Heel to toe drop – the truth on the table!

I am not satisfied!

All the discussions and wars: what is the best heel to toe drop in running shoes?

Let me document exactly what impact the drop in running shoes has on you, your running style, your running economy and your risk of injury.

Be critical of sources when trying to learn more. Where are the references?

The conclusion first – what did the 24 studies show?

With the science available today, there is no one drop that is best.

I don’t have the answer to which drop you should “choose” and can only answer from my own experience. I choose shoes that fit comfortably while running.

1. The world’s best marathon runner runs in a pair of running shoes with a 10.4 mm drop
2. The world’s best marathon runner lands on his heel
3. The world’s elite 10 km runners land very differently
4. It takes time to get used to running in minimalist running shoes.
5. A 0 mm drop does not provide better running economy than a 4 mm drop
6. A runner who runs in 350 gram heavy running shoes needs more oxygen during a run compared to a barefoot runner
7. Running economy is better with a 10 mm drop than with 45 mm and 70 mm
8. In subelite runners, oxygen uptake is 5-9% more economical for heel-landers compared to midfoot-landers at speeds of 11 km/h, 13 km/h and 15 km/h
9. Forefoot landing is no more economical than heel landing
10. Heelers have about 6% longer contact time with the ground
11. The running marks lie
12. Increased speed leads to increased cadence and increased stride length (stride length typically increases more than cadence)
13. A 5% increase in cadence typically results in 3-4% shorter contact time with the ground
14. A 5% increased cadence reduces stress on knees and hips
15. Barefoot running, midfoot landing and forefoot landing reduce stress on knees
16. Barefoot running, midfoot landing and forefoot landing increase the load on ankles
17. Heel-landers have a biomechanically harder fall than forefoot-landers
18. The strong impact does not directly mean a greater risk of injury.

Heel to toe drop explained in Jutland

Heel-to-toe drop is equal to the difference between the height of the heel and the height of the forefoot.

If your heel in a pair of running shoes is 30 mm down to the ground and the forefoot is 20 mm down to the ground, we are talking about a 10 mm drop.

I have tried to explain the expression in the figure.

If the heel is higher than the forefoot, it is a positive drop. A pair of stilettos is an example of a shoe with an extremely high heel-to-toe drop.

The heel to toe drop has many names. It is also called the heel drop, toe jump, H-T drop, and others.

How is it measured?

How far your heel or forefoot reaches the ground is determined by how much shoe material is under your feet. The shoe material will typically be: an outsole, a midsole, and a possible pronation wedge.

However, it varies to what extent the different brands, stores and communities include the insole in the measurement of the heights. Typically it is taken out. I think it should be included, since in the vast majority of cases you run with the insole. Very few people take it out.

Here is an example of how Running Warehouse measures it:

This is why you can read different measurements for the drop. It is measured differently. If you are comparing heights and differences, it is recommended to use measurements from the same page and not compare across websites.

Why do running shoes typically have a positive heel drop?

There can be many reasons. Typically the explanation is:

1. Most people land on the heel, which is why you need the most cushioning there, which makes the heel higher.
2. To shorten the time your foot is in contact with the ground – a larger difference will make the roll faster. To what extent this is actually the case, I have not been able to find scientific evidence for. On the contrary. Later in the article I will explain how midfoot and forefoot landings have shorter contact time with the surface.

What is the best drop?

It is my impression that every running enthusiast has an opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, many of the opinions are word of mouth, where the expression “one feather makes five hens” has its full justification. Many of the opinions are based on religion without scientific evidence.

Let me state once and for all what the advantages and disadvantages are for the size of the drop.

Let’s dig into the scientific studies.

What do the elite do?

With all the discussion about zero-drop, optimized running economy, and a reduction in the number of running injuries, it surprises me that the world’s fastest marathon runner is a heel-lander.

I’m even more surprised that he runs in a pair of Adidas Adios Boost running shoes with a 10.4mm drop. In fact, that’s the shoe that the 5 fastest marathon times have been run in.

Watch the video to see how Dennis Kimetto lands on his heel, even with a cadence of 180 steps per minute. However, it is not a hard heel landing.

