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.
Here is an interesting short article in Lower Extremity Review where Joe Hamill, PhD, was asked about his thoughts on what the best running style was for the majority of runners. Joe will be lecturing on this same topic at the Biomechanics Summer School in Manchester, UK, next week.
By the way, why did the author call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" and did not call rearfoot strike pattern "natural" also, when every study done on the subject clearly shows that the vast majority of runners are rearfoot strikers? There are many barefoot runners who heel strike while running on softer surfaces......are they unnatural?
__________________
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
By the way, why did the author call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" and did not call rearfoot strike pattern "natural" also, when every study done on the subject clearly shows that the vast majority of runners are rearfoot strikers? There are many barefoot runners who heel strike while running on softer surfaces......are they unnatural?
Its because they are showing their preconceived biases! Its the 'natural fallacy' that gets used a lot in debates and when people are trying to make statements in support of their position or cause and it is easy to see through. The fallacy is that if you call something natural or imply something is natural, then its better as something that is natural is supposed to be better ..... NOT. That is the fallacy! Arsenic is natural .... and thats not good for you. Most pharmaceuticals are not natural ....and they are good for you.
To label something as natural to imply that its better as its "natural" is a fallacious argument and does not stack up to scrutiny
HOWEVER, that does not mean that its not better or not ... it just means to argue that something is better because its natural is not a good argument .... for those that think it is, why aren't you talking your arsenic pills?
To label a running technique as "natural" is to use the fallacious argument of implying that something natural is better ... when in reality it may or may not be.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
He may call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" but at least he is not spouting the premise that forefoot is for everyone, seems to make sense to me, after all there has always been different strike patterns and never one universal to all. Am I right in thinking he will also be giving this talk at the ISBS conference in ACU Melbourne next month? Craig I would be interested in attending one of your discussions also, have you any planned talks at Melbourne this year?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
By the way, why did the author call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" and did not call rearfoot strike pattern "natural" also,
When I read "an avid runner who runs with a natural forefoot strike pattern", I understood it to mean that it's a natural pattern for him, i.e. he's not changed from his innate foot strike. Other people will naturally run with other foot strikes.
The other reference to 'natural' in the article is "when natural forefoot strikers switch to a rearfoot strike pattern". Again, I think the word natural is being applied to define how these people naturally run, not the natural way to run per se.
But, regardless of the semantics, doesn't foot strike depend a lot on speed, and other factors such as fatigue?
I know that when I run faster I tend to land midfoot, but undoubtedly towards the end of a marathon (assuming I'm still actually running by then) the heels are usually (and naturally) grounding first.
So, at what point during the marathon (or any run for that matter) is a runner more at risk from injury?
Without science to back me up (and without resorting to the obvious 'when he's crossing the road'), I'd say it was when the system was getting overloaded, but of course this might not necessarily be at the end of the race.
Is too much emphasis placed on the importance of foot strike both in terms of injury prevention and speed improvement?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
By the way, why did the author call it a "natural forefoot strike pattern" and did not call rearfoot strike pattern "natural" also,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
Its because they are showing their preconceived biases! Its the 'natural fallacy' that gets used a lot in debates and when people are trying to make statements in support of their position or cause and it is easy to see through. The fallacy is that if you call something natural or imply something is natural, then its better as something that is natural is supposed to be better ..... NOT. That is the fallacy! Arsenic is natural .... and thats not good for you. Most pharmaceuticals are not natural ....and they are good for you.
To label something as natural to imply that its better as its "natural" is a fallacious argument and does not stack up to scrutiny
HOWEVER, that does not mean that its not better or not ... it just means to argue that something is better because its natural is not a good argument .... for those that think it is, why aren't you talking your arsenic pills?
To label a running technique as "natural" is to use the fallacious argument of implying that something natural is better ... when in reality it may or may not be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grahamc
When I read "an avid runner who runs with a natural forefoot strike pattern", I understood it to mean that it's a natural pattern for him, i.e. he's not changed from his innate foot strike. Other people will naturally run with other foot strikes.
