Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Barefoot Running Debate

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Jan 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon:

    In understand the concept you outline above.

    I would assume you agree that running in a shoe built with a thinner, firmer midsole with a low heel heiight differential would put different stresses on the structural components of the foot and lower extremity than running in a shoe built with a thicker, more compliant midsole with a higher heel height differential.

    I believe that running on each of these shoes on alternate days on a trail will cause greater variation in the stresses on the strucutural components of the foot and lower extremity than if the runner was to run in the same shoe day after day on the trail. Even though we don't have research evidence to back up this hypothesis, if we can infer from the existing research of how the body adapts to running in shoes with different heel height differentials, different midsole durometers in the forefoot and rearfoot, different rearfoot flares, differerent sole rocker angles, different sole shapes and different masses by altering EMG patterns and leg stiffnesses, we should then be very comfortable in also assuming that changing shoe types on a surface with more surface irregularity, such as a trail, will lead to even more variation in tissue stresses in the foot and lower extremity than always running in the same shoe design on the trail.

    By the way, good luck in Biomechanics Summer School....wish I was there to tell you about all the pigs I was seeing on my morning run!:drinks
     
  2. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I should have been more specific, I have the Asics GT 2140 Trail shoe. The shoe was given to me as a gift. I would have never bought the shoe because it has a dual density midsole. Fortunately I have not experienced any ill effects from wearing them. I agree that they can actually increase the risk of injury. I just have a hard time throwing away a fairly new pair of running shoes. The weight difference between the 2140 and cumulus is 12.7 oz vs 11.7 oz for a mens size 9. I might be a little heavy on the 12.7 but I know it's over 12 and the cumulus is 11.7.


    Tell an addicted runner to rest? yeah, right. Actually I have had success using my Heart rate monitor as a guide. My resting HR is 34 beats/min. When it elevates over 40 bpm, I had better take a day off. In addition to the monitor I really do keep in touch with how my legs feel and their level of fatigue. If my legs and FEET feel tired and achy, I know this is subjective but If I'm not happy with the signals they are sending, I will take the day off.


    I never get blisters either, even when running 100 miles at a time. I was pathetically trying to say what Kevin Kirby most eloquently said about shoe rotation. I just threw the blister thing in and you called on it. I wear dual skin socks too. An interesting thing about them. On a 100 mile trail run you can cross a lot of rivers, creeks, streams. While wearing dual layer socks I kept feeling sand in my shoes. I'd take my shoes and sock off, nothing there, what? Finally I realized the sand permeated through one of the layers in my socks from the rushing water and settled between the layers.



    Simon, I think when I'm wearing VFF, I cognitively can REALLY perceive what is going on with my leg stiffness and foot placement. I agree with your point. I just find it fascinating to have such a feel for the ground that VFF provide. I really don't have that same feedback in my other shoes. For me, it really isn't about the unsubstantiated benefits of wearing these shoes. It is purely about the entertainment value I derive from these shoes. Regarding posture, your comments make complete sense and I understand why my back will grow tired when I'm running long up hill or down hill stretches. In Colorado, it is common to run 8 or 9 miles of continuous change in grade with my posture and back compenstating.

    In his book "The Lore of Running" Timothy Noakes provides tons of research supporting the need to change your training routine in order to optimize the training effect on the human adaption process. Your routine makes complete sense regarding physical fitness but if you have practiced that routine for any length of time, I'm sure you have plateaued. Nothing wrong with that at all, if it is consistent with your goals, it is perfect.

    My goals on the other hand have always been to strive for the next level in running. To me, running has always been about going further and faster. Even after pounding out the miles for 38 yrs, I'm still working on it. Except now it is more about holding on to what I have. I can not prevent the aging process but I'm trying to hang on to my running for dear life. I must change my training every day to optimize the adaption process. I also need to cycle my training seasonally for longer term rest and recovery. In addition to rotating training, although I no longer run ultra marathons, when I was, it was so important to accumulate a HUGE running base. I'm talking about 100 to 150 miles per week for months at a time, you just can't reach that kind of base without running at least 6 days/week. Now I settle for running marathons which still requires 50 to 70 miles per week of training if you plan on enjoying race day.

