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. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Live Updates from the International Running Symposium in Calgary

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Craig Payne, Aug 15, 2014.

  1. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    For those not familiar, this is the conference to honour the retirement of Beno Nigg

    First day done and dusted.
    Twitter hash tag for those following: https://twitter.com/hashtag/icrs?f=realtime&src=hash .... Blaise has posted a lot already.

    First up was Walter Herzog giving an outsiders perspective on running research ... he not really directly involved so he giving his views.

    "no change in running injury rates in 40 yrs despite biomechanical research"
    "Biology: running is hard on the body; those with good biology remain injury free"

    "rest is important"

    "some runners do not get injured. we should be studying them"

    "top 100 marathon times all from African runners - 2 outliers; eg Ryan Hall's time was 'wind assisted'"

    "best runners are injury free and naturally mid or forefoot strike"
    .... yeah right!

    He got everyone to stand up and run on the spot "who is heel striking?" --> evidence for forefoot striking being better!

    "Running injuries might have little to do with running mechanics" !!!!!

    The issue of "training vs rest"

    Overall - I always surprised how two people can look at the same body of literature and reach different conclusions.

    Below are some selfies with the man himself, Beno Nigg, Craig Tanner and Blaise Dubois. There are some big names here, including Leiberman etc ... got to hear what everyone has to say. Hopefully some of the Podiatry Arena members here will chip in with commentary.

    Attached Files:

  2. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Here is his abstract:
  3. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    First up today was Ton van Den Bogart on 'The mechanisms of running: lessons from computer simulations'

    Impact forces:
    - affected by running speed
    - not affected by midsole hardness

    Runners adapt their neuromuscular control to regulate impact forces

    Impact forces is very sensitive to posture and velocity at impact.

    Small kinematic modifications to compensate for different footwear.

    More sophisticated model --> shows ore variability between subjects

    Muscle forces often decrease during impact --> reduces compressive load in joints --> subject variability

    Impact forces not affected by shoe hardness -- explanation is in the kinematics: knee flexion occurred faster in harder shoe

    +ve correlation between knee flexion velocity after heel strike and shoe hardness --> regulated impact forces

    Impact forces very sensitive to posture/velocity at impact

    Here is his abstract:
    The mechanisms of running: lessons from computer simulations
    ANTOINE J. (TON) VAN DEN BOGERT Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA
  4. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Next up was two presentation on running on the moon or mars!

    First was Albert Minetti on "Giant strides are what you'll take, skipping on the Moon"

    He pointed out that the recent movie 'John Carter' (which I thought sucked) that he was skipping in low gravity. He also pointed out that in many older Sci-Fi movies base on the moon or mars, the characters often skip and not run.

    So too, did the Apollo astronauts!

    Computer simulation shows that skipping is more economical way to move in lower gravity environments of the moon and mars --> less fatiguing

    Peter Cavanagh was next with "Running on the Moon"

    Space travel results in bone lass
    Does walking on the mars provide sufficient osteogenic stimulus for bone health --> experiments on tethered treadmill on the zero g 'vomit comet' --> ground reactions forces are not enough to be osteoprotetive in lower g enrivonments.

    Unrelated to his topic, he could not resist pointing out the research tthere is greater axial load in the tibia when forefoot striking compared to heel striker .... got quite a reaction in the audience!
  5. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Then there was John Bertram: "What is running, and why? Understanding the phenomenon gives meaning to the mechanisms "

    There is a lot going on to confuse us

    Low cost portion of gait: not in contact with the ground
    High cost portion of gait: when in contact with the ground

