Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Funny you should mention that. I been looking at that issue today! (there was this thread in which I (as Admin) noted that under Newsbot's username we post an average of 3 bits of new research every day for the day 5 years!) Let alone keeping up with other new content, such as You Tube (did you see the slow mo video's I posted on the USA Olympic trials), whats happening with Twitter etc etc; let alone the social groups that have developed at places like Linkedin etc; let alone .... ... it can get a bit overwhelming....
Thanks for revealing yet more info... mind boggling. Those U.S Olympic Trails footage was very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
A new buzzword that is creeping into academia is 'content curation', ie curating the content that is being produced rather than provide the content .... as the content is becoming so great and is becoming overwhelming.
I looking at what options we have to better curate the content, so it is more useful to people, more timely, and NOT overwhelming.
Interesting... I think there is a need for it. After all, as the saying goes... "all work & no play makes Jack a dull boy" (or something like that)... & me thinks I'm becoming dull.
Anyway, my brain is starting to hurt, even my computer is starting to slow down... which makes my brain hurt even more. Hope I don't have a "toomah"...
I need a walk... better still, a run - so I can at least mull over the above material (principles in practice) as well as get some training in.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
Is this strictly true? I'd suggest that there may be caveats to this. For example, the best way to run the 100m is more than likely with a forefoot strike pattern. We can probably say the same for the 200M and maybe the 400M. But as distance increases and speed decreases the grey area seems to arrive. Thus, it's as metabolic efficiency becomes increasingly important that we see variation in foot strike.
An interesting review here should be to examine all of the world records at all running events and determine strike pattern, although this is just one variable within the complexity.
Or, do we mean best for the individual or best in terms of performance (of that individual)? How do you reckon Bolt would get on if he ran the 100M heel-striking?
What about running environment? For example, uphill versus running downhill? How does the surface angulation influence strike pattern optimisation? Do we reach a certain incline where everyone would forefoot strike going uphill and/ or everyone would rearfoot strike going downhill?
P.S. Get in there Peter Higgs- you are legend.
Indeed, this emphasises the point that I was making about the unhelpful categorisation of runners by what part of their foot hits the ground first.
The running media seems to want to decide which is best and consequently runners think they need to know which is best. But there is no best. And even if a study declared that a particular foot strike was better than another, who would that apply to? The study might produce a graphical representation of impact forces that were measured during the study and say this is what happens when you run. But, it's a genralisation; it might apply to the runners in the study, but not necessarily be accurate for even one runner in that study.
What if a study said that 70% of runners are less injury prone if they run forefoot (or heel). The media would report that forefoot (or heel) was better. It's like saying that women are less prone to injury than men therefore everyone should run like women; whatever that means.
But it's not just that either, foot strike does not have neat dividing lines, but it's often treated as if it does. A runner with a marginal heel strike is going to be running rather differently to the runner who's reaching out and landing knee-extended heavily on their heel; yet they are both heel strikers. The latter runner might be reassured to read that heel striking is perfectly ok. Conversely, the runners who believe much of the current reporting that forefoot is best, go out and change from their instinctive style to one that they think is better; then they get Achilles and calf injury.
Returning to the original question of the thread: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best? Whilst it's interesting to examine in various situations, any definitive answer is going to be rather limited in application and misleading for most people.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
[quote=CraigT;266743][QUOTEIn the 1990's, trail running became the flavor of the day. Consequently, the running shoe companies flooded the market with "trail running" shoes. In addition to providing the shoe in the color gray, adding a lugged outsole, a toe bumper and later, a plastic rock plate, a primary differentiating characteristic of a trail running shoe from the "road shoe" was that it had a "low profile". "Low Profile" was defined has having a thinner mid sole and less height difference between the heel and forefoot than the traditional "road running" shoe.]
So as usual I am late to the discussion,. my only defense being I had to endure a few days lecturing with the Angry Podiatrist .. and then a tour of the capital cities of Oz with Rich Bouche.. I am now starting to talk like an American godammit.
Perhaps I may be permitted to bring a little of my rudimentary experience in shoe design and manufacture to the table here.
Dana's assertion that the shoe companies advertised 'low profile" shoes for trail running may or may not be correct, I never got into the marketing schlep. However, what i can say from an ASICS perspective is that the profile may have been a bit lower, but the gradient remained exactly the same.. i.e. 10mm. This is where the argument seems to be muddy.
SS made the comment that 1mm would not make much difference, and I have to disagree here. I think probably 2, 3, or possibly even 4mm would make little difference when one considers the material properties of EVA. In terms of compressibility it has between a 4-6 % error, which, depending on the Shure of the EVA is very substantial indeed, and would certainly account for greater than 1 mm. It is a sad and little known fact that if one buys a brand new pair of shoes, regardless of brand or variety, the left shoe will almost certainly have a completely different gradient to right when one is weightbearing. And I am not even going to begin to discuss the vexatious issue of sizing for scale which means a size 7 men's shoe has a completely different gradient to a size 13 men's shoe.
