  |
Reebok Men's Trail Mudslinger II Running Shoe Product Brand : Reebok |
Our Price : $65.00 
See All Similar Products » |
Reebok Men's Trail Mudslinger II Running Shoe Reebok Men's Trail Mudslinger II Running Shoe
Reebok Men's Trail Mudslinger II Running Shoe Overviews • Take your day off the beaten path with this rugged trail runner Reebok Men's Trail Mudslinger II Running Shoe Features
Available Stores 
  |
It's not just barefoot running and minimalism versus running shoes, the either/or situation many portray it to be. It's much deeper than that. It's not even that running shoe associates are evil and out to make a profit. Shoe associates may be accomplishing the goals they set out for, but maybe the goals their aiming for are not what need to be done. The paradigm that running shoes are built upon is the problem.
Under Pronation Running Shoe
Running shoes are built upon two central premises, impact soldiery and pronation. Their goals are simple, limit impact soldiery and preclude overprontation. This has led to a classification ideas based on cushioning, stability, and request for retrial control. The question is that this ideas may not have any ground to stand on. Have we been focused on the wrong things for 40+years?
I'll start with the traditional statistic of 33-56% of runners get injured every year (Bruggerman, 2007). That is kind of mind blowing when you think about it. Since there are a ton of injuries going on, let's look at what shoes are supposed to do.
Pronation:
As said earlier, shoes are built upon the factory that impact soldiery and pronation are what cause injuries. Pronation, in particular has been constructed as the bane of all runners. We have become inundated with limiting pronation via request for retrial control shoes. The central idea behind pronation is that overpronating causes rotation of the lower leg(i.e. Ankle,tibia, knee) putting stress on the joints and therefore foremost to injuries. Running shoes are therefore designed to limit this pronation. Essentially, running shoes are advanced and designed to put the body in "proper" alignment. But do we unmistakably need proper alignment?
This paradigm on pronation relies on two main things: (1)over pronation causes injuries and (2) running shoes can alter pronation.
Looking at the first premise, we can see some studies that do not show a link between pronation and injuries. In an epidemiological study by Wen et al. (1997), he found that lower extremitly alignment was not a major risk factor for marathon runners. In someone else study by Wen et al. (1998), this time a prospective study, he terminated that " Minor variations in lower extremity alignment do not appear conclusively to be major risk factors for overuse injuries in runners." Other studies have reached similar conclusions. One by Nigg et al. (2000) showed that foot and ankle movement did not predict injuries in a large group of runners.
If foot movement/pronation does not predict injuries or is not a risk factor for injuries, then one has to inquire whether the notion is sound or working...
Looking at the second premise, do shoes even modify pronation? request for retrial control shoes are designed to decrease pronation through a range of mechanisms. Most choose to insert a medial post or a similar device. In a study by Stacoff (2001), they tested some request for retrial control shoe devices and found that they did not alter pronation and did not convert the kinematics of the tibia or calcaneus bones either. Similarly, someone else study by Butler (2007) found that request for retrial control shoes showed no distinction in peak pronation when compared to cushioning shoes. Lastly, Dixon (2007) found similar results showing that request for retrial control shoes did not sacrifice peak eversion (pronation) and didn't convert the concentration of pressure.
This is sort of a duplicate whammy on request for retrial control shoes. If immoderate pronation does not cause injuries to the degree that every person thinks, and if request for retrial control shoes don't even alter pronation, what's the point of a request for retrial control shoe?
Cushioning:
Impact soldiery are the other major scoundrel of running injuries. The mental goes like this, the greater the impact force on the lower the leg, the greater stress the foot/leg takes, which could potentially lead to injuries. To combat this fear, running shoes, particular cushioning ones, are to the rescue. Let's take a look.
The first inquire is, do cushioning shoes do their job?
Wegener(2008) tested out the Asics Gel-Nimbus and the Brooks Glycerin to see if they reduced plantar pressure. They found that the shoes did their job!....But where it reduced pressure assorted highly. Meaning that pressure allowance assorted between forefoot/rearfoot/etc. This led to the entertaining closing that their should be a shift in prescribing shoes to one based on where plantar pressure is top for that private person. It should be noted that this allowance in pressure was based on a comparison to someone else shoe, a tennis shoe. I'm not sure that this is a good control. Basically, this study tells us that cushioned running shoes decrease peak pressure when compared to a Tennis shoe.
In a enumerate on the subject, Nigg (2000) found that both external and internal impact force peaks were not or barely influenced by the running shoes midsole. This means that the cushioning type does not convert impact soldiery much, if at all. But how can this be? I mean it's tasteless sense if you jumped on concrete vs. Jumped on a shoe foam like surface, the shoe outside is softer right? We'll come back to this inquire in a minute.
Impact Forces: The photo gets cloudier:
But it's not as easy as described above. In an entertaining study by Scott (1990) they looked at peak loads on the assorted sites of likely injury for runners (Achilles, knee, etc.). All peak loads occurred while mid-stance and push off. This led to an foremost looking that "the impact force at heel touch was estimated to have no succeed on the peak force seen at the chronic injury sites," and led to venture that impact force did not enumerate injury development.
