Over time, the majority of runners and triathletes who find themselves doing this will, in my experience end up with some sort of lower leg injury. Remaining on your forefoot throughout stance phase, not allowing the heel to ‘kiss the ground’ as the foot loads maximally, increases demand on the calf and achilles complex, as it has to work excessively to resist the natural dorsiflexion expected at the ankle during mid-stance phase of running gait. In particular, for those racing 5-10km and longer, an effective forefoot or midfoot strike can’t sustainably require you to remain ‘on your toes’ throughout stance phase, in the way that we’d expect to see from a sprinter. For us, where efficiency is more important than pure power, an effective running form is one that achieves the best trade-off between efficiency (metabolic) and sustainability (injury resilience). However, that may be appropriate for sprinters, but most of us are endurance athletes and distance runners… not sprinters!ĭistance runners and triathletes should be sure to consider the specific demands of our sport. Sprint spikes are designed with this in mind! As such their heels don’t touch the ground at any point during stance phase. Sprinters need to be able to run with a relatively aggressive forefoot contact pattern, with a super-short contact time, and a great deal of rigidity held in their foot and ankle complex to transfer force. In the video above, I describe the differences between the foot contact of a sprinter and that of a distance athlete.
While this kind of forefoot strike pattern feels wonderfully light and efficient in the short-term, it often this leads to injury as we increase the training load. In the many distance runners and triathletes I meet who have tried to self-coach a change in contact pattern to adopt a forefoot strike, there is one overwhelming mistake I see them making, often resulting in injury to the calf and achilles tendon complex: The tendency to run too far forwards ‘on their toes’, not allowing their heel to touch the ground AT ALL. Research is sketchy at best in terms of which type of foot strike is most efficient, and less likely to result in injury – with the most sensible current outcome being that some runners will be more or less suited to forefoot running depending on many factors. This demonstrates that the design of this shoe was most likely influenced by a desire for cross-training applications versus running long miles.Have you been tempted to try and change your running technique to adopt a forefoot or midfoot striking contact pattern? Making such a fundamental change at foot-level has certainly be en vogue amongst runners and triathletes in recent years, with lots of media rhetoric and pseudo-science fuelling the fire. Unfortunately, the desire for a lightweight trainer seems to have been overshadowed by the desire for thick leather protection around the toe. The addition of leather and the thickness of the upper makes for a shoe that is not very breathable. There is a lot of material making up the upper portion of the Charged Assert 9. Most likely, the midsole cushioning will break down prior to the outsole or upper wearing out.Īssert 9 provide a dense upper, with leather, that is not too breathable The upper materials also demonstrate their ability to endure for many miles. The rubber outsole will undoubtedly provide for a long life for the Assert 9. Daily training shoes have an average weight of 10.6oz/300g. Compared to other entry-level running shoes, such as the Saucony Cohesion 14, the Assert 9 are quite heavy. Size 12 of the Charged Assert 9 comes in at 11.40z/323g.
The Assert 9 is heavier than other entry-level running shoes This prevents the feet from being stable, which allows for some heel-rubbing and movement on each foot-strike. The laces in the Assert 9 are extremely long and there is no additional eyelet at the top for locking down the heel. Your browser does not support the video tag.
0 kommentar(er)
