New old study on foot strike

The authors touch on it, but (wisely) draw no conclusions.  I think that would be a very very difficult study to perform, in large part because of the observation that Scout made -- overuse is probably a more significant cause of injury.  In any case, one would then definitely need to distinguish footstrike pattern from footstrike location relative to center of graviy because the latter does have a demonstrable effect on impact forces, which are presumably related somehow to injury.  

There are reasons to think that a heel strike under your c.o.g. followed by the natural rolling action (mostly heel to toe, but there is also some pronation involved) minimizes impact forces (because it spreads the transfer of momentum over a longer time, which, by definition, reduces the forces).  But what the actual differences are between heel, midfoot, and forefoot wrt injury are more complicated than just making that observation, because in those three cases, the forces are directed to different parts of the body (even to the point where, for example, it affects the forces on your hips), and muscle activation is also somewhat different in the three cases.

Don Goss of UNC-CH is currently conducting a study on foot strike/running style related to joint stress.   I don't know when his study will be published but keep an eye out for it.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/07/1624758/tracking-touch-the-ground-running.html

Based on the abstract, I'm getting the impression that they looked only at how the foot struck the ground, not where it did in relation to the runner, correct?  So a heel striker who over-strides out front would count the same as someone who heel-strikes somewhere closer to under the c.o.g.? 

If that's truly how they looked at the categories, then I'm not even a little surprised at the inconclusive findings.

And...though it isn't PC to say it...weight can be a contributing factor.  My boss (as one example sitting in my line of sight at the moment) would certainly not have had meniscus damage if he wasn't persisting in trying to run at 275-290 lbs. (vs the 200 lbs he used to weigh when he was younger and doing marathons).  Sometimes it's wiser to hold down the mileage (or emphasize walking) while one is still seriously overweight.  (Which is just another species of training management, I guess.)

Anyhow, interesting to see that this study was even more emphatic than the older Japanese study in pointing out predominance of heel strike in REALITY as opposed to the lab.  One of the things I appreciated in the Japanese study is that it documented that elites at the half mar distance were every bit as likely to have a heel strike gait (and were almost totally lacking in forefoot strikers as a group).

...And X2 to Scout's comment...I've yet to see anyone come forward with definitive evidence of a causal relationship between footstrike and injury.

Agreed -- there isn't really anything new here.  And that is really the point -- we are at the stage now where, amongst those who study these things somewhat carefully, the conclusion that footstrke pattern is unrelated to performance is ho hum.

The findings weren't particularly inconclusive.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is important, for some purposes, to distinguish between heel-striking under one's c.o.g. versus heel striking out in front of one's c.o.g..  At the same time, as Shane mentions, "heel-striking" is typically defined as "heel hits ground first", and so many people vilify this way of running (regardless of where the strike occurs in relation to c.o.g.) that studies such as this one are useful, for counterbalancing such vilification.

But yes, it would be very interesting to see a similar analysis that subdivided the 'heel-strike' category into those who strike under their c.o.g. and those who do not.  I suspect (as I mentioned above) that this distinction would be even more important for studying the relationship (if any) between footstrike pattern and injury.

I agree, which is why I asked.  So is there still really a 'debate' about foot strike patterns amongst the truly educated set?

I recently completed a Chi Running clinic and the instructor was clear that what part of your foot touched down first wasn't the important part.  How and where your foot landed meant a lot more in terms of speed, comfort and ultimately, injury prevention. 

True, I think that has been a factor for me. I've packed on some mid-forties lbs and now have more problems on less mileage. My weight gain is more on the order of 10-12 lbs, but I think it still makes a different. Hence part of my recovery plan is to make sure I get that weight off.  Tough goal during the holidays!

There's still plenty to learn about the biomechanics of running, but the specific issue of whether footstrike pattern is correlated to performance is, IMO, settled.