The other reference to 'natural' in the article is "when natural forefoot strikers switch to a rearfoot strike pattern". Again, I think the word natural is being applied to define how these people naturally run, not the natural way to run per se.
You may be right about that in the context that it is being used. However, the term 'natural running' is being used by those promoting forefoot striking/minimalism as a marketing term to imply its better as natural is better (see my debunking of that above). For example, in my comments on Larsens book, Tread Lighlty in this this thread, it was books link Danny Abshire's Natural Running that I was referring to when I said:
Quote:
I have purchased a number of barefoot/minimalist books in order to learn and understand and have been bitterly disappointed in almost all of them. They were nothing but rhetoric and propaganda and a total misrepresentation, misuse, etc of the science. They were just like the cure cancer snake oil books. They read like manifestos from political parties, in that the party faithful love them, but they are useless to anyone else to get a better understanding. The books I purchased were based on recommendations from barefoot and natural running websites. I have made a note to myself to be more trusting of the one-star reviews on Amazon.com, as they are more likely to be on the mark, especially if the party faithful start attacking the one-star reviews.
The whole book falls into the natural fallacy trap, reads like the second coming of the messiah is full of rhetoric and propaganda and is a nonsensical use of the science ...yet the party faithful love it! .... that does not mean it not a good way to run or not ... its just the fallacious use of "natural".
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Payne
You may be right about that in the context that it is being used.
That's good then, because that is what I was commenting on: KK's original point.
I thought it was interesting to see how the standpoint of the reader influences the interpretation of what has been written.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grahamc
That's good then, because that is what I was commenting on: KK's original point.
I thought it was interesting to see how the standpoint of the reader influences the interpretation of what has been written.
If the author of the article wanted to avoid confusion and ambiguity, then the term "self-selected" forefoot striker rather than "natural" forefoot striker would have been much better to use within the context of the article. I am a "natural" forefoot striker when I sprint and a "natural" rearfoot striker when I run slower....what does that tell us?.....really nothing.
I agree with Craig that the term "natural" in regards to running kinematics is a poor term to use and should be avoided at all costs since it is ambiguous, vague and non-specific. In addition, "natural" has that "feel good" meaning that the barefoot/minimalist runners love to sprinkle into their arguments to help bolster up their reasons for why traditional running shoes must be bad for you.
Just to refresh everyone's memory, here the author of the semi-fiction novel "Born to Run", Chris McDougall, made full use of the term "natural" in a vain attempt to strengthen his discussion about that "angry podiatrist" of his.
Will the barefoot runner who has ever sliced his or her foot on a piece of glass please stand up? If you’re able, of course. Because I’d love to meet you, mysterious and mythical stranger that you are. Anyone who runs without shoes is constantly asked about All That Dangerous Glass Out There! Take this comment from Kevin Kirby, the angry podiatrist who pops up whenever natural-style running is discussed.
KEVIN KIRBY: "I have no problem with people who occasionally run barefoot on a safe surface as a supplement to their normal training. But in today’s society, we don’t have a lot of grassy fields. We have a lot more asphalt, concrete, glass, and nails. So I worry that barefoot running is going to produce injuries, such as puncture wounds, infections, and even lacerations of vital structures at the bottom of the foot. I would hate to see someone who wouldn’t get injured in shoes go out barefoot running and get a serious injury."
But I’ve never heard from any barefoot runners, ever, who have cut themselves. One reason, of course, is that by keeping your stride short and feet under your hips, it’s easy to dodge around any debris in your path.
And there’s an even simpler explanation. All That Dangerous Glass Out There… ain’t out there. According to this nationwide study of America’s litter (caution, it’s a slow-loading PDF), our streets are pretty darn pristine, at least when it comes to sharp stuff. Overall, litter is down by 61% since 1969. Glass has decreased by a whopping 86.4 percent. In fact, glass makes up only 4.5% of all street litter.
