Medial tibial stress syndrome is something that has always bugged me because I do not know exactly what it is. There are many competing theories that are underpinned by some good research as to what the exact pathophysiology of the condition is. Some of the theories are not consistent with each other. One recent idea that has caught my attention is that medial tibial stress syndrome is bone stress reaction due to increased bending moments in the tibia. Some of the rationale behind that does make sense to me. There is some discussion on this at Podiatry Arena (see: Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome)
Back to home page
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Showing posts with label running. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Barefoot running and BAD research
I just do not get how the media react and create headlines from research (well actually, I do get it ... they want to attract readers and sell papers), but they just have to be more responsible. A lot of bloggers fall for the same trap.
A few days ago there was some research published that looked at joint torques when running barefoot vs running in running shoes. Some of the headlines that accomapanied news and blog reports about this research were:
Running Shoes are Still Bad
Running Shoes may cause damage to knees hips and ankle
Running may be good for you, but running shoes aren't
What I do not get is that there was absolutely nothing in the research that actually showed this! Let alone the flaws in the study do not allow any conclusion to be drawn, let alone the above ones. Also, it turns out the lead author has a vested financial interest in a barefoot running product that was NOT disclosed!
The barefoot running fanatics and irrationalists have jumped on this research as supporting the barefoot running movement. The fact that they blindly accept this research without any form of critical analysis of the flaws, just confirms how fanatical and irrational they are!
Why can't the media and bloggers be more critical in what they report? At least Podiatry Arena could see through the problems: The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques
Back to home page
A few days ago there was some research published that looked at joint torques when running barefoot vs running in running shoes. Some of the headlines that accomapanied news and blog reports about this research were:
Running Shoes are Still Bad
Running Shoes may cause damage to knees hips and ankle
Running may be good for you, but running shoes aren't
What I do not get is that there was absolutely nothing in the research that actually showed this! Let alone the flaws in the study do not allow any conclusion to be drawn, let alone the above ones. Also, it turns out the lead author has a vested financial interest in a barefoot running product that was NOT disclosed!
The barefoot running fanatics and irrationalists have jumped on this research as supporting the barefoot running movement. The fact that they blindly accept this research without any form of critical analysis of the flaws, just confirms how fanatical and irrational they are!
Why can't the media and bloggers be more critical in what they report? At least Podiatry Arena could see through the problems: The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques
Back to home page
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Barefoot Running
I am not opposed to the barefoot running movement. It just some of the promoters of barefoot running that I have a problem with. They are like religious zealots that are fanatical about the whole concept of barefoot running. They use nonsensical non-scientific mumbo jumbo to support what they do. They twist research to make it sound like it supports their cause. They dismiss research that is anti-barefoot. They take any research that is anti-running shoe as evidence that proves running barefoot is better (huh?).
At the end of the day, there is no evidence that running barefoot is even ideal, let alone beneficial. There is also no evidence that its not. I blogged about this here and see Podiatry Arena: Barefoot Running for a balanced discussion on the pros and cons of barefoot running. For a bit a fun check out the zealotry on some of the running forums when it comes to discussing this. Trying to be rational with these people is like trying to argue a religion - not going to win that one.
I have no doubt that the research will show that there will be some benefits to running barefoot; I have no doubt it will also show that there will also have some risks. What we need is better evidence of who and when it should be used. I have no doubt that barefoot running should be a part of a balanced running program for all those who can tolerate it, but it should be used in moderation.
Back to home
At the end of the day, there is no evidence that running barefoot is even ideal, let alone beneficial. There is also no evidence that its not. I blogged about this here and see Podiatry Arena: Barefoot Running for a balanced discussion on the pros and cons of barefoot running. For a bit a fun check out the zealotry on some of the running forums when it comes to discussing this. Trying to be rational with these people is like trying to argue a religion - not going to win that one.
I have no doubt that the research will show that there will be some benefits to running barefoot; I have no doubt it will also show that there will also have some risks. What we need is better evidence of who and when it should be used. I have no doubt that barefoot running should be a part of a balanced running program for all those who can tolerate it, but it should be used in moderation.
Back to home
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Chi Running
Chi running is a "movement" within the running community based a particular running technique based mostly on being more efficient, relaxed and having a midfoot strike. I initially dismissed it as just another one of those fads until I noticed that one of the key Chi running websites had an alliance with New Balance running shoes and they have a shoe that is specific for Chi Running. I wonder where this will go? Will the Pose Running converts get a shoe as well? Chi running is not without controversy, mostly due to the lack of evidence for the claims made by its supporters. I have also written before about Chi Running.
Back to home page
Back to home page
Friday, September 24, 2004
Running Injury
Relation between running injury and static lower limb alignment in recreational runners
V Lun, W H Meeuwisse, P Stergiou and D Stefanyshyn
Objectives: To determine if measurements of static lower limb alignment are related to lower limb injury in recreational runners.
