Podiatry Arena members do not see these ads

Thank you Simon for highlighting your thoughts.

I have not turned a blind eye to the recent events; I just did not make comment on it... on a thread which had already gone off track from the foot strike subject. Whilst reading Dana's post at #55 I thought to myself... this isn't going to help matters... yes, I thought it was provocative... yes, I also understand why he wrote it... yes, I also understand why you (& Kevin) could get annoyed by it. Hence why from that point I wanted to remain impartial & suggested in post 57 that we all avoid pushing anyone's buttons, take a step back & take a few chill pills.

To be fair Simon... it would seem you have both attempted the above tactic on each other. Whilst I understand your frustration Simon, it also appears to me that you were the first main aggressor... with your sharp wit... it was a tad spiteful wasn't it?

I think you need to also try & understand my perspective Simon. Whist I stated why I addressed your earlier conduct I still want to remain impartial to the above - yet we (you & I) haven't had what would be considered an amicable history either. One's history has been known to further sway one's subsequent views & perception of another.

Thanks for the video on swearing - I enjoyed it. Let me assure you I do swear at times (I personally feel I shouldn't but I do). Yet it is only when I am angry as some swear words conveniently express the passion building up in me i.e. when I or someone else does something of which I consider to be stupid. However, I try & refrain from doing so in a public setting (hence a public forum). I think most will agree there is a time & place for it.


Like I said, it would seem you have both instigated similar emotions/reactions in & from each other.


My answer to this question is not really relevant. Yet I will answer - whilst I understand I am involved in this altercation between Dana & yourself I do not want to add further fuel to the fire. I can see both perspectives here Simon & just because I haven’t stated such doesn't mean I don't understand your concern. I addressed you earlier on this matter solely on the manner by which you were expressing your concern... & that was the ad hominen nature. Based on post 57 in which you followed with the above question, I wouldn't want to see the fence as a barrier, nor would I feel comfortable sitting on the fence... I would much rather knock on the gait/door & wait for it to be opened Simon.

I would like to think that one day we all might meet in person... & not have the feelings generated via what most would agree as controversial topics (i.e. foot strike, running foot attire) on a writing medium not conducive for outlining true intentions... deter from a future friendship... & no doubt have a laugh at the experience.

All the best.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Hi Matt
Back on topic!
I don't think we disagree on too much...
I personally think that higher midsole bending stiffness is a more important characteristic that whether a shoe has 4mm vs 10mm drop. For that reason I would expect that most of these shoes wouldn't 'cut the mustard' in this instance... (I am assuming they are quite flexible as the only one I have access to here is the Nike Free.)

I don't think you are getting my point- I was asking a hypothetical question...
This is only valid if done in an industrialised suburban environment. Who are running shoes made for? Consumers. Who are the majority of consumers? Suburban dwellers in industrial nations???
While I find it interesting that school children in Ethiopia might run barefoot very well, or that Dana runs big kilometres on trails, it does not really relate to the majority of running that your or my patients do because of the terrain.

So my question remains- Which group would more likely to be injured??

If you had a patient who came in with MTSS (they have just taken up running) and they were wearing a pair of Asics GT shoes would you suggest they switch to a pair of nike frees? If they were wearing pair of frees, would you suggest a more structured shoe?? I know... 'it depends'... what about if it was an acquaintance asking over the phone and you had to offer broad advice without seeing them?

I think there has been a paradigm shift... I think the role of running technique and training sessions barefoot are much more readily considered these days. In addition I think that heavy motion control shoes are much less likely to be recommended than previously... don't you think?? It would be interesting to see sales figures for a shoe like the Brooks Beast...

__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR
http://www.aspetar.com/

Hi Craig, all good points worth pondering over.

A tad difficult without seeing them, of which case their history would play a big part in determining the more appropriate advice (over the phone): history of footwear, mileage, running terrain, training program (i.e. hills, track work etc...), wear pattern described over the phone & possibly feedback on their gait (i.e. foot strike) may elicit some suitable feedback as to a sole footwear related answer (putting conditioning modules aside). I think in this case I would advise on shoe characteristics to look out for & not recommend a particular brand or model (in fact I do this for most of my patients)... as one brand/model may fit better on one patient’s foot as opposed to another. Basically the main characteristics I would advise on (in the above case) would be a supportive upper, flexible midsole at 'ball of foot' region & once again a low heel to forefoot pitch (that is 0-4mm). Of which I may give them a list of models across the major shoe brands which have shoes that fit the above criteria... so really it is just the heel pitch which is the stand out trait (fortunately the number of shoes which fit the criteria is increasing).

