There is no definitive answer for which footstrike is best, but there are arguments both in favor of and against each technique. If your current footstrike is working for you, there is no solid reason to change it. However, if you are experiencing shin splints or other problems , you may want to consider trying a different technique. Here's a closer look at the footstrike debate. If you are a heel striker—the pattern of footstrike favored by the majority of elite runners —you may have heard newer advice that minimalist and barefoot running patterns favor landing on the ball or toes of the foot, also known as the forefoot.
While research in this field is still ongoing, a number of studies report the benefits of landing first on the middle or front of your feet when running and then rolling through the toes.
Proponents of forefoot running claim that this technique enhances forward momentum compared to heel striking and places less stress on the knees. Indeed, some research shows an association between forefoot running and a reduced risk for running-related injuries. But running on your toes can also lead to bouncing , which is an inefficient way to run. And some studies indicate a potential for repetitive stress injuries to the foot from using this technique.
It's worth noting that traditionally, running shoes had an increased heel-to-toe drop to help guide the foot into striking midfoot. But the rise in minimalist and low heel-to-toe drop shoes means that this design is no longer the standard.
The midfoot strike running pattern lands on the mid-sole of the foot. Proponents of midfoot running say that this technique helps with shock absorption, lessening the impact on the joints. Compared to heel striking, midfoot running shortens the amount of time the foot is making contact with the ground, which could help to speed up the pace. Some research suggests that both midfoot and forefront running can potentially increase the risk of injuries to the ankle, foot, and Achilles tendon.
The heel striking technique is exactly as it sounds—the heel hits the ground first followed by the mid-sole and toes. Most runners use a rearfoot strike because it often feels more natural compared to forefoot or midfoot running.
Heel striking also stretches and strengthens the calf muscles and ankles. However, striking with the rear foot can make some runners more prone to overstriding, which can lead to pain or injury in the knees and hips. Landing on your heels may also cause more stress in your lower legs, which can lead to shin splints. Some people argue that heel striking results in a slower pace compared to forefoot or midfoot striking. Many people think that changing their footstrike may improve their running economy or reduce the risk of running-related injuries.
However, research says that these benefits have not been proven. For instance, a review published in the Journal of Sport and Health Science determined that switching to a midfoot or forefoot strike did not have a significant effect on improving running speed or efficiency, lessening the impact of foot-ground contact, or reducing the risk of injury.
So if your current footstrike hasn't resulted in any injuries or poor performance, then there's probably no reason to change it. For the rest of us folks plodding along, there is no evidence to suggest that heel striking is making us slower. Running efficiency is how much energy you use to get from point A to point B.
Obviously the more efficiently you do it the less energy is consumed. We can measure this as an oxygen cost to the body. Running up hill or at higher speeds comes at a greater oxygen cost. Very fit runners can metabolise lots of oxygen at any point in time. Consequently they can cover the same distance faster. If you are less fit you will need to slow down as your oxygen burning capacity may not be as strong. But if you could use less energy ie become more efficient then that would mean a decrease in oxygen consumption and you could run faster for free!
If we look at oxygen consumption in the same study as above there was no difference at the various speeds between heel striking and forefoot running. What if you decide you wanted to switch from forefoot to heel striking or vice versa?
Well, another study looked at 8 runners who normally rearfoot strike and 8 that forefoot strike. They analysed the biomechanics of when a runner was forced to do the opposite.
This study also concluded that there was no mechanical advantage in switching from rearfoot striking to forefoot striking. It is backed up by a similar study basing their results on oxygen consumption rather than biomechanical data. Switching from forefoot striking to rearfoot striking seemed to not make any considerable change to overall efficiency. One interesting point was that the overall work performed ie: pure energy output, was higher in the forefoot strikers in general. This on the surface seems to suggest that forefoot running is less efficient from an energy perspective.
This is quite obvious to the naked eye at slow speeds when you get the 2 runners side by side. However as discussed above the oxygen costs were the same. To confuse things further, this study showed that running with shoes was less efficient than barefoot running. This was purely due to the mass of the shoe. As discussed above, there was little change in oxygen consumption between the 2 running techniques.
Then the foot also rolls slightly inward, loads and comes off those first three toes. Decent full-foot strikers look like they apply the entire lateral part of the foot from behind the little toe to the heel at the same time, but there will be a winner in terms of first pressure heel or mid and the shoe evens that out. Few top triathletes are able, or should even try, to keep the heel completely off the surface.
Good runners come onto their midfoot to sprint, surge or run in shorter races. Of the six elite U. Place your foot on the ground, rather than just dropping it out of space. This entails accelerating your foot downward in a slight pawing move so that your foot is moving backward relative to your body just before contact.
This will reduce shock and braking and provide you with a better pivot by having your contact point closer to your center of mass. This also will help minimize the quad-killing up-and-down motion in your gait. For Esteban, this raises an important point.
But at faster speeds, nature would make the decision for you to move on to your forefoot. The researchers noted that running speed and distance were likely factors determining footstrike pattern.
Distance is relevant because the longer you go, the more tired you get and the more tired you get, the harder it is to retain good form. Perhaps it would be better if we were to think about footstrike in terms of description, rather than classification. But I for one am still glad I made the switch. For one thing, I ran my fastest ever 5km and 10km last autumn — and anyway, it makes for a prettier race-finish photo. Heel striking — is it really the enemy of good running form?
Heel or forefoot?
0コメント