Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Basically the pose and chi methods say we do not know how to run.
Quote:
For people who believe in either pose running or chi running, they too might find this article offensive. That’s fine. But no matter what running religion you belong to, read the article in its entirety and consider what is presented in it.
__________________ 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.
Like the email Kevin got, I get my fair share of them and one thing they have in common is that they all prove me right! What brought this up now is I just got one from a Chi runner in response to what I wrote in this thread.
Firstly, they obviously can't read as I did not say what they accused me of (ie they proved me right)
Secondly, they used many of the argumentative fallacies such as the appeal to the natural fallacy, cheery picking, appeal to authority** etc (ie they proved me right)
Thirdly, when I replied and pointed these things out to them, the abusive email came back (ie they proved me right)
....been through that same pattern many a time!
**The appeal to authority in this one was also quite typical. They said If I would just read the Chi Running books by Danny Dreyer, then I will become a believer! ... well, I actually own two of them Chi Running and Chi Marathon and rather than make me a believer, they make me roll my eyes and wonder how people fall for it!
Even though both books are on my desk at the moment, I will admit that I have not read Chi Marathon as I just can't bring myself to pick it up again. I told this story earlier, but when the book first arrived I opened it to a random page - on that page Dreyer was talking about Leibermann's study published in Nature. He talked about how the authors compared the foot strike pattern of runners from Africa and USA .... when in reality they actually eliminated the African runners from the analysis..... this book is off to a bad start, so I turned to another random page and it was discussing plantar fasciitis .... and stated "plantar fasciitis was due to heel striking" .... really? There is not one shred of evidence for this and we all see plantar fasciitis in midfoot and forefoot strikers! .. I had to put the book down after that and really have to wonder about the information in the book if there is this bull**** on the first two random pages I turned to ..... I have not found the inclination to pick it up again to read it.
Why do people fall for this for?
__________________ 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.
Here is a nice commentary on this whole "running form" debate by Matt Fitzgerald that all the Chi, Pose and Evolution running form zealots should read and learn from.
The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Quote:
Zeal without knowledge is fire without light.
Thomas Fuller (1608-1661)
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Purpose/Hypothesis : Annually, the incidence of running injuries averages 50% with nearly half of those injuries occurring at the knee. Alternative running styles such as barefoot running and Chi running have become more popular recently because their proponents assert these running styles are safer alternatives compared to traditional running with a rearfoot strike pattern. Advocates of alternative running styles suggest that traditional rearfoot striking may lead to greater knee loading, higher initial vertical loading rates, and possibly greater injury incidence rates. The purpose of this study was to compare lower extremity eccentric joint work and vertical loading rates between traditional rearfoot striking runners (TSR) and Chi runners (Chi).
Number of Subjects : Thirty-four runners: 22 TSR (55% male, 34.6 ± 10.6 yrs, 69.1 ± 12.3 kg, 1.73 ± .09m) and 12 Chi (50% male, 41.6 ± 8.0 yrs, 74.9 ± 12.6 kg, 1.74 ± .10m) runners.
Materials/Methods : Each runner participated in one testing session and ran for 5 minutes at a self-selected speed on a Bertec instrumented treadmill sampling kinetic data at 1200 Hz. Three dimensional kinematic data were captured with an eight camera Vicon Nexus system sampling at 240 Hz. Data reduction was conducted with custom MotionSoft software. Ankle dorsiflexion eccentric work (ADEW), ankle plantarflexion eccentric work (APEW), and knee extension eccentric work (KEEW) were derived from the integration of the negative portions of joint power curves. Average vertical loading rate (VALR) was defined as the slope of the vertical ground reaction force curve. Independent t-tests were conducted for each variable.
