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.
For beginners and competitors and practiced by thousands of runners, ChiRunning combines modern physics with the ancient wisdom of T’ai Chi to create a running form that is easily learned and makes running more effortless and enjoyable.
Endorsed by top runners, medical doctors, and regular people, ChiRunning is revolutionizing the sport of running.
These guys do come across as clowns, and their claims about reducing injury etc with MFS does throw about some arguments. I am currently wearing these shoes and I love em.
I'm no Chi or Pose runner, just a natural midfoot runner who trains in lightweight neutral shoes and races in the lightest flats I can find.
The shoe is superb. For years I have been laterally posting my neutral shoes to get things right and this shoe seems to take away the need for additional support to the lateral column. It gives a nice positive BJ gear shift leading into propulsion as it possesses great forefoot flex combining with the large lateral post.
I haven't had the opportunity to try them in many clients as they are quite new to NZ, but those I have viewed on Silicon Coach also show the same medial shift at propulsion.
Whilst this shoe isn't for everyone, and perhaps should be sold on a Podiatrists Rx. I think it is refreshing to see NB looking outside the box of conventional designs and seeking ways to work with the recent BMX developments.
I would be interested in any feedback others may have on this shoe and on the rear, mid and forefoot discussion
Looking forward to checking out the running styles of the Worlds best at the coming Olympics T&F and marathon
Over the past 3 years, I've received many reports of injuries from runners who have used these two methods--which advocate a forward lean and use of the forefoot. Most did not have back pain or foot pain before they tried the technique recommendations. I believe that this is due to the Chi and POSE recommendation that everyone use a forward lean and that everyone should land on the midfoot, with a straight foot plant.
After 35 years of coaching, having received feedback from over 250,000 runners, I have come to believe that a forward lean can produce back or neck pain in a significant percentage of those who do so. Biomechanical research has shown for decades that upright body posture is the most efficient way to run, at any distance. Almost all of those who got back to me with forward lean back pain, who returned to running upright, got rid of the back/neck pain problem.
In consulting with leading bio mechanical experts, the overwhelming advice in foot placement is to let the foot land in a natural way for the individual. When there are major problems, such as severe overpronation, orthotics have done a great job in controlling the extra rotation to a manageable amount. Respected research has shown that landing on the heel is actually more efficient for most runners than midfoot running. Walk breaks have also reduced the continued aggravation of mechanical issues.
A significant number of runners who naturally land on their heels will develop foot problems when they force their feet to land and push off the midfoot, according to my experience.
I'm sure that the runners who commit themselves to these methods believe that it helps them. Belief can make one feel successful. If there are no injuries, then each individual must find what works best for him or her.
I have individually analyzed the running form of around 10,000 runners. Based upon my feedback from runners, and my experience, I don't believe that there is one way that everyone should run. Our bodies are created differently and they continue to adapt in ways that make running easier and more efficient. When my runners have the correct amount of recovery built into their training, they tend to stay injury free--regardless of how they run. If a forward lean and midfoot running help, and don't hurt, then it is fine to do it. But be careful!
Sounds very familiar...here's what I wrote a few months ago on the Newton Running shoes thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Kirby
Haven't run in a Newton shoe yet, but I have a a few things that need to be said about new shoes and the "Pose method" of forefoot striking running:
1. Not all runners need to strike on their forefoot to be the most efficient runners. For the majority of long distance runners at their normal training speeds, rearfoot striking is the preferred manner of running.
2. Trying to make someone who is naturally a rearfoot striker into a forefoot striker may injure them.
3. The same runner who is a rearfoot striker at 8:00 min/mile pace may be a forefoot striker at 4:30 min/mile pace. Running speed changes foot strike pattern.
4. To say that forefoot striking running is more energy efficient, and produces fewer injuries than rearfoot striking running is nothing more than marketing hype, with not a shred of scientific evidence, that is being promoted by know-nothings that are trying to make a living (Pose method, Chi running, etc) by trying to train naturally rearfoot striking runners into forefoot strikers.
5. Runners with restricted ankle joint dorsiflexion with their knee flexed (less than 10 degrees ankle joint dorsiflexion with their knee flexed) will naturally tend to be forefoot strikers. Runners with over 15 degrees of ankle joint dorsiflexion with their knee flexed will tend to be rearfoot striking runners, all other parameters being equal.