In addition, I have run research junkie borrowed the image below, which shows how the best runners at the 2012 US Olympic qualifiers land on their feet. These are some of the best runners in the world.

Can you see a pattern?

Heel landing? Midfoot? Forefoot?

No, right?

They all land very differently.

Okay, so the elite aren’t all midfoot or forefoot landers. Food for thought.

This is despite their high pace, which, all else being equal, increases the likelihood of landing further forward on the foot.

How long does it take to get used to running in flat shoes?

A study from Aix-Marseille University in France wanted to shed light on how long it takes a runner to get used to running in minimalist shoes.

The experiment started with runners running on a treadmill in traditional running shoes. They then switched to minimalist shoes with zero drop and a 9mm heel and forefoot. There was no mention of how the runners were to attempt to run (heel, midfoot, or forefoot landing).

The study concluded that it takes about 8 minutes for runners to get used to running in minimalist running shoes.

What will you use it for?

You should use it to be critical of other studies that compare running in traditional shoes with running in minimalist shoes, where the test subjects are given less limited or no adaptation time.

However, I would also criticize the French study for not mentioning anything about which shoe was initially used on the treadmill. Was it a shoe with a 20 mm drop? 10 mm drop? 5 mm drop? Of course, this makes a big difference in how long the runner needs to acclimatize.

Running economy and drop selection

It is claimed that a low drop gives improved running economy. The argument you will often hear is that you will achieve a natural running style that is more optimal.

A study from Fort Lewis College just concluded that there was no difference in running economy for running in running shoes with 0 mm drop and 4 mm drop.

Previous studies has shown that a reduction in the weight of the running shoe of 100 grams improves running economy. In fact, it was shown how 350 gram heavy running shoes increased oxygen uptake in the actual moment (more oxygen was required) by 4.7% compared to running barefoot (source)

Note that weight has nothing to do with heel drop. You can easily find heavy running shoes without a heel drop. You can also find light shoes with no drop difference. The study does not directly report this.

One last study I would like to mention in this context that I compared running economy by comparing running shoes with 10 mm heels, 45 mm heels and 70 mm heels. Not surprisingly, the 10 mm heel performed best.

But think about it now.

Who runs in a 45 mm high heel? Or 70 mm for that matter.

What can be concluded from the studies?

Running economy and landing (heel, midfoot, forefoot)

A now quite well-known study studied the effect of running economy for subelite runners.

The runners were divided according to where they landed on their foot:

• Hellenists
• Midfoot Landers

Maximum oxygen uptake was 5.4%, 9.3% and 5.0% more economical with heel landings than it was with midfoot and forefoot landings.

The percentages are given for the speeds: 11 km/h, 13 km/h and 15 km/h.

The 5% difference at 15 km/h was not significant.

The designer of the study has no explanation as to why.

My best guess is that at higher speeds, all else being equal, heel landings will accelerate landing further forward on the foot. This means that there is no longer much difference between where heel landings land and where midfoot landings land.

The study does not stand alone. An extremely detailed and complete study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology showed how heel landing is a more efficient run.

There are many studies that conclude the same thing. Forefoot landing is not the most economical. A third example can be found here.

The study concluded how heel-landers had a 6% longer contact time with the ground, but their oxygen consumption was less than forefoot-landers.

What do the brands themselves say?

Asics and New Balance on cadence and optimal running style

On the Asics page about their new “natural running” running shoes (Asics 33 series)They write that their low 6mm drop encourages runners to gain ever-increasing momentum.

Seriously?

What is momentum? Is it a form of consistency? Or do they really mean cadence? And is it always good to increase cadence?

New Balance discusses a bit of the same thing in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzeikFR8lJM

They say in the video that cadence is the most important tool to get a good running economy. They say that the cadence should be 180 steps per minute. There is a lot of talk about the optimal cadence, but there is no evidence yet that there should be one optimal cadence(source1, source 2, source 3, source 4, source 5, source 6, source 7).

