So some of you (ahaha there's no one here...) might notice that my last post was in December. Well the reason being is that I've been traveling through Europe for the past two, verging on three months. I have had neither the time nor the inclination to post anything. So to get to this nonsense going again i'm going to do another link dump. I'll write some content in the near future, i get back to the U.S. in a week or so and should have something up shortly thereafter.
You mean challenging yourself mentally in multiple areas can cause you to increase your intelligence, or ward off the mental decline that comes with old age? Who would have thought.
This about sums up my feelings on the topic.
The time isn't here yet, but for a lot of these, i fear it may be fast approaching.
NIN footage confused for snuff film, expose by the ever objective HARD COPY.
This makes a lot more sense to me than the slow internet movement. Though i will never take part in it, mostly because I'm old enough to have written reports for school on a typewriter. When your only option is a typewriter and everyone else is using a computer it's not nearly as fun. I think that for some of these people it's an honest interest, but i suspect most of them are simply technologically slumming for whatever reason.
This picture is at once amazing, terrifying, and sad, it's of Mexico city.
The shining as an art piece structured specifically for the interplay between time and space.
That's it for the moment. I've got to be better about organizing and putting thoughts to "paper". I feel like i lose a lot of ideas simply because i think about them but never bother to work on them. I will seek to remedy this behavior by way of this blog.
A parting shot before i go; My significant other is currently looking up bridal things (we're getting married in October) and she says she's run across a large amount of links and articles about planning weddings and making your own dress etc... This of course is not surprising but what is that she started noticing some odd things about a lot of these sites, and it turns out tons of them are run by the LDS, or as they are usually called: the Mormons. Why do they (the Mormons) have so many websites about weddings? Why are so many of them detailing short timeline wedding planning, ie: "Planning a wedding in under 6 months." Curious if nothing else.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Link Dump
So Russian it hurts...I used to do this with some frequency on livejournal, i'm going to pick it back up again here. I'll from time to time post collections of links to things i find interesting or entertaining.
Tin tin meets Burroughs
Grant Morrison does the Mahabharata
Mine craft
Just got back from greece a couple of days ago. I saw GSY!BE in Athens, that was probably the best concert i have ever seen. I leave for Egypt in two days, as a side note the Egyptians and the rest of the Arabic speaking world call it "Masr" why on earth do we call it Egypt?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Why i'm leaving facebook
So i've come to the realization? conclusion? decision? that facebook is not meeting any of the criteria that tempted me into joining this site and using it's service. Certainly i've been contacted by people i used to know way back in the day. But beyond being "friended" that was the end of the interaction. In some cases i've not actually even spoken to any of these people since they friended me. I sound like i'm whining, so let me backtrack a little bit. Back in the days before facebook was the omnipresent entity that it is today i used livejournal to keep myself up to date on the goings on of my friends. People would post essays of dare i say actual content. I would read some thought out thing that someone put time and effort into and wanted other people to see ideally (i presume) with the effect of having people respond in kind with their take on the topic. The crazy thing is this actually happened, i took part in quite a few lively discussions on livejournal (howdy Arcane). But as people drifted over to facebook there were less and less posts from people i know on livejournal. My livejournal account now amounts to a feed service for various blogs that i wanted to keep track of a few years ago before i picked up an honest to god feed reader.
What i'm trying to say is that the medium that is facebook seems to generate primarily shallow surface interactions. We can step into any of our friends lives at the drop of a hat and see what they're up to. Huh, she had a ham sandwich for lunch, or she's thinking of watching that new film (*). We see their picture and see what they're up to, we "like" or leave some trite "ME TOO!!" comment and shazam, interaction with our friend. It makes us feel like we've gotten our human interaction on. But we haven't. Even your closest friends, on facebook they are more like people you work with. In that, what you discuss and the interactions available tend to be limited by the crowded lunchroom nature that is facebook. Honest open discourse cannot be held on facebook. Sure the message option exists for that purpose but how many messages do people really send? The format is so informal that correspondence tend to lack the polish that an email has. At least as far as i remember email had...It's been a long time since i've gotten an actual email from anybody who isn't on facebook. In fact i've received very few messages on facebook, considering the fact that i've got 125 "friends." I don't mean to call anybody out and say that you all are bad friends. I'm one too, when was the last time i sent anyone a message over a couple sentences? How many of you do i honestly enjoy talking to but haven't managed to do so in quite some time?