    I never plan a rest day, instead, I let my heart rate be the guide as well as my perceived leg stiffness. That feedback will tell me when rest is needed.

    Because I'm rotating my training, I want to wear the shoe that I feel I can best accomplish my training goal for the day so that I can take full advantage of the benefit of the training session.

    There really are two purposes to rotating your shoes. One is to match them with the type of training and the second is for the reasons Kevin outlined. I tried to outline but he did a much better job.

    I used to have three pairs of shoes but I made the mistake of putting them together in my closet and they started to multiply! I agree that 3 pairs is enough or maybe 4, a trail shoe, racing shoe and two road shoes with two levels of cushioning. Because the shoe companies keep coming out with all of these new and colorful models, I can't resist and want to try them. I joke to people about having a runner shoe fetish, maybe it is not a joke. Since I put excessive mileage on my shoes, 2000 miles at a minimum, they last a long time and I like new shoes. Until recently, I had 9 pairs with 2 pairs just about ready for the rubbish. With all of the commotion around VFF, I just could not resist trying them. I bought the KSO, had a lot of fun with them so I decided to try the Bikila. That put my shoe count up to 11. I enjoy trying new shoes that are on the market so I don't expect to ever not have a closet full of shoes. Regardless of what the barefooters say, I'm too infatuated with my running shoes to leave them behind.

    Dana
     
  3. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    With reference to ZOOLS. I hope I am grasping the concept. Actually, when I mentioned the "cost of cushioning" it was simplistic understanding of the interplay of impact dissipation with the ground, your running shoe, leg stiffness and if there is any energy left, your body and the fillings in your teeth. Hopefully, when your foot hits the ground, after some energy is absorbed by the ground and by your shoe, that the remainder is absorbed through leg stiffness because your legs are reacting to the force within the Zone of Optimal Leg Stiffness.

    I do have a question, in addition to leg stiffness which I presume is related to the rigidity or fluidity of the hip, knee and ankle joints, what about your feet? How is the rigidity or flexibility of the bone structure of your feet accounted described with relationship to ZOOLS?

    My guess is there isn't evidence to support the claims and the reason I presumed that you wouldn't accept the author of the website's comments.

    Dana
     
  4. Some research has linked pronated feet to decreased leg stiffness and cavus feet to increased leg stiffness. If we are talking segmental stiffness then we need to be aware of the position the joint is functioning in and the direction of the applied load. If it's at end of range either pronated or supinated it will stiff in that direction. i.e. a maximally pronated foot will be stiff in the direction of pronation, but more compliant in the direction of supination (unless it's fused).

    With regard to ZOOLS remember the stiffer the leg, the more metabolically efficient the runner is, so we want to function at the top end of the ZOOLS without going over the upper limit. So since leg stiffness increases with a decrease in surface stiffness, you should be more metabolically efficient pounding the streets in your cumulus than your vibrams. But what you really want is a shoe with a stiffness under the heel of around 75KN/m.
     
  5. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Michael, thank you very much! I am sincerely trying to learn and this forum has been an enormous help so far. I was not aware of the thread on leg stiffness so thanks for pointing it out.

    Dana
     
  6. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I missed this earlier. It made me chuckle to think based on some of our interaction it probably does matter. He we are going back and forth with the conversation degrading with each post. Finally it is reduced to us standing side by side to measure who's is longer and you find that I am female!

    Actually, Kevin is right, I am MALE. So when you start talking about the feelings you don't have towards me, be careful.

    I have never liked having a gender ambiguous name. Especially one where people tend to lean towards the wrong gender. I will say that with the age of the internet, I have had fun with it.

    So I guess if one of our discussions gets reduced to measuring, we can still do that. :drinks
     
  7. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, thank you, this is great....and I get it. I can picture running across a field of 1/2 inch diameter granite rubble in barefeet. ouch, ouch, ouch with every step. My leg stiffness would be at the bottom end trying to take the burden and pain from my feet and moving at a snails pace. If I had on a pair of shoes, almost any shoes, I could increase my leg stiffness and fly across those rocks.

    When I first ran in Vibrams, I told a running friend that I can't think of a situation that I currently run in where I would be faster or be able to run longer in VFF over traditional running shoes. But on the other hand, they do provide running entertainment.

    What will probably be the demise of VFF in the long run is that they take effort to put them on. It is a pain in the butt to make sure you get each toe in each toe pocket. Once on, it is neat the way your toes spread and react with the ground, you are quickly reminded that you actually do have toes but you still have to fiddle to put the shoes on. My guess is that eventually people will tire of dealing with the hassle of putting them on and usage will drop just from that reason.

    Dana
     
  8. Dr. Spooner:

    Any references to support your claim for optimum shoe heel stiffness for all runners?:cool::drinks
     
  9. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, since I don't have the equipment or know how to measure heel stiffness and I haven't seen shoe companies publish this data, how do I know whether I'm wearing a shoe with heel stiffness 75KN/m? Is there a shoe currently available that meets this specification? I'm curious about what it actually feels like to run in. Who knows, I may already own a shoe at this spec. I bet I can rule out the VFF models. :D Possibly the Asics Cumulus?

    Dana
     
  10. JB1973

    JB1973 Active Member

    On day 6, I plan on taking to the roads on a 14 mile run. I will be running a road marathon soon and don't want my muscles to forget what it is like to run on pavement. For this run, I will use the Nike Air Max 2009. It has a full air sole that is fully visible. It looks like you are running on an air mattress. If there is a shoe out there that will protect you from the pounding of pavement, it will be these.

    Hiya Dana
    i'm not sure i agree with this. a lot of patients i have had who have bought these shoes for this reason have ended up with an injury, and its the air max that have been the problem. getting them to change to a asics/saucony/whatever shoe that has a firm heel and midsole has had a positive effect.
    the air max can cause too much instability in my opinion. i wish Nike would just concentrate on making decent running shoes instead of gimmicks.

    great discussion
    cheers
    JB
     
  11. Of course, wait till i get home and I'll provide them Kevin. But your point is not so straight forward, your point is regarding extrapolation to all runners- right?
     
  12. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    JB, I would agree with you about instability. For anyone that has any issues with motion control, these would be a really bad shoe choice. I tend to be a midfoot striker but I hate that term. I not only land on my mid foot but on my heel and forefoot as well, a full foot striker? I am not aware of any excessive pronation or supination. I just land on my full foot, roll to my forefoot/toes and push off. The wear pattern on the bottoms of my shoes is fairly even and consistent. I am probably one of the few people who can actually wear these shoes. So they do protect me from a pounding, no they aren't stable but I don't seem to need the stability in a shoe. My bigger concern is with the durability of the shoe. Once you wear through the outer sole, you will go right to the air midsole and get a flat. :eek:

    Dana
     
  13. You're the one that came up the number 75KN/m of when you said to Dana:

    Go do your lectures and knock 'em dead, Big Boy. That's the important stuff.

    I can always wait to next week to hear where you pulled 75KN/m out of.:drinks
     
  14. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, I spent a lot of time thinking about this over the weekend.
    Total Stiffness = Surface Stiffness + Leg Stiffness + Shoe Stiffness. Is this right? I would think that there is a value for Total Stiffness that would optimize metabolical efficiency, right? So for a given surface stiffness and a given shoe stiffness, your legs will adjust to get to the optimal value for total stiffness. We hope that leg stiffness will be at the top of ZOOLS to complete the total stiffness equation.

    Now, for a given surface stiffness, it sounds like there is an optimal shoe stiffness you can select that will help you most efficiently function at ZOOLS which will result in functioning at some magic value for Total Stiffness.

    1) Is the total stiffness value the same for everyone? I think this is what Kevin was hinting at when asking if a shoe stiffness of 75kN/m is right for everyone.

    2) If total stiffness is a constant and for a given surface stiffness which is constant like asphalt pavement, I would think you could find an ideal shoe stiffness, possibly 75kN/m that would help the runner achieve ZOOLS at the point where it is most metabolically efficient. true?

    3) If you change surface stiffness would you also want to change shoe stiffness to help offset this to allow you to more easily maintain leg stiffness in ZOOLS?

    4) Since I train on many different surfaces with many levels of stiffness, is it possible that based on the feedback I am getting and given the equation Total Stiffness = Surface Stiffness + Leg Stiffness + Shoe Stiffness that I am actually selecting shoes that I know will help me achieve metabolical efficiency?

