"Proper" Running Form?

I've had the flu for 6 days, and I am happy to report that I am finally on the mend.  Fortunately, I was sick during a week where my work schedule was light and I had a lot of free time.  Unfortunately, I had planned on using that free time to train for my upcoming 10k in Hyannis next weekend.  Next week I am starting two new jobs... and still working the old job.  That means that when I run the 10k, the farthest training run I will have logged is 3.6 miles, and it was over two weeks before the actual race.  While this is not a training mechanism I would recommend to anyone (and one I will not employ in the future), I am nonetheless going to run the race, come hell or high water!!  I may not finish in record time, but I will finish.

In the meantime, I wanted to build on my last blog, where I started to discuss proper running form.  As I mentioned, running shoes have taken a lot of blame for the gait of many of today's athletes.  As Townsend pointed out in the article I linked to, until very recently all athletic shoes were built with cushioned heels that were designed to reduce impact forces during heel striking.  This leads to a "chicken-or-egg" scenario: Did running shoe companies provide cushioned heels because athletes were hurting themselves while heel striking and needed such cushioning?  Or did athletes begin heel striking with the creation of shoes that allowed them to do so?

Before I answer this question, I want to point to another blog post, by RunBlogger's Pete Larson.  Larson is a biologist, and in his post, he brings up a point that anyone who has ever done a science experiment is familiar with: variability.  As a biologist, Larson has come across variability in his research, and his knowledge of the world around us leads him to believe that the same variability he finds in other organisms probably exists in humans.  He is, in fact, correct.  While we often hear that there is one "correct" way of doing something (for instance, how to squat), the truth is that humans have a high amount of variability between them, and even within them.  In the RunBlogger post, there is a video of 4 of the top 5 finishers at the 2010 Boston Marathon.  Even among these elite runners, there is variability in all aspect of their gait.

Back to the heel striking question: were shoes designed because we were heel strikers, or did we become heel strikers because of the way shoes were designed?  A quick personal anecdote gives you my answer.  I have used a wide variety of athletic footwear in my life, at one point wearing orthotics and motion-control shoes, and at others wearing minimalist shoes.  All other factors aside, when I run in minimalist shoes (ones with no cushioning or drop, like the Vibram Five-Fingers), I am physically unable to run with a heel-strike.  Simply put, I'd break my calcaneus (or at least bruise it really badly).

So, most people were probably running with a mid-foot or fore-foot strike prior to the introduction of cushioned athletic shoes.  *But,* and this is important, how do we know that this was the "correct" running form?  Just because it was how people were running before technology allowed them to change does not make it the "right" way - it was the only available way.  There was no other choice!  Could it be possible that, at least for some people, heel striking is actually a more natural running pattern, and these shoes now allow these people to run more comfortably?

Many people point to Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run and the story of the Tarahumara, a people left untouched by modern society.  In short, without any modern amenities whatsoever, a tribe of people run as their only means of transportation, sometimes hundreds of miles a week.  Despite the fact that they live in the woods and have little more than rawhide to cover the soles of their feet, running injuries and "overuse" injuries are nonexistent.  McDougall has made a career out of the idea that going barefoot is the way to freedom - freedom from pain, injury and the cost of useless technology that is, at best, not helping us and at worst, actually causing injuries.

Could there possibly be another explanation for all this?  The Tarahumara run.  That's what they do - that's how they get around.  Seems pretty obvious that they would have adapted well to not getting injured from running when that's how they survive.  But you and me?  We run for fun.  I'm willing to bet that while awake, dear reader, you spend at least 50% of your time seated (and the only reason I'm not guessing higher is that I know some pretty active people).  Do you work on a computer?  Drive a car?  We ALL do.  It's a part of modern life!  And guess what, there are consequences for our bodies that come along with that.  Just like our bodies would adapt if we ran all day, every day, our bodies have adapted to being awfully sedentary.  Though I am not saying this is a good thing, I am saying that along with variability between and within individuals, I can also guarantee the human body's ability to adapt.

So.  We've been running in cushioned shoes for roughly 40 years.  We've been in increasingly sedentary jobs for about the past 30 years.  We've moved from an industrial economy to... whatever it is we are now - certainly, computer-based and consumer-driven, but certainly not factories and brick-and-mortar.  Does anyone personally know a farmer?  Does that farmer hoe his own land, or does he ride a giant tractor?  You get my drift.  Could it be possible that our running form - whatever our personal running form might be - has degraded due to a confluence of factors?  Even McDougall says, "But ultimately, the debate isn't about Bare Soles vs. Shoes.  It's about learning to run gently.  Master that, and you can wear - or not wear - anything you please."

More on running gently in the next post...