Partly it's our fault, and partly it's facebooks. People are lazy, that's our bad. But facebook is also to blame. In the same way that no one bothers to learn to spell anymore because spell checkers exist, or for the same reason that our ancestors would remember vast stores of knowledge out of necessity (oral histories, the epic poems, the ability of any "decent Gentleman" being able to quote various texts and authors from memory) but people no longer commit large stores of information to memory, they don't need to. The internet and it's various search functions (although there is really only google anymore) act as an external hard drive to our memory. We are all cyborgs to the extent that electronic devices now take up so much of the burden of remembering stuff for us. I'm old enough to have lived without a cell phone for years. I remember having to remember peoples phone numbers. Now i probobly couldn't tell you anyone's phone number off the top of my head. But i still remember a friend from 5th grades number. I don't mean to begrudge this behavior or go Luddite on everyone (despite the excesses i feel some of it has gone to) but by and large this is our culture now and this is how things will be in terms of our interaction with each other by way of technology. I recognize this and i'm not trying to fight it. Why would i bother memorizing phone numbers when the cell phone i have already does it better than i can?
But my issues arises with facebook in that we maintain the same behavioral model we use with google when using facebook. The difference being that with google it's simply information. With facebook we look up people and the events that currently make up their life. we find out by way of our friend feed what's happening with someone and go on our way. No actual interaction has occurred we don't have the personalized interaction with this other human being that we prize to the point that (i would hope) made us friend them on facebook in the first place. Facebook makes us feel like we're aware of what's happening in someones life. But we' really haven't got a clue. All we know is the sanitized version that is safe enough for people to post in front of a large group of people of varying levels of intimacy.
So where is the harm in this one might ask. From my point of view, a great deal. I feel like the format of facebook is structured well to take advantage of our natural tendency to laziness. It's hard to be a good friend. It's hard to write worthwhile correspondence to people on a regular basis. But people used to all the time before this became the de-facto option. But it's so easy to scrawl a meaningless "hey i still exist and i know you do too" on someone's wall and call it a day. In fact it is expressly designed to facilitate this sort of shallow interaction. That's not what i want, not from myself, and not from my friends.
From a personal standpoint, and i'm sure many others will see themselves in this. I personally waste more time on facebook than i would care to. I'm leaning towards saying all time on facebook is a waste, but for the sake of argument lets assume that the functions that actively constitute interaction on facebook are worthwhile. The amount of time i'm on facebook, and the amount of time which i could call "actual interaction" are very slanted, i would hazard something in the nature of 20/80 but it's probably more like 10/90 because reading statuses on a feed isn't really interacting, but it is kind of interacting...in a way. So that brings to mind, what am i doing the rest of the time? Part of it is browsing through other peoples stuff, the electric equivalent of looking in a neighbors window. This is a meaningless activity and ultimately a waste of time. The other chunk of time is spent checking and rechecking to see if i have any messages or comments or requests. While only a minute or two at a time, that adds up. How much time do i waste checking to see if anything has happened? How much has ever really happened?
This is all compounded if one uses any of the application games. I've personally seen someone get sucked into these facebook games to a point that it becomes damaging.
So here is my roundabout point; facebook is specifically (the more paranoid aspect of me would say maliciously) designed to appeal to our lazy natures and it is structured in a way that keeps us on it, or checking it so repeatedly that it maximises the amount of time we spend on facebook compared to other sites. (once again the paranoid tin foil hat wearer in me says this is all built around add revenue and the kind of usage figures and google analytics that facebook can wave in the face of ad companies)
I'm tired of sitting down, turning the computer on and checking facebook and finding i've already lost an hour. As many of you know i am quite prone to losing hours to the internet, but in the past i was primarily researching things. The reason i know as much about as much as i do is because i spent years in a deep depression that kept me in a world of ideas, aided and abetted by the access to information the internet afforded me i was able to escape into a world of ideas and leave behind the world that always left me distraught and wanting. Face book has taken some of that from me as well. I find i can get on the internet, get off a couple hours later and not feel like i've learned anything. I used to get off the internet and be full of things i wanted to discuss and think about.
Face book has made me weak and soft. I apologize to you all for this. From this point on i'm closing shop on facebook. I'm not deleting my account or anything on it, but i will probably not check it again. I will henceforth be writing emails to people i care about. I will respond to emails that are written to me. These will be reasoned responses thought out and meaningful. I will write things of substance and post them in appropriate venues. I want more from my interactions with other people. I want more from myself in my reading of online literature. I am endeavoring to make myself a better friend to you all. I hope you will understand that this will take effort on both our parts. If your not interested, then no hard feelings, i understand, really i do. Life is tiring i can't begrudge anyone that gets worn down by it and can't find it to pursue interaction in this manner. While i am currently over seas, upon my return i intend to spend much more time with other people. I live within minutes of almost everyone i find interesting in albuquerque (i'm coming to visit you austinites don't worry) and i see you all so rarely it's almost criminal. There is no excuse for this behavior, other than being a general curmudgeon and antisocial tendencies.