Further complicating the impact force idea is that when looking at injury rates of those running on hard surfaces or soft surfaces, there appears to be no protective advantage of running on soft surfaces. Why is this? Because of something called pre-activation and muscle tuning which will be discussed below.
Supporting this data, other studies have shown that habitancy who have a low peak impact have the same likelihood of getting injured as those with a high peak impact force (Nigg, 1997). If you want to complicate things even further, impact seems to be the driving force between increased bone density.
As a coach or educator this should make sense. The bone responds to the stimulus by becoming more unyielding to it, If the stimulus is not too large and there is sufficient recovery.
Underestimating our Body: Impact soldiery as feedback:
Back to the inquire I asked earlier: How can impact soldiery not convert based on shoe sole softness and why isn't running on hard surfaces lead to more injuries?
The question is, once again, we underestimate the human body! It's an fabulous thing, and we never give it the credit it deserves. The body adapts to the outside that it's going to strike, if you give it a chance. The body adapts to both shoe and outside adjusting impact soldiery via changes joint stiffness, the way the foot strikes, and a notion called muscle tuning.
An example of this can be seen with barefoot running, the diminished proprioception (sensory feedback) of wearing a shoe negates the cushioning of the shoe. Studies using minimal shoes/barefoot have shown that the body seems to adapt the impact forces/landing based on feedback and feedforward data. When running or landing from a jump, the body takes in all the sensory info, plus prior experiences, and adjusts to safe itself/land optimally As mentioned above, it does this through a range of mechanisms. Thus, you stick some cushioned running shoe on the bottom of your foot and the body goes "Oh, we're okay, we don't need to worry about impact as much, we've got this soft piece of junk on our foot.
One notion that needs to be added discussed is muscle tuning. It's a notion recently proposed by Nigg et al. In 2000. He sees impact force as a signal or a source of feedback, as I stated earlier. The body then uses this information and adjusts accordingly to minimize soft tissue vibration and/or bone vibration. His contention is that impact force is not the problem, but rather the signal. Muscle tuning is essentially controlling these vibrations via a range of methods. One possible mechanism is pre-activation. Pre-activation is activation of the muscles prior to impact. In this case it serves as a way of muscle tuning to get ready for impact and in addition can alter muscle stiffness, which is someone else way to get ready for impact. Pre-activation has been established with manifold Emg studies.
Shoes not only impact this, but outside type does too. As mentioned previously, the convert in running outside did not impact injury rates. Why? Probably because the body adapts to running surface. In an entertaining study measuring muscle activity, O'Flynn(1996) found that pre-activation changed based on surface. To get ready for impact, and presumably to minimize muscle/bone vibration, when running on concrete pre-activation was very high, when running on a soft track, not so much.
What all of this means is that the body adapts via sensory input. It has some dissimilar adaptation methods. A shoe influences how it adapts. The shoe is not doing anyone to alter cushioning, it is naturally altering how the body responds to impact. It's a critical mindset jump if you think about it. Here's the summary: The type of shoe and material of the shoe changes impact Not because of alignment of the lower leg or because of changes in cushioning. Instead it changes impact characteristics because it alters the sensory feedback.
In closing on the cushioning concept. Well, what are we trying to cushion? Heel impact soldiery have not been shown to enumerate to injuries, in fact in one study low impact runners had a 30% injury rate compared to a 20% injury rate in high impact runners. Shoe midsoles do not change, or marginally convert impact soldiery anyway. So, not only may cushioning not be the answer, the shoes might not even be doing their job. But what about those shoe cushioning studies showing improved cushioning with their new midsole?! Well, the majority of that testing is done by using a engine to simulate the impact soldiery that you touch while running. That means, yes it may cushion an impact more, but it doesn't take into list the role of the body adjusting impact based on feedback.
The hypothesize cushioning doesn't work? Because the body adapts based on feedback and feedforward information. These results prompted one paramount researcher(Nigg,2000) to call for the reconsideration of the cushioning paradigm for running shoes.
Barefoot running?
Quickly, this topic could not be perfect without a brief mention of barefoot running. An entertaining thing to note is that the introductory peak impact force is absent in barefoot running when compared to running with shoes. What this means is that, the impact soldiery look like (A) for shoes and (B) for barefoot. That introductory little blip in A is the introductory impact force. There is a hypothesis that this introductory impact force is connected to injuries.
A up-to-date study by Squadrone et al.(2009) compared running shoes, barefoot running, and running in Vibram Five Fingers. They demonstrated reduced impact forces, shorter ground touch and stride length, but increased stride frequency while running barefoot (and in Vibrams) as compared to running with shoes. This is not unexpected, but shows that running shoes do in fact alter our normal strides. An entertaining point is the allowance in stride distance but growth in stride frequency. Shoes tend to promote this longer stride at a consequence of ground touch times and frequency. This happens because of changes in feedback signaling, increased likelihood to land on heel stretched out, increased weight, all of which lead to longer times on the ground. It's entertaining to note that elite runners all have short ground contacts and high frequencies (as demonstrated by the often quoted Daniels study of 180 strides per minute).
