Good form running technique - similar pain issues as minimalist shoes

Changing your running form is not necessarily a good thing.  When you change the way your foot strikes, you change the muscles you need and use.  If those muscles were not developed running in your prior form, then you may have to rebuild your running volume from scratch just to get back to running the volume you were used to before.  So, by changing your form you may have started using muscles that were not properly prepared for the load you put them under.  That results in injury.

All this is a long way of saying that my guess is you should scrap this "good form" and go back to running naturally.

agreed. without getting into everything else, when you switch something like this, you are basically starting from ZERO, and need to learn how to run all over again.

I agree with what you are saying, however I would say after several hundred miles, am I still "re-learning" how to run or have I validated that it doesn't work for me?

I should include that one of the other principles they stress (no pun intended) is that a proper mid to forefoot strike will have your feet in line with your center of gravity or a lot closer to it than a heel strike which tends to be out in front of your body.

I realize that heel strike vs. forefoot strike and which is better can be hotly contested but isn't one generally agreed upon principle that your foot strike should be within your center of gravity?

yes, regardless of your footstrike you want it under and not in front of you.

if its right for you (it is for me), there is nothing wrong with heel striking,

I see how changing your running form could cause problems.  I've seen general drills for improving your form or economy.  Do you run (no pun intended) the same risk with these?

Edited by cornfed 2010-11-02 8:17 PM

One thing I learned in doing this technique is it's nearly impossible for me to land on my heel and still be under my center of gravity.

I believe my stride and therefore foot strike using the good form running approach does have me striking within my center of gravity and that feels very natural to me now.

It's just the little nagging issues are starting to creep up that has me questioning it all....

I would stop trying to force running in certain way because most likely the change plus your training load is what's causing the pain/discomfort. There is no such a thing as "good" running form, heel strike is not a bad thing (most elite runners do so), pronation is not a bad thing, etc.

Unfortunately while there are certain tweaks one can do to improve your running economy, most comes with just plain and simple running and running and running some more. Some stuff like specific resistance training (i.e. explosive, hills, etc.) and a gait analysis might help you identify certain areas to address based on your specific needs. That plus a conservative training load to make some changes can help, but that is very different that having someone look at you and determine you need to change your form or you have to run in what they think is "good form".

Unless they do a thorough analysis, they are just guessing and even with specialized analysis changes are often very superficial, over long period of times and not 100% effective.

Here is a good read: http://running.competitor.com/2010/05/features/run-unconscious_1005...

That's a great question.  I believe that the answer is no, at least not if you do the right drills the right way.  This is, of course, just my opinion.

There are two basic differences between drills and changing your form outright.  First, the drills are a very small percentage of your weekly run training.  You do the drills, and the rest of the time you run however seems natural.  If the drills are working, then slowly they may begin to have an impact on your 'normal' running.

Second, good drills (IMO) do not dictate that your form must be a specific way.  Instead, they focus on other things, like production of power (e.g., high skips) or quick feet, and so on.  So, to take a specific example, consider the 'quick feet' drill, described here.  It encourages you to work on, well, quick feet, but doesn't say 'land fore foot' or the other sorts of thing that some 'one size fits all' running form 'gurus' say.

Interesting how all the comments posted after the article were in favor of some sort of technique analysis and/or change...And most if not all people posting commented along the lines that merely logging more and more miles without even consideration of technique improvement was wrong....

For me personally what struck home is that I took the class based on the title "good form running" thinking it was going to be gait analysis, not a technique presentation.  I haven't had issues with my knees which seemed to be their target group.  Foot issues I've had, high arches, which in part was what got me into full orthotics....Those fixed some foot issues I was having..

However, what they taught about center of gravity, advantages (arguable I'm thinking) to mid-fore foot striking vs. heel striking (heel strikes they said tend to mimic mini-braking and therefore speed reduction) made sense so I tried the technique....

Maybe part of what I'm feeling is just a long season coming to an end.....I've run year round for several years straight now.  I have 2,100 miles and counting on the bike since April this year so maybe that's a variable in my equation that I need to look at.

At the end of the day I believe my stride is better with the changes I've made, I just need to figure out if the little nagging issues lately are related to the foot strike or over-use.....

Thanks all...

Edited by TriMike 2010-11-02 9:17 PM

The pain is likely caused by using muscles in a new way. It's likely still there because you haven't run enough for the muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc., to become fully adapted.

I made a similar change a few years back. I think it took a good 6-8 months before I was fully adapted - and I was doing about 100 miles/month back then. What there is in your logs (nothing current) indicates you don't run much more than 50 miles/month. At that volume it's possible it could take well over a year to become fully adapted.