Anyway.. trail shoes are built off the same gradient as road shoes, just with a small adjustment so the platform is closer to the ground. All this is simplistic anyway, because concepting and designing shoes for trail running is far more complex than just gradients and rock plates.. certainly way more than Dana suggests. In fact trail shoes really need to be looked at as being like a shoe with independent suspension technology. The rearfoot needs to be able to move in one direction whilst the forefoot does something completely and independently different. The reason for this is the aforementioned log/rock/dead raccoon, that will apply an independent load on a specific part of the shoe. So we spent a lot of time trying to understand this, with particular reference to the flexibilty of the shoe, and the link componentry between rearfoot and forefoot.
Another complexity is that running across a fall line represents particular challenges for trail running. It is the ultimate extension of 'camber', and can result in a very large pronatory load on one shoe (uphill foot) and a very large supinatory load on the other (downhill) foot. So the challenge to keep the feet at a reasonable angle and prevent the athlete falling down the hill, is significant. Most trail shoes therefore have a 'self levelling 'device", which is achieved by manipulating the geometry and density of the midsole foams to allow the foot a better position. This is different for the left shoe than the right.
There are also small tweaks one may not have noticed, like a reversal of grip pattern, with the forefoot lugs angled backwards and concentrated laterally to recognise uphill running, and the rearfoot lugs pointing forwards and concentrated medialyl to recognise downhill running.. little things that may count.
anyway.. designing running footwear is not just about a bunch of guys and girls sitting around drinkin beer and saying let's build a low profile shoe.
first and foremost, it is about taking the time to conduct a proper biomechanical analysis of the sport in the field.
that is the fun part..
for the record, whilst it has not historically or recently been the case, I believe we will start to see much lower gradients and profiles in trail shoes. And this has little or nothing to do with risk of log or rock.. it has to do with the single most important enemy of any athlete in relation to athletic footwear. Weight.
Anyone who tells ya otherwise (as some companies are doing right now), is telling lies...
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
I am staggered at the whole discussion on drop and minimalism to be quite honest.
At what point in time are we.. remembering I work for an athletic footwear company, going to put our collective hands up and ask the question 'how much can shoes do?" And answer honestly..." not much really".
Dang people, footwear is being endowed with magical and mythical properties they simply do not possess. Shoes will not make you a better runner.. not will going barefoot. Shoes will not necessarily change your footstrike pattern.. nor will going barefoot ( and I have the data to support that statement). Running forefoot or midfoot is NOT better than running rearfoot, and vice versa. None of this matters.
is it just me or are other people seeing the disconnect in this.. will one become a better golfer solely by changing ones clubs.. certainly not. One will become much better by practising and getting coaching.
To be a better runner is to practice and to get coaching. It is to develop strength and hone the SKILL of running. it is to learn which muscles are responsible for getting better and faster and it is to develop the aerobic capacity to go further. It may be that moving further forward on the foot helps this, or it may make no difference whatsoever.
Shoes are not a significant part of this at all.
Shoes protect from external dangers, and no matter what Chris McWhistle says, they do exist.
Shoes provide the platform from which the foot must achieve its extraordinary cycle at each step, and are therefore important and necessary.
Shoes probably help to reduce many of the loading patterns and stresses that we assume to be involved in injury. the selection of the appropriate shoe to achieve this end is a case by case assessment.
The only issue of drop is weight, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to show me the data.
Barefoot a cyclic fad, with the next cycle due to commence in 2034
Minimalism has been with us for 100 years under the guise of a different category... 'racing'.
In answer to Graham's question, rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?
the answer is simple.. none.. because it is different for the athlete, the event. And at the end of the day.. where you run, the surface the terrain, how well trained you are, and how well you understand the sport and what makes one an better runner ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, is far more important than foot strike or what shoe one wears..
rant concluded
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to toomoon For This Useful Post:
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
I am staggered at the whole discussion on drop and minimalism to be quite honest.
At what point in time are we.. remembering I work for an athletic footwear company, going to put our collective hands up and ask the question 'how much can shoes do?" And answer honestly..." not much really".
Dang people, footwear is being endowed with magical and mythical properties they simply do not possess. Shoes will not make you a better runner.. not will going barefoot. Shoes will not necessarily change your footstrike pattern.. nor will going barefoot ( and I have the data to support that statement). Running forefoot or midfoot is NOT better than running rearfoot, and vice versa. None of this matters.
is it just me or are other people seeing the disconnect in this.. will one become a better golfer solely by changing ones clubs.. certainly not. One will become much better by practising and getting coaching.