I'm going to try and be a better person.
futilelord@gmail.com
http://theedgeofthevillage.blogspot.com/
AIM: futilelord
E2: futilelord
*i guess it's pretty clear at this point that i don't have a twitter account
What i'm trying to say is that the medium that is facebook seems to generate primarily shallow surface interactions. We can step into any of our friends lives at the drop of a hat and see what they're up to. Huh, she had a ham sandwich for lunch, or she's thinking of watching that new film (*). We see their picture and see what they're up to, we "like" or leave some trite "ME TOO!!" comment and shazam, interaction with our friend. It makes us feel like we've gotten our human interaction on. But we haven't. Even your closest friends, on facebook they are more like people you work with. In that, what you discuss and the interactions available tend to be limited by the crowded lunchroom nature that is facebook. Honest open discourse cannot be held on facebook. Sure the message option exists for that purpose but how many messages do people really send? The format is so informal that correspondence tend to lack the polish that an email has. At least as far as i remember email had...It's been a long time since i've gotten an actual email from anybody who isn't on facebook. In fact i've received very few messages on facebook, considering the fact that i've got 125 "friends." I don't mean to call anybody out and say that you all are bad friends. I'm one too, when was the last time i sent anyone a message over a couple sentences? How many of you do i honestly enjoy talking to but haven't managed to do so in quite some time?
Partly it's our fault, and partly it's facebooks. People are lazy, that's our bad. But facebook is also to blame. In the same way that no one bothers to learn to spell anymore because spell checkers exist, or for the same reason that our ancestors would remember vast stores of knowledge out of necessity (oral histories, the epic poems, the ability of any "decent Gentleman" being able to quote various texts and authors from memory) but people no longer commit large stores of information to memory, they don't need to. The internet and it's various search functions (although there is really only google anymore) act as an external hard drive to our memory. We are all cyborgs to the extent that electronic devices now take up so much of the burden of remembering stuff for us. I'm old enough to have lived without a cell phone for years. I remember having to remember peoples phone numbers. Now i probobly couldn't tell you anyone's phone number off the top of my head. But i still remember a friend from 5th grades number. I don't mean to begrudge this behavior or go Luddite on everyone (despite the excesses i feel some of it has gone to) but by and large this is our culture now and this is how things will be in terms of our interaction with each other by way of technology. I recognize this and i'm not trying to fight it. Why would i bother memorizing phone numbers when the cell phone i have already does it better than i can?
But my issues arises with facebook in that we maintain the same behavioral model we use with google when using facebook. The difference being that with google it's simply information. With facebook we look up people and the events that currently make up their life. we find out by way of our friend feed what's happening with someone and go on our way. No actual interaction has occurred we don't have the personalized interaction with this other human being that we prize to the point that (i would hope) made us friend them on facebook in the first place. Facebook makes us feel like we're aware of what's happening in someones life. But we' really haven't got a clue. All we know is the sanitized version that is safe enough for people to post in front of a large group of people of varying levels of intimacy.
So where is the harm in this one might ask. From my point of view, a great deal. I feel like the format of facebook is structured well to take advantage of our natural tendency to laziness. It's hard to be a good friend. It's hard to write worthwhile correspondence to people on a regular basis. But people used to all the time before this became the de-facto option. But it's so easy to scrawl a meaningless "hey i still exist and i know you do too" on someone's wall and call it a day. In fact it is expressly designed to facilitate this sort of shallow interaction. That's not what i want, not from myself, and not from my friends.
From a personal standpoint, and i'm sure many others will see themselves in this. I personally waste more time on facebook than i would care to. I'm leaning towards saying all time on facebook is a waste, but for the sake of argument lets assume that the functions that actively constitute interaction on facebook are worthwhile. The amount of time i'm on facebook, and the amount of time which i could call "actual interaction" are very slanted, i would hazard something in the nature of 20/80 but it's probably more like 10/90 because reading statuses on a feed isn't really interacting, but it is kind of interacting...in a way. So that brings to mind, what am i doing the rest of the time? Part of it is browsing through other peoples stuff, the electric equivalent of looking in a neighbors window. This is a meaningless activity and ultimately a waste of time. The other chunk of time is spent checking and rechecking to see if i have any messages or comments or requests. While only a minute or two at a time, that adds up. How much time do i waste checking to see if anything has happened? How much has ever really happened?
This is all compounded if one uses any of the application games. I've personally seen someone get sucked into these facebook games to a point that it becomes damaging.