    Here is his abstract:
    What is running, and why? Understanding the phenomenon gives meaning to the mechanisms
    JOHN EA BERTRAM Dept. of Cell Biology and Anatomy, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
    Insights into running dynamics can come through advances in perspective, as well as technology. Here three observations about running (and their consequences) are discussed. First, it is observed that normal running is remarkably well described, but is not well understood. Although we can fully characterize how running is accomplished, we do not know why it is accomplished as it is. Such understanding is important for making predictive models of running, and for understanding (rather than just documenting) how morphology and movement strategies affect running. Second, it is also observed that the phenomenon of running, what is accomplished by the body in running, is often confused with the mechanisms responsible for producing the gait; limb and joint motions as well as moments and forces that accomplish the task. By identifying what the body is accomplishing, i.e., the dynamic strategy that prescribes the interaction between the mass of the individual and the substrate on which he/she moves, the mechanisms employed can be properly put into context. From this, consequences can be derived for different ways of moving (alternate strategies for the dynamic interaction) and morphological form (changes in structure that affect the strategies available). Finally, it is proposed that a focus on how energy is lost over the gait cycle is far more useful for understanding the dynamics of running than the more conventional focus on energy recovery.
    For the purpose of understanding the phenomenon of running and recognizing the process of energy loss during the stride cycle, human running is compared and contrasted with ape brachiation. Ricochetal brachiation is an arm-swinging gait with a contact and non-contact phase equivalent to the run, but is used by apes that move through the forest canopy by contacting overhead branches. Although arm swinging appears fundamentally different than running, which it is, a comparison between the two locomotion strategies highlights the difference between the „phenomenon‟ of locomotion and the mechanisms used to accomplish it. It is seen that in both brachiation and running strides the center of mass undergoes two sagittal plane „transitions‟, reversal in vertical direction. The transition from upward and forward to downward and forward in both gaits involves very little energetic cost because it occurs passively as a consequence of the action of gravity. The other transition, however, from downward and forward to upward and forward, must be mediated by the supporting limb. It is shown that in running this transition is the major source of energy loss, consequently energetic cost, while the brachiator has the opportunity to avoid this fundamental loss (via mechanisms not available to over ground runners). The over ground runner does have an interesting, and non-intuitive, strategy to mitigate the cost of this transition as much as possible. This is a „pseudo-elastic‟ contact strategy, where a pseudo-elastic
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Then came the panel:
    Joe Hamill (Massachusetts); Reed Ferber (Calgary); Beat Hintermann (Switzerland); Rasmus Nielsen (Denmark); Jack Taunton (Vancouver); Willem van Mechelen (Netherlands); and me (the only Southern Hemisphereion) - certainly an honour to be in such stemmed company.

    Spent a lot of time chewing over the fat re what the definition of an injury was ... not particularly helpful. Incidence of injury will be affected by definition

    I got to spout the mantra a few times: different running shoes and different running techniques in different load different tissues differently in different runners

    Attached Files:

  7. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    The next panel was Roger Kram, Guillaume Mille and Darren Stefanyshyn

    This panel was more focused on performance issues.

    Roger spoke about the Oscar Pistorius and the alleged benefits or not from prothesisand performce (we had this thread on the isssues)

    Darren mention that the shorter calc's are associated with greater running economy. I did ask about the paradox that this should be less economical as lever arm is shorter; reason for paradox is problem the elastic storage and energy return (I blogged about that previously)
  8. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    It was noticeable that there were no females presenting at all today!

    It was good to catch up with the likes of Martyn Shorten, Ned Frederick, Peter Cavanagh, Irene McClay, Dan Lierberman, Darren Stefanyshyn, Nicolas Romanov and Roger Kram....what a line up; what a day ... its an honour to be there with these people.
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Here are some snippets from the abstract book for the poster session .... too many to cover and I gotta drink some beer and get some sleep:

