Running. Balls or heels?

JonJ678

JonJ678

JonJ678

Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Posts
10,369
Location
England
It seems to be a topic of some debate. Running on the balls of my feet makes more sense to me, especially since I overpronate. Less impact on each step, so I guess harder on ligaments but nicer on joints.

However the missus visited a specialist today and was told that running on the balls of her feet for long distance (hour or so) would destroy her legs. She didn't think to ask why, or which parts of her legs. So she is now running thump-thump-thump again.

Is there a consensus on here. or any useful links to discussion of this? Google seems to support me, but she now has the nhs on her side.

Cheers
 
Until a month or so ago I was a pretty nasty heel-striker, but running anything over 3 or 4 miles would lay me out for a day or two with pretty bad knee pains, plus I was thumping so hard that it threw my breathing out of whack!

So I decided to try running on the balls of my feet. Thankfully it only took me a couple of weeks or so to adapt, being fairly fit and having stupidly large calf muscles anyway, and since my calves have got used to it I'm now running 7 miles four times a week. Not only are my knees no longer hurting, but I run so much smoother on the balls of my feet that I'm really starting to enjoy it; running used to feel like a chore, now it feels like freedom, for want of a less cheesy way of putting it.

That said, I expect that running style is quite individual to each different person, and as such I'd say that it's whatever is comfortable for you!
 
manic111 said:
That said, I expect that running style is quite individual to each different person, and as such I'd say that it's whatever is comfortable for you!
Click to expand...

You can condition yourself to run differently, but to do it efficiently takes takes time and you really need somebody to observe you who knows what they are looking for - else can be a reciepe for disaster.

I'm a forefoot striker and believe it's a more efficient style for me.

JonJ - I'd be interested to know if the specialist's comment was aimed at your missus or a generalisation and if it was backed up with any explanation. I'm assuming there was a reason for her visiting a specialist...

There's lots of info out there but I don't really pay much attention to it - lots of contradiction and too many fanatics about various styles. This view doesn't look to bad though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/health_and_fitness/4286146.stm

But back to manic's comment "whatever is comfortable for you".
 
Last edited:
If i sprint its always on my toes/balls of my feet.

I try and treat long distance more relaxed and run what ever feels nicer and has less jolt though my legs or ill get nacked too quick and can flair up my shin splints:p
 
Biomechanically, the most 'efficient' rnnning method is apparently as follows:

Outside heel strike -> rocker on outside edge of the foot '> pronate across the ball of the foot -> off on big toe.

This would give a 'lightning strike' method of travel along the foot (as such). This reduces shock to the knees and soft tissue, and maximises consdervation of energy.

It's how I run for reasonable distances, but then I'm a sprinter so it's a bit of a moot point.
 
There is loads of discussion about this all over the net, and I'm yet to be convinced there is a perfect fits all solution.

For me, I think the important thing is to limit the impact of heel striking over long distance/time, and I think this should be done limiting stride length. Though his seems to promote a more toe striking stride.

If you want to change to toe first, I would advise building it up gradually again, as you really don't want ligament problems. (I'm about 15 months off running with a recurrent achilles problem).
 
I guess I'm a balls/orefoot striker as the tread on my running shoes is heavily warn in one particular area, whereas the heels don't look that bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom