touching the ground + elevated heel space in shoes add to this misconception aswell... 🤷♂️ If they have normal shoes I think we could see all the heel landings more like midfoot landings...
If a runner is only on their heel and almost no forefoot this is as bad as the overstriding heel/midfoot strides.
Shorter runner wants to go faster - longer stride - heel hits first
Nice video with accompanied slow motion. Fortunatelly there was no slow motion from walk race - otherwise we would see that all racers are running and so should be disqualified. :-) (Not so true - slow motions are forbidden in the rules of walking... strange rules... :-)) But this channel is not about race walking.
You're not kidding about RW. I watched an elite high school contest and it was trivial to get a photo of the leaders with both feet off the ground but of course the official rules are that this cheating must be visible to the naked eye. Ugh. An event where the challenge is to cheat the most while keeping it imperceptible.
No one ever ran on their heels until 1971 and Nike
Heel/midfoot strikes, no barefoot shoes, some consumption of carbohydrates in the week leading to the race, nobody smoking marijuana, no lion's breath in the last kms. What a bunch of amateurs.
I find this conversation a nothingburger since you are not even taking the heel to toe differential into the conversation and even if it looks like they are heel striking they are not this is due to the foam (stack height) and the differential in heel rise since very few shoes are zero drop. Having videoed runners with a 2,000 fps few here and I say few heel strike it’s a mirage…sure many recreational runners do heel strike but most elite don’t. Fwiw
What is important to remember, these shoes are there to help athletes run the quickest time possible. It's got nothing to do with what is good for you.
So if you aren't planning on winning the Olympics you are probably better off not using these shoes.
Actually no part of their foot ever touches the ground. You're talking about what part of their shoe touches the ground. There is a large block of foam between the foot and the ground, and the foam block is typically (always with these shoes) is thicker in the heel than in the forefoot. The orientation of the shoe is slightly different than that of the actual foot. The ankle is slightly plantar-flexed when the shoe is in a neutral position.
He literally talks about that in the first minute of the video.
@@ghostAFsky really? I guess I missed that. Maybe others did too, so it's worth emphasizing.
Most marathoners seem to be wearing shoes, so I think we all assume a discussion about foot striking refers to a foot with shoes on it.
@@ednayokum8588 ok let me give you a more extreme example so you can see the point I'm making: suppose a runner is wearing shoes with high heels 👠. Then even if the foot itself is plantar-flexed, an observer would see what appears to be a neutral foot position with a heel strike. Since most modern shoes have a significant heel lift, and especially the super shoes, I believe that is a relevant factor.
@@ebrensiexcept that most runners seem to be wearing mostly the same types of shoes. I generally don’t see, sandals or high heels or boots or air Jordans. The point you are trying to make is such a small factor for most runners it’s irrelevant. And what we are comparing/discussing is runners running. Not people walking in general, in a vastly different set of possible shoes/not shoes combinations. I think you could use to watch the video again. Because you are missing the main point. Runners will all strike the ground differently based upon a variety of factors. Mostly because of body differences, pace, and maybe even shoe type. Therefore we should be less concerned with where we are striking and more concerned with other aspects of running mechanics.
I think you wrong, there is correlation between heel strikers and prone to get more knee, plantar, injuries. therefore is vital the way you strike, as you see in your video more of young runners are heel strikers, but if you look studies about mature runners you will see that most of them are midfoot strikers. So in a nuthsell, you just show us part of the broad picture, that heel strikers (usually associated with shoes brands) are good runners too, but you did not show the problem to be a heel striker. I hope you take this into account
Forefoot strikers get more foot and calf injuries. You cannot change the amount of forces, only their distribution. Heel striking won't hurt you as long as you don't go overboard with mileage/intensity (and that is relevant for any type of foot strike) and if you land on heel under your center of mass line and the loading occurs on the mid- and forefoot. Midfoot and forefoot strike is just inefficient and unnecessary shortening of your stride length.
@@h4xi0rek I don't know where you got the information about forefoot strikers got more injury, but it's totally wrong, the only thing agree with you is landing on center of mass, something that can't be done if you heelstriker, as it goes against biomechanics. and FYI forefoot strikers don't land in in BOF, but in the inner ball of foot (5th met) and recall mechanism is more efficient in mid-forefoot strikers. If you not a frefoot striker then you should find info and not just opion without facts. if you need research about what I said I have researchers, plus I diagnosticated knee ostioarthritis and barefoot change my live and now i running without knee problems.
This is complete nonsense. Show me scientific studies, and not just anecdotal evidence, that shows that midfoot striking leads to fewer injuries!