A study was recently conducted of 1,400 male and female Marine recruits. A static measurement was taken of each recruit’s foot while standing still, and each was determined to overpronate, underpronate, or not pronate. The 1,400 were then randomly divided into two groups, basic stabiliy-shoes-for-all and shoes-for-particular-characteristic.
Dr. Joseph Knapik, an epidemiologist at Aberdeen, led the study of about 1,400 Marine Corps recruits. The recruits — both men and women — all had their foot shape analyzed and were randomly assigned to one of two groups.
One group got a running shoe that was marketed for their type of pronation: runners whose footprints indicated they were overpronators got a motion control shoe, underpronators got a cushion shoe, and those with normal pronation got a stability shoe.
Members of the other group were all assigned stability shoes, regardless of their foot shape and pronation. Then the recruits wore their assigned shoes, alternating with combat boots, for 12 weeks of training.
During the study, Knapik and his colleagues kept track of different kinds of injuries in the recruits, including overuse injuries and injuries to tendons and ligaments as well as bones and muscles.
In every way the study team measured injuries, there was little difference in how often members of the two groups got injured. This was true for both men and women.
You’ll see from the article that questions were raised about the usefulness of identifying shoe-types based on an active measurement. The advice to pick a shoe that is comfortable (and stick with one that works) is worth noting.
Separately, I saw another statement (in a tweet) that forefoot striking is the most efficient way to run. As I’ve written, I think this is hogwash. There was recently another thread on LetsRun on the topic, which made reference to Jack Daniels. There’s a recent video with him from Flotrack in which he mentions this; I can’t embed so click through.
(Edited to add: Flo forwarded an article in the comments by Steve Magness about Salazar altering Ritz’s form a bit. Salazar was known for bad form (including being a heelstriker) but he ran pretty well. Read the whole thing. Salazar, he says, is not afraid to alter form (as Carl Lewis did as a long-jumper) but does not do so willy-nilly. Here are the final three paragraphs:
With all that being said, with Salazar and Ritzenhein, if they’ve researched it and are confident in their ability to make the change, I think it’ll work out well. The biggest problem that people run into with changing mechanics is being led down the wrong path. They make changes without knowing what they are doing, why they are doing it, or even what good mechanics are. This problem will get even worse with the rise of popularity of barefoot running and forefoot striking.
Generally, you’ll see an increase in injuries if you make changes without knowing what you are doing, and I believe this is what has given running form changes a bad name. Too many people with good intentions without knowing what to do and how to change. Remember that you are messing with probably 2 decades of motor programming. It’s easy to mess things up.
Hopefully Salazar and his crew know what they are doing. If so, it’ll be a good change for Ritz. If not, it’ll probably just lead to more injuries.
RunWestchester 
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 23, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Flo
Yeah, that study is an eye-opener. Thanks for the JD link, though as far as what he says about forefoot/rearfoot, he says it hasn’t been tested well enough so we really don’t know. Also that it could even depend on the size of the foot. Not sure that supports your hogwash stance. 🙂
Have you seen this? Ritzenhein is actively changing his landing to get away from heel-striking.
July 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm
joegarland
Karpo (might I be starting something with that?),
Point taken on JD’s we-don’t-know point. I think the many-elite-heelstrike argument suggests that it’s idiosyncratic.
There are some cool slo-mo videos from Boston here (leaders), here (Ryan Hall), and here that show the wide-range of footstrikes and also how what looks like a heelstrike (e.g., Meb) is not such a big deal, i.e., the foot quickly rolls.
Thanks for the Ritz link.
July 23, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Flo
Lol, Karpo…some Marx bros thing? I LOVE those videos!! Thanks for linking them. They really do tell us that there is not ONE way to land, by any means. I’m going to bookmark these! Thanks again.
July 23, 2010 at 8:23 pm
joegarland
It evolved from your “Marty.”
July 24, 2010 at 7:03 am
Flo
Gotcha, Joe. The “o” part confused me. 🙂
Ewen, I had a good conversation on Facebook the other day with my friend Adam (you can see it on my wall) about that article, with that quote “if you know what you are doing” as part of it. It’s a chance we take doing it on our own, but I think worth it. And agreed, starting with footstrike wouldn’t be the way to go. Those slow-mo videos Joe links to prove that heel-striking does indeed go on in the Elite world.
And yes, I thought the Carl Lewis leg switch was a super cool factoid.
July 27, 2010 at 3:28 am
Ewen
Flo, I couldn’t find that conversation. Maybe I don’t know what I’m doing when it comes to Facebook.
July 24, 2010 at 5:01 am
Ewen
It’s interesting that Salazar is changing Ritz’s form in order to try and reverse his recent injury problems. He’s also working on Kara’s form, but I thought that was with a view to improving performance rather than preventing injury.
I like the post from Magness. Interesting about Lewis changing his take-off leg, which is no small change! It’d be like changing the lead leg for a hurdler. I like Steve’s take on this: “The point is that sometimes with top athletes or even with average athletes, we are afraid to change. It’s much easier to take the safe route and not change anything. With top athletes, many times we are afraid to coach them. This is the wrong approach. If you know what you are doing, be confident and make the change.” I think foot-strike is not a good cue to make form changes – i.e. don’t start with foot-strike.
I also think there’s a great variety in the ability of athletes to change motor programming. One sees this at all ages. One doesn’t have to be a young dog to learn new tricks. Some youngsters take forever to learn a new skill, just as some oldsters are quick to learn a new skill. Having said that, first there must be a reason to change motor programming. If an athlete is racing well, improving, not getting injured, maybe there’s no reason to try and perfect imperfect form.
July 26, 2010 at 6:52 am
Heavy Thoughts | Girl In Motion: A Running Blog
[…] Fun Links Coupla things. In a comment to one of his posts, my blogger pal Joe posted links to some cool slow-motion videos of elites at the Boston Marathon so you can see the […]
July 26, 2010 at 9:58 am
MarkU
Joe – Thanks for linking to the super slo-mo video of the 2010 Boston leaders’ strides! Indeed, the full range of heel to mid-foot to forefoot landing are represented, and by itself challenges the notion that forefoot landing is *automatically* the best.
Nevertheless, over recent weeks I’ve begun following the Evolution Running DVD recommendations, and find that my somewhat shorter stride, quicker cadence and forefoot landing is less jarring (than my prior slower cadence heel landing stride), and – judged from my exertion level at a given speed on the treadmill – feel that it’s a bit more efficient.
July 31, 2010 at 11:39 am
Alex
Makes me think of Christopher McDougall’s jest (when interviewed for ‘Born to Run’): “We treat running in the modern world the same way we treat childbirth—it’s going to hurt, and requires special exercises and equipment, and the best you can hope for is to get it over with quickly with minimal damage.”