Running Form: How to Run Faster and Prevent Injury
Abstract
For many runners, running technique is an afterthought—one they don't think about until an injury or plateau keeps them from achieving their goals. Running Form underscores the importance of proper form and shows you how to elevate your performance to the greatest possible extent with the smallest risk of injury.
Owen Anderson, PhD, is a coach to elite runners from around the globe. In Running Form, he describes the common problem of runners moving on “square wheels” by braking with each step, adopting inefficient stances, or risking injury with excessive ground impact. He pinpoints the components of good form—foot-strike, shin and shank angle, stance time, cadence, body lean, and posture—to help you understand where you can make small changes that offer significant improvements.
Then, using a basic video camera or smartphone, you can analyze your own form and apply specific drills and exercises to correct any deficiencies. Numerous photos incorporate lines and arrows to help you clearly identify the appropriate angles and movements of sound technique. No expensive software or biomechanics degree is required to learn how to run faster and with more efficiency and to significantly reduce your risk of injury.
Get rid of those running patterns that hurt performance and destroy running economy. Running Form gives you the knowledge to perfect your running form so you can train consistently and improve with each stride.
AUDIENCE
A guide for serious runners, coaches, and triathletes. Runners who have experienced chronic injuries due to form flaws will appreciate this book.
... By contrast, over shorter track distances, Hayes and Caplan (2012) found that about three-quarters of middle-distance club runners were MFS or FFS and, similarly, none of the world's best 12 male 10,000 m track runners were RFS (Hanley et al., 2021). The faster running speeds achieved by using MFS or FFS than RFS over shorter distances have encouraged coaches to recommend that athletes change from RFS to MFS through long-term training to try to improve performance, enhance running economy and reduce the risk of injury (Anderson, 2018). However, there is a gap in the literature on longer track distances, which could improve our understanding of the range of footstrike patterns used in distance running. ...
... To optimise performance gains, some coaches have recommended that MFS be adopted with the foot's initial contact position occurring under the runner's centre of mass (CM) (Abshire & Metzler, 2010) and, in some suggestions, in conjunction with a contact position directly beneath the knee (Fee, 2005), although there is no current evidence that these touchdown positions are used in practice by well-trained distance runners. The concept behind these landing positions is to avoid what they term 'overstriding', whereby they claim that the foot purportedly lands too far in front of the body, involves a relatively straight leg at initial contact, and results in too much braking and excess energy use (Anderson, 2018;Bateman & Jones, 2020;Fee, 2005). Confusingly, in the biomechanical literature, the horizontal distance between the hip and foot has indeed been described as 'overstriding' (Lieberman et al., 2015) and, similarly, the shank angle at touchdown has been sometimes known as the overstride angle (Squadrone et al., 2015;Sugimoto et al., 2019), but these different usages of the term are nonetheless objective, repeatable kinematic measurements. ...
... Confusingly, in the biomechanical literature, the horizontal distance between the hip and foot has indeed been described as 'overstriding' (Lieberman et al., 2015) and, similarly, the shank angle at touchdown has been sometimes known as the overstride angle (Squadrone et al., 2015;Sugimoto et al., 2019), but these different usages of the term are nonetheless objective, repeatable kinematic measurements. By contrast, the use of 'overstriding' as a term used in coaching is poorly defined, or not at all, and several coaches' recommendations for where or how to place the foot at touchdown for improving performance or reducing injury risk (Abshire & Metzler, 2010;Anderson, 2018;Bateman & Jones, 2020;Fee, 2005) are not based on empirical evidence. New research on where the foot is positioned relative to the hip and knee across footstrike patterns could help explain whether spatiotemporal and joint kinematic variables differ depending on the foot's landing position, whether athletes alter footstrike pattern over the course of a race, and whether there is an advantage in adopting a particular footstrike pattern on performance. ...
The aim of this study was to examine spatiotemporal and joint kinematic differences between footstrike patterns in 10,000m running. Seventy-two men’s and 42 women’s footstrike patterns were analysed during laps 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 (of 25) using 2D video recordings. Approximately 47% of men were FFS throughout the race, 30% were MFS and 24% RFS; the respective frequencies in women were approximately 30%, 38% and 32%. Overall, 83% of men and 88% of women retained their footstrike pattern throughout the race. Amongst the 53 men and 33 women with symmetrical footstrike patterns, there were no differences in speed, step length or cadence between footstrike groups in either sex. Most lower limb joint angles did not change in these athletes during the event, with few differences between footstrike patterns apart from ankle and foot angles. A greater hip-ankle distance was found in RFS than in FFS (both sexes) and in RFS than in MFS (men only), although these differences were never more than 0.03 m. Coaches should note that habitual footstrike patterns were maintained during this long-distance track race despite changes in running speed and possible fatigue, and there were few performance differences between footstrike patterns.
... Good vs. suboptimal running techniques Exercise scientists and coaches generally consider good running technique in terms of body kinematics that minimise susceptibility to injury and maximise performance (Anderson, 2018;Daniels, 2014;Lieberman, 2021). Few running-related injuries are caused by a single, traumatic event but instead by the cumulative effects of forces that act repeatedly on the body, often called repetitive stress injuries. ...