To be a better runner is to practice and to get coaching. It is to develop strength and hone the SKILL of running. it is to learn which muscles are responsible for getting better and faster and it is to develop the aerobic capacity to go further. It may be that moving further forward on the foot helps this, or it may make no difference whatsoever.
Shoes are not a significant part of this at all.
Shoes protect from external dangers, and no matter what Chris McWhistle says, they do exist.
Shoes provide the platform from which the foot must achieve its extraordinary cycle at each step, and are therefore important and necessary.
Shoes probably help to reduce many of the loading patterns and stresses that we assume to be involved in injury. the selection of the appropriate shoe to achieve this end is a case by case assessment.
The only issue of drop is weight, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to show me the data.
Barefoot a cyclic fad, with the next cycle due to commence in 2034
Minimalism has been with us for 100 years under the guise of a different category... 'racing'.
In answer to Graham's question, rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?
the answer is simple.. none.. because it is different for the athlete, the event. And at the end of the day.. where you run, the surface the terrain, how well trained you are, and how well you understand the sport and what makes one an better runner ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, is far more important than foot strike or what shoe one wears..
rant concluded
Very glad that Bouche and I finally got you talking like a Yankee....now I can understand you! Please say hi to Rich for me.....you.....you....Tarsal Coalition....
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Thanks Simon for putting what I call "logic" to the discussion. And this from someone involved in the footwear industry - some would say you would have a biased opinion (maybe you do) but what you have said here is what I consider the facts and not just anecdotal rubbish
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
I am staggered at the whole discussion on drop and minimalism to be quite honest.
At what point in time are we.. remembering I work for an athletic footwear company, going to put our collective hands up and ask the question 'how much can shoes do?" And answer honestly..." not much really".
Dang people, footwear is being endowed with magical and mythical properties they simply do not possess. Shoes will not make you a better runner.. not will going barefoot. Shoes will not necessarily change your footstrike pattern.. nor will going barefoot ( and I have the data to support that statement). Running forefoot or midfoot is NOT better than running rearfoot, and vice versa. None of this matters.
is it just me or are other people seeing the disconnect in this.. will one become a better golfer solely by changing ones clubs.. certainly not. One will become much better by practising and getting coaching.
To be a better runner is to practice and to get coaching. It is to develop strength and hone the SKILL of running. it is to learn which muscles are responsible for getting better and faster and it is to develop the aerobic capacity to go further. It may be that moving further forward on the foot helps this, or it may make no difference whatsoever.
Shoes are not a significant part of this at all.
Shoes protect from external dangers, and no matter what Chris McWhistle says, they do exist.
Shoes provide the platform from which the foot must achieve its extraordinary cycle at each step, and are therefore important and necessary.
Shoes probably help to reduce many of the loading patterns and stresses that we assume to be involved in injury. the selection of the appropriate shoe to achieve this end is a case by case assessment.
The only issue of drop is weight, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to show me the data.
Barefoot a cyclic fad, with the next cycle due to commence in 2034
Minimalism has been with us for 100 years under the guise of a different category... 'racing'.
In answer to Graham's question, rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?
the answer is simple.. none.. because it is different for the athlete, the event. And at the end of the day.. where you run, the surface the terrain, how well trained you are, and how well you understand the sport and what makes one an better runner ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, is far more important than foot strike or what shoe one wears..
rant concluded
Thanks, this is an interesting post.
Firstly, it wasn't my question (rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot, which is best?), I was just quoting the thread's title and making the point that it's impossible to give a definitive answer because of the variables involved and that any answer is going to misguide plenty of people. I think there other components of running form that are probably more worthwhile addressing for many people who run.
The golf analogy is surprising. The implication that the golf club will not affect the playing standard of the golfer. If the quality of the golfer is measured by the number of shots taken during a round, then certainly the clubs used will affect the quality of the golfer. Different clubs will suit different players just like different shoes will suit different runners.
If I go running in shoes that hurt me, or make my running feel 'wrong', then I'll run slower and probably less. I'll train less, enjoy it less and subsequently, possibly, not even run at all. So shoes do have a massive affect on my running.
The Asics company line seems to be a little different and tells us that aspects of Asics shoes will help improve our running efficiency and assist our feet in propelling us forward.
I'm a little confused about the statement that drop (and I'm assuming this means the height differential between heel and forefoot) is only an issue of weight.