So what is out there? Soft stuff, mostly. Cigarette butts (37.7%), paper (21.9%), plastic (19.3%), and my favorite category: “organic” (4.2%), which I’m guessing is survey-speak for dog dumpers. Which means that even if you wanted to cut your foot or step in Marley’s final steaming pile, you’d need a serious masochistic streak and the eyes of a hawk just to find something to do the job.
__________________
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 find the now generalised term/use of "forefoot striking" a bit ambiguous personally... as well as tend to help create confusion within many dabbling in this area. Should the term "forefoot" be a collective term for any strike contact other than the heel? Or should there be an official breakdown of forefoot region striking into two classifications with the use of "midfoot"... with subsequent established guidelines to distinguish between the two - would this make things more confusing (i.e. to assess/distinguish)? Thus we then primarily have three types of strike patterns: heel, midfoot & forefoot (which is sort of already present)... with the later two harder to differentiate (particularly in distance running). The act of sprinting for most individuals would be easier to determine "forefoot striking".
Personally, I think midfoot running is best because I do it... it is natural for me as I seemed to had naturally self-selected this strike pattern as a youngster. Maybe the fact that I have been running for most of my life is the reason why I have retained this strike pattern as opposed to someone who may have been considered a midfoot striker as I child, then 30 years later in an attempt to gain fitness & lose weight decided to start up a running program & find that they are a "heel striker"... the shoes he/she is running in may also be an influencing factor as well (as no doubt other factors). Hence what is naturally “natural” for someone/anyone is rather ambiguous I feel.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
There are many factors affecting foot strike pattern. Depending on the influence of multiple interacting conditions placed on the runner, these conditions will encourage a certain strike pattern. The strike pattern that emerges while the runner does not try to consciously alter that pattern could be called "self-selected" or "natural". I would say that these terms also are a bit ambiguous.
Is the best foot strike pattern the one that occurs unconsciously to the runner that is affected by the multitude of variables placed on the runner? What if one of those variables clearly is affecting foot strike but not necessarily the most healthiest?
It seems obvious that the best foot strike pattern is the one that leads the individual to the healthiest outcome. This may be what is natural to the runner, what is self-selected by the runner, may not be part of the runner's consciousness or may be directly influenced by the runner.
In addition to not being able to designate one type of foot strike as best, how the runner gets there can't be designated as best either.
Over the past 40 yrs, I have let my natural instinct, subconscious, self-selecting decision making guide me about foot strike and it hasn't steered me wrong. I question the need for an individual to think they should change their foot strike pattern because of some magazine article says one type of foot strike is better.
The out soles of my running shoes tend to wear very evenly. There is some slightly heavier wear at different locations of my shoes but it depends on the shoes. The wear patterns definitely differ depending on the weight and heel height of the shoe. It is obvious to me that there is a different strike pattern depending on the shoe I wear and I suspect the best foot strike pattern is heavily influenced by the type of shoe the runner is wearing.
I have to laugh about those who hang their hat on the statistic saying that 80% of runners are heel strikers. That's certainly possible, especially if 80% of the runners used to derive this statistic were wearing shoes that encourage heel striking. What would be more interesting are the statistics that tell us about the relationship between foot strike and shoe type.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
I have to laugh about those who hang their hat on the statistic saying that 80% of runners are heel strikers. That's certainly possible, especially if 80% of the runners used to derive this statistic were wearing shoes that encourage heel striking. What would be more interesting are the statistics that tell us about the relationship between foot strike and shoe type.
I find this an interesting recurring theme- the suggestion that the shoe tends to encourage heel striking.
Why do most running shoes have a raised cushioned heel? The most obvious answer is because running shoe companies realised that most people are heel strikers and intuitively thought that a shoe that provides shock attenuation would be popular...
Now there is this school of thought that most people heel strike because of the shoe!!!
By this reasoning, then heel striking would be almost unheard of before the modern running shoe... then why would footwear companies start to build shoes with cushioned heels???
