heel or ball first?
View Full Version : heel or ball first?
Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I've
improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping.
It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but its
an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future.
The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet) I'm not
overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not to
move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I
didn't have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing
it if at all possible)
So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to hit
heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
Thanks for any tips. Tanya
First of all do get running shoes, a midpriced model should do fine. Then if you can check out your
local high schools, most of them have a track and if you are lucky you can find one that is rubber
coated. I have 3 nearby my home that I know of. Good rubber soles hitting a rubber surface is
preferable to asphalt or cement any day. Good Luck! "Tanya Quinn" <tdquinn@rogers.com> wrote in
message news:64a84a3a.0311071411.34f68083@posting.google.com...
> Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I've
> improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping.
> It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but
> its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future.
>
> The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
> running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet) I'm not
> overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not
> to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I
> didn't have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing
> it if at all possible)
>
> So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
> hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
> hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
>
> So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
> ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
>
> Thanks for any tips. Tanya
In article <64a84a3a.0311071411.34f68083@posting.google.com>, Tanya Quinn wrote:
> The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
> running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet)
Well that's your first problem right there. Get some proper running shoes. Go to a proper running
store, and peruse the google archives for discussion on this topic.
> I'm not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it
> hard not to move that much vertically when I run.
Vertical motion is entirely a function of ground contact time and stride rate. You don't want to
increase ground contact time. As for stride rate, faster stride rate means less vertical motion.
Check your stride rate, and if you take less than 180 strides per minute, you are overstriding and
should try to focus on taking shorter strides.
> So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
> hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
> hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the heel touches lightly,
then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel lifts
off the ground, then you push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the impact
even when your heel touches first.
> So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
> ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases the amount of impact. The
advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an accurate description of what happens) is that some
people are too heavy or not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force them to
adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury. It is better to work on things like
speedwork which lead to improved running economy and technique than it is to try to consciously and
prematurely force change.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Please allow me to offer some opinions (armchair speculation, based solely on my own experience)
>
> > The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
> > running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet)
>
Running shoes might help you go a little further without any change in form.
I know of runners who have ignored form and permanently damaged their knees.
Or, try every other run on grass. If you dribble a ball, soccer style, arround a grassy field for a
while, you develop the support muscles needed to survive on pavement. Accelerate between kicks by
pumping the knees to develop a strong running leg.
If your present shoes have plenty of room, or, you can use thinner socks, adding a flat neoprene
Spenco layer under your insoles can increase cushioning.
>
> > I'm not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it
> > hard not to move that much vertically when I run.
Think horizontal.
Since you are taller, your optimum stride rate may be less than 180/min. I can demonstrate smooth
nonbouncy quiet running at almost any reasonable stride rate, with any type of foot plant and in
"any" type of shoe. I bet if you tried some drills to run quietly, you could find a way to reduce
the bounce. In order to do this you have to involve your quadriceps muscles more, for starters.
Running with too little knee flex, as if on sticks, could be counterproductive.
Your legs "know" that the surface will not give and may be reluctant to relax. Some drills to try:
short faster running accelerations on grass or sand, running with a lower center of gravity using
more knee bend, hill climbing, bounding, etc. Warming up by cycling, doing one-legged short-arc
squats, lunges, or step-downs on a staircase, may help recruit the quads. Running uphill can help,
as long as you are careful not to run downhill. Training yourself to run downhill without "bouncing"
is the ultimate test. Even hiking hills could be great training for this.
>
> > So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
> > hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
> > hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
>
> Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the heel touches lightly,
> then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel
> lifts off the ground, then you push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the
> impact even when your heel touches first.
I like this explanation. If you pick up the pace enough, you might find the initial contact point
moving further forward on the foot. If you "reach" forward by overextending your knee in order to
cover more ground, you may overstride. Rather, push off more effectively from behind to move
yourself more horizontally and less vertically. Some runners do train themselves to run at 180
cadence and to use a forefootstrike, in order to improve and protect themselves.
>
> > So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
> > ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
>
> Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases the amount of impact.
> The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an accurate description of what happens) is that
> some people are too heavy or not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to force
> them to adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury.
Makes sense.
It is better to work
> on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and
technique
> than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change.
