Lifting Your Feet?

[NickW]

I have a hard time understanding B&A pretty frequently. I didn't take it in any sort of condescending way. B&A has such an intimate knowledge and understanding of (pose) running that frequently he words things in a way that I, a simpleton, do not understand. Understanding is very important to success in anything. If one does not understand how to cook burgers in a fast food joint, one might not be successful. Maybe a little over simplification, but you get my point.

 

[dutchie53]

Nick, as has been noted in other posts that B&A has a lot to offer in advice but a lot is lost in the presentation.

 

[randicoot]

Lift and place still works for me but it's for fine tuning to help with callouses and toe tingles. Lately I've been trying to figure out what that actually means. I thought I was doing fine--all nice and efficient, gliding along--but the cresent shaped callous/blood blister at the inside edge of the ball of my right foot started to develop again. That's a month and a half of slowly getting darker. Also, my forefoot pads seemed not as thick as they had been and I was getting nerve pain--not just tingles--in my left middle toes.

It seemed to me that each foot was rolling off the toes with more of my body weight still on that foot. "Lifting" the feet seems like the feet are flatter when they come off the ground but may just be that there's less weight on the toes. Maybe if you feel weight on your toes that is pushing off. Anyway, that's where I am now--it's only been a few weeks since the changes. The callous/blood blister pain subsided. The nerve toe pain is reduced to tingles but that may be due what I did to get some thickness back in the pads--walking on gravel more.

Slightly off topic--can "pushing off" cause the forefoot pads to thin?

 

[ChasingShadows]

I'm one of the very few people I know of who insists that corrections made above the waist are the place to start, and especially arm swing. Higher cadence acheived through active arm work and passive leg motion - that's what I'm all about. And don't do anything intentional with the feet - leave the poor things alone to do the work they do best.

And there's a statement that, for me, perfectly illustrates the concept of taking just the advice that works for you & where you're at. I tend to carry a lot of tension in my shoulders, having finally got the hang of pulling them down to a relaxed place I'm still having to do it consciously but it does make a noticeable difference to my form - so the corrections above the waist part makes sense to me. Now, arm swinging may work for Willie & others, but if I tried that right now my shoulders would be up by my ears again in two strides!

 

[Barefoot Bone Rod]

"Lifting the foot" can be a good method to prevent people from crashing their foot into the ground when first taking off heavy foot coffins, but I question the usefulness in other applications. Lifting the foot requires activation of the quads, hamstrings, or hip flexors during the recovery phase, but the same motion is accomplished with elastic recoil and inertia. In other words, lifting the foot unnecessarily contracts muscles. The only time this would be needed is technical trails where the foot has to clear an obstacle.

The other problem with lifting the foot is not achieving full hip extension. This would reduce the force generated with each stride, which will slow you down and further reduce efficiency.

The idea of lifting the foot came about as a means of mitigating the problem of a heavy foot strike and to prevent pushing off. While it may still be a good cue to prevent an excessively heavy foot strike, the pushing off problem would be better corrected by not actively contracting the calf muscles immediately before the foot leaves the ground.

Back in the day, I think most of us looked to solutions like "lifting your feet" because the predominant biomechanical information we found dealt with "jogging" gait or was one of the branded methods (Pose, Chi, Evolution, etc.). We could use some stuff from the latter, but we still had to blaze new ground.

Today, we have a wealth of people doing legitimate biomechanical research on what we would call "natural" running gait. That research is suggesting we were right some of the time and wrong some of the time. As a teacher of this stuff, it's important to get it as right as possible based on what we have. In the case of "lifting the foot", it's becoming increasingly clear we were wrong.

LPJ... When you say "lifting the foot unnecessarly contracts muscles", aren't the feet naturally lifted as a byproduct of the same forces that provide propulsion (hip flexors, quads) in the early swing phase of normal gait? What muscles are unnecessarily contracted in that scenario?

As for elastic recoil and intertia, I can see how elastic recoil contributes some energy into the equation, but I dont see how inertia has any direct impact on getting the whole of the foot to leave the ground. Without direct muscle power (provided by the hip flexors/quads), woudn't the foot be left dragging relying on interia alone?

BBR

 

[skedaddle]

Every time i try to follow these types of instruction I end up hurting. Now i just run in a way where I feel comfortable and relaxed.
My form changes massively over the period of a single mile, you have to flow with the environment you run in and not fight against it with a rigid set of rules. At least that's how i see it but I've never been one for rules.

 

[barefootandagile]

I think if I was getting paid to be on this forum I could convince a lot of people that focusing on a lifting of the foot is very valuable.

 

[Last Place Jason]

LPJ... When you say "lifting the foot unnecessarly contracts muscles", aren't the feet naturally lifted as a byproduct of the same forces that provide propulsion (hip flexors, quads) in the early swing phase of normal gait? What muscles are unnecessarily contracted in that scenario?