I did a quick search and found this footage from the 1948 London Olympic marathon (well before the 'modern running shoe')-
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT
Why do most running shoes have a raised cushioned heel? The most obvious answer is because running shoe companies realised that most people are heel strikers and intuitively thought that a shoe that provides shock attenuation would be popular...
Craig, here is question that I could use your help on.
In 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.
Why do you suppose that the running shoe companies designed trail shoes with a "low profile"?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Roueche
Craig, here is question that I could use your help on.
In 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.
Why do you suppose that the running shoe companies designed trail shoes with a "low profile"?
Dana
I don't remember them as having a "low-profile", I do remember them generally being in a drab colour and having a more aggressive outer-sole.
If by lower profile you mean height from the mid-sole to the top-line of the shoe, it may have been to do with some notions regarding the need for increased ankle complex motion required for traversing inclined terrain. If this was simply achieved by reducing mid-sole thickness, it may have been due to some notion that less cushioning should be needed due to the more compliant terrain. I really don't recall this as being a feature of these shoes anyway- I just recall them being pretty much identical, in a different colour way and a more highly ridged outer-sole to their road running counter-parts. Maybe Bartold can add more?
EDIT: thanks for adding the definition of low-profile to your post, Dana.
I also recall that early on, many of the manufacturers only offered "neutral" trail shoes with the idea that the variation in terrain negated the need for a multi-density mid-sole for off-road running. But then you started to get exceptions to this in shoes like the Saucony omni-trail, which if I recall, was identical in mid-sole characteristics to the regular Saucony omni.
Manufacturing a road and trail version of the same shoe, with a different heel height differential would require the use of different lasts for the two variants of the shoe, in addition to modifications of the upper pattern. This is expensive for the manufacturer. I can't imagine they did this, rather I suspect the two versions employed the same last, but I'm happy to be corrected- what do you say, Bartold?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT
I find this an interesting recurring theme- the suggestion that the shoe tends to encourage heel striking.
Hi Craig; so are you saying that a shoe with a heel to forefoot pitch of say 10 - 12mm (or whatever the average heel to forefoot pitch is within the conventional training shoe) does not play any role in potentially influencing/exacerbating "heel striking" (& the degree thereof)? Can we honestly say for sure how influential this shoe trait has had on runners over the years? I feel it has certainly played a role... as well as adversely affected primordial foot function... I think I’ve just come up with a new phrase... “primordial foot function” (for want of a better term this time in the night/morning).
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT
Why do most running shoes have a raised cushioned heel? The most obvious answer is because running shoe companies realised that most people are heel strikers and intuitively thought that a shoe that provides shock attenuation would be popular...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigT
Now there is this school of thought that most people heel strike because of the shoe!!!
Well it doesn't surprise me that some have this narrow minded view, in fact we all here know that this view is out there... perpetrated frequently by those of a certain persuasion (i.e. you know... the type that refer to the conventional shoe via that classic term... “foot coffins” ).
Your subsequent evidence following the above quote would tell us that this isn't the sole reasoning... but I feel it certainly is an influencing/exacerbating factor, particularly by those who do not know how to run properly (relative to their physiology).
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
I don't remember them as having a "low-profile" (can you define this please, Dana), I do remember them generally being in a drab colour and having a more aggressive outer-sole.
If by lower profile you mean height from the supporting surface to the top-line of the shoe, it may have been to do with some notions regarding the need for increased ankle complex motion required for traversing inclined terrain. If this was simply achieved by reducing mid-sole thickness, it may have been due to some notion that less cushioning should be needed due to the more compliant terrain. But I'm guessing until you define, "low-profile" and I really don't recall this as being a feature of these shoes anyway- I just recall them being pretty much identical, in a different colour way and a more highly ridged outer-sole to their road running counter-parts. Maybe Bartold can add more?
Simon, re-read my post, I defined "low profile" as the running shoe companies defined it in the 1990's when trail shoes became popular. The definition and the term "low profile" is from the running shoe companies, not me. You'll need to look up what the shoe companies were thinking at the time if you'd like more background.