I know that if I select a shoe with a lower drop than normal I will be more likely to feel fatigue and even pain in my calf muscles after a hard run. I don't need data to tell me this because I can feel it; often for days afterwards. I would therefore think that the degree of drop has quite a marked affect on the way the muscles work during running. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the statement, so some clarification would be useful because I do appreciate your expertise and experience.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
I don't agree with Bartold on this one. Heel height differential isn't only about shoe mass. It also affects the geometry of the shoe and the internal forces acting throughout the foot and lower extremity during running and walking. All one needs to do is look at the kinematic studies of how changes in shoe heel height differential affect gait patterns to make the logical next step in reasoning that even slight changes in shoe heel-height differential can have very significant changes in the kinematics and kinetics of gait.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
you are missing my point.. a change in drop will not make you forefoot or rearfoot striker.
Nor will a conventional heel elevation necessarily make you a rearfoot striker.
this is what the main proponents of this argument assert.
it is not true.. the main advantage is weight reduction.
As for golf.. if one take a novice golfer and hands him or her the best clubs in the world, it is unlike to improve their game. If they practice and have lessons it is.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Graham.. it pains me to say this.. but perhaps i should once more.. for hopefully the last time, point out that i post on Podiatry Arena as a podiatrist and independent researcher with the Universities of Melbourne and Staffordshire.
I have not, and never will, be a representative of ASICS on this forum. The views i post are my own personal view and not in any way related to the company I derive a portion of my income from
If anyone feels I have a conflict of interest which would negatively effect the academic nature of the Arena, please let me know and naturally I shall withdraw from further postings.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
you are missing my point.. a change in drop will not make you forefoot or rearfoot striker.
Nor will a conventional heel elevation necessarily make you a rearfoot striker.
this is what the main proponents of this argument assert.
it is not true.. the main advantage is weight reduction.
As for golf.. if one take a novice golfer and hands him or her the best clubs in the world, it is unlike to improve their game. If they practice and have lessons it is.
Simon:
I believe that the heel height differential of the running shoe will influence footstrike location (i.e. heel-, midfoot- or forefoot-striker). We many times see a runner who is a clear heel-striker in traditional running shoes (i.e. 10-12 mm heel height differential) become more of a midfoot striker in a shoe with a low heel height differential.
Of course, heel height differential of the running shoe does not solely determine footstrike location but certainly having a higher heel shoe will tend to make a runner more of a heel-striker and having a lower heel shoe will tend to move their footstrike position more anteriorly on the running shoe.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Kevin.. that is not what is being said, although of course I broadly agree with you.
If I take Newton as an example, one is supposedly encouraged to FF strike in this shoe, yet I have a photo of the NY state Newton rep happily heel striking his way around Central Park.
We all know the science behind running shoes.. but we do not make extravagant claims..(for the most part!!) .. the point I am trying to make, and I will not labour it.. is that shoes are being blamed/praised across the board for much more than they deserve
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Simon:
I believe that the heel height differential of the running shoe will influence footstrike location (i.e. heel-, midfoot- or forefoot-striker). We many times see a runner who is a clear heel-striker in traditional running shoes (i.e. 10-12 mm heel height differential) become more of a midfoot striker in a shoe with a low heel height differential. ]
hmm.. well maybe.. but that certainly is not set in stone.. and are we certain it is the shoe, or has the runner just developed better skills?
[Of course, heel height differential of the running shoe does not solely determine footstrike location but certainly having a higher heel shoe will tend to make a runner more of a heel-striker and having a lower heel shoe will tend to move their footstrike position more anteriorly on the running shoe.
]
I do not agree.. it is completely variable and non systematic. It is totally athlete dependent. Spend some time at the end of a marathon or Ironman looking at this and you will see what I mean...there will be literally hundreds of quality athletes heel striking across the finish line in racing flats. And the question is.. so what? Does this make them a better runner? Is RF MF or FF strike better? According to Hasagawa and more recently Larson.. those athletes that start a race as MF/FF runners finish as RF strikers 'presumably due to fatigue".
So who is to say that MF or FF striking is the gold standard or better. it is not.
it is, as with everything, as case by case event..
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
Graham.. it pains me to say this.. but perhaps i should once more.. for hopefully the last time, point out that i post on Podiatry Arena as a podiatrist and independent researcher with the Universities of Melbourne and Staffordshire.
I have not, and never will, be a representative of ASICS on this forum. The views i post are my own personal view and not in any way related to the company I derive a portion of my income from
If anyone feels I have a conflict of interest which would negatively effect the academic nature of the Arena, please let me know and naturally I shall withdraw from further postings.
best
Simon
Simon, apologies for jumping to conclusions.
