Chaos, I just tried reading that article and it made absolutely no sense to me! How can heel-toe running be the same speed as midfoot running and pose running, if in the next sentence they claim that midfoot running is a greater speed than pose running, for example?! If pose running is less knee-eccentric and more ankle-eccentric, does that imply that if knee injuries could be reduced, conversely ankle injuries could be increased? (I'm not picking holes here, I'm genuinely interested as to what point is being made, and I couldn't get through all the technical stuff).
I find this debate particularly interesting because I am most definitely a heel striker, and a neutral runner. I was diagnosed with arthritis when I was 11; by the age of 15 I had real problems just walking, and they operated on my knees. After that, I spent months in physio being taught how to walk, and then taught how to run, because my knees had twisted so much that after the op I didn't know how to walk/run naturally. So unlike most people, I am not a natural runner at all (in fact, for the past ten years the rheumatologist has told me to avoid running at all, because of the repetitive impact), and was actually taught to heel strike.
Also, I was always told to wear cushioned shoes - I used to have to put cushioned inserts into all my shoes, so obviously I've gone for very cushioned running shoes.
However, given that I was told running was bad for me, and when I first started running 18 months ago it was in absolute desperation because I couldn't walk for 15 mins without support/stopping, but I have had virtually no knee or hip problems since running conistently, I am very willing to contradict the "specialist"'s advice if it makes sense to me to do so. I cannot at present see how flats would be better for me than cushioned shoes...?