I have heard of people who made this change not needing their orthotics afterward. Orthotics tend to provide support and correction for people who run with the more traditional overstriding heel strike. Whether or not they are still necessary can't be determined from the info you've provided. It might be best if your podiatrist performed a gait analysis.

What isn't real clear is why you made this change. You apparently weren't having any problems. It seems mostly what you needed to do for improvement was simply to run more. 50 or so miles/month is going to buy too much improvement.

I've been in minimals for just over a year now.  Yeah if you are purposely trying to land forefoot your calves and Achilles will definitely get sore regularly.  One year later and mine still do on longer runs.  And occasionally, the outside forefoot will get sore also as I tend to land there when running on flat surfaces in minimals (eg asphalt).   At least this has been my experience regarding soreness, but I'm running in very thin minimals too. 

I wouldn't have a clue if orthotics are contributing to your soreness.  Nor would I know if the shoes are a contributor.  I simply can share my experience that a forefoot landing will lead to achilles and calf soreness "for sure". 

Also can tell you that if you run in minimals you don't even need to think about your form.  Your body and feet will automatically do what they need to do.  I always equate it to running barefoot as a kid.  We never thought about it, we just did it. 

Best of luck in resolving your soreness issues

Try getting into a more flexible shoe.

Yes, changing your running form so that you land on your mid- or forefoot will stress your calves and achilles heel. I would not automatically assume that that is the cause or only cause of your issues.

The Dyad is made for very flat feet. It is not very flexible and has a full-contact bottom. If you are leaning forward and landing on your forefoot, you will need a shoe that has more flexibility than the Dyad offers.

Shoes you might want to try: Brooks Glycerin, Ghost, or Defyance.

While it may be interesting, the fact that the interview with Matt Fitzgerald is based on research, I would tend to put more stock in what he is saying that the comments following the article.



The problem is that without testing, there is no way to know and the research indicates that time spent running will usually address form issues and improve economy.  Further, as is pointed out in the Fitzgerald interview, trying to fix your form doesn't often lead to the improvements that an athlete is seeking.

Shane

You asked for opinions and I gave you one. I've seen many athletes struggle and end up injured when they force changing their running gait in favor of "good form". I experienced this myself when I bought into that line of thinking years ago. Eventually I went to run like usual and all my running pains went away within days.

It is normal to encounter resistance to an opinion that goes against popular belief or what some perceive as gospel, even though said opinion is backed up with evidence beyond anecdotes. The resistance is greater from those who might benefit from keeping the popular belief alive (i.e. selling you something)

In the end do what suits your needs and beliefs. Hopefully you get this resolved sooner than later and this is just a minor setback. Good luck.

When you purposely change your form (either through speed or consciously altering it), you're using muscles in ways you haven't previously. It's gonna cause soreness. Changes like you're describing need some very long adaptations. It's not necessarily bad, it just takes time. How long did it take to go from zero to where you were before you altered your form?

Also, altering footstrike without also altering the footwear can cause issues. Forcing a forefoot strike in a shoe with a high built-up heel (as are most that are built for rearfoot strike) will cause you to over extend your foot to get that forefoot landing. Then, when you go to something more minimal, you're going to have issues with the calf and achilles tendon again because you're using it in a different range of motion (more adaptation).

Changing yoru running form and/or location of footstrike doesn't elimiate forces, it just redistributes them. A forefoot strike will naturally place more forces in the areas you mention that should eventually improve if you continue.

But your combination of foot wear &orthotics may not be allowing you to dissapate the forefoot strike force in the way that you need to. You may need a more flexible shoe with less support.

What do you wear on your feet when you are not running? Do you still wear a shoe with a lot of support and/or an orthotic?

I'll admit that I do not run a lot these days, but when I do, I either run barefoot (in the park on grass), or I run with similar form around the neighborhood...since I started running barefoot, I've got NO pain in my back when I run which is why I made the switch.

I spend as much time as possible around the house in either barefeet, flat sandals or minimal support shoes at work...and i'm on my feet moving for 10 hours at a time at work (I work in a hospital).

I used to get PF all the time. Granted, I'm not running as much, but I havn't had trouble with PF since I started going bare as much as possible.

My point being, if your foot is wrapped up tight all the time, there is little opportunity for foot strenghening to happen. While the running will eventually improve, your discomfort MAY improve faster if you unwrap those guys from their foot coffins a little at a time.

