Running, is it beneficial or not?

scott-jurek-and-tarahumara1_zpsbbgyhb8h.jpg


Screen-shot-2012-04-11-at-8_51_47-AM_zps9wmxuzhe.png



Also, I would encourage you to read this: http://www.jtsstrength.com/articles/2014/06/04/minimizing-injury-running-considerations-larger-athletes/

Read it. Good read. Obviously I differ with him that POSE isn't just "a way". I'd like to see his data purporting POSE running as equally injury prone. Typically it involves a bunch of heel-strikers, half of whom have just "converted", however poorly, to POSE form and get lower leg injuries. DUUHHHHH!!!!!!! I wonder why?
 
You can find no shortage of slow-motion vids of the top 1% of runners at around mile 20 of the Boston and NY Marathons. You'll see a mix of strides. The correct question to ask is not "Can it be done this way?", but rather what do biomechanics/physics indicate is the best way to avoid injury?

Another question is: If a world class runner runs in a non-POSE fashion, at an elite level, without injury, is he still doing it wrong?

Like most things, there are no hard and fast rules in running style and frequency.
 
Various studies support the pros and cons of each style—so which is correct?
Most of the tenets of good running form are universally agreed upon by coaches, athletes, physiologists, form gurus and shoe designers: an upright postural alignment with a slight forward tilt, a compact arm swing and short strides that result in a cadence of 180 steps per minute or higher.
But the one thing that still seems to be a stickling point is footstrike—how and where your foot hits the ground. Certainly there is a distinct difference between heel-striking, a midfoot-striking gait and running on your forefoot. Various studies support the pros and cons of each style, but the impacts also vary considerably among individual runners. So what’s best for you? Where your foot contacts the ground is much more important than how it contacts the ground, says Bend, Ore., physical therapist Jay Dicharry, one of the country’s leading running gait analysts and running injury experts.
RELATED: Is It Harmful To Heel Strike When Running?
“I look at footstrike as more of an effect than a cause in running form,” Dicharry says. “There’s more to it than just the foot- strike. Just because you heel-strike doesn’t mean you have bad form.”
But, he concedes, runners who are heel-striking are most likely, but not always, overstriding. “By moving the footstrike closer to the body, a lot of runners will land more on their midfoot, but some will still land on their heel, and that’s totally OK,” Dicharry says. “Likewise, there are plenty of overstriding forefoot strikers out there.”

Studies show between 50 and 80 percent of runners are injured every year. Many of those overuse injuries result from a runner applying too much force on a repetitive basis. The way to reduce the chance for injuries is to run with the least possible musculoskeletal stress on your system possible with the least metabolic cost, Dicharry says.
How can you tinker with your mechanics to improve your form? Start by running in lighter shoes with a flatter heel-toe ramp angle (but not necessarily minimalist models) and increasing stride cadence by shortening stride length, Dicharry says. Each of those things will help bring your footstrikes closer to your body, he says.
“The most important thing is that you want your feet to land as close to your body for a given pace as possible,” says Dicharry, the author of “Anatomy for Runners: Unlocking Your Athletic Potential for Health, Speed, and Injury Prevention.”
RELATED: Are you a stomper?
If you force your body into a specific forefoot strike, you might be able to instantly decrease the amount of impact force and biomechanical strain, Dicharry says.
But you also might be forcing yourself to overstride, making yourself work harder and ultimately lessening your running economy, he adds. “Runners who force themselves into landing on their forefoot generally decrease impact strain. But if you lack hip extension and try to force a forefoot contact, you’ll still be overstriding and will end up working much harder to run the same speed.”
Peter Larson, Ph.D, another of the country’s leading running form and injury experts, agrees. The co-author of “Tread Lightly: Form, Footwear and the Quest for Injury-Free Running,” is a proponent of just letting the feet do their own thing.
“The obsession with looking at footstrike and forcing a certain type of footstrike is sort of counterproductive,” says Larson, a biology professor at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., who also teaches courses on anatomy and exercise physiology. “If you start by changing to shoes with a lower heel or running with a shorter stride length, your footstrike will change, even if you still don’t change from being a heel-striker to a midfoot- or forefoot-striker.”

Read more at http://running.competitor.com/2014/...foot-hit-the-ground_63548#mlAzEpyXWUIqOzbe.99

To try and boil all of the ills of running down to footstrike is a self defeating endeavor. There are a number of postural issues that come into play. As this article states, footstrike does not necessarily cause the injury, but rather is an indicator of other potential problems.

If Scott Jurek can run the miles that he does, at the pace that he does, and not spend a significant amount of time being injured, I doubt that he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jason. After reading this I remembered that trying for 175-180 steps per minute has been pretty much the only thing I've ever consciously tried to do related to my form. Also, relaxing my upper body when running keeps my legs moving efficiently. I know it sounds funny, but I do this by making sure I'm not clenching my fists or have tight hands. I barely touch my index and thumb together and keep the rest of my hand open. That keeps my arms loose and in turn, my legs loose.
 
