Landing clarification please

i land more or less like the diagram indicates. the outer/little/pinky toe parts of the foot are "looser" and can move up and down (just use both hands with one on each side of your foot and you can move the little side, but the big toe/inside is pretty stiff). so then if that not-stiff part comes down first, is can more easily adjust to the acorn you just stepped on rather than if you crunch it with the much less mobile big toe side (or horrors, the completely uncontrollable heel). i suppose in a lot of sports we say to semi-literally "be on your toes" which, when crouched down in a position ready to move in any direction (the "athletic stance" as they sometimes say), the big toe part will be dug in and used for the primary movement. but for basic running in a more-or-less straight forward situation (or after you have gotten started while playing a game), the outer part is usually a better bet as the initial point of contact with the ground. of course, then the rest of the foot will set down and depending on what you're doing, different points may be pushing harder than others. but, we're talking about the initial contact here, right?

as usual, figure out what works for you. and that can usually be accomplished most quickly by finding a railroad bed or parking lot full of freshly broken bottles or hardwood floor with a bunch of legos to experiment on. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hobbit and DNEchris
Saw this online and am really confused. I'm sure that this is the opposite of what I was told and have read to do.

It makes sense and it is the way I run. It feels natural. The outer edge of your foot gently touches the ground first and then your foot immediately rolls down further and transfers the full body weight over to your big toe.

Stride_Analysis_Front.gif
 
Great question! It would appear that people land on various parts of the forefoot. :D

For example, here's what people who were trained by Lee Saxby say.

http://www.thebarefootrunners.org/threads/barefoot-running-instructors-wanted.2834/page-2#post-36881
Anyways after shortening my stride and landing under my center of gravity but mainly landing first at the place behind and just almost between my first and second MTP and then letting the lateral part of my forefoot land next and then my heel kiss the ground.

http://flintland.blogspot.com/2012/08/interview-tina-dubois-natural-running.html
I learned to run with a faster cadence and land under my centre of gravity (rather than ahead of it) with a medial forefoot landing (between the first and second toe on the ball of the foot).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulahooper
I wanted to get in a run before adding my own experience. So, initially when I start barefoot running I tried the lateral landing. After I read about Lee Saxby, I tried medially. Now, I've finally settled into landing on the entire forefoot pad. Yes, all five mets landing at the same time. (I run on concrete sidewalks.) Why not use the whole pad? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hulahooper
From what I've read, from both the hip barefoot/natural dudes as well as some pro-style trainers like Steve Magness and others I forget, and even commerical shoddie heel-strikers (http://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/pronation-explained?page=single), that's the way the foot was meant to land, supinating to pronating (nice display Paraganek).

The real controversy these days is breathing. I tend to inhale, then exhale, but I've heard some exhale before they inhale.
 
I've yet to see research of non-Westernized barefoot runners who were raised habitually barefoot. That is to say that who knows how people are supposed to run when they weren't raised wearing shoes?!

A fully-functionally, competent, flexible, and strong foot can probably land a variety of ways and still be safe, hence the variety of forefoot landings described. For everyone else, the answer is most likely, it depends.

For example, The Gait Guys point out that not everyone has a healthy forefoot.
http://www.thebarefootrunners.org/threads/forefoot-vs-midfoot-strike.15773/#post-150370

One of the worst things that I ever did was to try to force a lateral forefoot landing when I first started barefoot running, similar to what Paragenak uses. That caused problems that took about a year to fix, but that's just me. It clearly works wonderfully for Paragenak and others.

I use a central forefoot landing because it's most comfortable for me, after years of rehabbing my foot problems. (I can land medial or lateral, if I choose to, but central is most comfortable.)
Lee Saxby, who teaches medial forefoot landing as indicated in an earlier post, has "said it took him five years to fix his own Morton's Foot."
http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2011/09/achilles-ankle-and-lee-saxby.html

Just as weightlifters use varied grips and swimmers have differences in their strokes. Your anatomy will determine what will work best for you. As with any sport, beginners need to start where they are, rather than emulate advanced athletes. Sometimes, it just takes trial and error.

Good luck! :D
 
Just as weightlifters use varied grips
Well, some grips put you in more mechanically advantageous, i.e. 'natural', and therefore safer positions. Powerlifters use extreme stances and grips to reduce the range of motion, but their joints pay for it in later years. If you are going for longterm strength development, and not short-term performance goals, then medium stances and grips that contract the muscle most at medium lengths are the way to go.