    Just to test this theory, this morning I ran on a very soft, sandy trail in a pair of my softest, mushiest shoes, the Nike Vomero. I would have not selected these shoes for this run other than to prove the point to myself. Not surprising, my run felt like I was running in quicksand. To check metebolical efficiency, my average HR was 5 bpm above what I normally run on that route for the given pace with stiffer shoes, again not surprising. It was 10 bpm higher than when I did that route last week in VFF and yet again not surprising. The VFF are essentially at the opposite end of the range for shoe stiffness. I know their where several other variables that came into play like the level of rest I had prior to the run, etc. and yes, n=1.

    A final thought about selecting shoe stiffness is that it varies greatly with varying ambient temperature. I have found even the softest shoe can feel like you are running on wooden blocks when the temperature is 0 F or about -18 C. Because of this, if you live in an area where the climate shifts dramatically over the course of the year, for a given surface, a pair of shoes that is ideal for the summer, will probably be too stiff in the winter.
     
  15. Basically what we want is to minimise the vertical excursion of the centre of mass. So as the surface stiffness (shoes + terrain) decreases, leg stiffness has to increase, to increase leg stiffness we need to principally decrease knee flexion, and then hip flexion and ankle dorsiflexion. If the surface is too compliant then the metabolic cost may increase, in the same way that if the surface is too stiff the metabolic cost will increase. This links with Nigg's preferred movement pathway model. 75 kN/m is just the mid range of the surface stiffness that Mcmahon found to increase performance and decrease injury risk, so a surface stiffness (shoe + terrain) in this region would appear to be a reasonable starting point. When you are running on concrete it's basically all down to the shoe stiffness as the concrete is so stiff we can probably discount it as it won't be acting as a linear spring. To run on surfaces of varying stiffness, you are never going to be able to engineer one specific stiffness into the shoe. Unless you can use some sort of variable stiffness technology like magnetorheolgical fluids.

    I don't think total stiffness is constant, I think it is task and individual dependent. I think the key probably lies in calculating the natural frequency of oscillation of the leg springs for the activity and matching this with surface stiffness.

    With regard to running shoes, the body appears to make a "decision" regarding the required leg stiffness at the time of striking the ground. So it is the stiffness of the shoe in it's area that strikes the ground that is key. So if we have a rearfoot striker in two different shoes one neutral and one "pronation" control with a dual density midsole ( a block of higher density foam in the midfoot) it is the stiffness of the strike plate that counts not the block. If the individual is midfoot striking then the block may influence leg stiffness more. Just thinking out loud.

    Another problem, which I hope to investigate soon is that the left and right leg stiffness may not be the same, yet shoes come in pairs.
     
  16. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    Simon, THANK YOU. The scary part is I actually understood what you said! You made some really interesting comments. I find it totally amazing how responsive your body is regarding leg stiffness. Your comment about dual density midsoles and a heal striker is really interesting. I have run behind people who obviously have some motion control issues who are wearing motion control shoes and yet they don't seem to work at all!

    Shoes come in pairs, yet if you bought two pairs of shoes with different stiffness properties and wore one stiffness on one foot and another on the other foot, I would probably fall over. Just kidding, but It makes you think about how that would feel. It reminds be of trying to walk with only one shoe on that has a heel.
     
  17. Yet if you matched the stiffness of the two shoes to the individual leg stiffness, you might well improve your performance.
     
  18. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member


    Wat about midsole thickness and the shoe's heel to toe gradient racio, that's hard to match, in different shoes even from the same brand.
     
  19. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    I just chilling out in the hotel after a day at the World Congress of Biomechanics in Singapore .... now biomechanists have no vested interests in barefoot running or not (apparently Podiatrists have vested interests as we make money from treating injuires**) ... it was interesting that the topic of barefoot running came up in number of discussions. Pretty much every single biomechanist I spoke to widely condemned "barefoot runners" in general for the way that the misrepresent and misinterpret and misuse the research!!!! They all condemned the Lieberman et al paper in Nature as being too full of flaws to have any credibility. None of these biomechanists have any vested interest in this topic and they condem the way the science is being used by the 'Church of Barefoot Running' ..... kinda interesting don't ya think?

