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.
__________________ 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.
Last edited by Admin2 : 7th May 2008 at 04:05 PM.
Reason: old pic removed
Sound great ! I am old enough to remember Tiger G9,s, Addidas TRX, The first Nike air and the Brooks truth........................ as long as punters are prepared to open thier wallets .......... !
The new Nike Free running shoes, designed to mimic the feel of running barefoot, are a bit like nude pantyhose. Why bother?
For starters, most of us would rather not subject our tender feet to shards of broken glass, rusty nails, gum and other nasty objects found in the street. Then there are the elements: Gooey asphalt and icy paths are hardly barefoot-friendly conditions, and the shoes offer a measure of protection.
Shoeless training has its advocates, including the Stanford University track team, which inspired Nike product developers. The human foot has about 20 muscles that strengthen and react when they hit the ground. Some believe that when bound in shoes, the unused muscles can weaken, causing injuries and hampering performance.
The $85 Nike Free, a slipper like trainer, is marketed as a tool to work out these lazy muscles. Endorsed by football star Tom Brady, runner Paula Radcliff and six-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, it even comes with a suggested training program.
As with any regimen, however, start slowly. The shoe, which Nike says moves and bends like the human foot, "is best used as a supplement" to regular athletic footwear, said Tobie Hatfeild, Nike's senior engineer for advanced products.
Elite athletes, who have naturally good bio-mechanics, will be the ones who can use the flexible shoe without getting injuries such as plantar fasciitis or tendinitis, said Dr. Stephen Weinberg, a podiatric surgeon and the medical director of the Chicago Accenture Triathlon.
For the rest of us, heavy use will "probably result in any one of a number of injuries long before the small intrinsic muscles of the feet [the stabilizers] get stronger or the lower leg muscles adapt to the stress of the increased range of motion of the unrestrained foot," Weinberg said.
"It's going to be a short-lived concept that runners will walk around in, probably as an alternative to a sandal," said Weinberg, who expects to see the Free used as a fashion statement rather than a training aid.
Are these nike free trainers developed in response to the MBT's that are hitting the market. Masia Barefoot Technology shoes and trainers that are becoming available over here, albiet not in a lot of shops.
Neil
Last edited by springyfeet : 12th June 2005 at 11:49 AM.
The Nike Free training were not develeoped in response to the MBT, more as a response to some research being carried out by Nike.
Runners have often been advised by their coaches to incorporate barefoot training into their workouts. Having spoken to a number of running coaches around the world, such as Arthur Lydiard and Vin Lanana (along with a great many other coaches and athletes), the reasoning behind this became clear.
Arthur Lydiard beleives that if you support an area, it gets weaker, if you exercise it, it gets stronger. The human foot was designed to work naturally - un-shod. By encasing feet in shoes, we have weakened them - the foot is not being asked to work as hard as it is when barefoot.
Of course, the human foot was designed to walk / run barefoot on soft surafces, not asphalt or concrete. When running coaches advise their runners to train barefoot, careful attention must be paid to the surface upon which they are to run - a quick scan of recreational parks would uncover many hidden objects such as bottle tops, glass, stones, all of which could injure the runners foot.
So having researched the differences between the barefoot footstrike and the shod footstrike, the Nike Free concept was developed to enable the foot to function naturally (as though barefoot) while retaining some of the protective elements of footwear; Thus enabling the runner to experience the benefits of barefoot training while running on a wide variety of surfaces.
Elite athletes, who have naturally good biomechanics, will be the ones who can use the flexible shoe without getting injuries such as plantar fasciitis or tendonitis, said Dr. Stephen Weinberg, a podiatric surgeon and the medical director of the Chicago Accenture Triathlon.
For the rest of us, heavy use will "probably result in any one of a number of injuries long before the small intrinsic muscles of the feet (the stabilizers) get stronger or the lower leg muscles adapt to the stress of the increased range of motion of the unrestrained foot," Weinberg said.
"It's going to be a short-lived concept that runners will walk around in, probably as an alternative to a sandal," said Weinberg, who expects to see the Free used as a fashion statement rather than a training aid.
Sixty Quid! please send 50 quid, i got real good runners that are cheaper and works better . Dont worry about the emporers new clothers , these are much better, ligher and wont piss your partner off if you take them to bed. Please contact administrater for my details, they will be sent via returned mail
At the ISB Footwear Footwear Biomechanics Symposium in Cleveland a paper was presented from the Institute of Biomechanics and Orthopaedic at the German Sport University in Cologne.
They took 100 runners and were randomised to the Nike Free and a control shoe
At 6 months there was an increase in toe flexor toe strengh and inversion muscle strength (but not eversion) for those in the Nike Free shoe
__________________ 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.
How did they measure muscle strength for the invertors?
Quote:
For toe flexor strength measuring, a custom made dynamometer based on piezo transducers was used. Knee and ankle angle were constant at 90 degrees. The maximum force of three maximal voluntary isometric contractions was taken.
We use a similar device and method.