6. Just because someone is a triathlete does not mean they are also good runners, have good running form or have any special knowledge regarding running biomechanics.
7. Every year, a new gimmick shoe is introduced that produces a lot of converts, a lot of positive testimonials, and then a lot of injuries, with the shoe becoming ancient history within the running community within a few years. If history is right then the Newton shoe will just be another one of the gimmick shoes that I have seen come and go in my last 37 years of following the running shoe industry.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Here are a few more comments that I made on Podiatry Arena over the last few years regarding the "Pose Technique" and "Chi Running" that mirror the wise words from Jeff Galloway:
Quote:
From June 25, 2005:
“The individuals here in Sacramento (which has a large running community) that have tried to teach runners to run forefoot first (Pose method) have also been good for my practice.....they have caused many injuries in runners by trying to convert them from heel strikers to forefoot strikers. I'm sure that some runners will run better with instruction to strike forefoot first but most of the studies that have looked at running efficiency seem to indicate that the greatest metabolic efficiency for a runner is at their self-selected stride. Therefore, it is likely that most experienced runners are already running at their most efficient gait pattern. First show me some research that shows that a forefoot striking pattern of running is a more metabolically efficient or preventive of injury than rearfoot striking pattern of running, and I will start to possibly believe these old and worn-out running testimonials.”
From August 10, 2007:
"As I said, most runners are rearfoot strikers and as runners increase running speed, they will move from being rearfoot strikers to midfoot strikers to forefoot strikers. Trying to train a natural rearfoot striker to be a forefoot striker, I believe, is nothing more than another fad that will soon pass. As more evidence accumulates, it will be found that the rearfoot striking running pattern is not harmful and is actually a more efficient mode of running for the majority of shod runners at running speeds less than 10 miles per hour (6 minute mile pace). You can quote me on that.”
From October 18, 2007:
“Romanov's "Pose technique" along with the other forefoot striking technique the "ChiRunning method" is currently being touted as the most efficient, non-injury producing running method. In addition, Newton running shoes are the latest very expensive running shoes in the States that "promote natural forefoot striking" by having a large forefoot cushion, longitudinal forefoot outersole bars that supposedly promotes forefoot striking. This is all the latest fad in the running community and it is almost accepted now by some runners that if you aren't forefoot striking, then you are not running most efficiently.
To me it looks like some people are making a living on teaching runners who should be running heel first to be forefoot strikers. In my opinion, forefoot striking is simply not a natural way for most slower runners to train or race since research seems to indicate that experienced runners will self-select their kinematic pattern of running that is most energy efficient. I believe other research has shown that about 85% of runners are heel strikers. I was and still am a heel-striking runner, as were most of my mates on the cross-country team at UC Davis and the other high-level distance runners I competed against as a younger man. I was, during my prime, able to run a number of sub 2:35 marathons with a heel striking technique, even though, as the running pace increases, runners will naturally become more midfoot strikers and in sprinting will become forefoot strikers.
In my clinic, I see more runners who have become injured with Achilles tendonitis, calf strains and other odd injuries trying Romanov's Pose method or the Chi method forefoot striking technique. Therefore, I am not convinced that runners should be converted from heel striking to forefoot striking for the simple reason that a few people may have benefited from the running style change. As far as I'm concerned, its just another fad in the running scene that will soon pass as more evidence shows that the ones benefitting the most from forefoot-striking running are those that are teaching, coaching or selling products promoted by each new running technique.”
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Please also keep in mind that New Balance is not necessarily a running technology sage, thinking outside their competitors' combined boxes. Virtually every technical running brand has some shoe in their collection intended to encourage this type of running technique. Brooks has their Ghost, Saucony has their Triumph/Echelon, etc., et. al. Then there's Velocy, whose sole design is exclusive to this gait type. The mechanics of most of these are very similar; like all brands, the fit will vary significantly among them. I personally believe this is a welcome trend, and getting the major running brands to think of things beyond inserting medial posts into everything.