... It is conceivable that this is because forefoot and midfoot striking provide some advantage in terms of running economy, perhaps by promoting greater elastic energy storage in the Achilles tendons and foot arches, although most experiments designed to test this hypothesis have found running economy to be similar between forefoot, midfoot and rearfoot strikers (Cunningham et al., 2010;Gruber et al., 2013;Perl et al., 2012). Nevertheless, given the potential benefits for injury prevention, and at least no apparent cost for running economy, exercise scientists and coaches often consider forefoot or midfoot striking to be a feature of good running technique (Anderson, 2018;Lieberman, 2021). ...
... The position of a runner's foot at ground strike relative to their ipsilateral knee and hip is determined by the degree of flexion in their knee and hip. A commonly accepted characteristic of good running technique is landing on the ground with enough knee and hip flexion to position the foot below the knee and orient the leg (tibia) roughly vertically (Anderson, 2018;Daniels, 2014;Lieberman, 2021). Overstriding, defined as contacting the ground with a foot placed far ahead of the knee and hip, is widely considered suboptimal form and occurs when a runner lands with their knee extended and leg oriented at a protracted angle ( Figure 2). ...
Research among non-industrial societies suggests that body kinematics adopted during running vary between groups according to the cultural importance of running. Among groups in which running is common and an important part of cultural identity, runners tend to adopt what exercise scientists and coaches consider to be good technique for avoiding injury and maximizing performance. In contrast, among groups in which running is not particularly culturally important, people tend to adopt suboptimal technique. This paper begins by describing key elements of good running technique, including landing with a forefoot or midfoot strike pattern and leg oriented roughly vertically. Next, we review evidence from non-industrial societies that cultural attitudes about running associate with variation in running techniques. Then, we present new data from Tsimane forager-horticulturalists in Bolivia. Our findings suggest that running is neither a common activity among the Tsimane nor is it considered an important part of cultural identity. We also demonstrate that when Tsimane do run, they tend to use suboptimal technique, specifically landing with a rearfoot strike pattern and leg protracted ahead of the knee (called overstriding). Finally, we discuss processes by which culture might influence variation in running techniques among non-industrial societies, including self-optimization and social learning.
... These greater lower limb angles in turn lead to less overstriding in NRFS (i.e., the ankle lands more directly under the knee), with potential benefits including more limb compliance at the ankle and knee (Lieberman, 2014). Such differences in technique have been inferred by coaches to mean that NRFS could provide benefits such as improved performance and reduced injury risk (Abshire and Metzler, 2010;Anderson, 2018), but Williams (2007) reported that a female marathon runner with a forefoot strike experienced injury because the increased knee flexion that compensated for subtalar pronation during stance increased the stress on the Achilles tendon and foot arches. Notably, many previous experimental studies on kinematic differences between RFS and NRFS were conducted for short durations only using treadmills (Goss and Gross, 2013), analyzed men only (Shih et al., 2013), included a barefoot condition that is not normal in competition (Perl et al., 2012) or instructed habitual RFS runners to adopt a nonhabitual NRFS pattern (Ardigò et al., 1995). ...
World-class marathon runners make initial contact with the rearfoot, midfoot or forefoot. This novel study analyzed kinematic similarities and differences between rearfoot and non-rearfoot strikers within the men's and women's 2017 IAAF World Championship marathons across the last two laps. Twenty-eight men and 28 women, equally divided by footstrike pattern, were recorded at 29.5 and 40 km (laps 3 and 4, respectively) using two high-definition cameras (50 Hz). The videos were digitized to derive spatiotemporal and joint kinematic data, with additional footage (120 Hz) used to identify footstrike patterns. There was no difference in running speed, step length or cadence between rearfoot and non-rearfoot strikers during either lap in both races, and these three key variables decreased in athletes of either footstrike pattern to a similar extent between laps. Men slowed more than women between laps, and overall had greater reductions in step length and cadence. Rearfoot strikers landed with their foot farther in front of the center of mass (by 0.02–0.04 m), with non-rearfoot strikers relying more on flight distance for overall step length. Male rearfoot strikers had more extended knees, dorsiflexed ankles and hyperextended shoulders at initial contact than non-rearfoot strikers, whereas female rearfoot strikers had more flexed hips and extended knees at initial contact. Very few differences were found at midstance and toe-off. Rearfoot and non-rearfoot striking techniques were therefore mostly indistinguishable except at initial contact, and any differences that did occur were very small. The spatiotemporal variables that differed between footstrike patterns were not associated with faster running speeds and, ultimately, neither footstrike pattern prevented reductions in running speeds. The only joint angle measured at a specific gait event to change with fatigue was midswing knee flexion angle in men. Coaches should thus note that encouraging marathon runners to convert from rearfoot to non-rearfoot striking is unlikely to provide any performance benefits, and that training the fatigue resistance of key lower limb muscle-tendon units to avoid decreases in step length and cadence are more useful in preventing reductions in speed during the later stages of the race.
The purpose of this article is to overview the cardiovascular fitness benefits associated with HIIT and speed training, as well as discuss specific ways coaches and fitness professionals can introduce and promote speed workouts as a viable, and creative, exercise alternative.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.