I think perhaps changing your home page url on your profile might avoid confusion.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
]
I do not agree.. it is completely variable and non systematic. It is totally athlete dependent. Spend some time at the end of a marathon or Ironman looking at this and you will see what I mean...there will be literally hundreds of quality athletes heel striking across the finish line in racing flats. And the question is.. so what? Does this make them a better runner? Is RF MF or FF strike better? According to Hasagawa and more recently Larson.. those athletes that start a race as MF/FF runners finish as RF strikers 'presumably due to fatigue".
So who is to say that MF or FF striking is the gold standard or better. it is not.
it is, as with everything, as case by case event..
Simon:
I believe that possibly we are talking around each other here. My point is that the heel-height differential (HHD) of a running shoe will, for each individual runner, have both a kinematic and kinetic effect on their running biomechanics. This means that, all other things being equal, if the runner has a traditional running shoe of 12 mm HHD then they will more likely be a heel-striker while running at a 7:00 minute/mile pace than if this same runner was to wear a running shoe with only a 2 mm HHD and then run at a 7:00 minute/mile pace.
This effect of HHD on footstrike pattern is independent of the effects of fatigue during a race (as you noted) on running kinematics and kinetics and is also independent of the other many factors that contribute to footstrike pattern (e.g. running velocity, ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed, midsole thickness and cushioning and running surface characteristics to name a few).
I think you and I both agree that what determines running footstrike patterns in each runner at each running velocity is multifactorial and is not solely due to shoe HHD geometry. However, I have long believed that shoe HHD is an important factor that clinicians should consider when treating both their athletic and non-athletic patients with foot and/or lower extremity mechanical pathologies since, both from a biomechanical modelling perspective and my clinical observations over many years, shoe HHD can mean the difference between being injured and injury free for many individuals.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
I have attached a Precision Intricast newsletter that I wrote over 25 years ago where I first introduced the term "heel height differential" in March 1987. The newsletter was subsequently published in my first book (Kirby KA.: Foot and Lower Extremity Biomechanics: A Ten Year Collection of Precision Intricast Newsletters. Precision Intricast, Inc., Payson, AZ, 1997). I don't believe the term "heel height differential" had been used within the medical literature before that time.
The March 1987 newsletter was only the fourth Precision Intricast newsletter that I had ever written. The newsletter discusses many important shoe-related design parameters that may affect the biomechanics of the foot and lower extremity. These topics are an important topic of conversation even today. It is interesting to see the terms "oblique midtarsal joint" and "pronation torque" being used in those early days...much has changed in the last quarter century...but much also still remains the same.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Simon:
I believe that possibly we are talking around each other here. My point is that the heel-height differential (HHD) of a running shoe will, for each individual runner, have both a kinematic and kinetic effect on their running biomechanics. This means that, all other things being equal, if the runner has a traditional running shoe of 12 mm HHD then they will more likely be a heel-striker while running at a 7:00 minute/mile pace than if this same runner was to wear a running shoe with only a 2 mm HHD and then run at a 7:00 minute/mile pace.
This effect of HHD on footstrike pattern is independent of the effects of fatigue during a race (as you noted) on running kinematics and kinetics and is also independent of the other many factors that contribute to footstrike pattern (e.g. running velocity, ankle joint dorsiflexion stiffness with knee flexed, midsole thickness and cushioning and running surface characteristics to name a few).
I think you and I both agree that what determines running footstrike patterns in each runner at each running velocity is multifactorial and is not solely due to shoe HHD geometry. However, I have long believed that shoe HHD is an important factor that clinicians should consider when treating both their athletic and non-athletic patients with foot and/or lower extremity mechanical pathologies since, both from a biomechanical modelling perspective and my clinical observations over many years, shoe HHD can mean the difference between being injured and injury free for many individuals.
OK, heres what you need to do: first build a qualitative model which predicts strike position (SP) and includes all of the variables we think might influence SP. So, for example:
SP = a function of: heel height differential + velocity + a.n.other variable + nth variable
When you've done that you can measure these variables in a population and turn the qualitative model into a quantitative one- simples. The quantitative model will tell you just how important HHD is when all the other variables are taken into consideration.
Lets make a start with the qualitative model. What variables do we believe may influence strike position?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
The only issue of drop is weight, and anyone who suggests otherwise needs to show me the data.
At best you probably should have worded the above differently if you didn't want to imply what it appears to state. At worse - if... "the only issue of drop is weight"... then I suppose this would be now the third reasoning so far as for the apparent logic behind the implementation for heel pitch/differential in running shoes... & this reasoning (i.e. weight) would have to be the most moronic of the three.
I agree with Dr Kirby's views on the significance of heel height differential for running shoes... & I'll state further to say that it has been an adverse influence! We do not need it. It is about time it is eventually got rid of - at least to the most, say 4mm (for those who like a figure ).