As for elastic recoil and intertia, I can see how elastic recoil contributes some energy into the equation, but I dont see how inertia has any direct impact on getting the whole of the foot to leave the ground. Without direct muscle power (provided by the hip flexors/quads), woudn't the foot be left dragging relying on interia alone?

BBR

BR- yes, the feet are naturally lifted off the ground, though it's the glutes/hamstrings that provide the propulsion during hip extension. The lower leg acts as a pendulum. Immediately after full hip extension (thigh/knee is at the farthest point backward), the hip swings forward (hip flexion). There's very little muscle activation that causes hip flexion to happen. There seem to be two theories on what causes the thigh/knee to swing forward:

1. The braking action we try to prevent by not overstriding forces the trailing leg forward, or
2. Elastic recoil from tendons pulls the trailing leg forward.

I'd suspect #2 is the more accurate explanation. Either way, during that forward hip flexion, the foot comes off the ground passively and the lower leg acts as a pendulum to swing the lower leg up and forward. You CAN contract muscles to make this happen, but why contract muscles to accomplish something that will occur in a relaxed state? That's where the efficiency issue comes in, and why I'd say Pose method is not maximizing efficiency. (see attached pic)

If a runner is lifting their knees as a means of getting the foot off the ground, that leads to inefficiency for the same reason- it's activating unnecessary muscles. As I mentioned in my original post, that's one of the reasons barefoot runners have such a hard time running fast... unless they stop actively lifting their knees.

BL noted an important distinction between coaching cues and understanding the fundamentals of running gait. It's fine to use learning cues to help people correct serious problems, which "lifting the feet" will do. However, we have to have an understanding of the fundamental principles of running gait to give our students the best opportunity for success.

The "but I don't want to run fast, therefore it doesn't matter how I run" argument may work on an individual basis, but doesn't fly for those that are teaching/coaching. It would be the same as if we ran a culinary school but only gave people enough information to be a fry cook at McDonald's.

As far as the "teach the basics and let people figure it out" theory, that's great... it's what I currently teach. HOWEVER, the more we know about gait and the more we relay that to our students, the more we facilitate that process. Over the last few years, we've come a long way toward understanding the whole "natural" running thing. Do we ignore that progress and always fall back on "figure it out yourself?" Or do we incorporate what we've learned to make the process more effective? As a former teacher, the former approach is absurd.

 

[randicoot]

After running again this morning and paying more attention to what I'm doing, I'd say that I'm lifting my leg fast enough to not trip over my forefoot, that is, fast enough to overcome gravity pulling the forefoot down and the friction of keeping it in place. If your ankle is truly relaxed and you simply move your leg foreward your heel will lift up and push your forefoot into or across the ground or push your leg up. Lifting fast enough means you have to get the other foot in place quickly, which means a cadence of 180+, right?

Skedaddle, I don't know if anyone is calling these rules, just trying to describe what works for us.

 

[barefootandagile]

Jason,

You are not understanding the pose pull yet. As I find time I will try to clarify it for you.

 

[Last Place Jason]

Jeremy- After watching experience Pose runners run (as opposed to self-taught newbies), I suspect there's little difference between what I describe and what Pose teaches... just a difference in terminology. Ken Shafer, another Pose coach, posted this in my last post on lifting the foot:

http://www.posecoachblog.com/2012/09/pose-theory-three-primary-points-of.html

It was a bit of an epiphany as it was the best Pose explanation I've read (no offense ). His explanation seemed to bridge a lot of what I considered "differences" between Pose and mainstream biomechanical explanations of running gait... mostly due to the fact that he didn't site man running on the moon as a rationale for the theory.

 

[BFwillie_g]

I think if I was getting paid to be on this forum I could convince a lot of people that focusing on a lifting of the foot is very valuable.

well, I guess that means you won't be doing a lot of convincing, then

 

[Bare Lee]

Jason, I just want to add, without, hopefully opening up another can of worms, as is my wont, that unnecessarily activating muscles also plays into the cadence debate, as I'm sure you know. Stride rate, or cadence, is largely a function of muscle activation, while stride length is largely a function of force application. If you increase stride rate consciously in order to diminish stride length in overstriders, you use more energy in muscle activation and less in force application. Fine, if it solves the problem of overstriding and its attendant evils. However, if one isn't overstriding, but nonetheless consciously manipulates one's cadence to achieve the mythical 180 stride rate, you may end up with a suboptimal muscle activation to force application ratio. That is, you may be running less efficiently, especially at slower paces where even elite athletes naturally fall below 180 steps per minute, because too much of the work is being done through muscle activation and not enough through force application.

As for the recovery phase, I don't think it is 100% passive, but more like 70%. Maybe it's the hip flexion that accounts for the 30%? As I think Steve Magness points out, even in people with spinal cord injuries who have lost control of their legs, the leg will recoil forward as a passive reflex if you pull it backward and release it. I guess the extra 30% or so helps the leg get back a little faster and helps align it properly for foot strike/landing.

