Simon, no matter how hard you pretend to answer my initial questions, you haven't. No matter how low you stoop to insult me, you haven't. What a laugh.
Don't know what your question was, since it seemed to make some straw man arguments about what I hadn't said. I do know that I have asked you the same straight question several times tonight: how many cups of coffeeee have you made for employees of IBM today? It's a reasonable question, why can't you answer it?
Reread post 1102, no need to respond, you've more than given me my answer.
Sh!t you really don't read and or listen do you?
And the body modulates Kleg according to surface stiffness (Kshoe + Ksurface) to obtain a near constant COM trajectory. So.... if I jump off a wall and land on the concrete below with my legs locked out..... If I land on the same surface from the same height, but bend my knees.... Now, if I jump from the same height and land on a softer surface I don't need to bend my knees relatively so much to arrive at the same impact forces that I achieved with either of the previous two examples. Is it better to run with straighter legs or more bent legs? Which will be more metabolically efficient? What does the research tell us? Does it tell us that performance is enhanced with running on stiffer surfaces or more compliant surfaces?
Simon, with respect to your questions, what does the research tell us about injury rates in running?
Simon, lets stick to the point I am making. You asked Mr. Sicknote to produce research and references to support his claims and I am simply pointing out that you also lack research and references to support your own claims.
The best you could do is reference two studies, one makes the statement "and injury rate MIGHT be reduced". The second reference states "and injury rate is POTENTIALLY halved". Not exactly conclusive, are they?
It simply proves my point, you got nothin so get off your high horse. You confirmed that when you lowered yourself to making coffee attacks. I understand why you were reduced to making personal attacks, what I don't get is coffee? Is that a generalization about a certain ethnic group or something? Please help me out with that one.
As far as jumping off a wall onto concrete, you are making a big stretch in comparing that to running. If you listen to Kevin Kirby, then you would want to jump of the wall and land on your heels like he claims the majority of runners supposedly do. I don't know how high your wall is but I would speculate that if it is high enough and you land on concrete on your heels, the outcome would not be good, I don't care how much you bend your knees. Maybe Kevin could jump off a 10 foot wall onto concrete landing on his heels to see what happens.
As far as landing on your heels, the 80% statistic Kevin uses is a bunch of crap lifted from a bogus study. The study visually observed runners at a given point in a race and recorded the results. Give me a break or is it, give me a coffee break.
Well hasn't this got zesty!
I'm surprised to see you on this one as well Simon. Not your usuall bag.
What does the research tell us about crawling naked over broken glass?
I am simply pointing out that you also lack research and references to support your own claims.
The problem with claims is that sometimes people claim that other people have made claims which they never, in fact, claimed. Thus they can claim that the claims of the other are unsupported claims when in fact, no such claims have been made. I think it would be worthwhile if the people claiming the claims of the other are unsupported, specify which claims they meant, moving the whole discussion onto the ground of clams being independant of any party. Then they (the claims claimed to have been claimed) can be addressed individually rather than collectively as "your claims", a term which one could right claim to be unsupportable as they would incorperate the corperate claims (or the claims some CLAIM to be corperate claims) which a group might claim another group subscribe to.
I hope I've managed to bring some clarity to the debate.
You haven't read the two papers I referenced have you, Dana? Two sugars in mine please, thanks luv.
I get the gist from some people that believe research methods, statistical analysis & wearing "optimal" footwear in the future (1000 years time) will cure foot injury?. That will never be the case.
I also recently broke my 4th metatarsal wearing the VFF. I have been wearing them for 6+ months, about 50 miles per week… and then the pain showed up on an everyday run. I didn’t land on it funny or anything.
You broke your 4th metatarsal wearing VFF?. Nooooooo, who would have guessed?. You were only running through the pain. 2 thumbs up.
Did anyone hear me say the word "common sense"?.
Something this guy clearly lacks. Back off the mileages, build up the tolerance & strength levels.
I get the gist some people seem to think research methods, statistical analysis & wearing "optimal" footwear in the future (1000 years time) will cure foot injury?.