Now this article is not about cadence, but to summarize, there is evidence for the following regarding cadence:

• As you increase your speed, your cadence and stride length increase. (source)
• A 5% increased cadence results in 3-4% shorter contact time with the surface, which, all else being equal, is positive for reducing the risk of injury. (source)
• A 5% increase in cadence reduces stress on knees and hips (source)

Focusing on an increased cadence is not necessarily a bad idea.

I think the misconception about the perfect cadence stems back to Jack Daniel’s observations of elite runners’ cadence. They ran around 180-200 steps per minute at 5 minutes per kilometer. But is the same cadence best for you, who runs at a speed of around 5 minutes per kilometer?

The figure below shows J. Daniel’s results, which are for elite runners. Furthermore, the sample is very small.

In general, brands express themselves with formulations such as:

• the lower drop will give you a more natural running style = correct, but is this “natural running style” necessarily the best? “Natural” sounds good, but it is also most natural not to use crutches when you break your leg, even though it is best to use them. Get the point?
• the low drop reduces your risk of injury = a statement to which research has very different answers. There is no single answer to this.
• the low drop is better for you and will give you a better running experience = based on what?

Vivobarefoot, Brooks and Vibram FiveFingers on natural running and barefoot running

Another fun example is Vivobarefoot advertising their brand. Vivobarefoot makes zero drop running shoes.

At first glance it sounds very good.

When they launched the campaign, Vivobarefoot were very proud to prove once and for all how barefoot running was the best.

The fun thing about the fine Harvard study that is mentioned was that barefoot running was not looked at at all.

One more time?

Was that a joke Vivo?

It’s all marketing…

…And that’s a lie.

Brooks made a proud post about the launch of their pure project, where they highlighted a number of advantages of this new construction.

It was said, among other things: “We studied every type of runner we could possibly find, both in the lab and on the road”

Can this be documented please?

Additionally, the image below bothers me.

It’s pure marketing.

The marketing material makes the pure project appear like a miracle cure. Just like all other marketing.

Is it serious that this technology provides the most ultimate feeling while running?

Is a more flexible running shoe necessarily good?

I am left with many questions.

You can setheir leaflet about the pure project and the IDEAL technologies.

A third example is Vibram FiveFingers, which recently lost a $3.75 million lawsuit for claiming that their shoes promoted foot health, which they had no scientific evidence for. In fact, there was evidence to the contrary.

There are many other examples of widespread marketing.

My proposed solution for the running marks

• Publish your science on which you base your marketing
• Prioritize science over marketing

How it hurts me to hear runners talk about the best running shoes, and the best drop in running shoes, without knowing the slightest thing about the subject.

Risk of injury and drop

A much-discussed topic is the risk of injury and drop in running shoes.

The drop here refers to the fact that a higher drop promotes heel landing.

Many advocates of barefoot running or running in shoes with a low drop argue that the risk of injury is lower when landing further forward on the foot.

But what does science say?

A study proved how Barefoot running reduces the strain on the knee.

Fantastic.

And good title by the way: “Barefoot Running and Hip Kinematics: Good News for the Knee?”

However, the title could also have been “Barefoot Running and Ankle Kinesics: Bad News for the Ankle?”

The study certainly showed how barefoot running reduces the strain on the knee joint. But the study also showed how Barefoot running increases the strain on the ankle joint.

What is best?

A similar study came to the same conclusions, however, comparing heel-landers and forefoot-landers.

Biomechanics and heel landing versus forefoot landing

In this section I use the term ground reaction forces. It is a measure of how hard you land – how much resistance you are exposed to. It is measured in how many times your body weight you land with.

Heels in running shoes:

Forefoot landing in running shoes

Heels in bare feet

Forefoot landing in bare feet

To best understand the videos and ground reaction forces, we need to understand the biomechanics of running. It can be divided into 2 categories:

• Kinematics (how the body moves)
• Kinetics (the relationship between movements and the forces that cause them)

I should also mention that the videos only use heel landing and forefoot landing. There is of course also midfoot landing, which is a combination of the two.

Let us focus here on the kinetics, which is the most interesting, as kinematics is primarily a description of the movement pattern and does not immediately include any deeper analysis.

