Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
I will be very pleased when the real biomechanists start to weigh in on these findings of "increased impact forces" with heel-strike running rather than the medical doctors and anthropologists that just recently are becoming interested in foot and lower extremity biomechanics. I am aware of absolutely no scientific research which has correlated the passive (i.e. impact) peak of heel-strike running to greater risk of injury. However, I have noted in my sports medicine practice over the past 20+ years many runners who have converted to Pose or Chi running, which advocate more of a forefoot striking gait, will end up with Achilles tendon injuries, distal plantar fasciitis, and gastrocnemius-soleus muscle strains. Why is it never mentioned that these forefoot strikers also get injured while running and, sometimes, with far more debilitating injuries than do the heel strikers?
When will one of these "barefoot researchers" present a more balanced approach to the biomechanics of internal loading of structural components of the human foot and lower extremity? Just once I would like to hear one of them say something about the 80% of millions of runners who run as heel-strikers and in in shoes that aren't getting injured, rather than hearing how bad heel-striking running is for all runners because our ancestors ran barefoot without shoes.
I guess the best way to draw attention to your poor biomechanics research these days is to embrace barefoot running....why?.....because the media loves it!!
Gosh I could not agree more Kevin. I am finding this more and more frustrating. Just wondering when we will see Nigg 1981or LaFortune 1989 cited as conclusively establishing that impact forces do not collelate to injury.
Furthermore.. the body of evidence indicating higher impact forces are beneficial and necessary for the bone bank.
I am shocked to see a quality resarcher like Irene Davis putting her name to a paper that specifically links "overuse injury" to 'impact forces". There simply is not such a link in the scientific literature.
When are these guys gonna get real and present their data in a proper scientific manner and properly control for the variables.
It is a joke to be comparing current injury data of distance running to that of the 80's. In the 80's, the average marathon time was 3hours 8 minutes. today it is 4 hours 20 something. That tells us we were dealing with quality runners in the 80's with some real selection issues coming to the fore...
Maybe we should form a coalition of the pure and start getting the facts to the media. This is crazy..