I am just personally convicted on the view that footwear should primarily serve as a means of protection from the elements & terrain. Like I said before, the foot was designed to function in a plantigrade fashion relative to the terrain & I would want to reduce the potential of any adverse shoe related influences as much as possible (including reducing the influence of footwear on naturally self selected foot strike placement). If someone needed support/control i.e. due to compromised osseous/joint integrity, then I feel it best given via an educated/assessed input based on the individual from someone like a Podiatrist - I feel shoes shouldn't encroach on this role too much via the addition of bits & pieces (some may call them gimmicks) in a generic sense which is then directed to the masses of which may not be appropriate via the potential encouragement or influence of adverse function/motion/strike pattern... & subsequent adverse stress. Some may not agree with this but this is my point of view at current point in time.

I agree, there has already been a paradigm shift to some degree... it has started but it is still in its infancy with much needed research needed to shed more light on hypotheses. As we are all aware of on this forum, there has/is also been some pseudo-science involved, misrepresentation of the data, a barefoot movement making fanciful evangelic like claims & emotions running high on the topic. These factors alone have likely clouded the bigger picture for the lay person wanting to find the best solution for their running shoe requirements... hence then more inclined to stick with what they know & what they are comfortable with (i.e. to take the so called more “minimalist” option may be seen as too great a risk - physically & financially).

Yes, it would be interesting to now see sales figures for such shoes as the Brooks Beast. My guess is that the figures would have dropped recently & will continue to drop as more info becomes available as to the suitability of such a shoe (particularly those runners say under 120kg???). I have an affiliation with the Brooks Beast – when I was a 14 year old it was my training shoe – a light child (50 odd kg) & with good lower limb posture/mechanics... I hated the shoe, but back then I didn’t know why... I knew it was the most supportive shoe on the market... hence I thought it was the best (as I assume the sales person did). Ironically, I actually developed MTSS in that shoe (yet, I was also doing a lot of hill work during that winter as well).

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Matt, your point of view is refreshing and greatly appreciated.

Dana

I picked this up via twitter this AM:
http://biomechanics.byu.edu/footstrikesmens10k.jpg

I have no idea which 10k it is, but as per usual, some are forefoot striking; some are midfoot striking; and some are rearfoot striking .....AND, they all running very fast (all <30 mins for the 10K)!

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Turns out it was from the US men's Olympic 10k trials

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Thanks Dana.

Thanks Craig - that's quite an interesting caption of times & foot strike. Whoever did it certainly had interesting intentions. There sure is good depth in U.S distance running. I can see the U.S becoming a force in distance running in the future... their development programs are soooo much better than Australia's .

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

I just realized that they were running TWICE as fast as what I was planning on doing in 3 weeks in the Run Melbourne 10k ... but its not going to happen ... going to be facing the surgeons knife instead. ... haven't decided if it was the fault of the New Balance Minimus's or the Hoka One One's ....

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Oh no!... all the best with that. Hmmm... those shoes are worlds apart... I know being a researcher & all the temptation to test these shoes must have been hard to resist... do you think it possibly could be the combination use of both the (presumed) vastly different shoes together?? (I confess I've never set foot in a Hoka One One).

Where's the knife going?

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

I try to mix it up. I run some days in the New Balance 10somethings; some days in the Minimus and some days in the Hoka One One (which I love running in!); I wear my MBT's to work one day a week..... mix it up.
Knife going into medial meniscus for 3rd time in 10yrs!

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Yes- Actually I am surprised by the number of heel strikers.
Most people will shift to forefoot strike at this sort of speed... How long they can maintain it is a different question...

__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR
http://www.aspetar.com/

HI Matt
Of course, but my whole line of questioning is based around what to give as broad recommendation for running shoes for a person who is about to take up running.

So-
... is pretty much what I recommend also apart from advising on heel pitch! I Just don't feel that it is that significant a factor to worry (at least initially...)
Do many of the running shoes with decreased heel pitch still have reasonable midsole stiffness??? Same as an Asics GT???

There is a train of thought that recreational runners should be initially in a shoe that doesn't change anything for them as 'natural' is likely better. I don't buy the 'its natural' line for the simple reason that there is nothing natural about running on man made surfaces... no matter what you have (or don't have) on your feet.

I have had recreational athletes in who have all sorts of different shoes that I have regarded as not suitable for them (I am sure I am not alone)- they may be too flexible, too heavy, too soft, have poor 'balance' (soft lateral midsole combined with a very hard medial midsole), too flat... I can't honestly say I have criticised a running shoe because of its heel pitch.

