"Conclusions: Competitive cross country runners on a college team incur high injury rates, but runners who habitually rearfoot strike have significantly higher rates of repetitive stress injury than those who mostly forefoot strike. This study does not test the causal bases for this general difference. One hypothesis, which requires further research, is that the absence of a marked impact peak in the ground reaction force during a forefoot strike compared to a rearfoot strike may contribute to lower rates of injuries in habitual forefoot strikers."Professor Lieberman is careful with his language, as always. But I'm going to continue fore-foot striking when running, because it's sure been safer in my experience...
Thanks to Sweat Science, who's got more in his post.
Interesting that the overall injury rate is so high. 74% every year? I think one should avoid high-mileage running regardless of footstrike.
ReplyDeleteWell, there are a lot of issues with how runners get trained in the US for high school and college athletics... I don't know that one should extrapolate this injury rate into a blanket avoidance of high-milage running.
ReplyDeleteBut someone like Steve Magness would be a better authority on that topic. I didn't run in high school or college.
I think the high injury rate, both for heel strikers and the forefoot strikers, is simply because these athletes train as such a high level. I think that anytime you are pushing your body to run faster, constantly stressing it to then recover stronger, you teeter on a fine line. Cross over that line too often and you end up with some type of injury. Stay under that line and you may stay injury free, but will you reach your full potential athletically? My guess is that the biggest factor in high rates of injury is likely ones own ego. I've learned that lesson the hard way over the past year.
ReplyDelete