True. And Walking barefoot does not ACTUALLY give your immune system a steady supply of electrons boosting your immune system so you never get sick, so you got that WELL wrong.
Its annoying when someone takes something said by somebody unrelated to you, Hyperbolises it to the point of absurdity, represents it as your views then disagrees with it with an air of smug superiority wouldn't you say?
Barefoot runners ALSO all believe in fairies. Mugs.
So the runners who decide to run through pain, lack common sense, lack in training knowledge, overreach beyond there existing potentials, running overweight, lack vital nutrients to bone/muscle health ect etc etc etc... There all of a sudden immune to injury just because they he have "a massive understanding of research methods, statistical analysis & wearing "optimal" footwear".
You & Simon are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Sarcasm fail. I'll try using shorter words. Try to follow.
That is what we podiatrists like to call "**** you made up". Nobody ever said that.
Let me know if you struggle to understand any of what I just said.
Simon, another bad assumption on your part. I have read those papers. The Van Gent study scanned the PubMed - Medline databases to pull 17 studies, 4 of which where described as low quality. They looked at risk factors behind injuries across Systemic, Running/training, Health and Lifestyle. While injury rates ranged from 19.4% to 92.4% other than some relationship between, age, training quantity and knee injury, they didn't find much in the way of significant risk factors. In fact, the final recommendation of the study was: We recommend further well designed studies on risk factors for running injuries for male and female runners."
Gee Wiz, that study was helpful and had nothing to do with what you were talking about nor supports anything you have said. Apparently you threw it out there to see if I actually read the weak piece of work.
A year ago we spoke of the McMahon study which I also had read which talks about the influence of track compliance on running. The study focuses on the influence of compliance on speed and efficiency. Unlike the Van Gent paper, this actually has substance but it is NOT about injury rate. Lower injury rate is seen as a side benefit to a more compliant track. A year ago I mentioned I grew up in Boston was a track runner and at the time was not only familiar with McMahon's paper but with the actual track he developed. Did you ever see or run on the track he developed?
Did you possibly throw this paper out there as a distraction as well?
No problem Simon, I know that there is very limited research in the area of running form, shoe preferences and injury rate. I know that anything you try to produce will at best be only remotely related if at all. You can put up a smoke screen for new people on this forum but I've been around too long to know when someone is full of BS and when they are not.
Go have a cup of coffee or would that be tea?
And this is wrong because.......? You asked me what the research tells us about the injury rate in runners, I pointed you to a meta-analyses of injury rates in running. Thus, that's what the research tells us about the injury rate in running. QED. And you didn't like that because..... it suggests that injury rates among runners might be as high as 92%??? Thus, my contention that running is crap.
Now, do you agree that impact forces between two bodies during a collision are, in part, determined by the relative stiffness of the colliding bodies? Do you agree that the leg stiffness characteristics are modulated by the CNS in response to the surface stiffness? Thus, we cannot simply say that "cushioning" reduces impact forces. Since by adding cushioning at the surface and/ or shoe level has been shown in several studies (not just the Mcmahon study- which is highly relevant to the discussion BTW which is why I cited it) to result in an increase in leg stiffness. Viz. it's not quite as simple as increased cushioning = decreased impact forces- right, Mr know it all? Now, before you put your, "I'm a runner therefore I know everything about running" 2 cents worth in, that was the point of the discussion. So: wind your neck in, read what was said, loose the straw man fallacies and lay off the coffeeeeeee.
Where I was going with this, before I was rudely interrupted by you, was that the body modulates leg stiffness according to surface stiffness; but if the leg functions too stiff or too compliant due to the surface stiffness then injury may ensue. Read the references in the leg stiffness thread: http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=46019 Here's a good review: http://www.udel.edu/PT/davis/stiffness_update.pdf This paper references a number of studies which suggest (yes, "suggest" because thats all the studies can ever do) that leg stiffness is related to surface stiffness and that leg stiffness is related to injury. QED.
Thread closed. Too much crap ruining a good thread.