Have you ever had a patient who has had their symptoms improve simply by changing to a flatter pitch shoe??? (without doing coaching or techniques training....)
If yes- in what instance do you recommend a shoe based on a low heel pitch and do you have an specific instructions with them???


As an aside- my number one recommendation to decrease injuries in recreational runners is to train on natural variable terrain... irrespective of shoe or foot type.

__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist
ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR
http://www.aspetar.com/

I would stick to my stated criteria... unless they were overweight with poor lower limb function - in which case a more careful holistic approach needed (i.e. adaptation routine, exercises, drills) & likely need for orthotics within my stated shoe criteria (??? with regard to greater midsole thickness for the very heavy runner – haven’t had one visit me thus far).

You would think so wouldn't you... yet a shoe with a 12-10mm pitch does feel quite a bit different to a 4mm pitch shoe (greater still on a 0mm). After all, it is only at the least 6mm difference from the conventional training shoe but it feels quite a bit different with some reports of greater calf muscle strain (DOMS) after the first few runs in a lower pitch shoe.

The shoes I am running in (Free 3.0 & Saucony Hattori) would likely have less, whilst there have been others (i.e. Saucony Kinvara) which I have only tested for short periods would likely have similar to the Asics GT (possibly also the Brooks – Pure flow could be similar ???).

Agree, hence we need to accommodate for the synthetic hard surfaces of asphalt & concrete if any large degree of running (depended on the individual) is to be done on this surface. I feel barefoot runners constantly training on this type of surface in bare feet or say a Vibrams would be asking for problems if most of their running was done on this type of surface.

Well, I would never recommend the stated criteria of shoe without advising on some element of coaching & technique related principles (if this counts). However, I have had one report of Ant. Shin Splint resolvement thus far. I haven't had the opportunity to inform too many as this has been a fairly recent inclusion to therapy/shoe advice & only about 4 patients have fitted the criteria to receive it (two of which have come to me on word of mouth that I have been doing this). Thus for the other three it has been too early to tell (give it about another week).


Yes, good point. Funny you should say that... I have just submitted a post relating to Sebastian Coe on another thread & this concept was the first time I heard of this whilst reading one of his books back in the 80's (I was a kid back then). Seb use to run on "natural variable terrain" (including “ploughed fields”) to help ward off injuries & condition lower limb (kept it in mind ever since).

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

I recently had a patient who attended my clinic. He was and has completed a number of Iron man events with no symptoms to report. However, 12 months later after reading an article on the efficiency of midfoot-forefoot running. The patient decided to change his usual style of running (described by him as heel-toe running) to forefoot (midfoot) running.

He presented 12 months down the line from his initial change in running style with symptoms I can only feel are in keeping with medial tibial stress syndrome. He has since returned back to his heel- toe style and has now managed to complete his training for three marathons painfree. He is yet to try the distance required for an iron man event.

His question to the Podiatry community was 'should I return to midfoot-forefoot running?'

Interestingly (as a mini experiment) returning to the gym I decided to attempt the midfoot running style that has been posted on a number of video based blogs. Its a challenge. I am wondering whether our patients are truely adopting this style completely.

Here is the female footstrike data from the U.S Olympic trials 10 000m...

http://biomechanics.byu.edu/footstrikeswomens10k.jpg


Apparently the data is collected by a BYU biomechanist Iain Hunter.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Charlotte, I'm not a "medical professional" but I do know a few things about running. I personally use both heel striking and mid foot striking forms when I run. What determines which running form depends on many factors and I believe that a given set circumstances will dictate the best form to use. If your client read an article that states mid foot striking is more efficient that heel striking, I would say sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't and the article is weak at best for missing the whole picture.

A lot of good that has come out of all of the hype lately regarding running footwear or the lack of it. The good has less to do about what people actually wear but rather with the attention or focus on good running form. The problem is that in a given magazine article, they often try to come up with the magic formula that is going to turn a mediocre athlete into a world class performer. It just isn't going to happen and there is no magic formula. Instead, it will probably just be bad advice that leads to injury.

By trying to force yourself into performing one type of foot strike over another without an understanding of the factors that best favor a given form is nothing more than an injury waiting to happen.

I would encourage your triathlete to learn about and understand the factors that contribute to good form before just trying to force himself into a certain foot strike. Just one small example, if his stride length and frequency does not predispose mid foot striking, yet he is trying to force it anyway, he will just be headed for injury again.