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
I agree with Dr Kirby's views on the significance of heel height differential for running shoes... & I'll state further to say that it has been an adverse influence! We do not need it. It is about time it is eventually got rid of - at least to the most, say 4mm (for those who like a figure ).
Mathew:
Saying that, in regards to running shoes with a heel height differential (HHD)of 10-12 mm, "we do not need it" is simply silly. This is no better than saying that we don't need running shoes with, say a 4 mm HHD. Some runners will simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe. Have these traditional HHD running shoes been an adverse influence? I certainly don't think traditional running shoes with a 10-12 mm HHD have been any more adverse influence than any of the "minimalist shoes" with a 0-4 mm HHD. Do you have any research evidence that shows that minimalist shoes are less of an "adverse influence" than are traditional running shoes?
Moving along now....our next goal in problem-solving regarding what makes the best HHD for running shoes should be to find the clinical parameters that allows us to recommend the best running shoes for each of our patients whether it is a 0 mm HHD, a 4 mm HHD or a 12 mm HHD running shoe.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
Blinda.. to tell you the truth.. I had no idea there WAS a link.. I sure did not put it there!
Simon:
I know you secretly put the Asics website in your profile hoping that it would influence everyone on Podiatry Arena to buy Asics shoes every time they logged onto Podiatry Arena....another of your Jedi Mind Tricks!!!
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
We do not need it. It is about time it is eventually got rid of - at least to the most, say 4mm (for those who like a figure ).[/quote]
moronic is a pretty strong word Matthew.. do believe people are not allowed to have an opinion if it does not fit with your views?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Mathew:
Saying that, in regards to running shoes with a heel height differential (HHD)of 10-12 mm, "we do not need it" is simply silly. This is no better than saying that we don't need running shoes with, say a 4 mm HHD. Some runners will simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe. Have these traditional HHD running shoes been an adverse influence? I certainly don't think traditional running shoes with a 10-12 mm HHD have been any more adverse influence than any of the "minimalist shoes" with a 0-4 mm HHD. Do you have any research evidence that shows that minimalist shoes are less of an "adverse influence" than are traditional running shoes?
Moving along now....our next goal in problem-solving regarding what makes the best HHD for running shoes should be to find the clinical parameters that allows us to recommend the best running shoes for each of our patients whether it is a 0 mm HHD, a 4 mm HHD or a 12 mm HHD running shoe.
I agree Kevin, dunno why we are having this infantile discussion on what is better and what is not. What I have been saying.. like a broken record, all along is that some people will do very well with a small HHD and some will do very well with a large HHD. The shoe, however is NOt the primary determinant of how one runs..
In relation to your suggestion.. it is great in theory, but gee it would be hard to put into practice... I know that for example a company called ASICS.. no relation to me, has done a study looking at identical footwear with 0, 5 and 10mm heel differentials. They looked at the most common kinetic (acceleration, pressure, GRF and ,moment calculation) and kinematic parameters.
it was a small cohort of 10 runners, but in this group, the only significant findings were a very large increase (about 4x) in ground reaction force and with fourier transformation this equates to a large high frequency force from a non cushioned impact in the 0mm group. No surprises here. High frequency loads have been implicated in injury. Also, a small decrease in the EKAM with the 0mm shoe, and a large increase in the external ankle joint moment in the 0 and 5mm shoes. The major kinematic finding was at the ankle and not surprisingly showed increased plantarflexion of the ankle in the 0 and 5mm shoes.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Hi Simon,
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
moronic is a pretty strong word Matthew.. do believe people are not allowed to have an opinion if it does not fit with your views?
Yes, it would be a strong word (& inappropriate) if the phrase was directed at you personally. Let me assure you it wasn’t. It was used in relation to the reasoning behind the need for an elevated heel pitch – that is on the basis of... "the only issue of drop is weight". This is... well, to use Kevin’s terminology... “simply silly”... as for a reason to elevate the heel. And yes, I am interested in your opinion on this topic... despite it being different to mine (in some areas). I value your educated input but will still question it to obtain a greater understanding of the issues involved.
I have asked in this thread as to the origin of the elevated heel pitch/differential in running shoes...
I have submitted:
- “accommodating for ankle equinus” (read this quite a while ago – not sure where).
Craig T has suggested:
- “protection for heel strikers.” In fact I did submit the following (at post # 18) in response to this reasoning with...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
Note - the following Craig is not a reflection on your point of view – just that of the ‘high’ heel running shoe concept (this writing medium can be ambiguous of intentions at the best of times thus the need for this side note).