__________________ Jeremy Long C Ped
Smoky Mountain Foot Clinic
There has been a lot of discussion on the so called benefits (reduce injury & increase performance) of the various 'method style' running techniques. Tri('try')athletes seem to be the main group that tends to grab hold of these ideas & run with them. I posted the following on a running forum after an increasing amount of pro 'Chi' & 'Pose' related threads/posts (sorry for the length)...
Quote:
...There have been discussions (verging on debate) on this forum on running technique, foot strike etc. etc. which I have not got involved with as the whole issue is multifactorial (thus complex & exhaustive) based on many & variable individual traits (i.e. joint angles & range of motion, joint or structural congruency; muscle & tendon 'fitness' - strength/endurance, muscle & tendon integrity in relation to its region & action etc, etc,) of human physiology. Not to mention the association of neural pathway development from a young age i.e. if the foundations aren't developed & set at a young age , the presence of efficient form is reduced & subsequently the acquisition of efficient form will be difficult at a mature age (which I won't go into... hint: this is one reason why the Africans are efficient/fast runners). This is not to say one can't apply & adapt fundamental biomechanical principles to suit their physiological status for improved running efficiency later in life. Another issue that needs to be assessed is the possibility of pre-selection of a relatively efficient gait pattern for their given structural and functional makeup of the individual - more research needed in this area.
...Having said this, what should be the guidelines or the measuring stick for the evaluation of efficient running technique? The regurgitated 'educated' views of others - yes, to a certain extent, providing the underlying incentive is solely noble to the intended objective (in this case - injury free, efficient running) but more importantly there is clear evidence that the views don't contradict the laws of science/nature - analysis of movement/technique that does not violate biological and mechanical laws i.e. energy of motion must be direction in the general motion of travel, which in the case of running, is forward e.g. effective leg flexion is not so much the result of contracting flexor muscles but occurs from the forward movement inertia force. Effective forward leg swing economy is shortening the lever arm via increasing knee flexion so as heel 'rides' closer towards the buttocks. Conversely, excessive movement of the knees or hands across the midline of the body is often indicative of poor economy of movement due to energy not complementing the intended action.
...Now to the issue at hand - injury free, efficient running. Why did I post what I did at #14? - because 'slowcheetah' asked a question (#11) on this very issue & it was unlikely that the whole story was going to be revealed by the nature of the posters (pro Pose) responding at that time (because 'Pose' & Dr. Romanov don't advertise the fact) i.e. increased calf/Achilles/ankle stress (injuries) from increased eccentric loading of the region. My reference (& that of Dr. Tucker) is valid & worthy of consideration on this issue when considering paying to attend a 'Pose' clinic. After all, Dr. Romanov contacted Professor Noakes (who I respect) to have 'his technique' ('Pose') analysed. Romanov was quite happy to have the reduction of eccentric forces to the knee validated (advertised) thus claiming 'Pose' will reduce the risk of knee injury BUT why not comment on the diverted increase eccentric loading of the equally important ankle/Achilles/calf region. So, as far as the possibility of injuries is concerned (without considering optimal biomechanics for improved performance i.e. knee & ankle 'stiffness' during stance/support phase for better response rate off the ground - just gets too complicated & lengthy otherwise) 'Pose' method would appear to reduce stress to the knee (which is advertised) but increase stress to the ankle/Achilles/calf region (which is not advertised). After all, we are talking about injury free, efficient running here - are we not? ... Fair point?
I am a 'mid-foot' striker (the opinions & interpretations of the nature of foot strikes is often misunderstood & thus misrepresented) who does the majority of my 140 - 180 km/weeks in the Nike Free 3.0, small percentage in the Vibram Fivefingers (I only use these two footwear for training). Thus I know all about eccentric loading of the ankle/calf region & the importance to gradually adapt & strengthen this region to eccentric loading to prevent the occurrence of overuse type injury. Most soft tissue (e.g. Tibialis Posterior) injuries are the result of excess eccentric loading forces. It is thus important for the individual (& the coach/instructor) to be mindful of this when applying change to technique. Some people adapt sooner than others due to differing physiological/biomechanical traits (as mentioned in 2nd paragraph). Some may not adapt at all thus continually reach their injury threshold & get injured (i.e. due to abnormal foot mechanics) which defeats the purpose of the intended objective - in this case the cause of the problem needs to be addressed...'Pose' is not the answer.