Also, I was wondering what percentage of the people you coach seem to have a fairly natural gait or 'proper form' without any coaching, or are at least able to tweak their form over time largely through proprioception and a little intellectualization without any real need for coaching. In other words, are some of us justified in believing that our 'just run' approach is valid, or are we deluded?

Finally, I would strongly urge anyone interested in these issues, either for fun or to improve your running, to read Steve Magness's blog The Science of Running. It's not that well organized, there are lots of typos, and the posts are annoyingly not dated, but I've found that 80-90 percent of what I wanted to know about running can be found right there. Plus you can read up on the Pose versus science debate in the comments sections.

 

[Last Place Jason]

BL- funny you should bring up cadence: http://barefootrunninguniversity.com/2012/09/26/find-your-spring-the-missing-link-to-teaching-running-gait/



As far as the people I encounter- I would say about 25% can figure it out on their own. Based on the forum participation, most posters here would probably think it's much higher, but most people need some sort of guidance. We forget we're a self-selecting audience and are in no way a representative sample. That's becoming more of an issue the bigger this whole thing gets. If someone can figure it out on their own- great! That's why I teach "go barefoot first" as a first step to learning to be more efficient.

But that 75%? The need some sort of guidance. Teaching the basics (as I do with Bareform) helps about another 50%... all they need is a gentle nudge in the right direction. The remaining need more... and that "more" varies based on learning style. That's where methods like Pose, Chi, Evolution, Ken Bob's methodology... whatever, come into play.

 

[barefootandagile]

Wiilie,

Means I will just have to be content with convincing a few

 

[Bare Lee]

BL- funny you should bring up cadence: http://barefootrunninguniversity.com/2012/09/26/find-your-spring-the-missing-link-to-teaching-running-gait/



As far as the people I encounter- I would say about 25% can figure it out on their own. Based on the forum participation, most posters here would probably think it's much higher, but most people need some sort of guidance. We forget we're a self-selecting audience and are in no way a representative sample. That's becoming more of an issue the bigger this whole thing gets. If someone can figure it out on their own- great! That's why I teach "go barefoot first" as a first step to learning to be more efficient.

But that 75%? The need some sort of guidance. Teaching the basics (as I do with Bareform) helps about another 50%... all they need is a gentle nudge in the right direction. The remaining need more... and that "more" varies based on learning style. That's where methods like Pose, Chi, Evolution, Ken Bob's methodology... whatever, come into play.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll check out your latest post presently (and you really need to hook up an email notification function!).

 

[barefootandagile]

Jason, I just want to add, without, hopefully opening up another can of worms, as is my wont, that unnecessarily activating muscles also plays into the cadence debate, as I'm sure you know. Stride rate, or cadence, is largely a function of muscle activation, while stride length is largely a function of force application. If you increase stride rate consciously in order to diminish stride length in overstriders, you use more energy in muscle activation and less in force application. Fine, if it solves the problem of overstriding and its attendant evils. However, if one isn't overstriding, but nonetheless consciously manipulates one's cadence to achieve the mythical 180 stride rate, you may end up with a suboptimal muscle activation to force application ratio. That is, you may be running less efficiently, especially at slower paces where even elite athletes naturally fall below 180 steps per minute, because too much of the work is being done through muscle activation and not enough through force application.

As for the recovery phase, I don't think it is 100% passive, but more like 70%. Maybe it's the hip flexion that accounts for the 30%? As I think Steve Magness points out, even in people with spinal cord injuries who have lost control of their legs, the leg will recoil forward as a passive reflex if you pull it backward and release it. I guess the extra 30% or so helps the leg get back a little faster and helps align it properly for foot strike/landing.

Also, I was wondering what percentage of the people you coach seem to have a fairly natural gait or 'proper form' without any coaching, or are at least able to tweak their form over time largely through proprioception and a little intellectualization without any real need for coaching. In other words, are some of us justified in believing that our 'just run' approach is valid, or are we deluded?

Finally, I would strongly urge anyone interested in these issues, either for fun or to improve your running, to read Steve Magness's blog The Science of Running. It's not that well organized, there are lots of typos, and the posts are annoyingly not dated, but I've found that 80-90 percent of what I wanted to know about running can be found right there. Plus you can read up on the Pose versus science debate in the comments sections.

Lol...there is no debate between Pose and science. Pose is the science of running

 

[Last Place Jason]

Lol...there is no debate between Pose and science. Pose is the science of running

I read the study that Romanov cited as scientific evidence of Pose. You know, the experiment with two subjects. Convincing stuff.

 

[Bare Lee]

Lol...there is no debate between Pose and science. Pose is the science of running

It would be interesting to apply the Pose theory of gravity on the next trip to the Moon or Mars.

 

[barefootandagile]

Jason,

Indeed, and what was it that it convinced you of ??