I was just asking Craig T. a question since he seemed to know the reasoning behind the shoe companies products.
I agree, some of the shoes labeled as "trail running" weren't much more than a gray or brown version of their road shoe with possibly more aggressive tread.
Yes, the supporting surface of the shoe was sometimes cut deeper around the ankle to provide more mobility but that was NOT what the shoe companies described as "low profile". I know from experience, in spite of the material cut lower around the ankle, I often still had a problem with the shoes rubbing when I was running on really rugged terrain.
Some "trail shoes" were also stiffer, more ridged than road shoes to provide more protection from rocks and provided more stability on uneven surfaces.
Sorry, you can't remember "low profile" as a characteristic, it was actually used ad-nauseum to describe a given pair of trail shoes. Almost as excessive as we hear heel drop today.
Speaking of Bartold, I recently bought a pair of Asics Fuji Racers. They are an outstanding pair of trail shoes, especially for longer trail runs over 25 miles or so. They even have a low "heel drop" of 6mm! Amazing!
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Roueche
Speaking of Bartold, I recently bought a pair of Asics Fuji Racers. They are an outstanding pair of trail shoes, especially for longer trail runs over 25 miles or so. They even have a low "heel drop" of 6mm! Amazing!
Dana
I noted you changed it to include your definition of "low-profile" above. I note again that you have edited since my response. Since it is your contention that the running shoe manufacturers widely used the term "low-profile" to market their trail shoes in the 90's it might be more appropriate that you evidence this contention rather than to suggest that I "look it up". Since you are suggesting that this is what the running shoe companies were saying at the time, perhaps you could evidence your own statement rather than suggesting that I look it up for myself? Is this really what they were saying or have you just made that bit up, Dana? Any evidence?
What is the heel-height differential of the road version of the Asics fuji racer? Let me guess.... 6mm. 'cause it built on the same last because lasts are expensive.
Anyway, lets await the view of someone who actually works for a running shoe manufacturer. Unless of course you already have all the answers, Dana and were trying to teach Craig here?
Here's an interesting point that arises from Dana's post: he seems to believe that a lower heel height differential is "amazing", what advantages might a lower heel height differential offer over a shoe with a higher heel height differential? It's not as simple as weight, since we could have a shoe with a higher heel height differential that is lighter than a shoe with a lower heel height differential. So what is the advantage, if any? Moreover, if you're a forefoot strike runner, does it matter at all?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
I noted you changed it to include your definition of "low-profile" above. I note again that you have edited since my response. Since it is your contention that the running shoe manufacturers widely used the term "low-profile" to market their trail shoes in the 90's it might be more appropriate that you evidence this contention rather than to suggest that I "look it up". Since you are suggesting that this is what the running shoe companies were saying at the time, perhaps you could evidence your own statement rather than suggesting that I look it up for myself? Is this really what they were saying or have you just made that bit up, Dana? Any evidence?
Simon, what are you talking about? I'm not going to get into a urinating contest with you over the FACT that running shoe companies used the term low profile to describe the stack height and heel drop of their trail running shoes. Are you kidding me? Here is some evidence that I don't give a crap what you think. If you don't believe me, oh well.
Regarding the edit I made, it was to fix a grammar error. At least one of the many that I caught. Sorry, hard for me to see mistakes in the post in the little message window. Do you have a problem with people fixing grammar mistakes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
What is the heel-height differential of the road version of the Asics fuji racer? Let me guess.... 6mm. 'cause it built on the same last because lasts are expensive.
Since you didn't give the road version of the fuji racer, I'll assume you have no clue. I'll fill you in, the road version is the Asics Gel-Hyperspeed. I'm also not surprised that your guess is wrong about heel height differential. It is 7mm on the hyperspeed not 6mm and it has a different toe AND heel height configuration. On the fuji racer, the forefoot is 16mm and rearfoot 22mm. On the Hyperspeed, the forefoot is 14mm and 21mm.
