Mai 2010, "Running Times" ajakirjast
Speed Development
There’s speed work, and then there’s speed work.
When most runners talk about doing speed work,
they mean things like mile repeats at 10K race pace,
or a set of fast 200s, or maybe even a 5-mile tempo run. Such
workouts, of course, are integral to becoming a faster runner.
But they’re not really speed work, if by “speed” we mean
the fastest you can run for a very short distance. When I talk
about speed, I mean your maximal velocity — your top speed
— which even world-class sprinters can sustain for no more
than 30–40m.
But here’s the thing: Th is type of speed is also integral
to being the best distance runner you can be. Improve your
basic speed, and you’ll run faster in all your races, even the
marathon. Th at’s why all the runners I coach, such as 2010
national indoor 3K champion Renee Metivier Baillie and 1:02
half marathoner Brent Vaughn, do regular speed-development
workouts. To understand why, let’s start by looking
more closely at what speed is and isn’t.
A Quick Overview of Speed
Speed is not 5K race pace or even mile race pace, let alone 10K
or half marathon race pace. A typical miler’s workout, such
as 20 x 200m at mile pace with 200m jogs, isn’t a true speed
workout; rather, it’s a race-specifi city workout that teaches
the body to run a certain pace while challenging the anaerobic
metabolism. The same is true of workouts you might do on
a regular basis, such as 1200m repeats at 5K race pace. Th at
workout is about improving your body’s metabolic abilities
(its plumbing, in so many words) at race pace. It has nothing
to do with developing your basic speed.
Again, by “speed” I mean the top speed you can reach for
a very short distance. Why does this matter to you? After
all, it’s unlikely you’ll fi nd yourself crouched in the starting
blocks for a 100m race anytime soon.
Th e reason that your basic speed matters is that it’s a window
into a broader continuum of paces, i.e., speeds, that you
need to run to perform your best. When you improve your
basic speed, you become more effi cient at the other speeds
you need to hit — your repeats at 5K race pace, your tempo
runs — to race well. Th ere are lots of reasons why this is so; for
most Running Times readers it has to do with coordination.
Coordinated Efforts
Don’t think of coordination as patting your
head with one hand, rubbing your tummy
with the other, all while standing on one
leg with your eyes closed. Instead, think
of coordination as better communication
between the muscle fibers involved in running
and the nervous system. If you regularly do specific
speed-development work, the result will be obvious to the
casual observer — you’ll simply look better running.
Speed is, at its essence, an issue of coordination between all of
the muscle fibers involved in running and your nervous system.
Numerous studies have found that, while VO2 max and lactate
threshold are important components of running fitness, the
key to running faster is improving running economy, the intersection
between your metabolic fitness (i.e., your heart, lungs,
mitochondria) and your mechanical ability to move over the
ground (i.e., muscles, tendons and the nerves that direct them).
Many of the latest advances in the world of running, from Pose
Running and footwear like the Vibram Five Fingers to stability
training on a Bosu and single-leg lunges, have underlying them
this concept of improving a runner’s mechanical efficiency. Yet
most runners focus only on developing their aerobic fitness and
anaerobic fitness, the metabolic components of fitness, and
neglect the fact that if you can run more efficiently you’ll be able
to race faster. Specifically, if at the cellular level you can use a
greater percentage of your muscle fibers available to do work,
you’ll race faster. Th is is where speed development comes in.
Fiber Facts
All humans have some amount of fast-twitch muscle fibers;
these fi bers are white and can generate a great deal of force
in a short amount of time. Conversely, all humans have red
slow-twitch fibers that can’t produce much force, yet they are
highly resistant to fatigue and allow us to run marathons or
hike for eight-12 hours at a time. In between these two ends
of the continuum are intermediate fibers that have qualities
of the fast and slow; they can produce a moderate amount
of force yet they are also fairly resistant to fatigue. And it’s
these fibers that most distance runners neglect, because their
training lacks the requisite intensity to “recruit” these fibers.
So how does your body “choose” which muscle to recruit
when running? Simple. The skeletal muscles in the human
body are organized into “motor units,” each of which is essentially
one neuron connected to a bundle of fibers. When the
neuron fires, all of the muscles in that motor unit fire.
Relative to running, the fatigue-resistant motor units
are smaller and comprised primarily of slow-twitch muscle
fibers, while the largest motor units are made up of
fast-twitch fibers. The human body essentially takes the
path of least resistance along this neural-activation continuum.
Only activities that require a great deal of force — such
as sprinting across a street or squatting to lift a heavy box
— cross a threshold of intensity to recruit the largest motor
units, ones that control the intermediate and fast-twitch
fibers. When you’re jogging or running easy, the nervous system
needs to recruit only small motor units comprised of
slow-twitch fibers; this makes sense, given that you don’t
need to produce a lot of force to plod along at your normal
recovery pace.
But the recruitment of fast-twitch fibers is different.
Let’s say you’re leisurely walking along a street, latté in hand,
and as you cross the street you turn to see a Mack truck barreling
down on you. You sprint across the street to safety (dropping
the latté — oh, well). In that short moment in time you, the distance
runner, did something you rarely do. You were forced to
recruit fast-twitch fibers because you had to put more force into
the ground to sprint across the street to safety, channeling your
inner Bolt. If we want to be better runners, we need to ask our
bodies to recruit those fast-twitch fibers more often. While the
body is always recruiting all three types of fibers during running,
the reality is that when you’re running half marathon pace
you’re not recruiting nearly as many fast-twitch and intermediate
fibers as you would in the Mack truck example.
Th at’s what we want to change with a speed-development
workout — we want you to go fast enough to recruit those
fast-twitch fibers, and the only way to do that is to run fast
enough that the body is forced to ask the big motor units to
power the activity. As I like to explain it, your nervous system
is like an eighth-grade boy. It knows exactly how little
work it can do to get by, and the only way to get it to work
more is to kick it in the butt. Asking nicely won’t work. Doing
strides at mile pace won’t, either.
The Workouts
Th e goal of a speed-development workout is simply to “call on”
the fibers that aren’t recruited in large numbers when jogging
or even running threshold or race pace. The improved
coordination between your metabolic system and bodily
mechanics from these workouts will result in faster, more
efficient running at other effort levels.
Before you attempt speed-development workouts you need
to be honest about two questions. Is your posterior chain
strong, and have you done some hill strides?
The posterior chain is simply the muscles of the back of the
body; for a runner, the low back, gluteal muscles and hamstrings
are of special importance. If you’ve not done work to
strengthen these areas in the recent past, you’re probably
well advised to do the general strength routine I’ve developed
as a video series for the Running Times Web site; see
runningtimes.com/gsvideos.
Once you have the necessary posterior chain strength
then you should improve your coordination and strength
in a sport-specific manner: Th is is where hill strides come
in. You can do either the short ramp hills of 40m-70m popularized
by Brad Hudson (see runningtimes.com/hillsprints)
or you can run up a gentle 1–2 percent grade for 100m-200m
(and ideally you’d do a mix of both).
After three to six weeks of doing hills two to three times
a week, you’re ready to tackle the following workouts, which
are presented in a progression that must be followed. For
these workouts, you should wear your most aggressive race
footwear. If you run only road races, then that’s a road flat. If
you’re someone who at least once a year races in track spikes
then you should definitely do this workout in your spikes.
The athletes I work with never do this workout in anything
but track spikes, even when they’ve got a road race as their
next competition.
Workout No. 1:
150 In-n-Outs
This first workout is not only a great way to learn how to run
fast, but it may also become part of your pre-race, pre-workout
routine as well. Th e concept is simple: On a 150m run,
accelerate gradually during the first 50m; then run the middle
50m at a rhythm that is faster than mile race pace, then
cruise out of that rhythm the last 50m. Jog or walk 250m to
recover and repeat.
If you start in the middle of a curve on a 400m track then
you have a 50m buildup on the curve, 50m of fast running
to halfway down the straight and 50m cruising into the finish
at the end of the straight. Start with three to four of these
and work up to six to eight with each middle 50m getting a
bit faster. Don’t worry about anything other than the pace
of the middle 50m.
Take as much rest as you want, as the intent of this workout
is not to endure anything, but rather to recruit more
fibers. You gain nothing by speeding up the recovery to a
steady jog when running 150 In-n-Outs. We want that middle
50m patch to be faster than you’ve run in years, eventually
getting to the point that you’re running as fast as you can
while still running controlled and relaxed in your neck
and shoulders.
Workout No. 2:
30m Max Patch
Once you’ve done several weekly sessions of 150 In-n-Outs,
you can progress to this workout. To start, you’ll do three
to four of the 150m In-n-Outs. Th en you’ll run 2–3 x 30m at
97 percent; though technically you’re not running at your
maximum, most people will actually run a bit faster with
the cue of “97 percent” rather than “all-out” or “as fast as
you can” because they will stay more relaxed in their neck,
face and shoulders.
Every high school and collegiate 400m track has 30m
clearly marked, as the 400m relay exchange zone is 20m, with
a 10m acceleration zone preceding it. On most 400m tracks
two big triangles mark the 20m zone, with a small triangle
10m prior. Th is 30m “patch” will be our focus. The crux of
the workout is simply a 2–3 (or 3–4) x 30m patch with a 50m
run-in. I like to have athletes run this coming off the second
turn, using the final relay zone as the patch for the fast 30m
because building up to 97 percent on the turn is a novel stimulus
and in some ways it’s protective, in that the athlete will
be running much of the 30m patch on the curve, making it
more difficult to get to max velocity (but still recruiting a
large percentage of the athlete’s motor units).
Th e recovery is 3 minutes walking. Yes, walking. Running
30m at 97 percent is metabolically powered by the phosphocreatine
system, and 3 minutes of walking will allow that
system to replenish nearly all of ATP needed for the next
30m sprint. Sprinters walk during practice, and in this workout,
so should you.
Workout No. 3:
Finish with 120s
This workout is really about feeling good while running fast.
You simply run 3–4 x 120m at a “fun fast” pace. But you do
this after you’ve done 3–4 x 150m In-n-Outs and after you’ve
done two or three 30m Max Patches.
Most athletes are surprised at how fast they can comfortably
run 120m, yet a key to feeling good is to either jog the
remaining 280m slow, or walk 10m, then jog 180m until the
next 120m. One athlete I work with jokes that we never run
120s because I ask them to build up for 30m and then hold
their “fun fast” speed for 120m; to him these are 150s, but to
me they are 120s because that is the distance that you hold
that “fun fast” speed.
Th is final workout of the progression — 3–4 x 150m In-n-
Outs, then 2–3 x 30m at 97 percent, ending with 3–4 x 120m
— doesn’t add up to a mile of running, yet it’s extremely challenging,
and for that reason you should run an easy recovery
run the following day.
That fact leads me to the final aspect of speed development.
When you’ve done these workouts once every seven-10
days, you should, after four to six weeks, be able to run faster
strides, whether it’s 150m, 200m or even 300m distances.
Once you’ve done a few speed-development workouts you
can, on the subsequent day, run easy for 20–30 minutes and
then do your pre-race warm-up routine, change into your
flats and do something like 5 x 200m with 200m or 400m slow
jogging (emphasis on the slow) at mile pace, or simply a pace
that feels “fun fast” — challenging for 200m but you’re not
grabbing your knees afterwards. Your legs will “remember”
the pace from the day before and most athletes report that
they feel very comfortable running the paces on the second
day. While I don’t do this every week, a speed-development
day followed by an easy run with some 200s is a great way to
boost confidence while ensuring that you’re fully recovering
from the other workouts on your schedule.
10 veebruar 2012
Kas jooksujalatseid ostes enamus inimesi kulutavad mõtetult?
The painful truth about trainers: Are running shoes a waste of money?
Thrust enhancers, roll bars, microchips...the $20 billion running - shoe industry wants us to believe that the latest technologies will cushion every stride. Yet in this extract from his controversial new book, Christopher McDougall claims that injury rates for runners are actually on the rise, that everything we've been told about running shoes is wrong - and that it might even be better to go barefoot...
By CHRISTOPHER McDOUGALL
Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same
At Stanford University, California, two sales representatives from Nike were watching the athletics team practise. Part of their job was to gather feedback from the company's sponsored runners about which shoes they preferred.
Unfortunately, it was proving difficult that day as the runners all seemed to prefer... nothing.
'Didn't we send you enough shoes?' they asked head coach Vin Lananna. They had, he was just refusing to use them.
'I can't prove this,' the well-respected coach told them.
'But I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.'
Nike sponsored the Stanford team as they were the best of the very best. Needless to say, the reps were a little disturbed to hear that Lananna felt the best shoes they had to offer them were not as good as no shoes at all.
When I was told this anecdote it came as no surprise. I'd spent years struggling with a variety of running-related injuries, each time trading up to more expensive shoes, which seemed to make no difference. I'd lost count of the amount of money I'd handed over at shops and sports-injury clinics - eventually ending with advice from my doctor to give it up and 'buy a bike'.
And I wasn't on my own. Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same. It doesn't matter if you're male or female, fast or slow, pudgy or taut as a racehorse, your feet are still in the danger zone.
But why? How come Roger Bannister could charge out of his Oxford lab every day, pound around a hard
Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot.
Come race day, the Tarahumara don't train. They don't stretch or warm up. They just stroll to the starting line, laughing and bantering, and then go for it, ultra-running for two full days, sometimes covering over 300 miles, non-stop. For the fun of it. One of them recently came first in a prestigious 100-mile race wearing nothing but a toga and sandals. He was 57 years old.
When it comes to preparation, the Tarahumara prefer more of a Mardi Gras approach. In terms of diet, lifestyle and training technique, they're a track coach's nightmare. They drink like New Year's Eve is a weekly event, tossing back enough corn-based beer and homemade tequila brewed from rattlesnake corpses to floor an army.
Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all, living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy, barbecued mouse.
How come they're not crippled?
I've watched them climb sheer cliffs with no visible support on nothing more than an hour's sleep and a stomach full of pinto beans. It's as if a clerical error entered the stats in the wrong columns. Shouldn't we, the ones with state-of-the-art running shoes and custom-made orthotics, have the zero casualty rate, and the Tarahumara, who run far more, on far rockier terrain, in shoes that barely qualify as shoes, be constantly hospitalised?
The answer, I discovered, will make for unpalatable reading for the $20 billion trainer-manufacturing industry. It could also change runners' lives forever.
Dr Daniel Lieberman, professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, has been studying the growing injury crisis in the developed world for some time and has come to a startling conclusion: 'A lot of foot and knee injuries currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate (ankle rotation) and give us knee problems.
'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'
Lieberman also believes that if modern trainers never existed more people would be running. And if more people ran, fewer would be suffering from heart disease, hypertension, blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Western world.
'Humans need aerobic exercise in order to stay healthy,' says Lieberman. 'If there's any magic bullet to make human beings healthy, it's to run.'
The modern running shoe was essentially invented by Nike. The company was founded in the Seventies by Phil Knight, a University of Oregon runner, and Bill Bowerman, the University of Oregon coach.
Before these two men got together, the modern running shoe as we know it didn't exist. Runners from Jesse Owens through to Roger Bannister all ran with backs straight, knees bent, feet scratching back under their hips. They had no choice: their only shock absorption came from the compression of their legs and their thick pad of midfoot fat. Thumping down on their heels was not an option.
Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury preventionBowerman didn't actually do much running. He only started to jog a little at the age of 50, after spending time in New Zealand with Arthur Lydiard, the father of fitness running and the most influential distance-running coach of all time. Bowerman came home a convert, and in 1966 wrote a best-selling book whose title introduced a new word and obsession to the fitness-aware public: Jogging.
In between writing and coaching, Bowerman came up with the idea of sticking a hunk of rubber under the heel of his pumps. It was, he said, to stop the feet tiring and give them an edge. With the heel raised, he reasoned, gravity would push them forward ahead of the next man. Bowerman called Nike's first shoe the Cortez - after the conquistador who plundered the New World for gold and unleashed a horrific smallpox epidemic.
It is an irony not wasted on his detractors. In essence, he had created a market for a product and then created the product itself.
'It's genius, the kind of stuff they study in business schools,' one commentator said.
Bowerman's partner, Knight, set up a manufacturing deal in Japan and was soon selling shoes faster than they could come off the assembly line.
'With the Cortez's cushioning, we were in a monopoly position probably into the Olympic year, 1972,' Knight said.
The rest is history.
The company's annual turnover is now in excess of $17 billion and it has a major market share in over 160 countries.
Since then, running-shoe companies have had more than 30 years to perfect their designs so, logically, the injury rate must be in freefall by now. After all, Adidas has come up with a $250 shoe with a microprocessor in the sole that instantly adjusts cushioning for every stride. Asics spent $3 million and eight years (three more years than it took to create the first atomic bomb) to invent the Kinsei, a shoe that boasts 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods', and a 'midfoot thrust enhancer'. Each season brings an expensive new purchase for the average runner.
But at least you know you'll never limp again. Or so the leading companies would have you believe. Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention.
If anything, the injury rates have actually ebbed up since the Seventies - Achilles tendon blowouts have seen a ten per cent increase. (It's not only shoes that can create the problem: research in Hawaii found runners who stretched before exercise were 33 per cent more likely to get hurt.)
In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.
It was an astonishing revelation that had been hidden for over 35 years. Dr Richards was so stunned that a $20 billion industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking that he issued the following challenge: 'Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?'
Dr Richards waited and even tried contacting the major shoe companies for their data. In response, he got silence.
So, if running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, thrust enhancers, air cushions, torsion devices and roll bars?
The answer is still a mystery. And for Bowerman's old mentor, Arthur Lydiard, it all makes sense.
'We used to run in canvas shoes,' he said.
'We didn't get plantar fasciitis (pain under the heel); we didn't pronate or supinate (land on the edge of the foot); we might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons, but generally we didn't have foot problems.
'Paying several hundred dollars for the latest in hi-tech running shoes is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another. Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'
Soon after those two Nike sales reps reported back from Stanford, the marketing team set to work to see if it could make money from the lessons it had learned. Jeff Pisciotta, the senior researcher at Nike Sports Research Lab, assembled 20 runners on a grassy field and filmed them running barefoot.
When he zoomed in, he was startled by what he found. Instead of each foot clomping down as it would in a shoe, it behaved like an animal with a mind of its own - stretching, grasping, seeking the ground with splayed toes, gliding in for a landing like a lake-bound swan.
'It's beautiful to watch,' Pisciotta later told me. 'That made us start thinking that when you put a shoe on, it starts to take over some of the control.'
Pisciotta immediately deployed his team to gather film of every existing barefoot culture they could find.
'We found pockets of people all over the globe who are still running barefoot, and what you find is that, during propulsion and landing, they have far more range of motion in the foot and engage more of the toe. Their feet flex, spread, splay and grip the surface, meaning you have less pronation and more distribution of pressure.'
Nike's response was to find a way to make money off a naked foot. It took two years of work before Pisciotta was ready to unveil his masterpiece. It was presented in TV ads that showed Kenyan runners padding along a dirt trail, swimmers curling their toes around a starting block, gymnasts, Brazilian capoeira dancers, rock climbers, wrestlers, karate masters and beach soccer players.
And then comes the grand finale: we cut back to the Kenyans, whose bare feet are now sporting some kind of thin shoe. It's the new Nike Free, a shoe thinner than the old Cortez dreamt up by Bowerman in the Seventies. And its slogan?
'Run Barefoot.'
The price of this return to nature?
A conservative £65. But, unlike the real thing, experts may still advise you to change them every three months.
Edited extract from 'Born To Run' by Christopher McDougall, £16.99, on sale from April 23
PAINFUL TRUTH No 1THE BEST SHOES AND THE WORST
Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland's University of Bern.
Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.
It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.
Follow-up studies found similar results, like the 1991 report in Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise that found that 'wearers of expensive running shoes that are promoted as having additional features that protect (eg, more cushioning, 'pronation correction') are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing inexpensive shoes.'
What a cruel joke: for double the price, you get double the pain. Stanford coach Vin Lananna had already spotted the same phenomenon.'I once ordered highend shoes for the team and within two weeks we had more plantar fasciitis and Achilles problems than I'd ever seen.
So I sent them back. Ever since then, I've always ordered low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy.'
PAINFUL TRUTH No 2FEET LIKE A GOOD BEATING
Despite pillowy-sounding names such as 'MegaBounce', all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference.
When it comes to sensing the softest caress or tiniest grain of sand, your toes are as finely wired as your lips and fingertips. It's these nerve endings that tell your foot how to react to the changing ground beneath, not a strip of rubber.
To help prove this point, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked of McGill University, Montreal, performed a series of lengthy tests on gymnasts. They found that the thicker the landing mat, the harder the gymnasts landed. Instinctively, the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance. Runners do the same thing. When you run in cushioned shoes, your feet are pushing through the soles in search of a hard, stable platform.
'Currently available sports shoes are too soft and thick, and should be redesigned if they are to protect humans performing sports,' the researchers concluded.
To add weight to their argument, the acute-injury rehabilitation specialist David Smyntek carried out an experiment of his own. He had grown wary that the people telling him to trade in his favourite shoes every 300-500 miles were the same people who sold them to him.
But how was it, he wondered, that Arthur Newton, for instance, one of the greatest ultrarunners of all time, who broke the record for the 100-mile Bath-London run at the age of 51, never replaced his thin-soled canvaspumps until he'd put at least 4,000 miles on them?
So Smyntek changed tack. Whenever his shoes got thin, he kept on running. When the outside edge started to go, he swapped the right for the left and kept running. Five miles a day, every day.
Once he realised he could run comfortably in broken-down, even wrong-footed shoes, he had his answer. If he wasn't using them the way they were designed, maybe that design wasn't such a big deal after all.
He now only buys cheap trainers.
PAINFUL TRUTH No 3
HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESIGNED TO RUN WITHOUT SHOES
'Barefoot running has been one of my training philosophies for years,' says Gerard Hartmann, the Irish physical therapist who treats all the world's finest distance runners, including Paula Radcliffe.
For decades, Dr Hartmann has been watching the explosion of ever more structured running shoes with dismay. 'Pronation has become this very bad word, but it's just the natural movement of the foot,' he says. 'The foot is supposed to pronate.'
To see pronation in action, kick off your shoes and run down the driveway. On a hard surface, your feet will automatically shift to selfdefence mode: you'll find yourself landing on the outside edge of your foot, then gently rolling from little toe over to big until your foot is flat. That's pronation - a mild, shockabsorbing twist that allows your arch to compress. Your foot's centrepiece is the arch, the greatest weight-bearing design ever created. The beauty of any arch is the way it gets stronger under stress; the harder you push down, the tighter its parts mesh. Push up from underneath and you weaken the whole structure.
'Putting your feet in shoes is similar to putting them in a plaster cast,' says Dr Hartmann. 'If I put your leg in plaster, we'll find 40 to 60 per cent atrophy of the musculature within six weeks. Something similar happens to your feet when they're encased in shoes.' When shoes are doing the work, tendons stiffen and
SO SHOULD WE ALL BE RUNNING BAREFOOT?
BY JUSTIN COULTER, SPORTS PODIATRIST Running barefoot may have some benefit in muscle strengthening as the muscles have to 'tune in' to the vibrations caused by impact loading.
If, like Zola Budd, you grew up running barefoot on a South African farm, your tissue tolerance would adapt over time. But for someone who has grown up wearing shoes and is a natural heel striker (see right), the impact loading will be beyond tissue tolerance level, and injury will occur.
We are all individuals, therefore it is prudent to have your own running technique assessed and work around that.
As for getting out your old worn out trainers and running in them - don't! Based on the individual's size and running surfaces/conditions shoes should be changed between 500-1,000 miles. It's best to seek the advice of a specialist running store.
Originaalartikkel sellisel aadressil:
Thrust enhancers, roll bars, microchips...the $20 billion running - shoe industry wants us to believe that the latest technologies will cushion every stride. Yet in this extract from his controversial new book, Christopher McDougall claims that injury rates for runners are actually on the rise, that everything we've been told about running shoes is wrong - and that it might even be better to go barefoot...
By CHRISTOPHER McDOUGALL
Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same
At Stanford University, California, two sales representatives from Nike were watching the athletics team practise. Part of their job was to gather feedback from the company's sponsored runners about which shoes they preferred.
Unfortunately, it was proving difficult that day as the runners all seemed to prefer... nothing.
'Didn't we send you enough shoes?' they asked head coach Vin Lananna. They had, he was just refusing to use them.
'I can't prove this,' the well-respected coach told them.
'But I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.'
Nike sponsored the Stanford team as they were the best of the very best. Needless to say, the reps were a little disturbed to hear that Lananna felt the best shoes they had to offer them were not as good as no shoes at all.
When I was told this anecdote it came as no surprise. I'd spent years struggling with a variety of running-related injuries, each time trading up to more expensive shoes, which seemed to make no difference. I'd lost count of the amount of money I'd handed over at shops and sports-injury clinics - eventually ending with advice from my doctor to give it up and 'buy a bike'.
And I wasn't on my own. Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same. It doesn't matter if you're male or female, fast or slow, pudgy or taut as a racehorse, your feet are still in the danger zone.
But why? How come Roger Bannister could charge out of his Oxford lab every day, pound around a hard
Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot.
Come race day, the Tarahumara don't train. They don't stretch or warm up. They just stroll to the starting line, laughing and bantering, and then go for it, ultra-running for two full days, sometimes covering over 300 miles, non-stop. For the fun of it. One of them recently came first in a prestigious 100-mile race wearing nothing but a toga and sandals. He was 57 years old.
When it comes to preparation, the Tarahumara prefer more of a Mardi Gras approach. In terms of diet, lifestyle and training technique, they're a track coach's nightmare. They drink like New Year's Eve is a weekly event, tossing back enough corn-based beer and homemade tequila brewed from rattlesnake corpses to floor an army.
Unlike their Western counterparts, the Tarahumara don't replenish their bodies with electrolyte-rich sports drinks. They don't rebuild between workouts with protein bars; in fact, they barely eat any protein at all, living on little more than ground corn spiced up by their favourite delicacy, barbecued mouse.
How come they're not crippled?
I've watched them climb sheer cliffs with no visible support on nothing more than an hour's sleep and a stomach full of pinto beans. It's as if a clerical error entered the stats in the wrong columns. Shouldn't we, the ones with state-of-the-art running shoes and custom-made orthotics, have the zero casualty rate, and the Tarahumara, who run far more, on far rockier terrain, in shoes that barely qualify as shoes, be constantly hospitalised?
The answer, I discovered, will make for unpalatable reading for the $20 billion trainer-manufacturing industry. It could also change runners' lives forever.
Dr Daniel Lieberman, professor of biological anthropology at Harvard University, has been studying the growing injury crisis in the developed world for some time and has come to a startling conclusion: 'A lot of foot and knee injuries currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate (ankle rotation) and give us knee problems.
'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'
Lieberman also believes that if modern trainers never existed more people would be running. And if more people ran, fewer would be suffering from heart disease, hypertension, blocked arteries, diabetes, and most other deadly ailments of the Western world.
'Humans need aerobic exercise in order to stay healthy,' says Lieberman. 'If there's any magic bullet to make human beings healthy, it's to run.'
The modern running shoe was essentially invented by Nike. The company was founded in the Seventies by Phil Knight, a University of Oregon runner, and Bill Bowerman, the University of Oregon coach.
Before these two men got together, the modern running shoe as we know it didn't exist. Runners from Jesse Owens through to Roger Bannister all ran with backs straight, knees bent, feet scratching back under their hips. They had no choice: their only shock absorption came from the compression of their legs and their thick pad of midfoot fat. Thumping down on their heels was not an option.
Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury preventionBowerman didn't actually do much running. He only started to jog a little at the age of 50, after spending time in New Zealand with Arthur Lydiard, the father of fitness running and the most influential distance-running coach of all time. Bowerman came home a convert, and in 1966 wrote a best-selling book whose title introduced a new word and obsession to the fitness-aware public: Jogging.
In between writing and coaching, Bowerman came up with the idea of sticking a hunk of rubber under the heel of his pumps. It was, he said, to stop the feet tiring and give them an edge. With the heel raised, he reasoned, gravity would push them forward ahead of the next man. Bowerman called Nike's first shoe the Cortez - after the conquistador who plundered the New World for gold and unleashed a horrific smallpox epidemic.
It is an irony not wasted on his detractors. In essence, he had created a market for a product and then created the product itself.
'It's genius, the kind of stuff they study in business schools,' one commentator said.
Bowerman's partner, Knight, set up a manufacturing deal in Japan and was soon selling shoes faster than they could come off the assembly line.
'With the Cortez's cushioning, we were in a monopoly position probably into the Olympic year, 1972,' Knight said.
The rest is history.
The company's annual turnover is now in excess of $17 billion and it has a major market share in over 160 countries.
Since then, running-shoe companies have had more than 30 years to perfect their designs so, logically, the injury rate must be in freefall by now. After all, Adidas has come up with a $250 shoe with a microprocessor in the sole that instantly adjusts cushioning for every stride. Asics spent $3 million and eight years (three more years than it took to create the first atomic bomb) to invent the Kinsei, a shoe that boasts 'multi-angled forefoot gel pods', and a 'midfoot thrust enhancer'. Each season brings an expensive new purchase for the average runner.
But at least you know you'll never limp again. Or so the leading companies would have you believe. Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention.
If anything, the injury rates have actually ebbed up since the Seventies - Achilles tendon blowouts have seen a ten per cent increase. (It's not only shoes that can create the problem: research in Hawaii found runners who stretched before exercise were 33 per cent more likely to get hurt.)
In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.
It was an astonishing revelation that had been hidden for over 35 years. Dr Richards was so stunned that a $20 billion industry seemed to be based on nothing but empty promises and wishful thinking that he issued the following challenge: 'Is any running-shoe company prepared to claim that wearing their distance running shoes will decrease your risk of suffering musculoskeletal running injuries? Is any shoe manufacturer prepared to claim that wearing their running shoes will improve your distance running performance? If you are prepared to make these claims, where is your peer-reviewed data to back it up?'
Dr Richards waited and even tried contacting the major shoe companies for their data. In response, he got silence.
So, if running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, thrust enhancers, air cushions, torsion devices and roll bars?
The answer is still a mystery. And for Bowerman's old mentor, Arthur Lydiard, it all makes sense.
'We used to run in canvas shoes,' he said.
'We didn't get plantar fasciitis (pain under the heel); we didn't pronate or supinate (land on the edge of the foot); we might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons, but generally we didn't have foot problems.
'Paying several hundred dollars for the latest in hi-tech running shoes is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another. Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.'
Soon after those two Nike sales reps reported back from Stanford, the marketing team set to work to see if it could make money from the lessons it had learned. Jeff Pisciotta, the senior researcher at Nike Sports Research Lab, assembled 20 runners on a grassy field and filmed them running barefoot.
When he zoomed in, he was startled by what he found. Instead of each foot clomping down as it would in a shoe, it behaved like an animal with a mind of its own - stretching, grasping, seeking the ground with splayed toes, gliding in for a landing like a lake-bound swan.
'It's beautiful to watch,' Pisciotta later told me. 'That made us start thinking that when you put a shoe on, it starts to take over some of the control.'
Pisciotta immediately deployed his team to gather film of every existing barefoot culture they could find.
'We found pockets of people all over the globe who are still running barefoot, and what you find is that, during propulsion and landing, they have far more range of motion in the foot and engage more of the toe. Their feet flex, spread, splay and grip the surface, meaning you have less pronation and more distribution of pressure.'
Nike's response was to find a way to make money off a naked foot. It took two years of work before Pisciotta was ready to unveil his masterpiece. It was presented in TV ads that showed Kenyan runners padding along a dirt trail, swimmers curling their toes around a starting block, gymnasts, Brazilian capoeira dancers, rock climbers, wrestlers, karate masters and beach soccer players.
And then comes the grand finale: we cut back to the Kenyans, whose bare feet are now sporting some kind of thin shoe. It's the new Nike Free, a shoe thinner than the old Cortez dreamt up by Bowerman in the Seventies. And its slogan?
'Run Barefoot.'
The price of this return to nature?
A conservative £65. But, unlike the real thing, experts may still advise you to change them every three months.
Edited extract from 'Born To Run' by Christopher McDougall, £16.99, on sale from April 23
PAINFUL TRUTH No 1THE BEST SHOES AND THE WORST
Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland's University of Bern.
Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.
It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.
Follow-up studies found similar results, like the 1991 report in Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise that found that 'wearers of expensive running shoes that are promoted as having additional features that protect (eg, more cushioning, 'pronation correction') are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing inexpensive shoes.'
What a cruel joke: for double the price, you get double the pain. Stanford coach Vin Lananna had already spotted the same phenomenon.'I once ordered highend shoes for the team and within two weeks we had more plantar fasciitis and Achilles problems than I'd ever seen.
So I sent them back. Ever since then, I've always ordered low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy.'
PAINFUL TRUTH No 2FEET LIKE A GOOD BEATING
Despite pillowy-sounding names such as 'MegaBounce', all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference.
When it comes to sensing the softest caress or tiniest grain of sand, your toes are as finely wired as your lips and fingertips. It's these nerve endings that tell your foot how to react to the changing ground beneath, not a strip of rubber.
To help prove this point, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked of McGill University, Montreal, performed a series of lengthy tests on gymnasts. They found that the thicker the landing mat, the harder the gymnasts landed. Instinctively, the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance. Runners do the same thing. When you run in cushioned shoes, your feet are pushing through the soles in search of a hard, stable platform.
'Currently available sports shoes are too soft and thick, and should be redesigned if they are to protect humans performing sports,' the researchers concluded.
To add weight to their argument, the acute-injury rehabilitation specialist David Smyntek carried out an experiment of his own. He had grown wary that the people telling him to trade in his favourite shoes every 300-500 miles were the same people who sold them to him.
But how was it, he wondered, that Arthur Newton, for instance, one of the greatest ultrarunners of all time, who broke the record for the 100-mile Bath-London run at the age of 51, never replaced his thin-soled canvaspumps until he'd put at least 4,000 miles on them?
So Smyntek changed tack. Whenever his shoes got thin, he kept on running. When the outside edge started to go, he swapped the right for the left and kept running. Five miles a day, every day.
Once he realised he could run comfortably in broken-down, even wrong-footed shoes, he had his answer. If he wasn't using them the way they were designed, maybe that design wasn't such a big deal after all.
He now only buys cheap trainers.
PAINFUL TRUTH No 3
HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESIGNED TO RUN WITHOUT SHOES
'Barefoot running has been one of my training philosophies for years,' says Gerard Hartmann, the Irish physical therapist who treats all the world's finest distance runners, including Paula Radcliffe.
For decades, Dr Hartmann has been watching the explosion of ever more structured running shoes with dismay. 'Pronation has become this very bad word, but it's just the natural movement of the foot,' he says. 'The foot is supposed to pronate.'
To see pronation in action, kick off your shoes and run down the driveway. On a hard surface, your feet will automatically shift to selfdefence mode: you'll find yourself landing on the outside edge of your foot, then gently rolling from little toe over to big until your foot is flat. That's pronation - a mild, shockabsorbing twist that allows your arch to compress. Your foot's centrepiece is the arch, the greatest weight-bearing design ever created. The beauty of any arch is the way it gets stronger under stress; the harder you push down, the tighter its parts mesh. Push up from underneath and you weaken the whole structure.
'Putting your feet in shoes is similar to putting them in a plaster cast,' says Dr Hartmann. 'If I put your leg in plaster, we'll find 40 to 60 per cent atrophy of the musculature within six weeks. Something similar happens to your feet when they're encased in shoes.' When shoes are doing the work, tendons stiffen and
SO SHOULD WE ALL BE RUNNING BAREFOOT?
BY JUSTIN COULTER, SPORTS PODIATRIST Running barefoot may have some benefit in muscle strengthening as the muscles have to 'tune in' to the vibrations caused by impact loading.
If, like Zola Budd, you grew up running barefoot on a South African farm, your tissue tolerance would adapt over time. But for someone who has grown up wearing shoes and is a natural heel striker (see right), the impact loading will be beyond tissue tolerance level, and injury will occur.
We are all individuals, therefore it is prudent to have your own running technique assessed and work around that.
As for getting out your old worn out trainers and running in them - don't! Based on the individual's size and running surfaces/conditions shoes should be changed between 500-1,000 miles. It's best to seek the advice of a specialist running store.
Originaalartikkel sellisel aadressil:
09 veebruar 2012
Milliseid tosse siis soovitab
Here are 7 main categories of shoes for you to consider.
Of course, every barefoot runner or walker is at his or her
own unique place on the spectrum from fully barefoot to
needing full support, so judge accordingly.
I discuss the following general categories of shoes in order roughly of most rigid and least barefoot-like to nearly bare. I haven’t written about traditional footwear, but realize that modestly supportive shoes (or shoes with a mild arch) may give your feet the rest they need to recover in between barefoot or nearly-barefoot workouts.
1 . Newtons and other toe-running shoes. I love the concept behind the original Newtons, getting you up and off your heel. I just wish they’d bring you closer to the ground, rather than farther away from it, and wish the lugs were farther forward (as they stand it’s more of a midfoot shoe than a true toe-runner’s shoe). I think Newtons have their purpose as a training tool, though not as an everyday runner. However, I applaud their efforts as one of a growing group of shoes coming out to help get you off the heel. Shoes that get you off the heel may help you break old habits. Look for shoes that are light, low, and without extra cushion. Additionally, make sure they don’t lock you into a particular stride where your foot can’t land on the forefoot where it wants to and move or spring naturally. Some shoes are constraining in this area. You don’t want to be locked in a position, even a good one. Injuries often arise when there’s a conflict between where your foot wants to go and where your shoe directs it to go.
2 . Tri shoes. Marketed toward triathletes, tri shoes tend to be fairly lightweight, often slip on quickly, and are better ventilated than traditional running shoes. Tri shoes are distinguished from true racing flats because they’re a bit heavier with a higher heel. Yet some of them, such as the K-Swiss, are getting very close to a racing flat. They all tend to have a bit too much of a raised heel. Look for shoes with the least heel possible. Most of them still have a curled up toe (toe-spring) as well, so look for models with the least toe-spring. I like that they’re getting lighter and slide on and off quickly. This is ideal for barefoot running when you want to bring your shoes along.
3 . Nike Frees and Free Flexing Shoes. I love shoes that let your feet flex because it helps you land more naturally and stay more injury-free. Nike Frees are a step in the right direction, I just wish they made it easier to get off the heels and run with a forefoot strike. I’m hopeful this will soon change as similar models by other brands are coming out all the time.
4 . Racing Flats. I must admit, if I’m going fast in a shoe, these are my shoes of choice—no matter what the distance. My favorite? The Asics Piranha. True flats have little or no toespring and do not have a raised heel, making it easier to run on your forefoot and keep you closer to the ground. Each season shoe manufacturers debut more and more new flats. While your regular running-shoe store might not stock many flats, often you can find the best selection at a store that stocks shoes for track and crosscountry racers—or online.
5 . Vibram FiveFingers and other Glove-like Shoes. Vibrams are just plain different and fun. With individual slots for each of your toes, they let your toes spread and move more freely and let you run with a far more natural style. I’d like them to go further to get even thinner, lighter, and with less binding or restriction between the toes. I think their new Bikila and future models to follow go a definite step in this direction. The biggest challenge with the FiveFingers is that you still don’t feel the ground nearly as much as you do when barefoot, so it’s easy to overdo it. Also, some of their models, such as the KSO Trek have built in modest arch support. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly for a transition shoe, but it is something to watch for. I can’t wait to see what Vibram does next, and what the competition does; yes, expect to see more FiveFingered– type shoes in the marketplace. Remember this, fit is most important. These shoes don’t work for everyone. If they bind your toes, prevent free movement (up or down of the toes), or twist or cock your feet when running, then no matter how cool or “in” they seem to be, they may not be for you.
6 . Moccasins and Moccasin-like shoes. To me, for the winter, nothing beats my neoprene moccasins, which are really a cycling bootie with an insulated insole. And for walking year-round, a moccasin gives you the closest to barefoot feel of any footwear. However, true leather-made moccasins wear out very quickly unless you use a double-soled version, but then these too will inhibit full proprioception of the ground.
Custom moccasins are also quite costly, particularly given their wear. Other alternatives are Feelmax, which give you a true moccasin-like feel and, with only a 1 mm Kevlar bottom, let you sense the ground beneath you. Feelmax are a great shoe, but because you’ll feel everything, they are not a suitable everyday runner until you’ve built into daily barefoot or near-barefoot runs.
7. Beach socks. Sockwa Beach socks were originally designed for use on the beach. They let your feet move freely and give you the bare minimum of protection for your feet. These can be a smart choice if you’re a near full-time barefooter, but just need a bit of protection from the elements. They’re just about as close as you can get to barefoot, without being fully barefoot. I love my Beach Sockwas, though you’ll wear through them quickly on the roads. Fortunately, they cost a mere fraction of the cost of traditional running shoes.
Honorable mention: Sometimes the best minimalist shoes can be found in dance shoe stores. Modern dance is a version of dance that’s performed barefoot or nearly barefoot. In the near-barefoot category, dancers often wear a flesh-colored leather pad (often called a foot thong or dance paws—some actually shaped like a thong) over the ball of the foot to protect the skin from being torn during repeated spins on hardwood floors. There’s nothing under the toes, and the leather sole is typically only a millimeter thick, just enough protection to prevent your pads from getting beaten up. These small measures of foot protection allow your toes to fully grab and feel the ground.
I like the Ellis Bella foot thongs. You can find different shapes and sizes that fit your feet best. Many dancers prefer the Capezio Sandasol for its sandal-like look and feel (as it wraps around your heel like a sandal) and at a mere ounce or two, you barely notice you’re wearing them.
I discuss the following general categories of shoes in order roughly of most rigid and least barefoot-like to nearly bare. I haven’t written about traditional footwear, but realize that modestly supportive shoes (or shoes with a mild arch) may give your feet the rest they need to recover in between barefoot or nearly-barefoot workouts.
1 . Newtons and other toe-running shoes. I love the concept behind the original Newtons, getting you up and off your heel. I just wish they’d bring you closer to the ground, rather than farther away from it, and wish the lugs were farther forward (as they stand it’s more of a midfoot shoe than a true toe-runner’s shoe). I think Newtons have their purpose as a training tool, though not as an everyday runner. However, I applaud their efforts as one of a growing group of shoes coming out to help get you off the heel. Shoes that get you off the heel may help you break old habits. Look for shoes that are light, low, and without extra cushion. Additionally, make sure they don’t lock you into a particular stride where your foot can’t land on the forefoot where it wants to and move or spring naturally. Some shoes are constraining in this area. You don’t want to be locked in a position, even a good one. Injuries often arise when there’s a conflict between where your foot wants to go and where your shoe directs it to go.
2 . Tri shoes. Marketed toward triathletes, tri shoes tend to be fairly lightweight, often slip on quickly, and are better ventilated than traditional running shoes. Tri shoes are distinguished from true racing flats because they’re a bit heavier with a higher heel. Yet some of them, such as the K-Swiss, are getting very close to a racing flat. They all tend to have a bit too much of a raised heel. Look for shoes with the least heel possible. Most of them still have a curled up toe (toe-spring) as well, so look for models with the least toe-spring. I like that they’re getting lighter and slide on and off quickly. This is ideal for barefoot running when you want to bring your shoes along.
3 . Nike Frees and Free Flexing Shoes. I love shoes that let your feet flex because it helps you land more naturally and stay more injury-free. Nike Frees are a step in the right direction, I just wish they made it easier to get off the heels and run with a forefoot strike. I’m hopeful this will soon change as similar models by other brands are coming out all the time.
4 . Racing Flats. I must admit, if I’m going fast in a shoe, these are my shoes of choice—no matter what the distance. My favorite? The Asics Piranha. True flats have little or no toespring and do not have a raised heel, making it easier to run on your forefoot and keep you closer to the ground. Each season shoe manufacturers debut more and more new flats. While your regular running-shoe store might not stock many flats, often you can find the best selection at a store that stocks shoes for track and crosscountry racers—or online.
5 . Vibram FiveFingers and other Glove-like Shoes. Vibrams are just plain different and fun. With individual slots for each of your toes, they let your toes spread and move more freely and let you run with a far more natural style. I’d like them to go further to get even thinner, lighter, and with less binding or restriction between the toes. I think their new Bikila and future models to follow go a definite step in this direction. The biggest challenge with the FiveFingers is that you still don’t feel the ground nearly as much as you do when barefoot, so it’s easy to overdo it. Also, some of their models, such as the KSO Trek have built in modest arch support. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly for a transition shoe, but it is something to watch for. I can’t wait to see what Vibram does next, and what the competition does; yes, expect to see more FiveFingered– type shoes in the marketplace. Remember this, fit is most important. These shoes don’t work for everyone. If they bind your toes, prevent free movement (up or down of the toes), or twist or cock your feet when running, then no matter how cool or “in” they seem to be, they may not be for you.
6 . Moccasins and Moccasin-like shoes. To me, for the winter, nothing beats my neoprene moccasins, which are really a cycling bootie with an insulated insole. And for walking year-round, a moccasin gives you the closest to barefoot feel of any footwear. However, true leather-made moccasins wear out very quickly unless you use a double-soled version, but then these too will inhibit full proprioception of the ground.
Custom moccasins are also quite costly, particularly given their wear. Other alternatives are Feelmax, which give you a true moccasin-like feel and, with only a 1 mm Kevlar bottom, let you sense the ground beneath you. Feelmax are a great shoe, but because you’ll feel everything, they are not a suitable everyday runner until you’ve built into daily barefoot or near-barefoot runs.
7. Beach socks. Sockwa Beach socks were originally designed for use on the beach. They let your feet move freely and give you the bare minimum of protection for your feet. These can be a smart choice if you’re a near full-time barefooter, but just need a bit of protection from the elements. They’re just about as close as you can get to barefoot, without being fully barefoot. I love my Beach Sockwas, though you’ll wear through them quickly on the roads. Fortunately, they cost a mere fraction of the cost of traditional running shoes.
Honorable mention: Sometimes the best minimalist shoes can be found in dance shoe stores. Modern dance is a version of dance that’s performed barefoot or nearly barefoot. In the near-barefoot category, dancers often wear a flesh-colored leather pad (often called a foot thong or dance paws—some actually shaped like a thong) over the ball of the foot to protect the skin from being torn during repeated spins on hardwood floors. There’s nothing under the toes, and the leather sole is typically only a millimeter thick, just enough protection to prevent your pads from getting beaten up. These small measures of foot protection allow your toes to fully grab and feel the ground.
I like the Ellis Bella foot thongs. You can find different shapes and sizes that fit your feet best. Many dancers prefer the Capezio Sandasol for its sandal-like look and feel (as it wraps around your heel like a sandal) and at a mere ounce or two, you barely notice you’re wearing them.
07 veebruar 2012
Vahepeal jälle veidike raamatuid loetud...
On huvi pärast loetud jooksuraamatuid jälle. Ja siis veidi sellest
loetud kirjandusest ja väljavõtteid. Igal juhul soovitaks neid igaühel lugeda :P
Kas või huvi pärast, et olla ka selliste teemadega kursis...
sai loetud raamat: "Born to Run"
loetakse üheks parimaks ja inspireerivamaks lugemisvaraks uuemal ajal.
mõningaid lõike sealt.
hea lõik siin, veidike küll ajast maas aga ikkagi: "It wasn’t always like that—and when it wasn’t, we were awesome. Back in the ’70s, American marathoners were a lot like the Tarahumara; they were a tribe of isolated outcasts, running for love and relying on raw instinct and crude equipment. Slice the top off a ’70s running shoe, and you had a sandal: the old Adidas and Onitsuka Tigers were just a flat sole and laces, with no motion control, no arch support, no heel pad. The guys in the ’70s didn’t know enough to worry about “pronation” and “supination”; that fancy runningstore jargon hadn’t even been invented yet. Their training was as primitive as their shoes. They ran way too much: “We ran twice a day, sometimes three times,” Frank Shorter would recall. “All we did was run—run, eat, and sleep.” They ran way too hard: “The modus operandi was to let a bunch of competitive guys have at each other every day in a form of road rage,” one observer put it. And they were waaay too buddy-buddy for so-called competitors: “We liked running together,” recalled Bill Rodgers, a chieftain of the ’70s tribe and four-time Boston Marathon champ. “We had fun with it. It wasn’t a grind.” They were so ignorant, they didn’t even realize they were supposed to be burned out, overtrained, and injured. Instead, they were fast; really fast. Frank Shorter won the ’72 Olympic marathon gold and the ’76 silver, Bill Rodgers was the No. I ranked marathoner in the world for three years, and Alberto Salazar won Boston, New York, and the Comrades ultramarathon. By the early ’80s, the Greater Boston Track Club had half a dozen guys who could run a 2:12 marathon. That’s six guys, in one amateur club, in one city. Twenty years later, you couldn’t find a single 2:12 marathoner anywhere in the country. The United States couldn’t even get one runner to meet the 2:14 qualifying standard for the 2000 Olympics; only Rod DeHaven squeaked into the games under the 2:15 “B” standard. He finished sixty-ninth."
"After a full day of infantry drills. When the snow was too deep, Zatopek would jog in the tub on top of his dirty laundry, getting a resistance workout along with clean tighty whities. As soon as it thawed enough for him to get outside, he’d go nuts; he’d run four hundred meters as fast as he could, over and over, for ninety repetitions, resting in between by jogging two hundred meters. By the time he was finished, he’d done more than thirty-three miles of speedwork. Ask him his pace, and he’d shrug; he never timed himself. To build explosiveness, he and his wife, Dana, used to play catch with a javelin, hurling it back and forth to each other across a soccer field like a long, lethal Frisbee. One of Zatopek’s favorite workouts combined all his loves at once: he’d jog through the woods in his army boots with his everloving wife riding on his back. It was all a waste of time, of course. The Czechs were like the Zimbabwean bobsled team; they had no tradition, no coaching, no native talent, no chance of winning. But being counted out was liberating; having nothing to lose left Zatopek free to try any way to win. Take his first marathon: everyone knows the best way to build up to 26.2 miles is by running long, slow distances. Everyone, that is, except Emil Zatopek; he did hundred- yard dashes instead. “I already know how to go slow,” he reasoned. “I thought the point was to go fast.” His atrocious, deathspasming style was punch-line heaven for track scribes (“The most frightful horror spectacle since Frankenstein.” … “He runs as if his next step would be his last.” … “He looks like a man wrestling with an octopus on a conveyor belt”), but Zatopek just laughed along. “I’m not talented enough to run and smile at the same time,” he’d say. “Good thing it’s not figure skating. You only get points for speed, not style.”"
"That was pure Zatopek, though; races for him were like a pub crawl. He loved competing so much that instead of tapering and peaking, he jumped into as many meets as he could find. During a manic stretch in the late ’40s, Zatopek raced nearly every other week for three years and never lost, going 69-0. Even on a schedule like that, he still averaged up to 165 miles a week in training."
"“A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to overpronate, give us knee problems. Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.”"
"Coach Lananna walked over to explain. “I can’t prove this,” he explained, “but I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”"
"but people went thousands of years without shoes. I think you try to do all these corrective things with shoes and you overcompensate. You fix things that don’t need fixing. If you strengthen the foot by going barefoot, I think you reduce the risk of Achilles and knee and plantar fascia problems.”"
"Stretching came out even worse in a followup study performed the following year at the University of Hawaii; it found that runners who stretched were 33 percent more likely to get hurt."
"So if running shoes don’t make you go faster and don’t stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, “thrust enhancers,” air cushions, torsion devices, and roll bars? Well, if you have a pair of Kinseis in your closet, brace yourself for some bad news. And like all bad news, it comes in threes: PAINFUL TRUTH No. 1: The Best Shoes Are the Worst RUNNERS wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes, according to a study led by Bernard Marti, M.D., a preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland’s University of Bern. Dr. Marti’s research team analyzed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand-Prix, a 9.6- mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 percent had been hurt during that time."
"But what surprised Dr. Marti, as he pointed out in The American Journal of Sports Medicine in 1989, was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn’t training surface, running speed, weekly mileage, or “competitive training motivation.” It wasn’t even body weight, or a history of previous injury: it was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40"
"Sharp-eyed as ever, Coach Vin Lananna had already spotted the same phenomenon himself back in the early ’80s. “I once ordered high-end shoes for the team, and within two weeks, we had more plantar fasciitis and Achilles problems than I’d ever seen. So I sent them back and told them, ‘Send me my cheap shoes,’” Lananna says. “Ever since then, I’ve always ordered the low-end shoes. It’s not because I’m cheap. It’s because I’m in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy.”"
"BEFORE Alan Webb became America’s greatest miler, he was a flat-footed frosh with awful form. But his high school coach saw potential, and began rebuilding Alan from—no exaggeration—the ground up. “I had injury problems early on, and it became apparent that my biomechanics could cause injury,” Webb told me. “So we did foot-strengthening drills and special walks in bare feet.” Bit by bit, Webb watched his feet transform before his eyes. “I was a size twelve and flat-footed, and now I’m a nine or ten. As the muscles in my feet got stronger, my arch got higher.” Because of the barefoot drills, Webb also cut down on his injuries, allowing him to handle the kind of heavy training that would lead to his U.S. record for the mile and the fastest 1,500- meter time in the world for the year 2007."
Järgmine raamat siis: "The Barefoot Running Book First Edition: A Practical Guide to the Art and Science of Barefoot and Minimalist Shoe Running"
Ja hetkel käsil selline raamat: "Barefoot Running" How to Run Light and Free...
Kirjelduseks:
As seen nationally on TV, radio and in print, Barefoot Running, an orginally self-published book, is the most comprehensive guide to barefoot running, written by best-selling author and running coach Michael Sandler, who has coached and inspired thousands of runners, walkers, and hikers nationwide.
After a near-death accident left him with a titanium femur and hip along with 10 knee operations, no ACL, and an inch leg-length discrepancy, former professional athlete and Olympic hopeful Michael Sandler was told he could never run again. It was only by going barefoot and feeling the ground, he began to heal as he learned how to run light and free. He now runs pain free 10-20 miles a day and in all conditions. His step-by-step method helps runners overcome injuries, find their natural form and rediscover the pure joy of running, no matter their age, history, or fitness level.
Co-Author Jessica Lee hated running and nagging knee pain and swore off running until the day she went barefoot. Now she helps women experience the joy of running barefoot (and pain free) nationwide.
Written to help people get into running, back into running, or run pain free and at your best at any age, Michael Sandler's inspirational book and step-by-step guide is an easy to read bible of information and a must read for any runner. Barefoot Running is the how-to-guide that picks up where Christopher McDougall's inspiring book Born to Run left off. If you liked Born to Run, you'll love Barefoot Running.
Raamatust veidike copy-pastetud:
Here’s false propaganda to watch out for:
· Pronation (or rolling the foot downward and inward) is bad, and if you pronate you must use motion control or stability shoes. Not true, particularly over time. You may just need to strengthen your foot.
· If you get sore knees, you need more cushioning. False. Cushioning makes you hit harder and causes sore knees.
· Materials in most shoes compress so fast they lose their cushioning almost overnight. Not true. You want to feel the ground. Even with hundreds of miles on your shoes, they’re likely still too cushioned.
· Shoes must be replaced every 300 to 400 miles. False. The older the shoe, the more naturally your foot moves and feels the ground, and the less likely you’ll suffer an injury. So dig out those comfortable old soles and put ’em back on.
· Racing flats don’t last. False. While there’s less cushion, the shoe still lasts for hundreds of miles.
· Running shoes should fit snug. False. I fell for this one for years and opted for narrower and narrower shoes until I wound up in a women’s AA width shoe. Feet adapt to the size of their environment. A small, narrow shoe creates a small, narrow foot. Additionally, snug shoes don’t allow your feet to expand when they contact the ground, putting more force on a smaller area of the foot while decreasing stability. If your toes can’t spread, your foot is in trouble. Fortunately, my feet have returned to a more natural, wider width.
· Your arch height determines the amount of support you need. False. Many people ask, “What shoe is good for a high or low arch?” However, the better question to ask is, “How much support do I need for a weak or strong arch?” Just because someone has a high arch, it does not mean you give them a big arch support. When you run barefoot, your arches naturally get stronger and taller—and you need less arch support. There’s no right or wrong arch height, or one height that needs support more than another. It’s arch strength that needs to be taken into account.
Michael’s Checklist for Selecting a Minimalist Shoe:
The goal of minimalist or natural footwear is to allow you the most natural stride possible. To do so, we must throw out much of the junk designed into shoes today such as elevated heels, arches, stability, motion control, curved toes (called toe-spring) and much more. No shoe is perfect, but some are far better than others. With new shoes coming on the market almost daily, use this guide to weigh the plusses and minuses of your selection.
¨ Light weight. Any weight on your foot changes the dynamic of the stride, and the heavier the shoe, the more your stride changes. Weight can cause your heel to drop first, or put undue stress and strain on the shins, which were never designed to carry weight in the first place. A good minimalist shoe is exceptionally lightweight, no more than 6 to 8 ounces (170–227 grams) or less per shoe. Unfortunately, this takes many shoes out of the running that claim to give you a more natural stride.
FOOT NOTE
Even at 100 strides a minute, in a pair of 8-ounce shoes, you’re lifting a pound per stride, 100 pounds a minute, or 3 tons an hour. Double the weight of the shoe for a supportive trainer, and you’re carrying 6 tons of weight on your feet and legs per hour. That’s the weight of a good-sized elephant. No wonder joints crumble!
¨ Low to the ground. The number one acute running injury is ankle sprains, and there’s no better way to lose stability than being high up off the ground such as in a well-cushioned shoe. You gain greater stability and feel of the ground as you get lower. Consider shoes that are ideally a centimeter off the ground or less.
¨ No heel lift. Even if the shoe is close to the ground, if it’s not flat, it’s trouble. The trend in running shoes is higher heels, which unfortunately rotates your pelvis and shifts your weight unnaturally forward. This forces you to change the angle of your ankles, knees, hips, back, shoulders, and neck leading to soreness and serious overuse injuries over time. Ideally, consider shoes with less than 2 to 4 mm discrepancy between heel height and toe. Even a centimeter’s difference substantially affects your stride economy and safety.
¨ Wide toe box. Stay clear of narrow shoes, even if they meet all other criteria. Your foot naturally expands with each stride, both as a spring, and for stability. Many minimalist shoes such as cross-country racing flats and other track shoes do not let your feet expand. This forces more weight on a smaller area, which leads to overuse injuries such as tendonitis and stress fractures, and also creates a very unstable platform on which to land. Women, you may want to consider the men’s version of your favorite shoe to get the room you need in the forefoot.
¨ No arch support. Your foot can’t move naturally if the arch is propped up. Ideally, you want zero support for your arch. Any more than that keeps your arch weak. However, if you’ve been locked in a traditional shoe for years, you may want to wean off slowly, at least in between barefoot workouts. Go with much less arch support than the shoe salesman recommends. If it’s truly holding your foot in place, you’ve got far too much support. (A key point: As your feet get strong, even minimal arch support can become a true danger. Not only will it change your stride and prevent your foot from absorbing shock naturally, but if your feet are strong enough to support you on your own, that little arch support will cause your feet to roll to the outside or suppinate. Suppination can cause serious IT band problems, and knee, hip, and particularly, ankle and shin problems. If you’re doing just fine barefoot, you’ll need a shoe without arch support, or your foot and leg will be rolled to the outside.)
¨ No motion control. The majority of shoes today are designed to move your foot from one place to another through your stride. This motion completely negates the foot’s desire to naturally go where it wants, and that’s even if the shoe was designed for forefoot striking. Most shoes are made to control your foot for a heel strike. Forcing your foot to move in any one plane or direction of travel creates a conflict between the foot’s desire to go one way and the shoe’s desire to go another —thereby creating injury. Avoid shoes with strong groves or channels along the sole that lock your foot in place. ¨ Avoid multiple sole patterns and materials. Shoe manufacturers often vary the density or type of foam and rubber on their soles along with the tread to make your foot move or roll in a particular direction. This is also a means of motion control. You want one material on the bottom, so your foot can choose where it goes, rather than being dictated by the softness or firmness of the rubber on the sole.
¨ Look for a straight-axis shoe. Shoes without in-flare or “banana-nosed” shoes are still hard to come by. Shoes are built on a “last” or sole, and then material is wrapped around them. While our feet are built on a straight axis, the majority of shoes are still built with the toes curving toward the insides of our feet, called in-flare. This is why we wear out the tops of our shoes first and end up deforming our shoes to the outside. It’s always why we end up with curved toes after the age of 6, according to Dr. Rossi. Our feet and toes want to move one way, and our shoes forces them another. This doesn’t just do cosmetic damage as the toes are connected to nearly every ligament and tendon of the foot. Look for a shoe that lets your foot stay as straight as possible on the inside.
¨ Look for a flexible sole. Out of a shoe your toes naturally flex 54 degrees at the ball of the foot, but in a shoe, they flex 30 to 80 percent less, according to Dr. Rossi. The more flexible the sole, the more your foot flexes naturally and feels the ground. This aids with foot strength, stability, circulation, recovery, and flexibility. However, such flexibility can be detrimental, particularly in the beginning, on rocky terrain. Work into more flexible soles over time as your feet gain strength, flexibility, and padding. If not, you’re looking at overuse injuries or because rocks are felt straight through the shoe, even an acute injury such as a fractured metatarsal, from slamming your foot into a rock. In general, the more flexible the sole, the better you’ll feel the ground, mitigate shock, and strengthen your feet.
¨ Stay away from heavy cushioning. Recently someone told me, “It’s the most comfortable shoe I’ve ever run in.” However, the shoe he spoke of was a heavily cushioned clunker. Instead of protecting his feet, he was likely hurting himself. Cushioned comfort’s not the key; a plush luxury automobile might feel great on the highway, but be deadly on the racetrack. Cushioning reduces your ability to feel the ground, causing you to strike harder. It also makes your foot squirm and reduces stability. This can lead to overuse injuries throughout your feet, ankles, knees, and elsewhere (particularly your sensitive IT bands, which were never designed to stabilize a squirmy leg) and can lead to a trip or fall (and subsequent sprained ankle or worse). You’d never catch a baseball with a boxing glove, so why would you try to run while wearing one? Get the least cushioning you can.
Online Shoe Reviews
Please go to our Web site at www.RunBare.com and access the Minimalist Shoe Review section. We will continually update the models and our thoughts about them. We’ll look at new shoes, old shoes, and be your guide before you step into the shoe department so you can be aware and prepared.
PS!
Ise paljajalu ei jookse :D :P
sai loetud raamat: "Born to Run"
hea lõik siin, veidike küll ajast maas aga ikkagi: "It wasn’t always like that—and when it wasn’t, we were awesome. Back in the ’70s, American marathoners were a lot like the Tarahumara; they were a tribe of isolated outcasts, running for love and relying on raw instinct and crude equipment. Slice the top off a ’70s running shoe, and you had a sandal: the old Adidas and Onitsuka Tigers were just a flat sole and laces, with no motion control, no arch support, no heel pad. The guys in the ’70s didn’t know enough to worry about “pronation” and “supination”; that fancy runningstore jargon hadn’t even been invented yet. Their training was as primitive as their shoes. They ran way too much: “We ran twice a day, sometimes three times,” Frank Shorter would recall. “All we did was run—run, eat, and sleep.” They ran way too hard: “The modus operandi was to let a bunch of competitive guys have at each other every day in a form of road rage,” one observer put it. And they were waaay too buddy-buddy for so-called competitors: “We liked running together,” recalled Bill Rodgers, a chieftain of the ’70s tribe and four-time Boston Marathon champ. “We had fun with it. It wasn’t a grind.” They were so ignorant, they didn’t even realize they were supposed to be burned out, overtrained, and injured. Instead, they were fast; really fast. Frank Shorter won the ’72 Olympic marathon gold and the ’76 silver, Bill Rodgers was the No. I ranked marathoner in the world for three years, and Alberto Salazar won Boston, New York, and the Comrades ultramarathon. By the early ’80s, the Greater Boston Track Club had half a dozen guys who could run a 2:12 marathon. That’s six guys, in one amateur club, in one city. Twenty years later, you couldn’t find a single 2:12 marathoner anywhere in the country. The United States couldn’t even get one runner to meet the 2:14 qualifying standard for the 2000 Olympics; only Rod DeHaven squeaked into the games under the 2:15 “B” standard. He finished sixty-ninth."
"After a full day of infantry drills. When the snow was too deep, Zatopek would jog in the tub on top of his dirty laundry, getting a resistance workout along with clean tighty whities. As soon as it thawed enough for him to get outside, he’d go nuts; he’d run four hundred meters as fast as he could, over and over, for ninety repetitions, resting in between by jogging two hundred meters. By the time he was finished, he’d done more than thirty-three miles of speedwork. Ask him his pace, and he’d shrug; he never timed himself. To build explosiveness, he and his wife, Dana, used to play catch with a javelin, hurling it back and forth to each other across a soccer field like a long, lethal Frisbee. One of Zatopek’s favorite workouts combined all his loves at once: he’d jog through the woods in his army boots with his everloving wife riding on his back. It was all a waste of time, of course. The Czechs were like the Zimbabwean bobsled team; they had no tradition, no coaching, no native talent, no chance of winning. But being counted out was liberating; having nothing to lose left Zatopek free to try any way to win. Take his first marathon: everyone knows the best way to build up to 26.2 miles is by running long, slow distances. Everyone, that is, except Emil Zatopek; he did hundred- yard dashes instead. “I already know how to go slow,” he reasoned. “I thought the point was to go fast.” His atrocious, deathspasming style was punch-line heaven for track scribes (“The most frightful horror spectacle since Frankenstein.” … “He runs as if his next step would be his last.” … “He looks like a man wrestling with an octopus on a conveyor belt”), but Zatopek just laughed along. “I’m not talented enough to run and smile at the same time,” he’d say. “Good thing it’s not figure skating. You only get points for speed, not style.”"
"That was pure Zatopek, though; races for him were like a pub crawl. He loved competing so much that instead of tapering and peaking, he jumped into as many meets as he could find. During a manic stretch in the late ’40s, Zatopek raced nearly every other week for three years and never lost, going 69-0. Even on a schedule like that, he still averaged up to 165 miles a week in training."
"“A lot of foot and knee injuries that are currently plaguing us are actually caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to overpronate, give us knee problems. Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented by Nike, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet, and had much lower incidence of knee injuries.”"
"Coach Lananna walked over to explain. “I can’t prove this,” he explained, “but I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.”"
"but people went thousands of years without shoes. I think you try to do all these corrective things with shoes and you overcompensate. You fix things that don’t need fixing. If you strengthen the foot by going barefoot, I think you reduce the risk of Achilles and knee and plantar fascia problems.”"
"Stretching came out even worse in a followup study performed the following year at the University of Hawaii; it found that runners who stretched were 33 percent more likely to get hurt."
"So if running shoes don’t make you go faster and don’t stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, “thrust enhancers,” air cushions, torsion devices, and roll bars? Well, if you have a pair of Kinseis in your closet, brace yourself for some bad news. And like all bad news, it comes in threes: PAINFUL TRUTH No. 1: The Best Shoes Are the Worst RUNNERS wearing top-of-the-line shoes are 123 percent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap shoes, according to a study led by Bernard Marti, M.D., a preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland’s University of Bern. Dr. Marti’s research team analyzed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand-Prix, a 9.6- mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 percent had been hurt during that time."
"But what surprised Dr. Marti, as he pointed out in The American Journal of Sports Medicine in 1989, was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn’t training surface, running speed, weekly mileage, or “competitive training motivation.” It wasn’t even body weight, or a history of previous injury: it was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40"
"Sharp-eyed as ever, Coach Vin Lananna had already spotted the same phenomenon himself back in the early ’80s. “I once ordered high-end shoes for the team, and within two weeks, we had more plantar fasciitis and Achilles problems than I’d ever seen. So I sent them back and told them, ‘Send me my cheap shoes,’” Lananna says. “Ever since then, I’ve always ordered the low-end shoes. It’s not because I’m cheap. It’s because I’m in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy.”"
"BEFORE Alan Webb became America’s greatest miler, he was a flat-footed frosh with awful form. But his high school coach saw potential, and began rebuilding Alan from—no exaggeration—the ground up. “I had injury problems early on, and it became apparent that my biomechanics could cause injury,” Webb told me. “So we did foot-strengthening drills and special walks in bare feet.” Bit by bit, Webb watched his feet transform before his eyes. “I was a size twelve and flat-footed, and now I’m a nine or ten. As the muscles in my feet got stronger, my arch got higher.” Because of the barefoot drills, Webb also cut down on his injuries, allowing him to handle the kind of heavy training that would lead to his U.S. record for the mile and the fastest 1,500- meter time in the world for the year 2007."
Järgmine raamat siis: "The Barefoot Running Book First Edition: A Practical Guide to the Art and Science of Barefoot and Minimalist Shoe Running"
Ja hetkel käsil selline raamat: "Barefoot Running" How to Run Light and Free...
Kirjelduseks:
As seen nationally on TV, radio and in print, Barefoot Running, an orginally self-published book, is the most comprehensive guide to barefoot running, written by best-selling author and running coach Michael Sandler, who has coached and inspired thousands of runners, walkers, and hikers nationwide.
After a near-death accident left him with a titanium femur and hip along with 10 knee operations, no ACL, and an inch leg-length discrepancy, former professional athlete and Olympic hopeful Michael Sandler was told he could never run again. It was only by going barefoot and feeling the ground, he began to heal as he learned how to run light and free. He now runs pain free 10-20 miles a day and in all conditions. His step-by-step method helps runners overcome injuries, find their natural form and rediscover the pure joy of running, no matter their age, history, or fitness level.
Co-Author Jessica Lee hated running and nagging knee pain and swore off running until the day she went barefoot. Now she helps women experience the joy of running barefoot (and pain free) nationwide.
Written to help people get into running, back into running, or run pain free and at your best at any age, Michael Sandler's inspirational book and step-by-step guide is an easy to read bible of information and a must read for any runner. Barefoot Running is the how-to-guide that picks up where Christopher McDougall's inspiring book Born to Run left off. If you liked Born to Run, you'll love Barefoot Running.
Raamatust veidike copy-pastetud:
Here’s false propaganda to watch out for:
· Pronation (or rolling the foot downward and inward) is bad, and if you pronate you must use motion control or stability shoes. Not true, particularly over time. You may just need to strengthen your foot.
· If you get sore knees, you need more cushioning. False. Cushioning makes you hit harder and causes sore knees.
· Materials in most shoes compress so fast they lose their cushioning almost overnight. Not true. You want to feel the ground. Even with hundreds of miles on your shoes, they’re likely still too cushioned.
· Shoes must be replaced every 300 to 400 miles. False. The older the shoe, the more naturally your foot moves and feels the ground, and the less likely you’ll suffer an injury. So dig out those comfortable old soles and put ’em back on.
· Racing flats don’t last. False. While there’s less cushion, the shoe still lasts for hundreds of miles.
· Running shoes should fit snug. False. I fell for this one for years and opted for narrower and narrower shoes until I wound up in a women’s AA width shoe. Feet adapt to the size of their environment. A small, narrow shoe creates a small, narrow foot. Additionally, snug shoes don’t allow your feet to expand when they contact the ground, putting more force on a smaller area of the foot while decreasing stability. If your toes can’t spread, your foot is in trouble. Fortunately, my feet have returned to a more natural, wider width.
· Your arch height determines the amount of support you need. False. Many people ask, “What shoe is good for a high or low arch?” However, the better question to ask is, “How much support do I need for a weak or strong arch?” Just because someone has a high arch, it does not mean you give them a big arch support. When you run barefoot, your arches naturally get stronger and taller—and you need less arch support. There’s no right or wrong arch height, or one height that needs support more than another. It’s arch strength that needs to be taken into account.
Michael’s Checklist for Selecting a Minimalist Shoe:
The goal of minimalist or natural footwear is to allow you the most natural stride possible. To do so, we must throw out much of the junk designed into shoes today such as elevated heels, arches, stability, motion control, curved toes (called toe-spring) and much more. No shoe is perfect, but some are far better than others. With new shoes coming on the market almost daily, use this guide to weigh the plusses and minuses of your selection.
¨ Light weight. Any weight on your foot changes the dynamic of the stride, and the heavier the shoe, the more your stride changes. Weight can cause your heel to drop first, or put undue stress and strain on the shins, which were never designed to carry weight in the first place. A good minimalist shoe is exceptionally lightweight, no more than 6 to 8 ounces (170–227 grams) or less per shoe. Unfortunately, this takes many shoes out of the running that claim to give you a more natural stride.
FOOT NOTE
Even at 100 strides a minute, in a pair of 8-ounce shoes, you’re lifting a pound per stride, 100 pounds a minute, or 3 tons an hour. Double the weight of the shoe for a supportive trainer, and you’re carrying 6 tons of weight on your feet and legs per hour. That’s the weight of a good-sized elephant. No wonder joints crumble!
¨ Low to the ground. The number one acute running injury is ankle sprains, and there’s no better way to lose stability than being high up off the ground such as in a well-cushioned shoe. You gain greater stability and feel of the ground as you get lower. Consider shoes that are ideally a centimeter off the ground or less.
¨ No heel lift. Even if the shoe is close to the ground, if it’s not flat, it’s trouble. The trend in running shoes is higher heels, which unfortunately rotates your pelvis and shifts your weight unnaturally forward. This forces you to change the angle of your ankles, knees, hips, back, shoulders, and neck leading to soreness and serious overuse injuries over time. Ideally, consider shoes with less than 2 to 4 mm discrepancy between heel height and toe. Even a centimeter’s difference substantially affects your stride economy and safety.
¨ Wide toe box. Stay clear of narrow shoes, even if they meet all other criteria. Your foot naturally expands with each stride, both as a spring, and for stability. Many minimalist shoes such as cross-country racing flats and other track shoes do not let your feet expand. This forces more weight on a smaller area, which leads to overuse injuries such as tendonitis and stress fractures, and also creates a very unstable platform on which to land. Women, you may want to consider the men’s version of your favorite shoe to get the room you need in the forefoot.
¨ No arch support. Your foot can’t move naturally if the arch is propped up. Ideally, you want zero support for your arch. Any more than that keeps your arch weak. However, if you’ve been locked in a traditional shoe for years, you may want to wean off slowly, at least in between barefoot workouts. Go with much less arch support than the shoe salesman recommends. If it’s truly holding your foot in place, you’ve got far too much support. (A key point: As your feet get strong, even minimal arch support can become a true danger. Not only will it change your stride and prevent your foot from absorbing shock naturally, but if your feet are strong enough to support you on your own, that little arch support will cause your feet to roll to the outside or suppinate. Suppination can cause serious IT band problems, and knee, hip, and particularly, ankle and shin problems. If you’re doing just fine barefoot, you’ll need a shoe without arch support, or your foot and leg will be rolled to the outside.)
¨ No motion control. The majority of shoes today are designed to move your foot from one place to another through your stride. This motion completely negates the foot’s desire to naturally go where it wants, and that’s even if the shoe was designed for forefoot striking. Most shoes are made to control your foot for a heel strike. Forcing your foot to move in any one plane or direction of travel creates a conflict between the foot’s desire to go one way and the shoe’s desire to go another —thereby creating injury. Avoid shoes with strong groves or channels along the sole that lock your foot in place. ¨ Avoid multiple sole patterns and materials. Shoe manufacturers often vary the density or type of foam and rubber on their soles along with the tread to make your foot move or roll in a particular direction. This is also a means of motion control. You want one material on the bottom, so your foot can choose where it goes, rather than being dictated by the softness or firmness of the rubber on the sole.
¨ Look for a straight-axis shoe. Shoes without in-flare or “banana-nosed” shoes are still hard to come by. Shoes are built on a “last” or sole, and then material is wrapped around them. While our feet are built on a straight axis, the majority of shoes are still built with the toes curving toward the insides of our feet, called in-flare. This is why we wear out the tops of our shoes first and end up deforming our shoes to the outside. It’s always why we end up with curved toes after the age of 6, according to Dr. Rossi. Our feet and toes want to move one way, and our shoes forces them another. This doesn’t just do cosmetic damage as the toes are connected to nearly every ligament and tendon of the foot. Look for a shoe that lets your foot stay as straight as possible on the inside.
¨ Look for a flexible sole. Out of a shoe your toes naturally flex 54 degrees at the ball of the foot, but in a shoe, they flex 30 to 80 percent less, according to Dr. Rossi. The more flexible the sole, the more your foot flexes naturally and feels the ground. This aids with foot strength, stability, circulation, recovery, and flexibility. However, such flexibility can be detrimental, particularly in the beginning, on rocky terrain. Work into more flexible soles over time as your feet gain strength, flexibility, and padding. If not, you’re looking at overuse injuries or because rocks are felt straight through the shoe, even an acute injury such as a fractured metatarsal, from slamming your foot into a rock. In general, the more flexible the sole, the better you’ll feel the ground, mitigate shock, and strengthen your feet.
¨ Stay away from heavy cushioning. Recently someone told me, “It’s the most comfortable shoe I’ve ever run in.” However, the shoe he spoke of was a heavily cushioned clunker. Instead of protecting his feet, he was likely hurting himself. Cushioned comfort’s not the key; a plush luxury automobile might feel great on the highway, but be deadly on the racetrack. Cushioning reduces your ability to feel the ground, causing you to strike harder. It also makes your foot squirm and reduces stability. This can lead to overuse injuries throughout your feet, ankles, knees, and elsewhere (particularly your sensitive IT bands, which were never designed to stabilize a squirmy leg) and can lead to a trip or fall (and subsequent sprained ankle or worse). You’d never catch a baseball with a boxing glove, so why would you try to run while wearing one? Get the least cushioning you can.
Online Shoe Reviews
Please go to our Web site at www.RunBare.com and access the Minimalist Shoe Review section. We will continually update the models and our thoughts about them. We’ll look at new shoes, old shoes, and be your guide before you step into the shoe department so you can be aware and prepared.
PS!
Ise paljajalu ei jookse :D :P
13 jaanuar 2012
2012a eesmärgid!?
Et nagu sporti teha veel ei võiks, arsti luba pole, aga...
2012a kõik eesmärgid on juba täidetud! ja kuna aasta on pikk, siis tuleb uued eesmärgid välja mõelda...
Võtaks ette 2eesmärki -
1. Kõikidel "rahva"jooksudel, kus osalen joosta PB. Ei tohiks väga raske olla, ainult üks jooks, mis võib raskusi valmistada :D
2. Maratoniks võiks lugeda heaks tulemuseks aega alla 2:50. Hetkeseisu arvestades ilmselt suht lihtne ja kindel eesmärk.
eks vaatab, kuidas need eesmärgid täituvad...
28 oktoober 2011
Puudujääkide kõrvaldamine
Et siis nüüdseks juba nädal tagasi, eelmisel reedel, sai jälle arstil käidud, kes siis andis teada magnetuuringu tulemused. Tuli välja, et röntgen ikkagi pettis ja muu esimesed kahtlustused osutusid tõeks - jalaluumurd. Täiesti pooleks. Ja suures teadmatuses sai niimoodi katkise jalaluuga isegi Tallinna Maraton läbi joostud :D Nüüd ei tohi pikemat aega isegi mitte kõndida või vähemalt võimalikult vähe. muudest tegevustest rääkimata... Sinna alla ei kuulu õnneks ujumine, rattasõit ja sex... Esimesed kaks mulle ei meeldi, ju siis tuleb kolmandale rõhku panna :D
veidi üle kahe kuu on veel aega järgmise maratonini - see saab ilmselt läbi joostud 0km trenni pealt või hoopis jalutatud. ei ole veel kindel, kas julgen siis jooksusammu teha või puhkan märtsi-aprillini.... Igatahes, kuna piletud olemas ja kohale peab minema, siis läbi ma selle teen ja vahet pole mismoodi või mis ajaga - saabki nautida selliseid olukordi ja olla koos inimestega, kellega tavaliselt kokku ei satuks. Omamoodi lahe seegi - ka halvast asjast tuleb võtta maksimaalne positiivne kogemus! Mina ja mu lõpmatu positiivsus... :D noo ei suuda kuidagi asju negatiivses valguses näha!
Ahjaa, arst kirjutas veel karuannuse glükosamiini raviks ja soovitas Artrostop kreemiga määrida. Eks ma siis vahepeal tegelen nende asjadega ja üritan kaalus mitte väga palju juurde võtta. see viimane saab muidugi raske olema :D aga küll ma hakkama saan, nagu kõigi muudegi asjadega! Üritan siis kasutada aega rohkem kasulikkude tegevustega ja viibin rohkem Facebookis:
veidi üle kahe kuu on veel aega järgmise maratonini - see saab ilmselt läbi joostud 0km trenni pealt või hoopis jalutatud. ei ole veel kindel, kas julgen siis jooksusammu teha või puhkan märtsi-aprillini.... Igatahes, kuna piletud olemas ja kohale peab minema, siis läbi ma selle teen ja vahet pole mismoodi või mis ajaga - saabki nautida selliseid olukordi ja olla koos inimestega, kellega tavaliselt kokku ei satuks. Omamoodi lahe seegi - ka halvast asjast tuleb võtta maksimaalne positiivne kogemus! Mina ja mu lõpmatu positiivsus... :D noo ei suuda kuidagi asju negatiivses valguses näha!
Ahjaa, arst kirjutas veel karuannuse glükosamiini raviks ja soovitas Artrostop kreemiga määrida. Eks ma siis vahepeal tegelen nende asjadega ja üritan kaalus mitte väga palju juurde võtta. see viimane saab muidugi raske olema :D aga küll ma hakkama saan, nagu kõigi muudegi asjadega! Üritan siis kasutada aega rohkem kasulikkude tegevustega ja viibin rohkem Facebookis:
04 oktoober 2011
magneti all ka käidud - nüüd veel 2nädalat ootamist
Täna siis sai ka magneti all uuringutel jalaga käidud.
1. aeg oli küll 11:30 aga kohal sai oldud juba mingi 11 paiku
2. kell 11:35 öeldi, et nad said alles aparaadi korda jakümnekonna minuti pärast võetakse mind ette
3. 11:47 kutsutigi ja öeldi, et nüüd heida aga pikali ja ära jalga liiguta 45min
4. ca37-40min hiljem lasti lahti sealt
järgmine kord siis 2nädala pärast saab arsti käest tulemuste kohta teada.
niikaua teen siis trepikõndi edasi :P
30 september 2011
tasakesi ju võib.. elada lõpmatuseni!
nädala alguses hakkas käimisel lisaks ka põlv veidi tunda andma - tagajärg mitte treenimisele.
lihased muutuvad nõrgemaks ja ei hoia liigeseid korralikult paigal ja noh, eks see kehakaal on ka veidike kõrgemale läinud....
Nii et otsustasin end ikka vahest veidi liigutada. alguses sai veidi mõeldud, mida teha?
Ja siis sai otsustatud trepikõnni kasuks s.t. valu on tunda kõndides ja joosta muidugi üldse ei
saa aga trepi peal haige liiges koormust ei saa, nii et mõeldud-tehtud.
Nüüdseks siis kolmel päeval tehtud pisikest tiiru trepist üles-alla. eks ta veidi tüütu on aga
pikki maid jooksma harjunult, pole see üldse hull.
Igatahes saab päris mõnusa koormuse - kuna 2,5nädalat pole end liigutanud, siis mõjub see
mõnusalt, saab pulsi veidike ülespoole ja samas mõjutab ilusasti ka jalalihaseid jooksupausi ajal.
Ja samas haige koht puhkab, nii et ideaalne trenn lausa :D
Esimesel päeval sai tehtud prooviks 20min - tulemus ok.
Teisel päeval tunnike - tulemus ok ja ka põlvevalust sai lahti tänu trennile. ning isegi haige koht andis vähem tunda.
Kolmandal 2tunnikest - tulemus ok ja enesetunne ning tuju juba päris hea. kehaline koormus on ikka üks
krdima hea asi - annab hea toonuse, hea tuju, aitab leevendada kaalutõusu, tekitab häid mõtteid, ning ravib haigeid kohti, jne jne...
Järgmisel nädalal siis magneti alla aga jah, kahju et siis alles 2nädalat hiljem tagasi arstile,
tahaks juba varem ju teada, mis seal tulemus näitab. Aga kes kannatab, see kaua elab,
nii et ma vist elan lõpmatuseni :P
Surematu
27 september 2011
15päeva ja ei ühtegi jooksusammu
Ka käimist kah suht vähe vaid rohkem voodis lebamist... (ja +8kg ning ümar kõht)
Otseselt käies enam ei lonka aga valu on tunda ja osade jalaasendite juures segab korralikult.
Arsti juures käimisest siis:
(Vähemalt ei pidanud Mardna juurde minema, sellele oleks siis ka EI öelnud, kui oleks samal päeval aeg olnud. Halbade arstide juurde ei lähe küll mitte! Selle praeguse arstiga aga kogemused puudusid veel)
Sai oodatud 15-20min,
kiirelt sisse, kiirelt välja - ei vaadatud õieti mu poolegi (küsis aind mille üle krdan) vaid saadeti pilti tegema jalast. (krt kahju, et mu tavalist arsti polnud aga hea ikkagi, et vahele sain aja tutvuste kaudu. Samas nii halba tunnet kui Mardnaga ka polnud).
15min seal ootamist. siis sai igasuguseid ronimisharjutusi tehtud ja 2pilti selle tulemuseks.
tagasi arstile - 15min ootamist ja ... tulemuseks tagasi pilti tegema, kuna arst ei näinud midagi :D
15min ootamist ning jälle veidi ronimisharjutusi ja tehti üks pilt. siis ei lastud arstile tagasi minna vaid kästi oodata. 15min ootamist ja lubati arsti juurde minna.
seal 15min ootamist ja arst võttis vastu uuesti.
tulemuseks - arst ei näinud ikkagi pildi pealt, et luul midagi viga oleks.
uuris ja katsus seda jalga ja küsis kas valus, kas on paistes/turses olnud jne..
kõigile küsimustele minu poolt vastuseks "ei". valus ainult joostes/käies.
ning kirjutati saateleht 2nädala pärast Mustamäe haiglasse magneti alla uuringutele vb viga hoopis kõhres...
ning veel 2nädalat hiljem tagasi arstile tulemusi teada saama...
Hullult kulus seal aega ja nagu ma ka kartsin - tulemust ei miskit veel :D
kui vahepeal jalg terveks ei saa, siis äkki uued uuringud näitavad midagi
aga sinna on veel pikk aeg... ja mõtteid, mis seal siis ikka viga võib olla?
PS!
mõttepausid ei ole just kõige paremad asjad - tulevad igasugused hullumeelsed mõtted ning ideed.
aga nendest juba siis kui jalaga selgus majas ja olemas "luba tappa", st. luba joosta jälle :D
ning ka väike "tunne" tagasi sees.
eks näis siis mis sellest saab....
17 september 2011
puhkus ennem järgmist hooaega
eelmises kirjutises arvasin, et jalavalu läheb üle ja oli kerge väljaväänamine ülemistel mägedes aga hetkeseisuga... võimalik, et hoopis luumurd...
sellest ajast siiani lonkan tõsiselt ka käies ja mõnel päeval on rakse aeglaseltki poodi longata, 100m läbimiseks kulub 5-10min :D
eks täpsem põhjus selgub kolmapäeval, kui arstiaeg. loodetavasti pääsen opita aga ega ma enam kindel selles ole, kuna valu on kuskil liigeses sees ja võimalik, et sealt kuskilt luu/kõhred/kinnitused purud.
igatahes hetkel veedan enamuse ajast voodis või toolis ja üritan käimisestki hoiduda, 6kg kehakaalu juurde tulnud :D ravin jalga - rest, ice, elevation, põletikuvastane ravi jne
nii et on aega mõelda ja ongi mõtted juba järgmise hooaja ja järgmiste maratonide juures!
Tugevat vaimu juba ei murra! mis ei tapa, teeb tugevamaks!
sellest ajast siiani lonkan tõsiselt ka käies ja mõnel päeval on rakse aeglaseltki poodi longata, 100m läbimiseks kulub 5-10min :D
eks täpsem põhjus selgub kolmapäeval, kui arstiaeg. loodetavasti pääsen opita aga ega ma enam kindel selles ole, kuna valu on kuskil liigeses sees ja võimalik, et sealt kuskilt luu/kõhred/kinnitused purud.
igatahes hetkel veedan enamuse ajast voodis või toolis ja üritan käimisestki hoiduda, 6kg kehakaalu juurde tulnud :D ravin jalga - rest, ice, elevation, põletikuvastane ravi jne
nii et on aega mõelda ja ongi mõtted juba järgmise hooaja ja järgmiste maratonide juures!
Tugevat vaimu juba ei murra! mis ei tapa, teeb tugevamaks!
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)