    **Which is kind of an interesting claim on its own as there appears to be an epidemic of injuires in barefoot runners:
    Vibram FiveFingers Cause Metatarsal Stress Fractures?
    "Top of Foot Pain" from Barefoot Running
     
  20. I was actually thinking about modifying the stiffness of a matching pair of shoes. I guess the somnio shoe already enables this.

    P.S. running on sand, sand is unlikely to act as a linear spring as it will deform under load and not return to it's original shape. So no energy is returned from this surface.
     
  21. Paulo Silva

    Paulo Silva Active Member

    Appart from somnio, you are talking about Non-Newtonian fluids or similar technologies, right?
     
  22. Not necessarily non-newtonians.
     
  23. Dana:

    It is good to see you enjoying and learning more from the discussions now. There is an incredible amount of information here in the archives of Podiatry Arena that would interest you also. If you ever have any questions, please feel free to ask since your question would probably also be one that others would find helpful to have answered for them.:drinks
     
  24. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Yes.
    - Science is one thing, wisdom is another. Science is an edged tool, with which men play like children, and cut their own fingers.
    Sir Arthur Eddington (1882 - 1944).


    Speaking of injuries... the infamous barefoot injury was featured in at least one film... about one of the greatest distance runners of all time - Haile Gebrselassie in the film Endurance...



    Incident starts at 4:50.
    The above film circled around his 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games 10 000m Gold Medal. Ironically (& what a lot of people don't know) he competed in this event with terrible blisters on his feet. I believe at least one doctor advised him not to run. He did... & the rest is history!

    [​IMG]

    Haile's mum was quite the Podiatrist.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  25. I think a better way of putting this is that we want to optimize the vertical excusion of the center of mass (CoM) instead of saying we want to minimize the vertical excustion of the CoM. Obviously, we don't want to see a runner that has no vertical displacement downward of their CoM during the support phase of running since this wouldn't allow for elastic energy storage within the muscles and tendons of the foot and lower extremity. In other words, we don't want too much or too little vertical displacement of the CoM during support phase.

    However, what about the runners that aren't in the 135 - 170 pound range in body weight? I would imagine that 75 kN/m estimate would be much too high for the 105 pound female runner or would be too little for the 225 pound male "Clydesdale" runner who is running to lose some of that excess adipose. Is 75 kN/m the optimum leg stiffness for all shapes, sizes and abilities of runners? I doubt it.

    To further complicate the analysis, we must understand that by modifying the stiffness of the shoe or surface, we may be improving speed of running but not necessarily making the runner more injury-free. Alternately, by modifying the stiffness of the shoe or surface, we may make the runner more injury-free but also decrease their speed of running. I do believe, however, that there may be a shoe stiffness that can be optimized for each surface to optimize both injury-prevention and running speed, but I also believe we haven't fully explored all the ranges of possibly shoe stiffness combinations.

    Certainly the Spira Shoe with spring-in-heel-midsole design seems to give a number of runners a performance edge and this may be why it was ultimately banned from the Boston Marathon. [It is rather comical to note that for all the BS coming out of the barefoot running zealots, they don't seem to have an answer for my observation that only running shoes with compliant springs, and not barefoot running, has been banned from use in races since it gives runners an unfair advantage.]

    In addition, the Kangoo Jump shoe seems to be an even more unusual example of a spring-loaded shoe. Should this shoe also be banned in running competititions?



    The propulsive (active) peak of running can be adjusted on the first step onto a new surface as Simon notes (Ferris DP, Liang K, Farley CT: Runners adjust leg stiffness for their first step on a new running surface. J Biomech, 32:787-794, 1999). However, the impact (passive) peak of running, that occurs within a few milliseconds of contact with the ground in heel striking runners, probably is not able to be adjusted on the first step when transitioning to a different stiffness surface. This is because the central nervous system (CNS) doesn't have adequate time from initial contact to the impact peak for the neural pathway to be transmitted up the afferent pathway to the CNS and then down the efferent pathway to the lower extremity muscles to adjust the impact peak kinematics/kinetics.

    In addition, placing a more stiff midsole medially in the rearfoot and less stiff midsole laterally in the rearfoot (a very common design modification in stability and motion control style running shoes) may complicate the calculation of shoe stiffness since not only does the shoe not have a uniform durometer of midsole material in the rearfoot, but if rearfoot motion is changed by this modification, the kinematics of subtalar joint pronation/knee joint flexion may also be changed.