Dana

The research data on this is mixed, so I assume that the article was propaganda and rhetoric and did not deal with the evidence. Some people are gullible enough to believe! Of course things like that happen! Different running styles overload different tissues. It is a zero sum game (ie one of Newton's Laws). You can not reduce the load on one tissue without increasing it in another.

ie
Heel stiking --> greater impacts; greater ankle plantarflexion moments
Forefoot striking --> greater rearfoot eversion moments; greater ankle dorsiflexion moments; greater forefoot dorsiflexion moments

Each of those loads have an increased injury risk associated with them and if the tissues can not adapt and that load exceeds what the tissues can take --> injury
Why would he want to change if he can run 3 marathons without an injury? Look at the photos linked to above of the foot strike patterns of the mens 10k trials for the USA olympic team. The heel strikers are running just as fast as the forefoot strikers.

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Really? Define "impacts", if you will?

__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."

I recently was sent some information from Brooks about their newish range of "minimalist" running shoes. Called the "PureProject" range they all have a heel-forefoot differential/offset of 4mm. Yet, unlike other minimalist range, they do appear to address various (support/control) needs within this 4mm differential/minimalist type framework...



I think the above approach is good for the running shoe industry (& interesting) - not exactly sure how valid/effective it is - but nonetheless... a positive step in the right direction. Particularly when it comes to advising on a possible appropriate ("minimalist" directed) running shoe for our various running patients.

... I also found the wording of the following advertising material of... "An Ideal Philosophy" interesting i.e....
Yes... a loaded statement, of which some would take issue with. Be that as it may... couldn't help but wonder... by stating the above/following, what are they then subsequently saying about their traditional range? ...



I haven't ran in many Brooks shoes in the past but they are now starting to grow on me. They are at least thinking outside the square so to speak & coming up with some innovative concepts... more so than other companies. I have just recently ordered the Brooks PureConnect (lesser profile model) so will be interested to see how this compares to the Nike Free 3.0 & Saucony Hattori. I suppose it would make sense to also compare the running of the PureConnect (Neutral) & the PureCadence (Support) models.

Then there is the Brooks PureDrift...

PureProject Just Got Even Lighter: Introducing the PureDrift...


The names of the above researchers rings a bell.

Anyway, something to think about... & look forward to.

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Is this what Craig meant? The heel impact before the active peak?

__________________
Phil Marshman
Mackay, Queensland Australia

Is it true to say that foot strike is somewhat misleading when we are looking at the biomechanics of running? In that someone who makes initial contact with the heel might well be taking most impact through the mid or forefoot. Similarly, one who strikes with the forefoot might actually proceed to impact heavily on the heel. Foot strike might tell us which part of the foot contacts the ground first, but not necessarily about where the loads are greatest.
We see runners who land very much on the forefoot and whose heels hardly contact the ground at all, and others who land on the forefoot but very obviously do collapse on to the heel with some force. Both these runners would be categorised as forefoot strikers, but it seems pointless to pair them in this way given that their running actions are so completely different.

There are a couple of points I was hoping might come from this question. Firstly vertical ground reaction force is only one component of the "impact" forces.

Secondly, when we think of impact forces we are talking about collisions between objects, in this case the foot/ shoe with ground. In physics collisions are divided into two periods: a period of compression and a period of restitution. Given that after the spike in the impact peak, the centre of mass continues to accelerate downward toward the earth, at what point does the period of compression stop following initial contact? Is it at the spike at the end of the so called "impact peak" or is it at the peak of the vertical GRF? Since forefoot strike running doesn't have a "spike", where should we measure the beginning and end of the compression and/ or "impact" period?

If we take the "impact" period in the left hand graph below to start at time = zero and end at the apex of the spike in the rearfoot strike runner for forefoot strike running too, then actually the magnitude of vertical ground reaction force is pretty much the same in both groups, I'd say the impulse is pretty much the same too. However if we take the impact period to be from time zero until the centre of mass stops accelerating downward toward the ground, then according to this data, both the peak magnitude and impulse of the vertical component of the GRF is greater in forefoot striking runners.

Attached Images

ff vs rearfoot grf.jpg (86.3 KB, 57 views)

__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."

Looks like Brooks is now going the way of Skechers and Vibram, making unsupported claims about the health benefits of their shoes. The phrase"helps prevent injury" is very dangerous these days for shoe manufacturers, especially when it has not a shred of research evidence to support it....may cost 'em millions...just like it is going to cost Vibram.