Well if the above is the actual answer (& the sole answer) - then that is pretty lame (bordering on moronic) reasoning in my view... in fact the reasoning annoys me (particularly when we are referring to what I would think are educated researchers probably being paid handsomely). I thought there was another reason - something to do with ankle equinus??? (which is still poor reasoning) Anyway, whilst we're on the topic - can someone out there tell us (or at least me) once & for all why there has been a heel to forefoot pitch of up to 12mm (any higher reports out there???) added to running shoes? Thanks.
*** Yes, I should have made a similar opening statement to the above when responding to you (sorry).
Then you have associated it with:
- "the only issue of drop is weight".
I personally find all the above as poor reasoning (with the reasoning of weight to be the silliest of the three) to add a heel – forefoot differential (as much as 12-14mm) to running shoes... present across the market range of footwear companies & models... directed to the masses. Racing flats still had/has it (usually to lesser degree). The question is – why? As I’ve stated before (post # 46)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
... I am sure that shoes of higher heel differential influence gait & strike patterns & hence subsequently encourages a resultant trait to become entrenched in acquired running technique. The body is an amazing structure & we can quickly differentiate (i.e. via proprioception) characteristics (i.e. heel pitch, midsole stiffness) of what is attached on our feet & adjust our function accordingly... sometimes this may not be conducive to the long term effects of running well being (i.e. exacerbating forces which may encourage injury threshold to be met sooner rather than later).
Now like I said, acquired foot strike patterns are not just influenced by shoes (as you have also alluded to in the above quote i.e. “doesn’t discourage heel striking”), particularly if there is a predisposition to say heel striking via another influencing factor. However, I believe the foot was designed to function in a plantigrade fashion relative to the environment/surface. Unfortunately we also have evolution creep into this topic & even if one was inclined to believe this perspective, the same reasoning still applies with relation to the natural anatomical nature of the foot. Why then the need to raise the heel in the running shoe. I think we both (at least) are still awaiting for the official answer to this. Putting aside the reason you gave in your previous post (i.e. protection for heel strikers), I am sure I have read somewhere that it was the result of accommodating for ankle equinus... why you would want to accommodate for a fault that can be easily addressed via exercises... & then incorporating it in the design of shoes for the masses is beyond me. Either way, whether it is to provide heel cushioning for heel strikers &/or accommodating for the apparent ankle equinus of the masses, I think the future of its inclusion needs to be reviewed (hence why we are now getting more & more models with lower heel-forefoot profiles). We humans need to also focus & learn to understand the state of our own physical conditioning & address this via appropriate exercises... then allow ourselves to naturally self select the appropriate gait/foot strike patterns without excess influence from foot attire... we may then start to see a change in the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
I agree Kevin, dunno why we are having this infantile discussion on what is better and what is not. What I have been saying.. like a broken record, all along is that some people will do very well with a small HHD and some will do very well with a large HHD. The shoe, however is NOt the primary determinant of how one runs.
I could see “infantile” being a strong word - particularly when I have a strong interest (& some would say a strong view) on the topic. But, hey... this is Podiatry Arena... & we have both been associated with some pretty passionate discussions in the past on this forum. However, I am a little surprised you would see the issue of heel to forefoot pitch being of such little worth of discussion – particularly a person in your position... but then maybe this position could be an influencing factor on your view (that said, I take your statement of your association with Asics & your contribution to this forum as being an honest/sincere one).
I also agree with your view within the last sentence... “The shoe, however is not the primary determinant of how one runs”... as well as other views you expressed in association with the limited significance of footwear on performance. These are potentially multifactorial... as solid hard work/educated programs/consistent training/nutrition etc... will get an athlete the desired world class performance. That said, I see footwear as an influencing factor in association with the issue of consistency in training (i.e. affecting injury threshold – time off training).
Hi Kevin,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Mathew:
Saying that, in regards to running shoes with a heel height differential (HHD)of 10-12 mm, "we do not need it" is simply silly. This is no better than saying that we don't need running shoes with, say a 4 mm HHD. Some runners will simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe..
I’ll admit it was a bold statement & did put my neck out there on it (it was an inevitable statement based on my previous views so far on this thread). However, I don’t think it qualifies as being “silly”. The thing is that this 12mm HHD has been with us for many years now & generations of runners have become accustomed to it. They pretty much know nothing else (that is until fairly recently).The 8-10mm+HHD has virtually been the standard norm among the traditional training shoe. Hence, how do we know for sure that some runners will... “simply run better and with less injuries with a 12 mm HHD running shoe and others will run better and with less injuries with a 4 mm HHD running shoe”. The majority have been running in a high HHD for many years... & may have accumulated some injuries in the past associated with this. I know – it is hard to distinguish the HHD being an influencing factor – hence part of my point in ridding this potential influencing factor which goes against the primordial design & (dare I say “natural”) foot function of the human foot.