The biomechanics of the heel landing

• The foot lands with a bang while the rest of the body continues to collapse over the knee, putting extra pressure on the knee.
• The effective mass is about 6.8% of the total body weight (source)
• The ankle can flex slightly (plantarflex) during landing. This will reduce the impact. However, the rest of the impact is absorbed in the joints.
• The force of the landing is high at the beginning (see the videos).

You land with approximately 2.5x your body weight (although this depends heavily on your running speed).

Many running shoes distribute the impact of landing across your foot. However, this cannot be done completely, as the load occurs very quickly.

The biomechanics of the forefoot landing

• The forefoot lands with a bang (like the heel landing), but the heel continues to fall and acts as a shock absorber
• Only now does the ankle joint flex in the forefoot and midfoot.
• The effective mass is about 1.7% of the total body weight. (source)
• A large part of the heel’s vertical movement is converted into a rotational movement.

An overall comment on biomechanics

There is no doubt that Based on the above, forefoot landing seems more gentle.

However, the total load is more or less the same for heel landing and forefoot landing.

That leads us to the next section.

Do strong impacts upon landing cause more damage?

I currently feel that everyone is against heel landing.

An argument frequently used by forefoot runners and barefoot runners is how heel landing increases the impact transmitted up through the body compared to running on the midfoot and forefoot.

Point taken.

But, is it really that bad now?

Nigg made in 1999 a significant study that explained in great detail how the inverse relationship actually existed. The higher the impact runners experienced at the heel, the lower the risk of injury.

However, the reduced risk of injury may be due to many other benefits of being a heel-lander.

The study is supported by a more recent study from 2010, who only studied the impacts of running.

There was no correlation between “ground reaction force” and the risk of injury. Ground reaction force is the force with which you land. That is, how many times your own body weight you push with.

There is also a study,which points in the opposite direction. However, here the vertical ground reaction force is measured.

Hvad er meta konklusionen?

I don’t know. Do you?

On the one hand, you could say that heel landing is not harmful. On the other hand, logic points against that conclusion.

It is my opinion that there are other factors that cause multicorrelation, which reduces the validity of the study.

Classic misconceptions

• Running shoes with a zero drop are synonymous with neutral running.

It’s one thing to have shoes with no difference between the heel height and the forefoot height. Another thing is the flexibility of the shoe (which should be maximum), the level of the shoe (i.e. how high the shoe’s profile is), the toe kick of the shoe and many other parameters.

• The world’s fastest man lands on his forefoot, which is why it’s best

You can quickly dispel this myth. Try running +20 kilometers per hour and answer where you land on your foot? The faster you move, the more likely you are to land further forward on your foot.

That in itself is not an answer to the question of whether forefoot landing is best.

• Everyone who runs barefoot (the natural running style) will land on the midfoot or forefoot.

Not true. The majority will, but there will still be a large group of runners who land on their heels.

Examples of running shoes with different drops

0 mm drop:

• Most shoes from Vibram FiveFingers, Vivobarefoot, Merrell and others.

3-6 mm drop:

• Saucony Kinvara
• Asics Gel Lyte 33
• Inov8 Trailroc 255

7-9 mm drop:

• Saucony Guide

+10 mm drop

• Most running shoes from Adidas, Asics, Brooks, Mizuno, Nike, New Balance m.fl.

Go to all reviews.

Questions and answers

I have scoured the web and found the most frequently asked questions. If you have any questions, please use the comments box below.

Is the dropped sole basically explained as a design of a shoe so that the heel sits lower, which will lead to more forefoot landing?

Correct. The lower your heel is compared to your forefoot, the more likely you are to land further forward on your foot.

Is zero drop equal to a neutral running style?

No. A neutral running style means that your ankle joint does not tend to fall inward (pronate). You can read about pronation and the other running styles here.

You may be wondering if zero drop equals natural running. A low drop does not equal natural running, but all things being equal, it will promote a more natural running style.

By natural running style, I refer to a running style that is less like the one you have when running barefoot.

Do all natural running shoes have zero drop?

In the theoretical sense, yes. In practice, no.

It is not always optimal for a shoe manufacturer to hit exactly 0 mm heel drop. Anything between +4 mm difference and -1 mm difference can be characterized as natural running shoes.