Results : Chi runners were older than TSR runners (p = .04*). Groups did not differ for mass (p = .20), height (p = .74), number of reported running miles per week (22.7 ± 14.1 mpw Chi, 25.5 ± 14.4 mpw TSR, p = .58) or training pace (9:10 min/mile Chi, 8:55 min/mile TSR, p = .68). TSR runners reported using their current running style longer than Chi runners (89.5 ± 61.2 months TSR, 29.8 ± 23.1 months Chi, p < 0.001*). Running speed did not differ between groups (2.78 ± .45 m/s TSR, 2.53 ± .48 m/s Chi, p = .15). TSR runners performed a greater amount of ADEW (-.004 ± .008 J/BH*BW TSR, 0 ± 0 J/BH*BW Chi, p = .04*) and KEEW (-.332 ± .11 ±.08 J/BH*BW TSR, -.144 ± .08 J/BH*BW Chi, p < 0.001*). Chi runners performed a greater amount of APEW (-.467 ± .13 J/BH*BW Chi, -.315 ± .10 J/BH*BW TSR, p < 0.001*). TSR runners demonstrated greater rates of loading than Chi runners (68.6 ± 15.5 bw/sec TSR, 43.1 ± 10.2 bw/sec Chi, p < 0.001*).
Conclusions : Chi runners demonstrated a midfoot strike pattern with no ADEW, reduced KEEW, increased APEW, and decreased rates of loading compared with TSR runners.
Clinical Relevance : Adopting a running style similar to Chi running where the runner attempts a midfoot strike pattern, a slight forward lean, and relatively relaxed extremities may reduce vertical loading rates and knee joint loading but may increase ankle loading.
Effect Of Training In Chi-running On Running Biomechanics
Deepak Kumar, Kelly McDermott, Haojun Feng, Veronica
Goldman, Anthony Luke, FACSM, Richard Souza, Frederick M.
Hecht. Presented at 2013 ACSM Mtg
Quote:
Running injuries are reported by up to 80% of runners. ChiRunning is an approach to running form that is thought to reduce the rate of injuries through encouraging a mid-foot strike, forward lean, shorter strides and other variations. No studies report the effect of ChiRunning training on running biomechanics in individuals without a current running practice .
PURPOSE: To evaluate kinematic and kinetic patterns before and after training in ChiRunning .
METHODS : Data were drawn from a randomized pilot study evaluating a running
program for participants with pre-hypertension. The 12-week study had 3 arms: 1)intervention, group-based training in ChiWalk/Run lead by a certified ChiRunning coach (n=9); 2) active control, a group-based training in walk/run approach covering general topics about running (excluding running form) (n=5); 3) usual care, a group provided with educational materials about adopting a walk/run program (n=6). 3-D kinematic [over-ground (OG), treadmill] and kinetic (OG) data were collected from all subjects pre- and post-intervention. At the moment, OG stance phase data have been analyzed from 7 individuals (Age: 53±8 yr; Weight: 79.3±16.8 kg, M:F= 4:3) in the chi-running group, compared using paired t-tests.
RESULTS: Post-intervention, the subjects had slightly slower running velocity (Pre: 3.1±0.6 m/s, Post: 2.9±0.4 m/s, p = 0.04), greater forward lean (p = 0.04) and less over-striding (p = 0.02). Other differences included a lower external knee adduction moment (p = 0.03), greater ankle eversion (p = 0.02) and greater external ankle eversion moment (p = 0.01). There were trends for a more anterior strike index (9% to 14 % foot length, p = 0.08), lower power generation at the ankle during preswing (p =0.08), lower power absorption at the knee (p = 0.07), greater knee flexion (p = 0.09), greater power absorption at the hip (p = 0.08) and shorter sagittal hip excursion (p =0.06). There were reductions in vertical instantaneous loading rate, vertical average loading rate and vertical impact loading but the differences did not reach significance.
CONCLUSIONS: ChiRunning intervention leads to changes in running biomechanics, which may lead to lower stress on distal lower extremity joints and tissues (ankle, tibia, knee) but the impact on proximal joints (hip, lower back) needs further investigation
Re: Chi Running
Linear Mode
