Wednesday, April 7, 2010

2010: 2 races, 2 PR's, Part II

So I decided to this post in 2 parts (at least) so it is not too long...I wonder if my posts tend to be too long. Any how this course I went to was at the University of Virginia. UVA is getting to be known as the leaders studying runners. The course was entitled "RUNNING MEDICINE 2010: Running throughout the ages." I attended last year and I was very impressed with the contents presented. This year was no exception. Here is a bulleted list of things I learned. If there is something you would like expanded on, shoot me an email I am happy to share more.
  • There are 3 studies done on barefoot running. UVA was one of them. They had this to say about barefoot running. IT IS DIFFERENT. Not better, not worse. It has been shown to decrease stride length, increase cadence, and decrease VO2 max. Not more or less likely to get injured. Actually increases energy cost of running and joint torque or makes it harder on your body. 5 finger shoes are closer to shoes than to barefoot but offer protection. May be a better option than barefoot. Here is what the keynote speaker Frank Shorter (1972 Gold medalist in the Marathon) said about barefoot running. There was a guy who won the Gold medal in 1976 barefoot from africa. 4 years later he won it again 4 min faster WITH shoes on. Hmmm interesting.
  • Reinforced the dramatic importance of gluteus medius in runners. Yes the little guys below your big booty muscle is in charge of slowing down the femur (thigh) while running. Prevents foot/knee/hip/back pain in runners. IT Band tightness, patellar tendonitis, some stress fractures can be the result of weak glut med.
  • The VO2 max of aging people does drop but very slowly. As people age they get less and less active. Its not the aging that is the problem it is the general activity level. Increased fitness helps you age slower.
  • Do motion control shoes prevent injuries? Did you know there is absolutely no evidence in the literature that deciding what shoes you wear compared to your foot type is accurate? It is not proven that it is a good idea to match shoe with foot type. These guys studied it, they took 81 female runners. Grouped them by foot type as neutral, pronated, and over pronated. then they randomly assigned them shoes either neutral, stability, and motion control. Then they put them on a 13 week training plan for a 1/2 marathon. They had some interesting results. They over pronated feet with motion control shoes had the most injuries and had the most girls not complete the marathon. THAT IS PEOPLE WHO "SHOULD" BE WEARING THOSE SHOES!! The over pronated feet did the best in a neutral shoe, the neutral foot in stability shoes had the least injuries overall. They conclude neutral foot people should wear stability, pronated feet should wear neutral shoes, over-pronated feet should wear neutral or stability but should not wear motion control!
There was a lot more but I thought was the meat and potatoes. GOOD STUFF. Here is how my week has gone so far:
Monday-Swim intervals. 3 warm up laps, 3 laps at 85% of what I would consider all out, rest 2 laps, X 3, then 3 lap cool down. 1050 meters. felt good.
Wednesday-1 hour bike ride with 5 hill repeats of about 1/2 mile each. Comfortably hard.
Tomorrow- Run in am and swim in pm. Short run/long swim.
Saturday-Softball tournament
Sunday-Bike run brick...QUOTE:

“It should be the function of medicine to help people die young as late in life as possible”
Ernst Wynder

That is my one biggest goal in life. Help others dies as young as possible


Karl Stutelberg said...

I would take that shoe research with a grain of salt. I thought the study was flawed in a lot of ways. I don't think that shoes will prevent all injuries but can certainly give someone a little better mechanics. My biggest problem was that he did not do a dynamic gait analysis. You can have a cavus foot but still overpronate. Also, one other person pointed out that these runners said they had not been injured in the last 6 months but during the study many of them recorded an "injury," because the his definition of "injury" was missing one workout. Just because they were sore and missed a workout doesn't mean the shoes were no good. I could go on, but I would just recommend shoes based on the dynamic exam and deciding what the client would benefit from, cushion and promoting pronation, slowing pronation, or stopping pronation.

Big Daddy Diesel said...

For me personally, I disagree, I remember when I first got into this sport I was in neautral shoes and my legs were always torn up, shin splints, you name, I had it. TIll I had my gait looked at and I was told I over pronate, sense moving to a stability shoe, my runs are less painful to the body. Thats just for me though.

Ron said...

BDD a motion control shoe would be too much help and a neutral shoe is too little help. The stability shoe would be a good fit. What the study is saying is that it is not as simple as we try to make it. Karl points out that there is A LOT of factors that make a shoe match the person. Interesting study though.

JudyMac said...

I'd agree that a lot of things need to be taken into account. Including what type of shoe these ladies wore when not running.

At home I walk barefoot. It would come as no surprise then if I said that I prefer neutral running shoes - Nike Free or Vibram Fivefingers normally. Yet from the pitifully short (2 mins) gait analysis done for me by a very posh shop in London, I should be wearing stability shoes...which hurt my knees.

Keep going on your research, maybe you will see a connection that others haven't.