You mean shifting injuries from knees to heel tendons ?

One thing barefoot runners showed me is the static bounce starting point. Your gesture should be similar to that of landing from small repeated vertical jumps. When you find a balance in how the weight is distributed, you start to go forward.

You're assuming a heel striker automatically has knee problems. This isn't a given. Many of them have no problems at all.

Agreed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26126256

http://www.kinetic-revolution.com/dont-believe-the-heel-stri...

Also: Changing gait is very hard: https://runblogger.com/2011/11/just-quick-post-to-announce-t... -- people revert when they get tired unless it is very deeply ingrained as a change.

edit: My conclusion, ignore any running form purists or blow hards. Throw some shoes on. Go run. Conservatively and following the laws of training. If you get hurt you can fix it and it usually doesn't suck (stretching, less running for a while, strength training). If you don't get hurt, you were better off not overthinking it :)

No, take off your shoes, and run around the yard right now. Tell me how you strike your feet.

Obviously if you've heel striked your entire life while running, you'll have to ease yourself into it. That's also not what I was responding to. Saying heel striking is OK, it is not. It's a bad habit formed by over padding sneakers.

This is blatantly unsupported by any evidence. If you want to run in most places people can easily run you have to wear shoes. There is no conclusive or even decent evidence that heel striking or non heel striking causes injuries. Barefoot running causes very different muscle activation patterns. It is much less efficient (biomechanically) requiring you to compensate very differently.

There is one study barefoot purists like to trot out that they think means barefoot/forefoot striking decreases injuries: https://runblogger.com/2012/02/vivobarefoots-barefoot-is-bes... -- the study was also sub-elite or elite collegiate athletes.

Other studies that I think are more relevant to a typical runner show very different results and the study is more credible: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26126256

Find evidence that isn't anecdotes and is widely accepted and I will gladly change my mind. It is still an ongoing debate and the evidence in either direction is only moderate (in the direction of heel striking being fine, especially for folks running recreationally with a rather low load). Given the general lack of evidence it comes down to anecdotes and you can find those everywhere, people are crazy.

https://www.runresearchjunkie.com/barefootminimalism-running... suggests it's not necessarily that simple.

Since competition as a kid, decades ago I stopped using my heels. I just remember how cross country running shoes help you running properly...

it's true that absorbing soles are probably a bad solution to a non problem.

It depends very specifically on what sort of problems you develop. It is theorized that when you do suffer a lower limb injury using orthotics changes your muscle activation pattern (moreso than changing your form), which helps alleviate the issue. The rate of orthotics fixing problems after a specific injury is pretty high so it is more than just mumbo jumbo.

"70% of runners with lower limb injuries improve when they use orthotic devices (James et al. 1978; Bates et al. 1979, McKenzie et al. 1985; Gross et al. 1991)..." Noakes, lore of running. So clearly orthotics and what you put under your feet can have an impact and make things better (or worse, but probably better if someone knowledgeable about biomechanics can see your pronation and gait).

Ironically I used some orthotics as a teen. My feet are half flat, some "podologist" gave me curved soles. Didn't work on me. I don't refute the idea; I probably just needed a more comprehensive solution for a prolongated time to make a difference.