Many runners are under the impression that striking on the heel is the way to go. While many runners certainly do heel-strike and running shoes seem to be geared around this concept, it doesn't seem to be the way of the most efficient runners. So why does everyone heelstrike and why is it such a popular notion in the running world today?

An ex-Nike employee told me that back when Nike first introduced the AIR sole into their running shoes (something that Nike wear testers at the time were STRONGLY OPPOSED to), the Air unit was only available in the heel. Nike went around the country teaching people to "take advantage of the cushioning" by landing on their heels. In this way, a new generation of high school runners, coaches, etc. were mislead into thinking that striking on the heel was the correct place to strike. Unfortunately, this myth is still popular today. In all actuality, it was just the most convenient place to "take advantage" of running shoe technology at the time---runners would have been better off without heel striking or shoes with big heels that encouraged it.

So where should my foot strike while running one might ask? The answer is underneath your body, which is usually pretty close to mid-foot for the average person. It may be a slight forefoot strike for some or a very slight heelstrike for others, but it should always be pretty close to midfoot. This reduces impact, saves a lot of wear and tear on the legs and knees, and puts more muscular attention on your stronger leg muscles. In short, you'll be a more efficient, less injured, faster runner.

Here's a great letter written to Runner's World on the subject:

Is there embarrassment all round at Reebok?

What I'm talking about is their super-duper, full-color, fold out, three-page advertisement for shoes designed for heel-strikers that is illustrated by a great picture of an athlete who is blatantly NOT a heel-striker. (September).

Seriously. Why is the running shoe industry obsessed with heel strike? 90% of elite runners are midfoot/forefoot strikers (like the one in the ad)? Wouldn't manufacturers better serve customers by preaching proper biomechanics, gait and form?

Heel striking is braking. It's what you do when you want to slow down. Heel striking is biomechanically inefficient and leads to injury. Especially when shoes are padded so much that they allow runners to (temporarily) get away with heel striking with locked knees.

In the same issue you had what you called "Fall's Best New Shoes". Why did you not include in your review the new Velocy (advertised page 98 in the same issue), a shoe actually designed to encourage runners to run "with gravity" and get off their heels? It is the only genuine breakthrough technology we've seen all year.

Simon Martin,
Boulder, Colorado.
http://recordrun.blogspot.com

Some great points were made in this letter and I hope that the running shoe industry will address the issue a bit better. Watch any race and you'll see that the elites certainly aren't heelstriking---why brake when you can use gravity to your advantage? For now we have some great companies like Vibram (for barefoot running), Velocy (forward momentum tech) and Inov-8 (low profile off road shoes) doing their bit to make running a bit more natural. And yes, of course we carry this great stuff at the store! If you are struggling with running or with an injury, maybe this is your answer...

-Golden Harper