I don't want to get into the debate of heel strike versus mid-foot/forefoot strike. I will say that some people are efficient heel strikers (have optimal structural congruency of the rearfoot) & some are efficient mid/forefoot strikers. Some are efficient compensators - which complicates the issue further. Having said that (from a Podiatry point of view) I personally believe there is greater chance of biomechanical faults setting in with a heel strike gait due the anatomical nature of the rearfoot i.e. subtalar joint - but once again, it is relative to the individual (also, I don't believe this point of view has been scientifically proven - i.e. heel striking - more incidence of injury). As far as 'braking' is concerned - heels striking should not be characterised as landing forward of centre of mass (COM), heel strikers can & do land within the ideal range in relation to COM. Conversely, the same applies to mid/forefoot strikers - I have seen people in this group 'braking' due to landing too far forward of COM - once again, it is relative to the individual.
It is important for one to have good muscular perception if changes in technique are intended - the differences between correct and incorrect movement variations need to be engrained. An exercise sequence in which incorrect and correct variations are alternated until the correct variation predominates. Deviation as little as possible from the individual's optimal parameters leads to a new proficiency. Plyometric training is a very effective tool in obtaining this as it conditions the muscles for eccentric loading as well as enhance elastic energy release from the tendons. There is the increasingly popular theory that the energy cost of running is inversely related to the 'stiffness' (muscular/tendon stiffness) of the propulsive leg - i.e. the stiffer the leg, the lower the energy cost. By increasing stiffness through plyometric training, runners can achieve greater propulsion for the same or less energy cost, thereby improving economy and consequently boosting running performance. It is known that all members of the Ethiopian (as well as Kenyan) distance squad carry out plyometric type drills and sprints on a weekly basis, and they have proven their ability time & time again as the world's best runners - you only have to watch the Haile Gebreselassie film 'Endurance' to see this. Is Gebreselassie running 'Pose' during the opening scenes of this film?? (just a side note of interest, the person playing Haile's 'present day' father in the film was Gebreselassie Bekele & the person playing Haile's 'younger day' father was Tedesse Haile - interesting names in the world of distance running).
Minimal rotation of the upper body is the goal, so a strong core is necessary. The abdominal and lower back muscles must be of sufficient strength to absorb as much rotational forces created by the lower body as possible - this is where Pilates is very beneficial for the runner wishing to improve the act of injury free, running efficiency. You will see Craig Mottram doing these type of exercises in 'The Big Mazungo' DVD.
Thus I feel the combination of Plyometrics & Pilates is a good training tool to enhance & engrain the strength, neuromuscular integrity & structural function needed for injury free efficient running. The focus is not to solely perfect running style for performance, but to address faulty mechanics associated with injury. The general criteria for injury free efficient running are the effectiveness of mechanical work and the running economy. A good running technique is characterized by the ease of running, lack of excessive tension, simplicity of movements and relaxation even at a fast pace.
I haven't touched on change of technique versus metabolic running economy (i.e. oxygen uptake). By this I mean changes in gait will initially contribute to more energy expenditure (not ideal) but may (or may not) lead to less energy expenditure (ideal for improved performance & of cause injury reduction) once the changed technique is engrained - the level of acquisition & time this takes will vary from person to person due to reasons already stated. I haven't also touched on the issue of abnormal foot mechanics or the association of footwear with running technique. As you can see, this topic is multifactorial & thus exhaustive (to the reader & myself) to cover on a forum such as this. One needs to recognize that no one treatment cures all things.
I suppose one can't patent exercises such as Plyometrics & Pilates thus the probable rise in the number of 'running method' organisations i.e. Pose, Chi, BK method. I have looked into all of them (not so much Chi). I have the DVD's for Pose & the BK method. I have analysed & discussed these with my brother (identical twin - thus our physiologies would be similar) who specifically flew to London to attend a Romanov 'Pose' course.
Quote:
QUOTE: Dr. Ross Tucker -
...The second school of thought suggests that the principles, rather than the PRODUCT, are important. That means that running technique can be taught by observing each runner on an individual basis, and then applying what are known to be sound and correct principles to modifying that technique. I hope that the distinction between this approach and 'generic, one size fits all' training are obvious.