Methods: Static lower limb alignment was prospectively measured in 87 recreational runners. They were observed for the following six months for any running related musculoskeletal injuries of the lower limb. Injuries were defined according to six types: R1, R2, and R3 injuries caused a reduction in running mileage for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively; S1, S2, and S3 injuries caused stoppage of running for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively.
Results: At least one lower limb injury was suffered by 79% of the runners during the observation period. When the data for all runners were pooled, 95% confidence intervals calculated for the differences in the measurements of lower limb alignment between the injured and non-injured runners suggested that there were no differences. However, when only runners diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome (n = 6) were compared with non-injured runners, differences were found in right ankle dorsiflexion (0.3 to 6.1), right knee genu varum (–0.9 to –0.3), and left forefoot varus (–0.5 to –0.4).
Conclusions: In recreational runners, there is no evidence that static biomechanical alignment measurements of the lower limbs are related to lower limb injury except patellofemoral pain syndrome. However, the effect of static lower limb alignment may be injury specific.
Back to home
V Lun, W H Meeuwisse, P Stergiou and D Stefanyshyn
Objectives: To determine if measurements of static lower limb alignment are related to lower limb injury in recreational runners.
Methods: Static lower limb alignment was prospectively measured in 87 recreational runners. They were observed for the following six months for any running related musculoskeletal injuries of the lower limb. Injuries were defined according to six types: R1, R2, and R3 injuries caused a reduction in running mileage for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively; S1, S2, and S3 injuries caused stoppage of running for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively.
Results: At least one lower limb injury was suffered by 79% of the runners during the observation period. When the data for all runners were pooled, 95% confidence intervals calculated for the differences in the measurements of lower limb alignment between the injured and non-injured runners suggested that there were no differences. However, when only runners diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome (n = 6) were compared with non-injured runners, differences were found in right ankle dorsiflexion (0.3 to 6.1), right knee genu varum (–0.9 to –0.3), and left forefoot varus (–0.5 to –0.4).
Conclusions: In recreational runners, there is no evidence that static biomechanical alignment measurements of the lower limbs are related to lower limb injury except patellofemoral pain syndrome. However, the effect of static lower limb alignment may be injury specific.
Back to home
Running Injury
Relation between running injury and static lower limb alignment in recreational runners
V Lun, W H Meeuwisse, P Stergiou and D Stefanyshyn
Objectives: To determine if measurements of static lower limb alignment are related to lower limb injury in recreational runners.
Methods: Static lower limb alignment was prospectively measured in 87 recreational runners. They were observed for the following six months for any running related musculoskeletal injuries of the lower limb. Injuries were defined according to six types: R1, R2, and R3 injuries caused a reduction in running mileage for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively; S1, S2, and S3 injuries caused stoppage of running for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively.
Results: At least one lower limb injury was suffered by 79% of the runners during the observation period. When the data for all runners were pooled, 95% confidence intervals calculated for the differences in the measurements of lower limb alignment between the injured and non-injured runners suggested that there were no differences. However, when only runners diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome (n = 6) were compared with non-injured runners, differences were found in right ankle dorsiflexion (0.3 to 6.1), right knee genu varum (–0.9 to –0.3), and left forefoot varus (–0.5 to –0.4).
Conclusions: In recreational runners, there is no evidence that static biomechanical alignment measurements of the lower limbs are related to lower limb injury except patellofemoral pain syndrome. However, the effect of static lower limb alignment may be injury specific.
Back to home
V Lun, W H Meeuwisse, P Stergiou and D Stefanyshyn
Objectives: To determine if measurements of static lower limb alignment are related to lower limb injury in recreational runners.
Methods: Static lower limb alignment was prospectively measured in 87 recreational runners. They were observed for the following six months for any running related musculoskeletal injuries of the lower limb. Injuries were defined according to six types: R1, R2, and R3 injuries caused a reduction in running mileage for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively; S1, S2, and S3 injuries caused stoppage of running for one day, two to seven days, or more than seven days respectively.
Results: At least one lower limb injury was suffered by 79% of the runners during the observation period. When the data for all runners were pooled, 95% confidence intervals calculated for the differences in the measurements of lower limb alignment between the injured and non-injured runners suggested that there were no differences. However, when only runners diagnosed with patellofemoral pain syndrome (n = 6) were compared with non-injured runners, differences were found in right ankle dorsiflexion (0.3 to 6.1), right knee genu varum (–0.9 to –0.3), and left forefoot varus (–0.5 to –0.4).
Conclusions: In recreational runners, there is no evidence that static biomechanical alignment measurements of the lower limbs are related to lower limb injury except patellofemoral pain syndrome. However, the effect of static lower limb alignment may be injury specific.
Back to home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)