    I love the theoretical stuff. Unfortunately, even though we can all hypothesize as much as we want, I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg of truly understanding how all of these ideas may be implemented practically for the runner to improve their performance and reduce their injury rate.

    Great discussion, Simon. :drinks
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  26. Ostensibly when we have two different durometers of material in the midsole sitting side by side we have two springs in parallel, so can we use the additive equation for springs in parallel to give the effective net stiffness?

    Kevin, 75 KN/m might not be the answer for everyone, but what do you think of identifying the natural frequency of the the leg "spring" and matching the surface "spring" to this?
     
  27. For a first approximation, this makes good mechanical sense. However, my intuition tells me that it won't be all that simple due to the interindividual variability of foot and lower extremity structure and function within the human population.
     
  28. Is anything simple?:drinks I'm going for foot-typing it's easier.;) In all seriousness, surely the inter-individual variation will be reflected in an individuals leg stiffness and natural frequency of oscillation of their centre of mass. My problem is that if by matching this frequency in the surface stiffness results in the leg stiffness changing, then we start a circular goose-chase.
     
  29. Unless you work in Zones for most, and specific settings for High end athletes with specific information about track, conditions, surface temp etc.

    A famous 400m runner from Australia found that she could run at her fastest a couple of days before her mensturation cycle began. She looked at the dates of big comps and by using the pill adjusted her cycle. Worked for her, too specific for most.
     
  30. Here's a thought, lets say we know a track stiffness and we have a forefoot striking runner, wearing spikes with a pretty rigid spike plate, could we modify the runners step length / frequency to optimise performance on that surface? My money? Yes.

    Why am I not being employed by the British Olympic committee?;):rolleyes: Is it because I couldn't be arsed with going for an interview with Nat, or cause I is a worthless tosser that isn't from that London? I thought so.
     
  31. Leg stiffness is only one of the many factors that will affects a running athlete's peformance and injury rate. If running athletes were inanimate masses with springs attached, then things would be much more simple mechanically..but they are not.

    I'm not convinced that optimizing leg-surface stiffness is the most important consideration in the training of running athletes. However, I would agree that optimizing leg-surface stiffness is an important consideration that every clinician that treats running athletes should consider when they recommend running shoes and running surfaces to their runner-patients.
     
  32. When I was lecturing with Benno Nigg at the University of Calgary 10 years ago, he wanted to bet me that his rigid-plated forefoot Adidas shoe was going to break a new world record in the 100 meter sprint at the 2000 Summer Olympics.....I should have bet him....his shoe didn't win or break a new record.

    Sometimes what we predict in scientific research, just seems so right until the experimental results proves us wrong. But that never stopped me from guessing. ;)
     
  33. But if Mcmahon's results were valid and he did reduce running injury rates by 50%, it isn't to be sniffed at. Can you point to another single variable that has been claimed to reduce running injuries by 50%, Kevin?
     
  34. "I have a dream..." MLK

    I think you know me well enough to know that I'm trying to get the experimental results to follow... all self-funded as ever!!!!;-)
     
  35. I agree we could, be that specific, they are with cycling all the time, with bike weight airo position etc.

    Another thought about working with high-end athletes ( running sports) all the time , what is with them, the closer they are to their goal the more they drive you mental.
     
  36. The better they are at their sport, the more child-like and dependent they become.
     
  37. Not running......reduces running injuries by 100%! Bet you can't beat that one for treatment results.;)
     
  38. boom, boom
     
  39. Dana Roueche

    Dana Roueche Well-Known Member

    If you think about the average Joe runner who might log 30 miles/week at 9 minute pace, that translates into spending 2.7% of his day actually running. For a runner doing 60 miles/week at the same pace, he is only spending 5.4% of his day. It is amazing how many problems people develop from an activity that they hardly spend any time doing!

    Dana
     
  40. Not really surprising when you understand the stress-strain relationship of the structural components of the human body and realize that it isn't necessarily the time spent doing the activity but the magnitude of stress on the tissues that cause the injury. How many time would it take for me to break a tibia with a sledgehammer?.....only 0.00001% of their day.:drinks
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page