Run The Way Your're Built
From a >NY Times article< on heel vs forefoot striking:
"“Each runner runs a certain way for a reason, likely because of the way they were physically built. Unless there is some indication that you should change things, such as repeated injury, do not mess with that plan.” - Allison Gruber, post doc fellow @ U Mass, Amherst
Summary - there are some studies which demonstrate that heel striking is more efficient in terms of Oxygen and Carbohydrate usage.
0
Comments
I have no problems with the idea that people may run a specific way for specific reasons, given sufficient physiological adaptations and experience. I have no problem accepting that some people are more efficient or faster as heel strikers than mid/forefoot strikers.
However, I don't take this conclusion as license to simply head out your front door for your first jog, put one leg in front of the other and pronounce it god's divine plan. I can't make as strong of a parallel to the importance to technique/skill as in swimming since bipedal running is obviously far more innate to our species, but there is definitely some level of importance of technique in running that lies somewhere on the spectrum between pure instinct and a entirely learned skill.
So yes, some people may be morn heel strikers. But others may be born mid-foot strikers who aren't living up to their potential. I don't know what I would recommend as the best protocol to return to the former if you don't have success with the latter, but I'd be very hard pressed to not at least evaluate a technique change if you are a beginner heel striker.
BUT... The other 99.9% of the population most likely isn't so lucky. I for one have been trying very hard to correct my form to become a more efficient runner. This has been a long process and I am starting to see some moderate improvements but still have a long way to go. People used to describe my running as "like a herd of elephants" and I "loped" with a long drawn out stride, bent at the waste with hips and arms moving all over the place, slamming loudly into the ground with every footstep. The more I worked hard running, the more inefficient I became and simply got a sore back/knees/shins the more I ran. So I fully ascribe to the swimming analogy that technique is very important. Many different flavors of technique may work for any given body type, but there are also likely bad form habits for any body type as well. If you are a "bad" runner, simply piling on many many miles with your bad form, "might" make you more efficient, but for most of us we will be hurt and out of the game before that day comes.
Too many people run fast with bad form for me to believe focusing on how your foot hits the ground really matters. I use to heel strike terribly, and over the years I'm now squarely on the ball of my foot. Took 0 thought. The only time I did get hurt routinely was when I actively trying to force that. I've seen this a lot of times over.
Sure there are some good habits, but again the faster you become, the more those things will work themselves out. When in doubt, talk to the guys that just run.
So I am in the camp that says most bio-mechanical efficiency changes will happen as a response to running. For me, running fast tends to force me to run with good form, as opposed to running slowly (perhaps because of fatigue). By running fast I mean as fast or faster than TP. 30 years ago when I was a run only athlete, I used to do one session a week of 200s at a bit faster than my 3 km pace which I thought induced efficiency gains.
YMMV
Would it have happened organically? Perhaps - but my experience is that awareness in the moment pays dividends for running as much as for swimming.
While this seems to be more true for swimming, running requires a lot of training, which requires staying free of injuries, and awareness of form in every moment helps. Minor improvements in running form also compound greatly over 13 or 26 miles after a swim and a bike.
That said, the hyper-focus on "minimalist running" and "forefoot running" and trying to run a very specific way can be misleading.
Somewhere here there is a middle path...
It's quite another to generalize your own n=1 experiment to others.
If what you're doing is working for you, then go for it. If it's not, seek out something/someone who can help you get there. There are no general guidelines on what to do. I've completely changed almost everything about my run in the last 15 months. I'm not any faster today. But I can run 2+ hours almost effortlessly and barely need any recovery time, which wasn't even a consideration 2 years ago. Lots of different factors go into what an athlete needs.
For example, I've got a torn labrum in my L hip, along with arthritis and cysts, and I'm not interested in the surgery. Take another athlete who could describe him/herself identically. We could need two very different plans, because of the location and progression of the tear, along with any of the muscular imbalances associated with any compensatory patterns developed as a function of the pain.
So, live and let live. Just don't do something that hurts. If it hurts, do something different.
At times they serve a good "reality check" purpose...such as in this case suggesting that there may be no absolute answers even if there is a general trend answer.
That said, I've become a little disenchanted with them recently. It seems like they have gone the way of the glossy mags, except instead of touting the latest fad, it's just as often debunking the latest fad. That would be great if it were done with harder science, but the level of thought has started to disappoint.
To find your bio-mechanical "sweet spot" practice running bare foot on grass. For most people they'll be striking in an ideal position given their present mechanics (and limitations). Then try to "copy" that with runners on. THe gap between bare foot running on the grass and running with runners is where one can work on. This's the fastest and easiest way to learn about your gait. IMO