Being built on the same last has nothing to do with the mid sole or the heel height. The last is the mold of the foot that the upper is built on which determines the shape of the upper. It is later attached to the mid sole which determines the heel height. Got it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
Here's an interesting point that arises from Dana's post: he seems to believe that a lower heel height differential is "amazing", what advantages might a lower heel height differential offer over a shoe with a higher heel height differential? It's not as simple as weight, since we could have a shoe with a higher heel height differential that is lighter than a shoe with a lower heel height differential. So what is the advantage, if any? Moreover, if you're a forefoot strike runner, does it matter at all?
My use of the word amazing had nothing to do with the advantages of lower heel height. It was referencing that one of the MOST conservative shoe companies with respect to design has come out with a shoe that has a heel height of only 6mm. I applaud Asics for finally having enough backbone to come out with a trail shoe that doesn't put you to sleep.
Simon, I suspect you've done little or no running on trails. If you had, you would understand the implications of wearing shoes with high heels. I never claimed to be a forefoot striker, where are you getting that from? Regardless of what type of foot striker you are, with trail shoes, heel height differential makes all the difference. The last thing you want is to have big heels getting in your way, catching rocks, twisting ankles, affecting balance, etc. Of course, a little experience and common sense would tell you that. Or, you could take a look at the heels on a pair of fell running shoes, you might learn something.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Roueche
Simon, I suspect you've done little or no running on trails. If you had, you would understand the implications of wearing shoes with high heels. I never claimed to be a forefoot striker, where are you getting that from? Regardless of what type of foot striker you are, with trail shoes, heel height differential makes all the difference. The last thing you want is to have big heels getting in your way, catching rocks, twisting ankles, affecting balance, etc. Of course, a little experience and common sense would tell you that. Or, you could take a look at the heels on a pair of fell running shoes, you might learn something.
Dana
Dana, it's not all about you. And as for a difference of 1mm in heel height differential....... I bet that significantly alters things, not. I guess you could account for that with a slightly different outer-sole design. Or, if your were a leaning backwards a couple of degrees more than the guy standing next to you in the same shoes. Lets not even go into variance in terrain. You are an amateur runner that works at IBM, for the record; not a foot health professional, nor a shoe designer, nor a biomechanics researcher, why are you still here? In my honest opinion, you know absolutely nothing that is worth knowing here and bring absolutely nothing to this forum. As soon as you are challenged in any way you react exactly as you have done in the posting above.
The reality is, you stated that when they were introduced, trail running shoes had a smaller heel height differential than their road running counter-parts. I don't believe you- because you have no expertise in the subject what-so-ever. So I'm calling you on it. Evidence? None forthcoming; so you go on the offensive. So, what was the difference in heel height differential in trail shoes versus the road running versions of the same shoe in the early 90's, can we hear from someone who actually knows, rather than from someone who makes the coffeee at IBM, has no friends, smells of sweat and weighs trainers as a hobby, please?
Sure, I've run on trails Dana. I just don't find the need to masturbate over this in the same way that you seem to need to. Have you ever played rugby, Dana? Have you ever smoked a Cuban cigar? Have you ever been to Butlins? I suspect you've done little if any of these things, Dana. These questions are about as relevant here. And shoes with a 10mm heel height differential are not really "high heels" in anyones book, other than obsessive compulsives, like you. I bet that 4mm difference really stokes your run, Dana. And that I don't keep up to date on every single model of shoe that every single manufacture produces makes me very happy to know that I have a life. Thanks, Dana. The fact that you can tell everyone the weight of all of these running shoes in Oz's doesn't make you superior to me, it just makes you sad; for the record. Which event are you running in the olympics this summer, Dana? In your fantasies you may live out this idea that you are some sort of great athlete, with profound knowledge of running biomechanics and sports shoe design, but in reality, you are a no-one who works at IBM, making the coffffeee.
So, for anyone who actually understands lower limb biomechanics and can conjure an ounce of respect around here, what might be the advantage of a smaller heel height differential?