__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

e-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

Just to give you all a little history on this ground reaction force (GRF) vs time curve that is characteristic only of heel striking runners, originally, the initial high frequency spike that represented the contact of the heel of the shoe with the ground early on in the curve was called the "impact peak" (Cavanagh, Peter R. (ed): Biomechanics of Distance Running. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, Illinois, 1990)and second lower frequency curve that represented the center of mass (CoM) passing over the support phase foot from posterior to anterior was called the "propulsive peak" (Clarke TE, Frederick EC, Cooper LB: Effects of shoe cushioning upon ground reaction forces in running. Int J Sports Med, 4(4):247-251,1983) or "thrust peak" (Cavanagh PR, 1990).

Then, in 1981, Benno Nigg and coworkers offered different names for the two peaks. Nigg and coworkers called the initial spike the "passive peak" because they felt that it was happening so soon after ground contact that the central nervous system (CNS) did not have the time to respond. They called the second peak the "active peak" since he felt the CNS had sufficient time to respond to the GRF in order the magnitude and temporal pattern of the GRF curve (Nigg, B. M., Denoth, J. and Neukomm, P. A.: Quantifying the load on the human body: problems and some possible solutions. Biomechanics VII-B, pp. 88-99, 1981).

Therefore, the initial high frequency peak in the heel-striking GRF vs time curve could be called the "impact peak" or the "passive peak", whereas, the second lower frequency peak could be called either the "propulsive peak", "thrust peak" or "active peak". Just thought that you youngsters out there would like to know a little more about the history of the naming of these GRF events during heel-striking running since by labeling the graph "impact peak" and "active peak", this convention was never used back in the 1980s when force plate data on running was first being researched and discussed within the scientific literature.

__________________
Sincerely,

Kevin

**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College

e-mail: kevinakirby@comcast.net

Private Practice:
107 Scripps Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825 USA
My location

Voice: (916) 925-8111 Fax: (916) 925-8136
**************************************************

Not had time to read this yet, but FYI:
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewco...%20kinetics%22

If you scroll to page 15 there's a paper awaiting submission.

__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."

We discussed some of those issues in the Chi Running thread, especially this picture:
http://biomechanics.byu.edu/footstrikesmens10k.jpg

These are the best of the best ... the elite .... from the mens 10k USA olympic trials ... look at all the different foot strikes and they all running fast.

Take home message: there is no one best way to run or foot strike.

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Is this strictly true? I'd suggest that there may be caveats to this. For example, the best way to run the 100m is more than likely with a forefoot strike pattern. We can probably say the same for the 200M and maybe the 400M. But as distance increases and speed decreases the grey area seems to arrive. Thus, it's as metabolic efficiency becomes increasingly important that we see variation in foot strike.

An interesting review here should be to examine all of the world records at all running events and determine strike pattern, although this is just one variable within the complexity.

Or, do we mean best for the individual or best in terms of performance (of that individual)? How do you reckon Bolt would get on if he ran the 100M heel-striking?

What about running environment? For example, uphill versus running downhill? How does the surface angulation influence strike pattern optimisation? Do we reach a certain incline where everyone would forefoot strike going uphill and/ or everyone would rearfoot strike going downhill?

P.S. Get in there Peter Higgs- you are legend.

__________________
Who? What? When? Why? Yeah? And? So? What?

"My mission drive is to open up my eyes, 'cause the wicked lies and all the sh!te you say..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4NW5S1UTPQ

"Science is the antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition."

Another caveat would be the issue of overstriding ...

The point I trying to make re that picture of heel strikes is the nonsensical claim that gets made that the better runners forefoot/midfoot strike, so this is the best way to run ...... in that fast 10k, there are plenty of heel strikers running very fast.

I can not run 100m at the speed that they running in that 10km .... even I surprised that anyone in the race was heel striking at that speed, but it clear they were!

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.

Does anybody else out there get a wee bit overwhelmed with all the interesting information out there (of which you know you should read) yet struggle to find the time to do so?




i.e. ...

__________________
- alias: Matthew Thomas - Podiatrist.
Back On Track Podiatry.

"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift": Steve Prefontaine.

Funny you should mention that. I been looking at that issue today! (there was this thread in which I (as Admin) noted that under Newsbot's username we post an average of 3 bits of new research every day for the day 5 years!) Let alone keeping up with other new content, such as You Tube (did you see the slow mo video's I posted on the USA Olympic trials), whats happening with Twitter etc etc; let alone the social groups that have developed at places like Linkedin etc; let alone .... ... it can get a bit overwhelming....

A new buzzword that is creeping into academia is 'content curation', ie curating the content that is being produced rather than provide the content .... as the content is becoming so great and is becoming overwhelming.

I looking at what options we have to better curate the content, so it is more useful to people, more timely, and NOT overwhelming.

__________________
Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie
God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.