Perhaps, study a model of how you want to look. For example, record coverage of a Kenyan or
Ethiopian female marathoner. Then convert this visual input and imagine how it would feel. On your
next session, preferrably on a track, treadmill or grass, try exaggerating this form in short
spurts. Doing drills such as short-arc lunges or hill climbing can help your muscles adapt.
Shoes come FIRST, then the running.
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:36:58 -0500, "Bill" <utthitaxpam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Please allow me to offer some opinions (armchair speculation, based solely on my own experience)
>>
>> > The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
>> > running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet)
>>
>Running shoes might help you go a little further without any change in form.
>
>I know of runners who have ignored form and permanently damaged their knees.
>
>Or, try every other run on grass. If you dribble a ball, soccer style, arround a grassy field for a
>while, you develop the support muscles needed to survive on pavement. Accelerate between kicks by
>pumping the knees to develop a strong running leg.
>
>If your present shoes have plenty of room, or, you can use thinner socks, adding a flat neoprene
>Spenco layer under your insoles can increase cushioning.
>>
>> > I'm not overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find
>> > it hard not to move that much vertically when I run.
>
>Think horizontal.
>
>Since you are taller, your optimum stride rate may be less than 180/min. I can demonstrate smooth
>nonbouncy quiet running at almost any reasonable stride rate, with any type of foot plant and in
>"any" type of shoe. I bet if you tried some drills to run quietly, you could find a way to reduce
>the bounce. In order to do this you have to involve your quadriceps muscles more, for starters.
>Running with too little knee flex, as if on sticks, could be counterproductive.
>
>Your legs "know" that the surface will not give and may be reluctant to relax. Some drills to try:
>short faster running accelerations on grass or sand, running with a lower center of gravity using
>more knee bend, hill climbing, bounding, etc. Warming up by cycling, doing one-legged short-arc
>squats, lunges, or step-downs on a staircase, may help recruit the quads. Running uphill can help,
>as long as you are careful not to run downhill. Training yourself to run downhill without
>"bouncing" is the ultimate test. Even hiking hills could be great training for this.
>>
>> > So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
>> > hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
>> > hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
>>
>> Strictly speaking, you do neither. What happens is that the outside of the heel touches lightly,
>> then your foot rolls forward and inward like someone rolling to cushion a fall, then your heel
>> lifts off the ground, then you push off with your toe. The front of your foot absorbs most of the
>> impact even when your heel touches first.
>
>I like this explanation. If you pick up the pace enough, you might find the initial contact point
>moving further forward on the foot. If you "reach" forward by overextending your knee in order to
>cover more ground, you may overstride. Rather, push off more effectively from behind to move
>yourself more horizontally and less vertically. Some runners do train themselves to run at 180
>cadence and to use a forefootstrike, in order to improve and protect themselves.
>>
>> > So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but
>> > the ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first
>> > instead?
>>
>> Do whatever is most comfortable, but try not to overstride. This increases the amount of impact.
>> The advantage of "landing heel first" (not really an accurate description of what happens) is
>> that some people are too heavy or not strong enough to run like an elite miler, and trying to
>> force them to adopt such a running style is likely to produce injury.
>
>Makes sense.
>
>It is better to work
>> on things like speedwork which lead to improved running economy and
>technique
>> than it is to try to consciously and prematurely force change.
>
>Perhaps, study a model of how you want to look. For example, record coverage of a Kenyan or
>Ethiopian female marathoner. Then convert this visual input and imagine how it would feel. On your
>next session, preferrably on a track, treadmill or grass, try exaggerating this form in short
>spurts. Doing drills such as short-arc lunges or hill climbing can help your muscles adapt.
In article <sfgqqvctf3ujutsuvfg60qmnfim23967kc@4ax.com>, ^^^@ wrote:
> Shoes come FIRST, then the running.
That would explain why you haven't gotten to the running yet. You're still not done worshiping your
pair of 2080s.
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Hi there, Thanks for all the pointers! Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I haven't had much chance
to put anything into practice between having a cold and it being cold and rainy. I realize that it
is optimal to start with a decent pair of shoes. I'm having trouble locating some as I have unusual
sized feet. I went to a real running store and after observing my gait the salesperson said I
definitely need motion control shoes. However she was unable to find anything in stock suitable for
me to try on, and suggested I try a New Balance store. New Balance makes shoes that will probably
fit me, I'm just currently playing hunt the shoe to actually try some on, and plan to visit one of
their stores soon. I noticed the running store had signups for beginner running classes, so I'll
likely try that out if I can find some shoes. To get some feedback from someone who can see my run,
and for the regular practice. As the classes start in January I'm a bit unsure though about mucking
up the hard-to-find new shoes in snow though..
