Hacker News Reader

Comment by itaysk | Hacker News Reader

> Some people are natural heel-strikers while others tend to lead with their toes. The good news: neither form is inherently better than the other

That is in opposite to common knowledge that heel-striking is worse, and leads to increased injuries.

View on HN

Common knowledge? If anything, the preference seems like a fad to me. Plenty of elite runners heel-strike.

I've been running for... a while. In high school, I was captain of the XC team. I finished 5th in the state and our team won the state meet.[1] The spring after that, I ran a 4:18 mile and a 9:07 two mile. In college, I competed in Division I NCAA XC. None of my coaches cared that I was a heel-striker. I've since switched to forefoot, but noticed no difference in times or injuries.

If you're just getting into running, forefoot will be murder on your calf muscles and Achilles tendon. As the article says, It's best to just go with what feels comfortable. As you run more, your form will become smoother and more efficient.

1. 2002 Washington state AAAA boys results: http://www.jcrawford.net/boys4a02.html

  "Plenty of elite runners heel-strike."

I think the focus on heel vs. other strike is misleading. Sure, plenty of elite runners strike with their heels, but do they land their feet way in front of their body? That's the real fatal combination, and IMO the main reason to discourage a heel-heavy style is that most people can't overstride too badly with a fore- or mid-foot strike. Their quads won't let them. ;)

  "As the article says, It's best to just go with what feels comfortable"

I actually kind of agree, with the caveat that it's important to know warning signs and possible remedies. If someone's natural way of running continues to feel comfortable and keeps them injury-free, that's fantastic even if it's not the "correct" style that some books recommend. However, most people do need to make some adjustments and it's important to know when or how. Maybe you don't even remember when coaches were using that knowledge on your behalf to correct things that might have caused you trouble, but if you were running at that level in HS and college I'll bet it happened.

As a former runner myself, I was always taught that it depends on speed. If you're going at a slower pace, which distance running usually falls under, then heel strike is more natural, but if you are sprinting then you want to stay on your toes. As somebody that has been a sprinter and XC runner, I've found this to be true. How that advice fares with everyone else, I can't say, but when I know that when I try running distance on my toes or heal strike while sprinting, I will not perform as well and distance on toes feels like my Achilles will snap after about a half mile or so.

I forced myself to switch from heel to tow strike and suffer a lot from those Achilles and Calf.

It's not "common knowledge" especially for people who don't run, which is who the article is aimed at. It's also still a debatable issue. I'd say for new runners the key is to get into a routine and worry about stride only if it's causing you pain until you get to a more advanced stage.

Waiting until you feel pain is waiting too long. Every runner, from day one, should learn enough about running dynamics and injury causes that they can recognize and do something about bad form (even if it's only "bad for them" form) before it gets to that point. That's where the article missed a chance to help. A paragraph or two about foot landing and body angle, why they matter and what to do about them, would have done a world of good. It doesn't take much. Instead we get "neither is better" and "don't worry about pronation" and no mention at all of anything above the knee. While it's true that not everyone runs the same way or should - I'm a bit of a supinator and I'm not likely to change - it's still important for people to understand right from the start that different running styles will have different effects.

"Whatever you do is OK" will just lead some people to be miserable even if they're not actually injured. Like every skill, there's knowledge involved in running. I personally would not have kept running past that first day if I hadn't learned enough to know that my misery might be because I was doing it wrong and that running differently might be worth a try. The way to get people into running is to coach them into it and make sure their early experiences are positive ones.

People have different styles, and I'd hate to be overly prescriptive. Having said that, switching from heel strike to forefoot strike made it possible for me (overweight 44 year old) to go from the couch last January to running the Twin Cities Marathon last October.

Heel striking is not really what we evolved for as you can only do it comfortably in heavily cushioned running shoes. If you run barefoot or in lightly padded shoes you are forced into a more forefoot first style.

Or we may not have evolved for running on asphalt.

I think the problem isn't so much how you strike, but what happens after you strike: if you find yourself pulling yourself forward with your knee joints after you strike, then that could cause knee injuries (and pulling tends to happen more with heel strikes). The focus should be on pushing yourself forward with the back foot, not worrying so much how your foot lands.

I've had long conversations on this topic with a podiatrist, but it's still not certain.....

I do advocate landing on the fore/mid foot. But after arguing about it for several years I actually did some studying and found about 98% of distance runners are heel-strikers. So you shouldn't worry that much about it. But if landing on the fore/mid foot comes natural to you, you definitely should keep doing it unless you have problems with your achilles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com