Running technique, as I'm sure you can appreciate, is a pretty complex thing - arms, hips, shoulders, head position, movement of feet, landing patterns, swing phase, support phase, you name it - there are so many ways to look at technique that just "looking" at a runner doesn't allow you to know what is different. You might sense that there is a difference, but you can't know what it is, unless you objectively measure it.
By all means give 'Pose' a try if you're still interested. You may well get some benefit from aspects of the course that are valid. Just bear in mind the above facts. I'm all for people actively seeking to improve themselves; I just don't like it when others exploit this 'seeking' - & there are plenty out there trying doing so in the health & spiritual industry - not that I am saying 'Pose' (Dr. Romanov) is doing this. I feel the underlying intentions of Dr. Romanov are sincere.
This post has been edited by BEN-HUR: Sep 12 2008, 01:15 PM
--------------------
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift".
-Steve Prefontaine.
Just interested, I have been seeing patients over the past 12 months who have been running in Chi shoes, they are now presenting with mid thorasic pathology. The worst case is comression of T9 that was not evident 18 months ago before the use of the shoe.
A forward running style sees an increase in Trapezium muscle group to hold the head up possibly producing compressive forces in Thorasic. Any comments please.
Sometime when I am bored, I go to Amazon.com and read the 1 star reviews of books, they are always good for a laugh. I was just browsing some 1 star book reviews on Danny Dreyer's Chi Running book. I had to laugh at this review:
Quote:
Filled with a bunch of Chi Shmmee mystical crap. Lots of BS filler to make it to the publisher's page quota. I can summarize this book's running advice for you in two words. LEAN FORWARD.
__________________ 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.
A few comments about heel vs mid foot strikers. Kevin has stated in multiple posts that "85% of runners are heel strikers". Matt stated that the "whole issue is multifactorial". Taking both comments into consideration, I would suggest that one of the multiple factors that affects and encourages a particular foot strike tendency has to do with the type of shoe the runner is wearing.
It may very well be true that 85% of runners are heel strikers but is it also possible that 85% of runners are wearing shoes that greatly encourage heel striking and might make it almost impossible to run any other way but as a heel striker? If every runner wore shoes with no support or cushioning that had no height differential from heel to toe, I would speculate that the 85% heel striker tendency would drop considerably.
I have a pair of Asics GT 2140 trail shoes that are stability shoes. I don't need the stability and consequently I hate the shoes. While running in them two days ago, I was thinking about heel strike and realized it was almost impossible to land any other way but heel first. I felt like I had a block of wood stuck under my arch and that the height differential between the heel and the forefoot was great enough to force the shoe to hit the ground heel first. They offered very little option other than to land heel first, then roll forward on the lateral edge of my foot before toeing off.
On the other hand, last Saturday while on a 20 mile run on pavement in racing flats, I noticed that I was essentially landing midfoot in those shoes. I speculate that because the shoes have minimal cushion and only a small drop difference between heel and toe, that I "naturally" selected that style of landing. I might add that I tended to land on my heels even in those shoes before I started putting a lot of miles in wearing VFF. My feet would ache after wearing the racing flats as a heel striker. I have since learned how to run in them comfortably which is as a midfoot striker.
Is it possible that when a runner wears shoes that encourage heel striking that if they try to fight that and run midfoot or forefoot that they are inviting issues to surface which will ultimately lead to injury?
There is the advice that each runner needs to run with a style that fits them personally. I would take that further and suggest that the type of shoe they are wearing also plays a role in influencing running style.
Just as an aside, before Danny Dryer moved to SF and developed Chi Running, he was a Colorado runner. I met him in a 50 mile race, he came in 2nd in 7 hrs 28 mins, I came in behind him in 3rd in 7 hrs 32 mins. I sincerely doubt he was practicing Chi running but he seemed to be a very efficient runner based on the 7 plus hours I watched him run while trialing behind him. I have to wonder if his race results improved or degraded after practicing Chi Running.
In my continuing effort to learn and understand "running", based on the recommendations and reviews, I purchased the latest book on Chi running by Danny Dryer, Chi Marathon.