__________________ 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.
Quote, the human foot has about 20 muscles that strengthen and react when they hit the ground. Some believe that when bound in shoes, the unused muscles weaken, causing injuries and hampering performance.
Why is it that Nike have an all-new Air Cesium trainer with a built in 3 degree varus wedge, surely this could have a detrimental effect for some people.
Do the shops selling these have trained staff to advise everyone who may purchase these, is a bio-mechanical assessment made to make sure they are appropriate for them. If not there could be some compensation claims being made.
Has anyone else heard of these trainers ?, what do you think?.
Has anyone else heard of these trainers ?, what do you think?.
I am involved in a running shop in the UK, and from knowing about various outlets etc I can safely say very few of their staff are trained effectivley in biomechanical assessments. The good shops ONLY employ runners and fellow sports people or clinicians who already have at least a basic knowledge of biomechaincs (good if you are shopping - question/interegate the staff), but still most of the staff are only 90% effective in their assessments, even with regular training updates, and things like leg length difference and other more complex conditions really throws a spanner in the works for those guys.
Needless to say I have heard of the Cesium, and in my oppinion Nike are treading very unstable ground.
Nike cesium flew off the shelf in my local running shop. I only have feedback from one guy who got a pair. He was back in the shop when I happened to be there buying a different pair of shoes- enough said.
But horses for courses, personally I can't wear anything by adidas as they are too narrow and the last too curved. Just not for me.
Nike cesium flew off the shelf in my local running shop.
To be honest I'm not suprised by that.
Look at the Nike Shox (the running versions - before anybody flames me) I love the street version - but ever tried to run in a pair - the phrase "It ain't happening" comes to mind and then of course there is the Nike Free's (A chorus of huh?) both look absolutley fantastic ideas on the drawing board and everything is going smoothly until you involve... those people who wear the shoes.... OH YES -RUNNERS :)
In my oppinion Nike do a great job on the technical research and the promotion, but when it involves real people they fall flat on their faces. Either a) their ideas are not comercially viable - e.g. the nike free - who in their right mind would buy the same shoe for 5 - 10 yrs on the run especially when they dont stand up to serious mileage!?! or b) they target the wrong population e.g. the Nike shox - how many runners do you know that will wear a "chav's" shoe?
Same can be said of Adidas - the A1 - nice idea on paper, just not practical though.
Quote:
I can't wear anything by adidas as they are too narrow and the last too curved. Just not for me.
Just a question for Simon Spooner - have you tried a pair of Adi's recently? They have remade their lasts, the sizes are still way off - you still need to go up at least 1/2 a size to get a decent fit but the width/length proportions have improved so much that my next pair are going to be Adistar or S.Nova Ctrl.
From June's ACSM meeting: Kinematic Comparison of Running Barefoot and in the Nike FREE 5.0:
Griffin, Janet R.; Mercer, ; Dufek, Janet S.
Quote:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if knee and ankle kinematics during running were similar when running with bare feet and while running in a shoe designed to mimic barefoot running.
METHODS: Ten footfalls per subject-condition were evaluated kinematically using a 12-camera Vicon motion capture system (120 Hz) for 9 female runners (26.9 ±4yrs, 63.7 ± 5.9 kg, 168 ± 7.5 cm) at 4 times within two 8- minute conditions (barefoot and wearing test shoes) on a treadmill. Five knee and ankle variables representing impact (knee, ankle angle; knee angular velocity) and mid-stance (peak knee angle, peak knee angular velocity) kinematics were evaluated across conditions and times. For each stance phase of a stride, knee and ankle flexion angle data were normalized to time of stance phase. A spanning set analysis was conducted using these data sets in order to determine the joint variability for each time-condition. Each dependent variable (knee, ankle kinematics, joint variability) was analyzed using a 2 (footwear) × 4 (time) repeated measures ANO VA.
RESUITS: There were no significant (P>0.05) interactions (footwear × time) for any of the variables nor for the main effect of time, suggesting no accommodation to either condition over time. There was a significant main effect of footwear for ankle angle at contact, barefoot (7.4 ± 6.1°) more plantarflexed than shod (15.9 ± 3.6°); peak knee angle, barefoot (45.8 ± 1.6°) more extended than shod (49.5 ± 2.0°); and peak knee angular velocity, barefoot (357.55 ± 42.9°) slower than shod (421.9 ± 82.2°) (p<0.05). There was no significant effect of footwear for knee angle at contact or the variability of either the knee or ankle angles (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: The majority of the comparisons of the kinematic patterns lead to the conclusion that there were very few differences between running in the test shoes and with bare feet. The differences that were observed including ankle joint angle at contact as well as the peak knee angle and peak knee angular velocity during mid-stance suggest that any subtle change in running kinematics was likely due to the perceived cushioning properties of the shoe. Despite the observed changes, it appears that the general running pattern while running in the test shoes was similar to that of a barefoot runner.
Nike Barefoot Running Shoe
Nike Free
Nike free trainers
Linear Mode