    Muscle activation intensity during running in barefoot adapted subjects
    Characterization of muscle activation intensity during barefoot running in non-adapted subjects
    Comparing pronation assessment methods using Support Vector Machines
    BAUMAN J.M., LeVangie M.C., Nigg B.M.
    The relationship between gait biomechanics, selected lower extremity strength, static lower extremity measures and injury history in division II collegiate middle to long distance runners
    ANDREW CANNON, Kevin E. Finn, Brett Medieros Department of Health Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA, USA
    The immediate effects of three running techniques on lower limb and trunk kinematics
    ANA FLÁVIA DOS SANTOS, Theresa Helissa Nakagawa, Fábio Viadanna Serrão Physiotherapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Brasil
    Changes in foot strike pattern after a transition technique program are influenced by sport footwear
    ALBERTO ENCARNACION, Pérez-Soriano, P., Gea-García, G., Menayo, R.
    Neuromuscular strategies of the ankle joint during running: Does strength matter?
    HENDRIK ENDERS, Angel Lucas-Cuevas, Jennifer Baltich, Benno M. Nigg
    Defining and rating minimalist shoes: A Delphi study
    JEAN-FRANCOIS ESCULIER, Blaise Dubois, Jean-Sébastien Roy,
    Clermont Dionne Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada
    Footwear decreases gait asymmetry during running
    STEFAN HOERZER, Peter A. Federolf, Christian Maurer, Jennifer Baltich and Benno M. Nigg Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
    Influence of tactile feedback on muscle activity during walking
    BRADEN H. ROMER1, John W. Fox2, Adam E. Jagodinsky2, Jared M. Rehm2, Wendi H. Weimar2. 1Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA 2Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA
    Effect of running speed on the foot-ground angle in heel strikers
    HERMANN SCHWAMEDER, Tobias Wunsch, Tobias Schatz, Josef Kröll Department of Sport Science and Kinesiology, University of Salzburg, Austria
  10. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Martyn Shorten: Runners in their Natural Habitat: Biomechanical Field Studies
    Talked about the disconnect between a runners experience; field observations; and lab experiments

    3 data sources for presentation:

    Videoed 11000 runners at 2013 Boston Marathon; survey >2 million runners online via Runners World magazine; reviewed 100 most recent lab studies

    Average foot touchdown angle in Boston marathon = 16.7 degrees

    Of 11 000 at Boston, only 7 were true forefoot contacts (did not include forefoot strikers who’s heel came down to ground)

    At most <5% of runners that heel strike do so due to the heel lift (drop) in shoes.

    Online survey; got 2,169,282 responses
    Self reported: 15.7% forefoot strikers; 40.9% heel strikers; 43.4% midfoot strikers
    BUT; observed at Boston Marathon: 95.6% heel strikers; 2.4% midfoot strikers; 2.1% forefoot strikers
    BUT, in the lab: 17 said they were heel strikers, but only 14 really were; 20 said they were midfoot, but not one them actually really were; 7 said they were forefoot strikers, but only 2 of them really were.
    Ie 93% of those who said they were non-heel strikers were actually heel strikers

    53% of runners are females, but in lab based studies only 34% are females/
    In lab based studies, mean age was 27 +/-10 ; in survey of 2 million, mean age was 38 +/- 12
    Mean weight in lab based studies = 67 +/- 10; in survey it was 75 +/- 17

    Cadence: mean cadence of all Boston Marathon participants was 180 steps/min !!!!

    Martin has proposed a new gait that has not previously been described or documented in the literature based on his observation of Boston marathon: “Grounded Running” – it’s a gait that is at a speed almost immediately above the walk/run transition and there is NO flight phase (which is part of the definition of typical “running”); it is more of a bouncy gait; it is a gait used by slower runners; it is possibly a more economical gait solution at the walk-run transition speed.

    Ned Frederick: From the ground up: energetic and performance consequences of running shoe design choice

    the two hour marathon is coming soon; we are now in a period of incremental improvement in the world record since about 2002; a saving of 203 seconds is needed to get the 2.74% improvement in time to get under 2 hours (we had this thread on the two hr marathon)

    He asked: “do shoes have potential to help elite marathoners find those 203 seconds?”

    “minimalist is not the way to go” !

    He repeated the: 1% addition energy cost per 100g of shoe
    - So a 50g reduction will shave 36 secs off the 203 seconds that are needed

    “any reduction in weight must not compromise cushioning”

    Mentioned 1986 study that there is a lower oxygen cost while running in softer shoes
    1983 study: running barefoot – energy cost similar to running in cushioned footwear
    Kram (2014) study – running 1.63% more efficient with cushioning; but there was individual variability – this will give the opportunity to maximise the response of the individual; ie tuning

    “tuning” suggests optimising the amount of cushioning for an individual runner by using 02 uptake measurements …. Maybe benefit is 1% --- save 73 seconds.