To try and boil all of the ills of running down to footstrike is a self defeating endeavor.....

If Scott Jurek can run the miles that he does, at the pace that he does, and not spend a significant amount of time being injured, I doubt that he's wrong.

If he can't use his preffered footstrike, sans shoes, then yes, he's "wrong". Like I said, he's also young. I have a BIL in his late 50's who's pretty gimpy from decades of chit for running form, to counter your ONE data point with one more.
 
Another question is: If a world class runner runs in a non-POSE fashion, at an elite level, without injury, is he still doing it wrong?

Like most things, there are no hard and fast rules in running style and frequency.

If someone lives in a 100yo house in central FL, built on piers, no tie-downs on the roof system and no wind shutters, does that means its a good idea?
 
If he can't use his preffered footstrike, sans shoes, then yes, he's "wrong

"You're in shoes all of the time, and all of a sudden you're gonna run barefoot?" says champion ultrarunner Scott Jurek. "You need to graduate into it. A training period has to occur."
Jurek uses barefoot running as a part-time training tool. Once or twice a week, he'll add some barefoot running to his usual track workouts, jogging a mile in the infield or a couple of miles on a beach. "I look at it as strengthening as well as technique training," he says. "I'm not trying to run hard when I'm doing it. It's more of a warm-up kind of effort level."


Read more: http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/is-barefoot-running-really-better-20130603?page=2#ixzz3XLitU6J0
Follow us: @mensjournal on Twitter | MensJournal on Facebook

Looks like he does just that. Maybe Pose Running isn't the gospel?
 
After reading this I remembered that trying for 175-180 steps per minute has been pretty much the only thing I've ever consciously tried to do related to my form. Also, relaxing my upper body when running keeps my legs moving efficiently. I know it sounds funny, but I do this by making sure I'm not clenching my fists or have tight hands. I barely touch my index and thumb together and keep the rest of my hand open. That keeps my arms loose and in turn, my legs loose.


You've really hit on the crux of the issue for a lot of folks. It's painful to watch some people run. The 170-180 strides per minute benchmark really changed my running, and entirely for the better. It forced my footstrike to occur in line with my body instead of out in front of it.

I really focus on engaging my core and not letting my pelvis tilt, which is usually accompanied by rounded shoulders and slumping.

Have you done the Elkhorn? I ran the 50k once, tough course.
 
You've really hit on the crux of the issue for a lot of folks. It's painful to watch some people run. The 170-180 strides per minute benchmark really changed my running, and entirely for the better. It forced my footstrike to occur in line with my body instead of out in front of it.

I really focus on engaging my core and not letting my pelvis tilt, which is usually accompanied by rounded shoulders and slumping.

Have you done the Elkhorn? I ran the 50k once, tough course.

I've done the 50k twice. Very tough but awesome course. Would be a good speed scouting trip if I ever drew the 380 tag . I'm toying with the idea of doing the 50m course this summer. Just depends on how training goes.
 
I've been pondering how I can more effectively use my time over the next 5 months, recently I've started running again, within the past 6 weeks, with the goal of running a 10k on the 25th of this month, a day before my 32nd birthday. I don't feel any different though physically. I've worked my way from 2 miles to 7.5 so far, but I'm not seeing the cardiovascular or pulmonary benefits, and despite cleaning up my diet, I'm not seeing a change on the scale either. Is running just not beneficial for some people? Could my time be better spent doing HIIT, rucking and just lifting heavy stuff. Because if it could I'm all for that!

Ron

Hey Ron,

Obviously we have some guys that know more on here than myself about both running and "functional fitness" (most over-used term ever by the way). Anyway you said in the OP that you have been running for the past 6 weeks. Maybe take a week off, recover a little bit, "rest hard" i.e. get a good nights sleep, eat well, hydrate, stay away from alcohol. I know it sounds like stopping running would be a step back but if you just started running for 6 weeks after an extended period of not being very active your body might be having a hard time recovering. Again this is just a thought.

Also, I did 3 months of the BUDs warning order about 7 years ago. As far as running it does not have a HIIT, LSD, or INT day but it is easy enough to follow it also has some body weight type exercises to go a long with it if you choose. Just search "BUDs warning order" its an old navy seal prep workout but you can scale it to your needs Good luck man.
 
Hey Ron,

Anyway you said in the OP that you have been running for the past 6 weeks. Maybe take a week off, recover a little bit, "rest hard" i.e. get a good nights sleep, eat well, hydrate, stay away from alcohol. I know it sounds like stopping running would be a step back but if you just started running for 6 weeks after an extended period of not being very active your body might be having a hard time recovering. Again this is just a thought.