Why did you take the class? How long did the class last? What advice did they give you regarding:

- how long the transition should take
- what footwear they recommended
- what drills/exercises you should be incorporating and how often

Are you still relearning how to run? Most probably. Several hundred miles isn't really a whole lot when it comes to re-learning how to run. Your old running form was developed over all those years you spent walking and running, and it is deeply ingrained into your muscles and brain.

Why are you in custom orthotics? Why did you change shoe models? Did the pain start shortly after changing shoes, or have you been in this model for a rotation or two? Do you wear orthotics all the time, or just for running?

You mentioned high arches?  I too, have very high arched feet.  I use to run in full support shoes and I had many many runners pains.  About 2 years ago, I discovered the "underpronating" vs "overpronating"  blah blah blah, I can never remember which is which, but I was encouraged to look into very neutral, flexible running shoes.  I made the change and while there was some new muscle pains in my feet until they became more conditioned, all the other runner pains disappeared.  I am wearing nike free.50 right now, they are as close to wearing nothing as I'm comfortable with. If you do have such high arches I'd look into a flexible neutral shoe for sure!

I'll add that I was also diagnosed as having high arches, even as a kid I had to wear orthotics in my soccer cleats. I still have technically "high arches" and s tores always try to get me into pronator shoes... (shoes for overpronators), but now I'm much more comfortable with as little support as possible.

Stability shoes (shoes recommended for overpronators) are, more often than not, the wrong shoe for those with high arches. They are counterproductive to supinators.

High arches are often - but not always - accompanied with a supinating gait (underpronating). There is no shoe for supinators. You should stick with a neutral shoe and, depending on how severe the supination is, an orthotic. I mildly supinate but use no orthotics.



Edited by Renee 2010-11-03 1:17 PM

My point was that I no longer have any issues and don't need a special shoe or orthotic either way...the less support the better I feel when I run, as any amount of cushioning interferes with the foot strike & gait that I"ve come to prefer. I started about a year ago going barefoot at home as much as possible, and wearing minimal support shoes at work (on my feet 10 hrs at a time), concurrent with starting to run barefoot. I had already been working on landing more under the center of my gravity prior to that.

Also not certain that I really have to repeat it...but I pronate, I don't supinate. I pronate less than before. And I have high arches. I now have a fairly neutral stance as I've strengthened all the supporting muscles in the foot and ankle, which I feel is due to reducing the amount of support I used to reply upon. My feet have caused me no issues at all in the past few years.

Just as a comparitive thought...I recently wore a thumb brace for 3 months in which I had full use of my wrist & distal PIP joint of my thumb...the brace immobilized my CMC and MCP joints pretty well, but I could basically do everything I needed to with my left hand. After only 3 months I had significant weakening of my entire left hand & forearm, despite the fact that I was still using it, not to mention some loss of motion. It makes me consider how effective shoes are in weakening the foot, especially with basically a lifetime of use. Really, the main function of shoes should just be to protect the sole of the foot from things like hookworms, pine needles, rocks, etc. ...

Just food for thought.

And frostbite for upwards of 5 months of the year here in MN......

What I find curious is that there is a current change of tide or swing of paradigm. What's the popular belief? What's the gospel?

If you're saying that current popular belief & gospel is to work on running form, well then it's only a change that's been made in the recent past. I'd say that overwhelmingly the popular belief is to run more, spend more time in training.

ATM I'm not arguing one way or the other, but find it interesting that changing form is now being considered the popular belief. Could it simply be that this group of people is simply making more noise while still being in the minority?

As far as I can remember people have expressed the idea of running with 'good form' as something we all ought to do, though if you ask the same people how can we accomplish that, they either don't know or tell you different things. McGee suggests one way, Pose another, Chi another, Evolution another. Nevertheless the current evidence suggest some of this approaches might work or just be guesses wild at best and hindering performance at worst. It also shows how even elite runners can exhibit different biomechanical treats from one another and some excel even with seemingly unorthodox styles usualy perceived as "poor form" by experts.

What's great for some, won't be for others and that's the key of the argument; when people try to apply this one-size fits all approach you see athletes struggling with nagging pains or injuries. All because they changed something that most likely didn't need much changing in the 1st place. In cases when injuries are recurrent, training load is the main suspect, next is biomechanical issue and muscle imbalances, but those have to be assessed individually and even so, the fix most often than not can be as simple adding some resistance training, managing load and maybe looking into equipment (shoes), yet the 1st most people suggest forcing a change in the athlete's gait/mechanics.

The idea of "good running form" is what I regard as a popular belief and even treated as gospel by some (many).