    Here is his abstract:
    From the ground up: energetic and performance consequences of running shoe design choice
    E. C. FREDERICK Exeter Research Inc., Brentwood, NH, USA
    Daniel Lieberman - “Nothing about running makes sense about running except in the light of evolution”

    Title of lecture is paraphrase of Dohzhansky (1973): “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”

    The bulk of the presentation was what we have heard before and has been reported in a previous conference thread.

    “we are built for endurance not speed”

    “from an evolutionary perspective, today’s runners are abnormal”

    “Everything about running involves trade-offs and shoes are no exception”

    Did present some new data on barefoot, “proprioception” vs shod and variability of gait that will soon be published – the barefoot gait was more variable. Will look forward to that being published.

    Next up was anther panel; this time it was ‘Industry’ with panellists from the industry research labs:

    Jason Cheung (Li Ning Sports Science Research Center, Beijing, PR. China)
    Tsuyohi Nishiwaki (ASICS Corporation, Kobe, Japan)
    Simon Luthi (i-generator, Portland, OR, USA)
    Berthold Krabbe (adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany)
    Mathew Nurse (Nike Research Lab; Oregon)

    Selected comments; some with editing:

    Question asked re runners who think they pronate, but most think wrong. Should the stability segment exist?

    BK: our responsibility of industry to come up with product that the consumer wants; will always offer stability shoes; gone away somewhat from the stability “beast”
    MN: 100% agree; need to provide a spectrum to the consumer and we are a business.
    SL: “we” created the stability shoe; it is the biggest segment of running shoes; we do need to move on.

    (clearly a disconnect between clinician issues of “pronation” and the biomechanist definition and understanding and its applicability to running shoes – this needs to be resolved as too many jumping on different band wagons).

    Q: minimalist been and gone; maximal here; it will be gone; running shoe companies have to show a profit … how much is design based on financial considerations (paraphrased):
    MN: we come to work to make a difference (!); best ideas come from creative diversity of the teams working on products; biomechanics is a part of that. … try to get the best of both worlds. The market decides
    BK: we need to make money; but we make best money if we take consumer seriously and takes best from research and make it marketable….is make functionally good shoes.

    Industry under extreme price pressure at moment (comment from Martin Shortyn) – can we maintain the current features or will they be compromised:
    SL: industry has got rid of a lot of stuff following minimalist shoes

    Irene Davis: q re prescription of shoes; (paraphrased): pronation/arch type prescription flawed – how long is this paradigm being maintained
    SL: this is not the fault of industry fault that they are still doing it.
    MN: why do we have motion control shoes? … Because it is easy to understand; we need evidence based prescription

    Q re colours of shoes
    MN: fashion is key; has to be unbelievably cool – but can’t fool consumers over the long time
    Q re durability of shoes changing
    BK: we do a lot to make products durable; some of changes made not a product you love will change that product.
    MN: lot of focus at Nike on extended wear tests. I don’t think anyone comes out wit ha product that is less good than a previous model – there are some anomalies and outliers.
  11. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    I had to leave before the end of the Barefoot/Minimalism panel; I do have notes being sent to, so will add them later. The panel was:
    Joe Hamill
    Irene Davis
    Nicholas Romanov
    Peter Brüggemann
    Daniel Lieberman

    Here are the abstracts of 3 of them:
  12. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    The final presentation for the conference was from Beno Nigg. Here is his abstract:

    Running shoes and running injuries - some critical considerations
    BENNO M. NIGG, Jennifer Baltich, Hendrik Enders, Stefan Hoerzer and Sandro Nigg Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  13. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    Benno's final lecture was an overall summary of where he believes we are with research.
    Recurring theme is that responses to interventions are individual and very subject specific. In the future we should be identifying functional groups, identifying group characteristics and then assessing the different frequencies and location of injuries within these groups.
  14. Thanks for the ongoing updates Craig, appreciate them!
  15. Matt01

    Matt01 Member

    Great updates Craig, appreciate your posts for those of us that can't be there.
  16. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

  17. Trevor Prior

    Trevor Prior Active Member

    Craig, many thanks for your efforts and hard work in providing this information.

Share This Page