Arbutus - good suggestion. Ron, highly recommend that you change something and see what happens. Are you feeling sluggish and getting slower, or just not seeing results? If you are sluggish - go the rest route. If you are feeling plateaued try adding a couple of hard runs and see if that breaks you free from the rut. My favorite way to add intensity is Fartlek. Try a 30/30. Give yourself a 10 min warm up. Then alternate between :30 seconds of 90% exertion and :30 seconds of active recovery. Do that for 15-20 min. Then give yourself 10 min cool down. 35-40 min run that will kick your butt if you work hard.
 
Like religion, be wary of the cults.

For sure. Avoiding hip and knee injury and developing the musculature and connective tissues below the knee is some Hare Krishna sounding stuff. Particularly the latter. Dunno why someone who plans to carry a heavy pack might be concerned with that.
 
For sure. Avoiding hip and knee injury and developing the musculature and connective tissues below the knee is some Hare Krishna sounding stuff. Particularly the latter. Dunno why someone who plans to carry a heavy pack might be concerned with that.
You're proving my point even more with that response. Look, it's obvious that you're an intelligent person and very well read, however you need to step back and look at all your points from a perspective of application. It sounds like you're just repeating things that you've read/heard without understanding how they each apply to running.

Nowhere in my post did I say "avoid". I said to be wary. Pose, Crossfit, etc., etc., do not have the corner of the market on staying healthy while being fit. Pose running is simply good running form and any decent running coach will teach very similar mechanics (while not as militant about it...) No running coach will teach heel strike as a good thing. Mid-foot/forefoot, shorter strides, short levers, etc., is all Pose or "good running form is. It's all what Jason and others are saying above, just in a different way than you. One point of application for you, if running didn't come naturally to the Tarahumara and runners of eons past, how is it possible that they survived without Pose? Running IS natural, it's just that modern man does so little, he's very poor at it. It doesn't take Pose to fix it. Pose is a way to help, but look at their webpage, all about making money. Hence my cult point.

If there's only a few gurus teaching a method, you have to pay to follow them and their followers react irrationally, it's probably an exercise cult. It probably has some merit, but if it was that simple, everybody would be doing it. Eat right, vary your exercises and have fun. Life is short don't get lost in the details.
 
One point of application for you, if running didn't come naturally to the Tarahumara and runners of eons past, how is it possible that they survived without Pose? Running IS natural, it's just that modern man does so little, he's very poor at it. It doesn't take Pose to fix it. Pose is a way to help, but look at their webpage, all about making money. Hence my cult point.

If there's only a few gurus teaching a method, you have to pay to follow them and their followers react irrationally, it's probably an exercise cult. It probably has some merit, but if it was that simple, everybody would be doing it. Eat right, vary your exercises and have fun. Life is short don't get lost in the details.

The Taras didn't have pillow shoes. You are correct that proper running form is somewhat natural if you have "natural", IE biomechanically correct footgear (or no footgear). You are also correct that caution is advised with barefoot/POSE running form, as I and others have repeatedly stated. Running in pillow shoes creates marked muscle and connective tissue imbalances between the upper and lower leg. POSE form puts tremendous stress on the ankle/achillees/plantar fascia etc. The muscles come around PDQ but connective tissues take 2-3 times longer. It took me a full year to get up to five miles in New Balance crossfit type shoes. Now it is just the way I run. If I go past 5mi I'll get really sore hamstrings/soleus and my primary wear point on my shoes is under the ball of my foot.

Maybe you are correct about all this being a "cult", as Crossfit considers POSE the only correct running form, so they're all cultists as well? I guess that means Dr Kelly Starrett is a "cultist" as well, as he considers POSE the only proper running form.
 
A lot of info on PubMed in regards to footstrike, shoe type etc. There is certainly no consensus that favors one over the other. The scientific community is clearly not in agreement. After following this thread I looked through several of the studies last night.

I do Crossfit every day. I don't consider myself a "Crossfitter," they are absolutely cultists.
 
A lot of info on PubMed in regards to footstrike, shoe type etc. There is certainly no consensus that favors one over the other. The scientific community is clearly not in agreement. After following this thread I looked through several of the studies last night.

I do Crossfit every day. I don't consider myself a "Crossfitter," they are absolutely cultists.

I am with you jmez. I am a POSE style mid-foot striker, but I would never say there is only one true way to run for everyone.

The very idea of saying someone like Scott Jurek is "doing it wrong" is laughable, even if he is a spring chicken at the tender young age of 41.

Find your stride:

http://running.competitor.com/2014/...-it-harmful-to-heel-strike-when-running_95678
 
Back
Top