Tying this to the consulation above on the body controlling things based on sensory information, when running barefoot, there is a higher degree of stiffness in the lower leg. Increased stiffness can succeed in an increased Ssc (stretch shortening cycle) response, resulting in greater force on the subsequent push off (2001). Dalleau et al. Demonstrated that pre-activation causing increased stiffness improved Running Economy. In his study, the energy cost of running was connected to the stiffness of the lower leg (1998)
Another up-to-date study found that knee flexion torque, knee varus torque, and hip internal rotation torque all were significantly greater in shoes compared to barefoot. What does all of this mean? Potentially, this means more stress on the joints in this area. Jay Dicharry put it best when he said:
"The soft materials in contemporary running shoes allow a touch style that you would not use barefoot. The foot no longer gets the proprioceptive cues that it gets unshod. The foot naturally accommodates to surfaces rapidly, but a midsole can impair the foot's potential to react to the ground. This can mute or alter feedback the body gets while running. These factors allow a runner to adopt a gait that causes the elevated soldiery observed above."
The one thing that non-barefoot/heel attack proponents use to dismiss midfoot striking/barefoot running is the Achilles tendon. They say, correctly, that the load on the Achilles is higher in midfoot striking runners. The Achilles is meant to take a large load. The question is we've weakened the Achilles through years of wearing shoes with their elevated heels. Essentially, we've created the Achilles question with the shoes meant to preclude it. The Achilles is designed to control in a rubber band like fashion.. while impact such as the braking or touch phase of running, the achilles tendon stores energy and then subsequent releases that energy via recoil while the take off phase of running. The Achilles, can store and return approximately 35% of its kinetic energy (Ker, 1987). Without this elastic storage and return, the oxygen uptake required would be 30-40% higher! So, in terms of performance why are we trying to minimize the tendonous contribution? It's like giving away free energy.
Running shoes do not utilize the elastic storage and return as well as barefoot or minimal shoes. More energy is lost with shoes than with barefoot running (Alexander and Bennett, 1989). In addition, in some models of shoes, the arch is not allowed to function like a spring. The arch of the foot can store nearby 17% of kinetic energy (Ker, 1987). Given these results, its not surprising that running barefoot when compared to running with shoes is more efficient. some studies have shown a decreased Vo2 at the same pace with barefoot running, even when weight is taken into account. This should be no surprise as I mentioned above, without elastic recoil Vo2 requirement would be 30-40% higher. Running in a minimal shoe allows for better utilization of this system.
So, the take away message is that shoes convert natural mechanics to one that creates mechanical changes that are not optimal for running fast (decreased stride frequency, increased ground contact, decreased stiffness of the system, decreased elastic contribution, and on and on).
Tying it together with elites:
Looking at elite athletes, when racing and training, they generally have higher turnover, minimal ground touch time, and a foot attack that is under their town of gravity. Since the majority of elites exhibit these same characteristics while racing, it makes sense that this is the optimal way to run fast. So, why are we wearing footwear that is designed to growth ground contact, decrease turnover, and promote footstrike out in front of the town of gravity? I have no idea.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I'm not some fanatic saying every person ditch shoes now. Chances are you've been running in shoes for 20+ years. Your bodies done some adapting while that time. You've got to gently convert if you want to undue some of the changes.
The purpose of this article wasn't to talk about the benefits of barefoot running. Instead it was to point out the problems with Running Shoe classification. It's based on a cushioning/pronation paradigm that naturally is not as true as they want us to believe. That paradigm needs to be reevaluated. It's not founded on good science but rather introductory ideas that made sense with no science behind them, but upon added enumerate may not stand up to testing. A up-to-date study found that using the good old shoe classification ideas that every person uses, had little work on on injury arresting in a large group of Army Basic Training participants (Knapik, 2009). They terminated that selecting shoes based on arch height (like all major running magazines suggest) is not critical if injury arresting is the goal. I guess that means the systems broken...
Where do we go and how do we fix it? I have no idea. Sorry, no genius answers here. My inclination is that we aim for letting the foot function how it is meant to function, or at least come up with some shoe that may alter foot mechanics but while still allowing feedback/functionality of the body. The first step is looking at the foundation on which running shoes are built upon, the request for retrial control, stability, and cushioning paradigm. My take is that it needs to be reevaluated. I'm going to end with something I've already said, but it's an foremost notion to get across:
The body is more involved and smarter than we give it credit. The type of shoe and material of the shoe changes impact or stride characteristics Not because of alignment of the lower leg or because of changes in cushioning. Instead it changes impact and stride characteristics because it alters the sensory feedback. The brain is a fabulous thing.'
If you found this article to be informative, I'd appreciate it If you passed it along. The goal is to get study based data out there so habitancy can be well informed.
Why Running Shoes Don't Work No URLUnder Pronation Running Shoe
Thanks To : We have selected quality products for you here Journey Necklace Meaning Pearl Enhancer Pendants Neon Wayfarer Sunglasses
0 comments:
Post a Comment