forefoot striking?
mellamopaul
Posts: 30
in General Chat
Does anybody have a definitive opinion on the need (or not) to use forefoot striking when running as opposed to heel first strike. I strike very lightly heel first and roll instantly onto forefoot with my feet pretty much underneath my hips as I land. I've read lots of advice that this is perfectly efficient as long as I don't strike too far out in front. But I've read lots of other advice saying that the ONE and ONLY way to run efficiently is to do whatever it takes to change to a mid to forefoot strike even if it hurts to start with. So . . . is it a case of 'each to their own' or should I try to change the way I run?
0
Comments
I am a little confused though, as you say you are heal striking but you aren't reaching out in front which would be very difficult to do as you would need to reach forward to the leg in order to strike with the heal first if you get me?
Its not really forefoot striking as this would put a lot of strain on the calves, you want to be aiming for mid foot striking, which is kind of like landing on the whole foot, this will allow you to strike more under your body.
The reason for the move from heel striking is because this method requires the reach forward with the leg, which provides an initial phase of deceleration as the heal strikes, followed by a phase of acceleration as you push off.
If you have a chance have a look at the principles of the pose method, which is designed to reduce the deceleration phase, so increasing efficiency.
Sorry thats all a bit of a jumble! But remember that changing your running style is going to take a while to pick up, but it will be well worth it in the end!
By the way - surely if you're going to try something new, this is a good time of year to do it.
Going to be interesting to try this next time out, I might find it makes an instant improvement!