I want to look at it quickly from another angle (I know this post is getting long). There was obviously some sort of consensus as to this elevated HHD in running shoes. Like I’ve said – I don’t know how & where it came from (& it would seem others don’t either)... but somehow it made its way into the standard design of running shoes across the board. If there was a round table of sorts with footwear researchers at some point in the 1970’s deciding on what structures to implement into running shoe design & someone (or group) came up with the idea to raise the heel to forefoot pitch based on either or all of the three stated reasons thus far... I would raise my hand at state... “that is simply silly” (or something to that effect)... & probably give my reasons along a similar tune like the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
Should footwear design compensate for our laziness & poor body conditioning... & could these compensation components lead to other problems?
... The primordial anatomical foot structure & intended function should be the premise for footwear design... individual physiological issue should be the target of therapy intervention, needed to address specific areas of conditioning via exercises which also may include individualized support if need via a custom related device such as an orthotic to address conditions not effectively addressed via conditioning/exercises... hence the importance of Podiatry in prescribing appropriate conditioning modules & if needed appropriate supportive devices to aid in efficiency/economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
I am just personally convicted on the view that footwear should primarily serve as a means of protection from the elements & terrain. Like I said before, the foot was designed to function in a plantigrade fashion relative to the terrain & I would want to reduce the potential of any adverse shoe related influences as much as possible (including reducing the influence of footwear on naturally self selected foot strike placement). If someone needed support/control i.e. due to compromised osseous/joint integrity, then I feel it best given via an educated/assessed input based on the individual from someone like a Podiatrist - I feel shoes shouldn't encroach on this role too much via the addition of bits & pieces (some may call them gimmicks) in a generic sense which is then directed to the masses of which may not be appropriate via the potential encouragement or influence of adverse function/motion/strike pattern... & subsequent adverse stress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Have these traditional HHD running shoes been an adverse influence? I certainly don't think traditional running shoes with a 10-12 mm HHD have been any more adverse influence than any of the "minimalist shoes" with a 0-4 mm HHD. Do you have any research evidence that shows that minimalist shoes are less of an "adverse influence" than are traditional running shoes?.
I do believe that a 12mm HHD has certainly been a potential adverse influence on the general running public. As for the 0-4mm HHD influence – well this wouldn’t be an appropriate assessment at this point in time as this is a relative newly available concept (in a general sense) with relatively small percentage that has gravitated to it... as well as the residual influence of the transition from the accustomed 12mm HHD (to 0-4mm) which could potentially sway results i.e. excess Triceps Surae/Achilles issues/stress.
As for “research evidence”... no, none at hand – I think we are all awaiting for further developments in this area... hence I resonate with both the following views for further clinical insights...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Moving along now....our next goal in problem-solving regarding what makes the best HHD for running shoes should be to find the clinical parameters that allows us to recommend the best running shoes for each of our patients whether it is a 0 mm HHD, a 4 mm HHD or a 12 mm HHD running shoe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toomoon
In relation to your suggestion.. it is great in theory, but gee it would be hard to put into practice... I know that for example a company called ASICS.. no relation to me, has done a study looking at identical footwear with 0, 5 and 10mm heel differentials. They looked at the most common kinetic (acceleration, pressure, GRF and ,moment calculation) and kinematic parameters.
it was a small cohort of 10 runners, but in this group, the only significant findings were a very large increase (about 4x) in ground reaction force and with fourier transformation this equates to a large high frequency force from a non cushioned impact in the 0mm group. No surprises here. High frequency loads have been implicated in injury. Also, a small decrease in the EKAM with the 0mm shoe, and a large increase in the external ankle joint moment in the 0 and 5mm shoes. The major kinematic finding was at the ankle and not surprisingly showed increased plantarflexion of the ankle in the 0 and 5mm shoes.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Simon. Is it possible to get a copy of that photo of the guy heel striking in Newtons? I'm giving a talk later this year to a tri club and there are a lot of Newton wearers in the club. Thought it may interest a few of them. Also the offer for a mountain bike ride and a pint of Badger is still on when you're over for the Olympics
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Jeezz Matthew.. now I am gonna nominate you for the longest post.. ever I think, although maybe Craig got you by a nose.. I shall have to measure.
Some good points and lots of questions.. let me reread and digest and see if i have a worthy response!
best
S
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil3600
Simon. Is it possible to get a copy of that photo of the guy heel striking in Newtons? I'm giving a talk later this year to a tri club and there are a lot of Newton wearers in the club. Thought it may interest a few of them. Also the offer for a mountain bike ride and a pint of Badger is still on when you're over for the Olympics
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
.. and then a tour of the capital cities of Oz with Rich Bouche.. I am now starting to talk like an American godammit.
Linear Mode