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
Sure, I've run on trails Dana, I just don't find the need to masturbate over this in the same way that you seem to need to.
This one gets my vote for best quote of 2012, Simon.
I'm sitting here at Terminal C6 on an 8 hour layover at Dulles Airport in Washington, DC, on my way over to Manchester for Biomechanics Summer School. Pam is asleep on the benches next to me and I'm killing time on my laptop. So...all of a sudden.... I read this statement you just made on "trail running" and let out this loud laugh in the terminal...... everyone turned around to look at me to see what was going on. Pretty funny...even with the extra long layover.
I'll be remembering this one for years to come. Thanks mate!
__________________
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 Simon Spooner
Dana, it's not all about you. And as for a difference of 1mm in heel height differential....... I bet that significantly alters things, not. I guess you could account for that with a slightly different outer-sole design. Or, if your were a leaning backwards a couple of degrees more than the guy standing next to you in the same shoes. Lets not even go into variance in terrain. You are an amateur runner that works at IBM, for the record; not a foot health professional, nor a shoe designer, nor a biomechanics researcher, why are you still here? In my honest opinion, you know absolutely nothing that is worth knowing here and bring absolutely nothing to this forum. As soon as you are challenged in any way you react exactly as you have done in the posting above.
The reality is, you stated that when they were introduced, trail running shoes had a smaller heel height differential than their road running counter-parts. I don't believe you- because you have no expertise in the subject what-so-ever. So I'm calling you on it. Evidence? None forthcoming; so you go on the offensive. So, what was the difference in heel height differential in trail shoes versus the road running versions of the same shoe in the early 90's, can we hear from someone who actually knows, rather than from someone who makes the coffeee at IBM, has no friends, smells of sweat and weighs trainers as a hobby, please?
Sure, I've run on trails Dana. I just don't find the need to masturbate over this in the same way that you seem to need to. Have you ever played rugby, Dana? Have you ever smoked a Cuban cigar? Have you ever been to Butlins? I suspect you've done little if any of these things, Dana. These questions are about as relevant here. And shoes with a 10mm heel height differential are not really "high heels" in anyones book, other than obsessive compulsives, like you. I bet that 4mm difference really stokes your run, Dana. And that I don't keep up to date on every single model of shoe that every single manufacture produces makes me very happy to know that I have a life. Thanks, Dana. The fact that you can tell everyone the weight of all of these running shoes in Oz's doesn't make you superior to me, it just makes you sad; for the record. Which event are you running in the olympics this summer, Dana? In your fantasies you may live out this idea that you are some sort of great athlete, with profound knowledge of running biomechanics and sports shoe design, but in reality, you are a no-one who works at IBM, making the coffffeee.
So, for anyone who actually understands lower limb biomechanics and can conjure an ounce of respect around here, what might be the advantage of a smaller heel height differential?
Simon, whatever. Predictability is boring, as is all of your discussions, which all eventually degrade into immature, unprofessional, repulsive name calling. I have to wonder about the respect you expect to gain from lowering yourself to the level you do in your posts.
Simon, believe it or not, you have a lot to learn.
Dana
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dana Roueche For This Useful Post:
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
This one gets my vote for best quote of 2012, Simon.
I'm sitting here at Terminal C6 on an 8 hour layover at Dulles Airport in Washington, DC, on my way over to Manchester for Biomechanics Summer School. Pam is asleep on the benches next to me and I'm killing time on my laptop. So...all of a sudden.... I read this statement you just made on "trail running" and let out this loud laugh in the terminal...... everyone turned around to look at me to see what was going on. Pretty funny...even with the extra long layover.
I'll be remembering this one for years to come. Thanks mate!
Simple minds are easily entertained.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dana Roueche For This Useful Post:
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
So, for anyone who actually understands lower limb biomechanics and can conjure an ounce of respect around here, what might be the advantage of a smaller heel height differential?