A study of anatomy and biomechanics reveals how the body has evolved to move most efficiently. Deforming ourselves through fashion or commercial interest or inactivity doesn't change that. Like you say the trick is figuring out how to rehab back to a more natural function once we've been deformed or are simply out-of-shape, but I don't think the definition of natural/efficient function is really in question. It's true the foot is quite good at adapting to uneven terrain, but on a flat surface, I do believe supinating to pronating is the natural mode of weight transfer across the mets, just as compression and release is the natural function of the arch. I think this can be deduced from physical evidence and tested. On a practical level, athletes with inefficient movements tend to get weeded out at the elite level unless trainers can correct their technique. There really is one way to sprint, or throw a football, that is best, and it's based on our shared anatomy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Efrem
You give more credit to the current state of science than it deserves. Much is still unknown.
We'll have to disagree on that. I don't think, for example, that hip replacement surgery would be possible if a clear picture of biomechanical function wasn't available. I think you are correct in asserting that rehabbing back to 'natural' or normal functioning is still more art than science though. And certainly, learning how to maintain high functionality into the later years of life is a science in its infancy. But as far as I know, there are no major disagreements among introductory anatomy and physiology textbooks. The facts are mostly settled. We've been studying this for thousands of years, and healthy, active children still do all the basic movements quite easily, probably with greater than 90-95% efficiency. Only more advanced, athletic techniques need to be taught to them, as I witness this weekend watching my seven-year-old daughter play basketball.
 
We're talking past one another now. I'm talking about basic movements common to our shared anatomy, like running. You're talking about the details of elite athletic performance in a wide variety of sports. No doubt there are different body types, and small differences in execution. That's one of the reasons pro football is the only sport I watch, because it involves so many different body types, from (relatively) slender and speedy guys, to huge giants. One of the things I've often wondered about is why kickers aren't huge guys. You would think they'd be able to kick it farther.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Efrem and Sid
We're talking past one another now. I'm talking about basic movements common to our shared anatomy, like running.
I would agree, if all of us were in the same age group and had similar body types, athletic backgrounds, and foot characteristics. But, we don't! ;)

OP asked about forefoot landing. I would agree that one should absolutely Not land on the ball of the big toe. Bad, bad, bad!

Now in retrospect, I would say that a medial forefoot landing is Not for beginners! In fact, it's probably only comfortable after one is able to do the following.

http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2011/09/achilles-ankle-and-lee-saxby.html
One other important ability Lee [Saxby] mentioned was being able ... to isolate the Flexor Hallucis Brevis. Lee [Saxby]is able to stretch his big toe far away from his second toe ... Even another barefoot runner we spoke to who has run a few marathons couldn't do that trick.

Along with isolating the FHB is pressing down on the ground with the big toe when running.

From my personal experience, it would seem that essentially, the weight is being borne in the center of the forefoot pad and the pad of the big toe, not under the 4th/5th or the 1st met. Now, it took Lee Saxby 5 years get that type of strength in the big toe, and I'm about 4.5 years into the process. So, definitely not for beginners!

Anyhow, it looks like the OP has completely disappeared from this thread. Let's talk about football!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Efrem
I land much like in paraganeks video... impacting with the outside edge of the forefoot and then rolling flat. I doesn't feel that way to me though, I thought I was landing flat until pictures and such proved otherwise. I don't really consciously feel that I'm landing on the edge and rolling in. I've never tried to adjust the way I land really, though the question remains if my foot form might be whats driving my seemingly chronic (since going barefoot) tight calves. I've always thought it was just since I'm using them more than I ever had before, and that they would strengthen in time, but its into year #4 and they still haven't caught up.
 
I've been finding with tight muscles, specifically ones related to trigger points, that they improve with trigger point self-massage to release them. Then stretching regularly seems to keep the trigger points from reforming. If they start to reform, then more massaging helps.

It seems that with my really stubborn trigger points that they can be really sore for 2-3 weeks, requiring daily massages to completely resolve. However, once they are gone, they seem to be gone forever! :D

I've had enough success with this, that I've cancelled my massage membership.
 
When I first started running barefoot, I would use a handheld massager and massage my legs every night. (Yes, they were that sore!) Sometimes, I'd end up massaging them longer than my run! Even so, the first time I went to the massage therapist, he said, "Your calves are like rocks" (not meant as a compliment).