Health
Running Form
Foot Form and Running Injuries Gretchen Reynolds
NY Times Feb 8, 2012
1000 words
The Harvard Cross Country team has been compiling data for a number of years. They have meticulously kept records of how far each member has run every day and for how long. The Harvard Cross Country team has also kept track of their injuries, no matter how trifling or small they may be. Sixty-nine percent of the cross country runners at Harvard University run with a heel-strike as opposed to a forefoot-strike. Nowadays we are conditioned to run heel first because of our cushioned running shoes, but our prehistoric ancestors were believed to have struck the ground first with the balls of their feet. This is because running with a heel-strike is painful to do while barefoot. For this reason, many modern runners are convinced that running with a forefoot-strike is more "natural" for the human physique and thus less prone to injury. The data collected by Harvard University does not necessarily corroborate these claims, but at the same time it does not refute them either. According to their results, forefoot-strikers are also prone to injury just like heel-strikers. But unfortunately, heel-strikers are up to three times more likely to have a running-related injury than forefoot-strikers. It is not fair to call this collection of data a study due to many varying factors amongst the runners and throughout the years; such as: terrain, types of running shoes, and uncontrollable factors such as height and weight and previous running experience.
Although the evidence shows that forefoot-strikers are less likely to be injured, there has yet to be a scientific study on the matter. Until a controlled experiment on a larger scale is administered, no conclusions may be drawn. We can make hypotheses based upon this data, but hypotheses are only educated guesses. Overall, the results are inconclusive, but the data points us in a direction where forefoot-striking runners dominate the scene.
No comments:
Post a Comment