From rmg3@access1.digex.net Sat Apr 18 16:10:18 EDT 1998

In article <3533B5CD.44EF@gyral.com>, Elek   wrote:
>
>Hope this is not a dumb question... for me it isn't actually.
>
>What's the correct sequence of a runner's foot hitting the ground? 
>Hit the heel then the forefoot... or the contrary?
>
>I haven't run for that long, I think I can adjust my running style
>accordingly, especially if that may keep off major troubles later...

  You've already received a good answer on the mechanics of this.
But some allied perspective:

  One of my running epiphanies was when I was running in high school
and realized that late in the season, I had shifted my thinking/focus/
whatever from hitting the ground to taking off from the ground.  Rather
than thudding along, I started taking off and going forward.  (No
big difference in my times, but I _felt_ a lot better in running.)

  What I tried to keep in mind in restarting running after many years
off was to keep the footfalls light and non-jarring.  One thing I 
do is to try to be sure that my foot is moving at such a pace that
the leg doesn't slow down as/after the foot makes contact with the ground.
The feeling is to be pulling the leg back as the same rate that you're
moving forward.  This is an odd notion (or at least it was for me)
but it seems to work.  It is also important for me to meet the ground
with my foot under my body (squarely under center of mass) and knee
slightly bent.  Slightly ahead and mostly straight is a disaster,
but is what happened when I thought about _trying_ to strike with my
heel first.  (My knees hurt just thinking about it.)

  So my focus is on my foot meeting the ground smoothly and squarely
under me.  Different people achieve these goals in different ways,
including 'heel' first (see other post).  For me it is to land 'midfoot'
and on the outside, but this is a point I saw _after_ getting to 
the point of meeting the ground smoothly.

-- 
Robert Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net http://www.access.digex.net/~rmg3/
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences