The expensive "Trainers" designed for running are crap.

MASTER...of the bra

As bad as high heels?

Are Running Shoes as Bad for Your Knees as High Heels?

January 5, 2010


Running in running shoes puts more stress on your knees and hips than walking in high heels, according to a study published in the December 2009 issue of PM&R: The journal of injury, function and rehabilitation. The study compared healthy runners on a treadmill either running barefoot or in standard neutral stability running shoes.

What's up? The study authors say in a press release that modern running shoes are designed to support and protect the foot itself. But because many have an elevated heel and increased material under the medial arch, they end up putting more stress on the hip, knee and ankle. They suggest that new footwear designs try to minimize these forces on the leg joints. Press release: Running shoes may cause damage to knees, hips and ankles.


What does this mean for walkers? Follow my longtime walking shoe advice and seek out shoes without elevated heels or aggressively flanged heels. The best shoes for walking have a flat heel profile, with little to no elevation between the heel and the forefoot. I also prefer lighter-weight shoes rather than heavy shoes, even though it may mean that I wear them out faster. Reducing the stress on my knees and hips is critical to having a long, pain-free walking life. Walking will put far less stress on the joints than running, but anything you can do to reduce your risk of hip and knee pain is worth doing.

Nowhere near as good as bare foot?

This ^^ is quite long.

In a bit of a rush so can't add much....but jist is to buy a cheap flat runner and save your money.

Thoughts?

Oisinjm

I'll stick to the advice given to me by my physio and buy a good pair of runners, and not from champion sports or lifestyle, a proper pair of runners. A pair of orthotics too.

Also, I've been told that running barefoot isn't actually a good idea as we've been wearing runners our whole lives, our feet and bodies have become accustomed to the support, running barefoot increases the risk of injury.

Just what I've been told by the physio, can't back it up with any research or anything now.

Hanley

So this is the new buzz in fitness... Like anything, the pendulum will swing back to centre eventually.

Is wearing shoes with massive levels of support all the time a good idea? Probably not.

Is getting rid of those runners tomorrow and going to do your usual 5/10k a good idea? Definitely f*cking not.

Most people have spent 20-30 years in those shoes with that support. Their bodies have adapted to it, their running styles have adapted to it, etc etc. Trying to transition back to flat shoes without an adequate planned adaptation period's a terrible idea, unless you want to get badly injured.

Inspector Coptoor

gotta agree with hanley here.

I wouldnt do much running really, but I try to wear my vibram "foot gloves" as much as possible, for conditioning sessions etc and they are grand, but when I used them for a 5k run a while back, the DOMS the next day were outrageous

Barry.Oglesby

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

I wouldnt do much running really, but I try to wear my vibram "foot gloves" as much as possible, for conditioning sessions etc and they are grand, but when I used them for a 5k run a while back, the DOMS the next day were outrageous

Bet you looked like a prat too.

Mellor

These articles are troll science at its best.

constraversial tagline wrote:

Running in running shoes puts more stress on your knees and hips than walking in high heels

And its suddenly the runners and not the fact that you are running that contributes most of the stress.

tHE vAGGABOND

The problem with stuff like this is that Im sure I could find some official looking study saying just the opposite of yours above

There is a huge amount of conflicting advice and opinion out there on this subject. [and also, related, on how often you should change your runners].

I live in town and run a lot, 3 or 4 nights a week in and around the canal and every weekend in the phoenix park, and I can tell you for sure, I will be living with the risk of injury and keeping my runners on, thanks

leopardus

These articles are troll science at its best.

From the Skeletal Biology Lab, Harvard. Interesting links and videos:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/index.html

And some interesting publications, in reputable journals:
2010a. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang'eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531-5.

2010b Lieberman DE (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature Supplementary material.

On the broader subject of the evolution of humans as a cursorial hunter:
2009a Lieberman DE, Bramble DM, Raichlen DA, Shea JJ (2009) Brains, brawn and the evolution of human endurance running capabilities. In The First Humans: Origin and Early Evolution of the Genus Homo. Grine FE, Fleagle JG, Leakey RE, eds. New York: Springer, pp. 77-98.

2004e Bramble DM and Lieberman, DE (2004) Endurance running and the Evolution of Homo. Nature. 432: 345-352.

Hanley

leopardus wrote: »

vard.edu/index.html[/URL]

And some interesting publications, in reputable journals:
2010a. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang'eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531-5.

2010b Lieberman DE (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature Supplementary material.
/COLOR][/URL]

Are those stuidies just on guys who always run barefoot, versus those who always run in shoes?

Ouchette

Mellor wrote: »

These articles are troll science at its best.

Worse, the main link is to the Daily Mail

We're just lucky they didn't go from running in running shoes puts more stress on your joints than walking in high heels to 'Exercising in High Heels Best for Joints!'.

leopardus

Are those stuidies just on guys who always run barefoot, versus those who always run in shoes?

The habitually 'shod' runners consisted of Harvard University and Kenyan school children (all shod < 2 years). Kenyan athletes transitioned to running in shoes (shod ~ 12 years). The 'unshod runners' consisted of US habitual barefoot runners (run > 6 months barefoot or in minimal shoes) and kenyan school childred (unshod).

The 'supplemantary information' shows the results of a test on a group habitually shod runners. Runners had their gait analysed (72% heel-strike), asked to run in Vibrams and retested (36% heel strike).

Remmy

The random person that does the odd bit of exercise/running now and again is gonna shat themselves if they ever follow what these 'experts' say.

Ouchette

If the study was done entirely on treadmills, what is the evidence from the study to show the same conclusion would be valid for running outside on concrete/asphalt (since I'd think that's what most of us mainly run on)?

leopardus

If the study was done entirely on treadmills, what is the evidence from the study to show the same conclusion would be valid for running outside on concrete/asphalt (since I'd think that's what most of us mainly run on)?/QUOTE]

The study was not done entirely on treadmills; it was done on a concrete track in the US and a dirt track in Kenya:

All subjects were recorded on flat trackways, approximately 20-25 m long.

It is mentioned in the main text, and ellucidated in the supplementary material 5, that the effect of 'substrate stiffness' was tested.

Habitual barefoot toe-heel-toe runners who forefoot strike actually had slightly lower (but not significantly different, p=0.34) magnitudes of loading during impact on hard versus cushioned surfaces; they also experienced significantly higher rates of loading when shod versus unshod (p<0.05). These results therefore indicate that habitual barefoot runners who forefoot strike are not negatively affected by hard substrates, but instead have impact transient characteristics that are similar or smaller than those experienced by shod runners under the same conditions.

The random person that does the odd bit of exercise/running now and again is gonna shat themselves if they ever follow what these 'experts' say.

What the "experts" say, from the findings of their "research" is that:

Evidence that barefoot and minimally shod runners avoid RFS
strikes with high-impact collisions may have public health implica-
tions. The average runner strikes the ground 600 times per kilometre,
making runners prone to repetitive stress injuries. The incidence of
such injuries has remained considerable for 30 years despite technolo-
gical advancements that provide more cushioning and motion control
in shoes designed for heel–toe running. Although cushioned,
high-heeled running shoes are comfortable, they limit proprioception
and make it easier for runners to land on their heels. Furthermore,
many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may
lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness
contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the
plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis. Although there are
anecdotal reports of reduced injuries in barefoot populations, con-
trolled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that
individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in
minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced
injury rates.

What exactly is your critisism of the research? Can you provide any published material that can state otherwise? You dismiss the 'experts' that carried out the (extensive) research and at the same time provide nothing that can back up 'your' assertation that "the random person" will be worse off without shoes.

Mellor

leopardus wrote: »

From the Skeletal Biology Lab, Harvard. Interesting links and videos:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/index.html

And some interesting publications, in reputable journals:
2010a. Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA, Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, Mang'eni RO, Pitsiladis Y. (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature 463: 531-5.

2010b Lieberman DE (2010) Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners. Nature Supplementary material.

On the broader subject of the evolution of humans as a cursorial hunter:
2009a Lieberman DE, Bramble DM, Raichlen DA, Shea JJ (2009) Brains, brawn and the evolution of human endurance running capabilities. In The First Humans: Origin and Early Evolution of the Genus Homo. Grine FE, Fleagle JG, Leakey RE, eds. New York: Springer, pp. 77-98.

2004e Bramble DM and Lieberman, DE (2004) Endurance running and the Evolution of Homo. Nature. 432: 345-352.

I critisied the article, not the papers?
Do you see the problem with a paper with clearly defined parameters and opinions on all areas, being converted to an article that just grabs a stand out tag line.