I guess I should just run what seems natural at first before worrying too much about optimal form
early on. I don't have a 5K picked out yet, but if I take the class they run one at the end. I'm
hoping to be able to participate in a triathlon or duathlon next summer. I cycle avidly but running
is new for me. I do end up walking quite a bit as well so I don't think I need extra walking
practice first. I probably should go out longer when I try to walk and run, and focus more on time
and running as much as I can rather than trying to be able to run a fixed distance without stopping,
then I guess the distance will follow.
Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas - hoping to try them out and really get into and enjoy
running, something I previously just thought was a torture device.
tdquinn@rogers.com (Tanya Quinn) wrote in message
news:<64a84a3a.0311071411.34f68083@posting.google.com>...
> Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I've
> improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without stopping.
> It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to run 5k) but
> its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future.
>
> The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
> running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet) I'm not
> overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard not
> to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more practice as I
> didn't have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so I avoided doing
> it if at all possible)
>
> So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
> hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
> hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
>
> So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
> ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
>
> Thanks for any tips. Tanya
I tried to change my gait in a 15 minute session, and hurt myself badly. Even 15 minutes was much
too long for a change of style. The once every few steps sounds like a better idea!
Tanya Quinn wrote:
> Hi there, Thanks for all the pointers! Sorry I haven't responded earlier, I haven't had much
> chance to put anything into practice between having a cold and it being cold and rainy. I realize
> that it is optimal to start with a decent pair of shoes. I'm having trouble locating some as I
> have unusual sized feet. I went to a real running store and after observing my gait the
> salesperson said I definitely need motion control shoes. However she was unable to find anything
> in stock suitable for me to try on, and suggested I try a New Balance store. New Balance makes
> shoes that will probably fit me, I'm just currently playing hunt the shoe to actually try some on,
> and plan to visit one of their stores soon. I noticed the running store had signups for beginner
> running classes, so I'll likely try that out if I can find some shoes. To get some feedback from
> someone who can see my run, and for the regular practice. As the classes start in January I'm a
> bit unsure though about mucking up the hard-to-find new shoes in snow though..
>
> I guess I should just run what seems natural at first before worrying too much about optimal form
> early on. I don't have a 5K picked out yet, but if I take the class they run one at the end. I'm
> hoping to be able to participate in a triathlon or duathlon next summer. I cycle avidly but
> running is new for me. I do end up walking quite a bit as well so I don't think I need extra
> walking practice first. I probably should go out longer when I try to walk and run, and focus more
> on time and running as much as I can rather than trying to be able to run a fixed distance without
> stopping, then I guess the distance will follow.
>
> Anyways thanks everyone for the ideas - hoping to try them out and really get into and enjoy
> running, something I previously just thought was a torture device.
>
> tdquinn@rogers.com (Tanya Quinn) wrote in message
> news:<64a84a3a.0311071411.34f68083@posting.google.com>...
> > Hi there, I posted a couple of weeks ago here about getting started from absolute scratch. I've
> > improved a bit so far from being able to run only a few paces to about 400 yards without
> > stopping. It was at quite a slow pace and I know its not very far at all (I want to be able to
> > run 5k) but its an improvement so far anyway so it gives me hope for the future.
> >
> > The problem so far is that I really feel the impact from hitting the ground. (granted I've been
> > running on the sidewalk and in athletic not running shoes, which I don't have yet) I'm not
> > overweight but tall for a woman. I think I put in too much vertical motion but I find it hard
> > not to move that much vertically when I run. I figure this may work itself out with more
> > practice as I didn't have the practice most people did growing up (it really hurt to run then so
> > I avoided doing it if at all possible)
> >
> > So I was doing some reading on techniques on the web, and most of them say that you should be
> > hitting the ground first on the ball of your foot. But the American Council of Exercise says to
> > hit heel first: http://www.acefitness.org/fitfacts/fitfacts_display.cfm?itemid=83
> >
> > So maybe this has been discussed before and its one of those personal preference issues, but the
> > ball arguments seem to make sense. What would be the advantages of landing heel-first instead?
> >
> > Thanks for any tips. Tanya
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