Like when you get any new book, I esgerly opened the parcel and opened the book to a random page ... on that page was a discussion of Libermanns article in Nature and how he compared African runners to runners in the USA. WRONG: Lieberann eliminated the African runners from the analysis.
A bit disappointed, I flicked to another random page and it mentioned that plantar fasciitis was due too much impact on the heel. WRONG: Plantar fasciitis is due to to much strain in the plantar fascia. How does impact affect the strain in the plantar fascia? Not one of the many risk factor studies on plantar fasciitis have linked it to impacts.
I put the book down. That was a week ago and I have not picked it up since.
A bit disappointed, I flicked to another random page and it mentioned that plantar fasciitis was due too much impact on the heel. WRONG: Plantar fasciitis is due to to much strain in the plantar fascia. How does impact affect the strain in the plantar fascia? Not one of the many risk factor studies on plantar fasciitis have linked it to impacts.
Craig:
I believe a significant number of patients with plantar heel pain or "proximal plantar fasciitis" get this condition from increased compression forces acting from the ground at the medial calcaneal tubercle. These can occur both traumatically, such as jumping down from a fence, or from repetetive compression forces over a longer duration, such as from walking barefoot on hard surfaces or standing on hard surfaces for a long duration.
The problem is that these compression forces are acting at the point of origin of the fibers of the central component of the plantar aponeurosis on the plantar aspect of the medial calcaneal tubercle so both compression forces and tension forces acting on the medial calcaneal tubercle, I believe, are responsible for the pain from proximal plantar fasciitis, in many cases. I am quite sure that, over time, research will show this hypothesis to be true .
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
I believe a significant number of patients with plantar heel pain or "proximal plantar fasciitis" get this condition from increased compression forces acting from the ground at the medial calcaneal tubercle. These can occur both traumatically, such as jumping down from a fence, or from repetetive compression forces over a longer duration, such as from walking barefoot on hard surfaces or standing on hard surfaces for a long duration.
The problem is that these compression forces are acting at the point of origin of the fibers of the central component of the plantar aponeurosis on the plantar aspect of the medial calcaneal tubercle so both compression forces and tension forces acting on the medial calcaneal tubercle, I believe, are responsible for the pain from proximal plantar fasciitis, in many cases. I am quite sure that, over time, research will show this hypothesis to be true .
Forefoot/midfoot strikers still get plantar fasciitis
__________________ 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.
Forefoot/midfoot strikers still get plantar fasciitis
The plantar calcaneus also receives significant compression forces during standing and walking. How do you know proximal plantar fasciitis is only from tension and not also from compression of the points of attachment of the plantar fascia on the medial calcaneal tubercle in some, if not many cases?
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
In my continuing effort to learn and understand "running", based on the recommendations and reviews, I purchased the latest book on Chi running by Danny Dryer, Chi Marathon.
Like when you get any new book, I esgerly opened the parcel and opened the book to a random page ... on that page was a discussion of Libermanns article in Nature and how he compared African runners to runners in the USA. WRONG: Lieberann eliminated the African runners from the analysis.
A bit disappointed, I flicked to another random page and it mentioned that plantar fasciitis was due too much impact on the heel. WRONG: Plantar fasciitis is due to to much strain in the plantar fascia. How does impact affect the strain in the plantar fascia? Not one of the many risk factor studies on plantar fasciitis have linked it to impacts.
I put the book down. That was a week ago and I have not picked it up since.
I just don't get it.....
One of the things I never understood with Chi running is the premise of using gravity to help forward propulsion. Chi running teaches you to lean forward slightly to initiate a falling forward action. Basic physics tells me that gravity is a vertical force, NOT horizontal. It just doesn't make sense that a vertical force can push you horizontally.
Basic running form will have you lean forward slightly but for other reasons than gravity. One is that with forward movement, you are facing wind resistance which is a horizontal force that you need to lean into. The second reason is to counter balance the forward propulsion generated from your feet and legs. Again a horizontal force.
Chi running shoe from New Balance
)athletes seem to be the main group that tends to grab hold of these ideas & run with them. I posted the following on a running forum after an increasing amount of pro 'Chi' & 'Pose' related threads/posts (sorry for the length)... 
Linear Mode