A low heel height differential might be advantageous when one considers horizontal forces or walking/ running on a side slope. The higher the heel the longer the lever arm horizontal forces will have on the STJ. A lower heel might, emphasize might, reduce the chance of inversion injuries. Looking at sports with side to side movement, basketball or tennis, the shoes usually have low heels. In basketball, where additional height might be an advantage, they still tend to use low heels. It's been a while since I tried playing basket ball in running shoes. I do recall not really liking it. However, that added leverage might come into play on slanted trials as opposed to running on flat tracks or relatively flat roads.
Eric
The Following User Says Thank You to efuller For This Useful Post:
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Spooner
That's just madness. People who make suggestions like that can only be a "minor head injury away from eating their own sh!t". Right, Griff?
Personally this Spooner gem gets my vote for 2012 Kevin.
__________________
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Is there any research examining the biomechanical differences between running in a 12mm drop running shoe as opposed to a lower 0-4mm drop shoe? I posed a similar question on another outdated forum so hopefully someone here may respond. I know Ben-Hur has strong opinions on the issue and I am interested to see what the general consensus is? As I mentioned earlier I work in a specialist footwear store and I am looking to better understand the dynamics of the shoes.
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
Hi Matt
Quote:
Hi Craig; so are you saying that a shoe with a heel to forefoot pitch of say 10 - 12mm (or whatever the average heel to forefoot pitch is within the conventional training shoe) does not play any role in potentially influencing/exacerbating "heel striking" (& the degree thereof)?
Influencing?- perhaps. I think it would more likely that a raised cushioned heel doesn't discourage heel striking... which is different to encouraging!
I don't know about you , but I rarely advise someone to choose a running shoe because of its high level of 'cushioning'over another running shoe. I have, however, suggested footwear changes for many people due to my belief that the shoe they are in is too soft.
Quote:
Can we honestly say for sure how influential this shoe trait has had on runners over the years? I feel it has certainly played a role... as well as adversely affected primordial foot function... I think I’ve just come up with a new phrase... “primordial foot function” (for want of a better term this time in the night/morning).
I don't think we can say with any certainty either way.
I have been in the Middle East now for 5 years (!!!). I regularly see athletes running in shoes which are very flexible and have no heel- they can be cheap shoes from the supermarket or often indoor football shoes - apart from the price tag, they could be minimalist!. The simplest thing I often do is advise on better footwear and have positive results...
I believe if there is a negative effect on 'primordial foot function' in the 21st century, then it is the environment, not the shoe. The vast majority of runners run on a surface that does not vary, so the tissues are stressed in virtually the same manner with every step. Some people may have the right adaptations to be able to handle this load, other will benefit from some help...
Quote:
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.
I am only speculating.
However I think it is interesting to think of who the original versions of modern shoes were made for- I would think they would be regarded as higher level athletes than most recreational joggers nowadays.
I am not sure where I heard this- perhaps Jack Taunton at PFOLA- the average age is higher and average time is slower in the major marathons than it was 30 years ago (as well as more participants). This needs to be remembered when people highlight that there is a 'continued high injury rate in runners despite advances in shoe technology' (would like to be able to reference those figures...)
Lets think hypothetically-
Take 2 groups of novice runners and tell them to start training for a 10km race. They are not to be coached or advised about anything. They are either given a zero drop minimalist shoe with no torsional stability or a stability running shoe (I personally would suggest an Asics GT 21XX series as a 'suit most people without doing much harm shoe).
Which group would more likely be injured?
I personally would not be comfortable making a broad recommendation of a minimalist shoe without a lot of caveats...
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CraigT For This Useful Post:
Re: Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
[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.
Why do you suppose that the running shoe companies designed trail shoes with a "low profile"?][/quote]
I have to agree with Simon that most trails shoes that I saw were running shoes with some slight modifications. I think that the specific trail running designed shoes would have a low profile for the exact reason that Eric stated.
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
Rearfoot vs. Midfoot vs. Forefoot Striking Running: Which is Best?
It Depends!!!
).
Linear Mode
