Running Styles

'Can anybody tell me how they run?' asked Hauling My Carcass in a post about running technique but the more interesting question is 'should anybody change the way they run?'. More specifically sould they attempt to change their footstrike?

Do I know how I run?

To answer the first question: yes, or at least I have a fairly good idea. I like to monitor myself when running , checking my balance, sense of muscular movement, ease of movement, breathing etc, etc, and so I think about my footfall moderately frequently. One of the attractions of running is the feeling of physicality and the sense of a working body and to get this I like to pay it some attention to how things are going.

I know for example that I land on outside of my midfoot, roll over to the ball of the foot and then push off. That is what it feels like and also what it looks like on the treadmill when buying new shoes but the best evidence is the wear pattern on old trainers. They can never lie because they show the results of all your miles - the actual physical evidence. The picture above is the sole of one of my current shoes. You can see the main area of wear is (A) , where the rubber on the bottom outside-edge has worn right down to the level of the hard-plastic midfoot bridge. The outside of the front of the heel (B) also shows wear because it gets in the way as my foot comes down at a shallow angle (I do not land on my toes) and area (C) shows wear from pushing-off. The heel at the back looks almost untouched.

I did not choose to run this way, like most people when I started running my only concern was how far I could go and I certainly did not think about how my foot should land. I ran the way that came naturally and I continue in the same style. As I am not particularly injury prone (though not injury free) my attitude is that it works well enough and so there is nothing much to worry about. But if I were to worry I would not start with questions of heel strike versus forefoot strike because I think that is determined by the rest of my form (e.g. I think I land on my midfoot because I take short strides and land under my body). I would start by looking at balance.

I made this point in an earlier post about watching two people in the gym. They both had good form, were fluid in their movements, compact but relaxed they were running easily and well but one landed on the heels the other on the forefoot. Their good style had more to do with being upright (i.e. not bending from the waist), having a relaxed upper body (i.e. their arms moved easily without tension), and not landing too heavily (their leg turnover was quite high).

The thing is that all of these components of good style can be worked on independently, without having to dismantle everything and start again in a very self-conscious way. For example I think shoulders are important for your whole posture and when they are relaxed everything moves more easily. If you feel your shoulders are too tight when you run you can work on them, over time by making them your run-thought, every time you go out and gradually changes can be made. If you feel you bend at the waist, similarly you can work at keeping your hips in a straight line. You can also do strength exercises for the upper body and core to help with these two areas. In this way changes can be made to the running style - incrementally

Should runners change their style?

This brings me to the second question should you change your style? My answer is perhaps but not necessarily. If you are running injury-free and are happy with your progress then there is no reason to change. The idea that there is one perfect style is a snare and delusion. We run the way we do because of all sorts of adaptations our bodies have made over a long period of time and all of us have different relative strength in the different muscle groups. The way we run reflects that. If it is working don't mess with it.

However if there are problems with injury or lack of progress you can look at the general principles of good form and gradually work at things and if necessary switch a few running sessions to build general strength or flexibility.

But what about Pose?

But should you make a wholesale change and do something like Pose running? Of that I am less convinced. Going right back to zero and becoming a beginner once again is a hellishly difficult ask and it might not deliver what is promised. As far as I know the only systematic testing of Pose running was done at the University of Cape Town under the aegis of Tim Noakes. Conclusions from the study can be read here and here (they are part of a series of blog posts about running style (front page here), which are full of good observations). One of the more interesting findings is that Pose running does not reduce forces on the body, instead it transfers them to different parts so that whilst heel strikers typically have more knee injuries, those trained in Pose had more ankle problems.

The problem with Pose is that it promises to reduce injuries and so evidence to the contrary is significant. A common response is to suggest that it is not the technique but the implementation i.e. the poor, injured runner was not up to the task of running properly but this causes more problems than it solves because it means the demands of the style are so high you can never be sure you are doing it properly. That uncertainty must put an almighty dent in the simple pleasure of getting out the door and running.

For many people though Pose obviously works and the sincerity and zeal of its advocates cannot be doubted. For that reason I would not want to dismiss it, I just don't think the advantages are as clear-cut and inevitable as those advocates suggest (otherwise everyone would do it and looking at the runners in the World Athletics Championships this definitely not the case). Like every other intervention related to the human body there is complexity and the outcomes are not necessarily homogenous.

The trick for all runners is to find out what works for them personally. This involves learning from the experience of others, reading, and finding people whose judgement they trust but most importantly trying things out. Running is empirical and theory is only meaningful if it shows results on the road. That is one of the reasons I like it - everything is there to be tested.

As for Pose - it seems a long haul before it is perfected and you could evaluate the benefits. I am not sure I would have the patience