But it’s a gray area. A 6 mm drop, for example, is more natural running than a 12 mm drop.

What is the normal difference between heel and toe?

The vast majority of today’s running shoes have a heel drop of around 9 mm to 12 mm.

Classic mass training running shoes (normal running shoes) typically fall into that category.

Is there a correlation between the height difference between heel and forefoot and the degree to which a shoe is a natural running shoe?

In its pure form, a natural running shoe has a 0 mm drop, also called zero drop. In practice, however, it can be bent to a degree.

Furthermore, the drop is not the only factor in determining whether a shoe is a natural running shoe. For example, the shoe must also be without a pronation wedge, have a very low profile (i.e. a low sole) and be very flexible.

If you run in a shoe that has a 20 mm high heel and a 20 mm high forefoot = 0 mm difference, then it is a zerodrop running shoe, but in no way a natural running shoe.

A natural running shoe should resemble running barefoot as much as possible.

If a low drop has become so popular, why don’t Asics, Nike, Adidas, etc. make running shoes with the lowest possible drop?

It has become popular, but is still a niche. Very few people are interested in the “new” term.

If you were reading about running shoes 10 years ago, few people would have mentioned the drop. Today, it’s one of the most talked about terms.

I am referring here to the article on this page, where I look at the advantages and disadvantages of the size of the difference in shoe height.

Is there a difference in which drop you should choose based on the distance you run?

Immediately no.

But if you are not used to running in flat shoes, a period of adaptation is required. Start with short distances. Your body needs to adapt to absorbing shock without having soft running shoes to help with this.

Can you run a marathon in zero drop running shoes?

The saying goes. There are several who do that.

Can you have a drop that is too high?

The short answer: Yes

Read the article above. If you still have questions, use the comments box.

What do you call it if the heel is, for example, 40 mm and the forefoot is also 40 mm? Is it also zero drop?

Yes.

However, there are very few shoes that have such a high profile and at the same time have no difference between the heel and forefoot. Often zero drop shoes will be very flat.

Are there any shoes that have a negative difference between the heel height and the forefoot height?

Yes. But that’s the case for very few shoes, and typically the difference is never greater than -1 mm or a maximum of -2 mm.

Does a lower drop result in a reduced risk of injury?

Read the article…

Referencer

1) http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/what-is-the-best-running-form/
2) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10255842.2013.815924?journalCode=gcmb20#.VEEmj_mSxSI
3) http://eprints.fortlewis.edu/162/2/Final_Paper-no_NB_reference.pdf
4) http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/running-economy-and-shoe-heel-height/
5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24002340
6) http://jap.physiology.org/content/early/2013/05/13/japplphysiol.01437.2012
7) http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/foot-strike-pattern-and-ground-contact-time-effect-on-economy-of-running/
8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20581720
9) http://sweatscience.com/stride-rate-running-speed-and-cruise-control-for-runners/
10) http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2011/02/180-isnt-magic-number-stride-rate-and.html
11) http://www.runresearchjunkie.com/is-the-180-cadence-a-myth-or-something-to-aim-for/
12) http://sweatscience.com/the-problem-with-180-strides-per-minute-some-personal-data/
13) http://runblogger.com/2011/09/running-speed-human-variability-and.html
14) http://www.kinetic-revolution.com/running-cadence-recent-research-and-metronomes/
15) http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Pages/default.aspx?PAPNotFound=true
16) http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2011/03/07/the-running-experience-float-or-feel/
17) http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aaev_prd/on/demandware.static/Sites-BrooksRunning-Site/Sites-BrooksRunning-Library/default/v1301836332683/images/pure/dataFiles/Brooks_PureProject_IDEAL-Tech.pdf
18) http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Barefoot_Running_and_Hip_Kinematics___Good_News.97917.aspx
19) http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefoot_Strikers_Exhibit_Lower_Running_Induced.12.aspx
20) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08723.html
21) http://journals.lww.com/co-ortho/Abstract/1997/12000/Impact_forces_in_running.7.aspx
22) http://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S0268-0033%2810%2900225-1/abstract
23) http://www.asbweb.org/conferences/2010/abstracts/472.pdf
24) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_correlation