So here is my roundabout point; facebook is specifically (the more paranoid aspect of me would say maliciously) designed to appeal to our lazy natures and it is structured in a way that keeps us on it, or checking it so repeatedly that it maximises the amount of time we spend on facebook compared to other sites. (once again the paranoid tin foil hat wearer in me says this is all built around add revenue and the kind of usage figures and google analytics that facebook can wave in the face of ad companies)
I'm tired of sitting down, turning the computer on and checking facebook and finding i've already lost an hour. As many of you know i am quite prone to losing hours to the internet, but in the past i was primarily researching things. The reason i know as much about as much as i do is because i spent years in a deep depression that kept me in a world of ideas, aided and abetted by the access to information the internet afforded me i was able to escape into a world of ideas and leave behind the world that always left me distraught and wanting. Face book has taken some of that from me as well. I find i can get on the internet, get off a couple hours later and not feel like i've learned anything. I used to get off the internet and be full of things i wanted to discuss and think about.
Face book has made me weak and soft. I apologize to you all for this. From this point on i'm closing shop on facebook. I'm not deleting my account or anything on it, but i will probably not check it again. I will henceforth be writing emails to people i care about. I will respond to emails that are written to me. These will be reasoned responses thought out and meaningful. I will write things of substance and post them in appropriate venues. I want more from my interactions with other people. I want more from myself in my reading of online literature. I am endeavoring to make myself a better friend to you all. I hope you will understand that this will take effort on both our parts. If your not interested, then no hard feelings, i understand, really i do. Life is tiring i can't begrudge anyone that gets worn down by it and can't find it to pursue interaction in this manner. While i am currently over seas, upon my return i intend to spend much more time with other people. I live within minutes of almost everyone i find interesting in albuquerque (i'm coming to visit you austinites don't worry) and i see you all so rarely it's almost criminal. There is no excuse for this behavior, other than being a general curmudgeon and antisocial tendencies.
I'm going to try and be a better person.
futilelord@gmail.com
http://theedgeofthevillage.blogspot.com/
AIM: futilelord
E2: futilelord
*i guess it's pretty clear at this point that i don't have a twitter account
Sunday, October 24, 2010
barefoot running opinion essay
written: 4/25/10
Running in traditional running shoes is damaging to the human body. Human beings have only been running in large wedge heeled over cushioned shoes for about the past 40 years. It has been only in the past 40 or so years that we have seen a rise in both the number and the severity of the types of injures that are the constant plague of active runners today. Plantar fasciitis, IT band syndrome, Patellofemoral syndrome (aka; runners knee), these are all conditions that are way more common place than would stand to reason.
Depending on the sources one site's about 40-70% of active runners can expect to become injured over the course of one year of active running. This seems like an extraordinary number of people to be injured by such a simple and innate activity such as running. This injury rate is spread across the board as well; marathoners aren’t more prone to injury than individuals who run 10k’s or 5k’s. It seems as though anyone who has a regular schedule of running will be guaranteed to at some point suffer from one of a multitude of common runner injuries. This seems odd because there is very little in the way of record of these injuries being so common in the past. So it seems that the frequency of injury is a modern phenomenon. Which may lead some individuals to point out that the “jogging trend” was started by Bill Bowerman with the publication of his 1966 book “Jogging.” The injury rates we see today are a result of this increase in the number of people taking up recreational running.
This seems a solid premise till one notices that there is a long history of casual running across cultures of the world, and the curious fact that Bill was also one of the cofounders of Nike, and that the increase in injuries sustained by this new crowd of “joggers” runs a pretty close race with the sales of Nike shoes.
The concept of adding a cushioned heel to the shoe was that the runner would have something softer to land on and that it would cause his body to lean forward and add some minor “propulsion” to the stride of the runner based on the incline of the heel. All these assumptions were based on what might be charitably described as “hunches.” The result of these hunches and decades of advertising (though propaganda is a more apt term in my opinion) the “common wisdom” of the modern day is that the human body is not well suited to running for any significant distance, and that doing so is to incur great injury. The “solution” to this “problem” has been the liberal application of cushioning to shoes, along with air pockets, and a vast array multicolored dials and knobs that I will never understand (apologies to Hunter).
However, as time has marched on the amount of technology we pump into these shoes increases, the one thing that is supposed to happen never seems to. The injury rates have not gone down at all. We have been led astray by the shoe companies for so long that the idea of massive cushioning seems to be a-priori knowledge almost. It’s only been in within the last decade that people have truly started to question the reasoning behind this shoe design. If the claim that running hurts people is true, and the claim that running with these shoes will reduce the risk of injury, and there is a new shoe design every 6 months that purports to have “better” technology, why has the injury rate stayed the same?
Let us assume then the claim humans are poorly built for running (which is a claim that is getting quite a bit of doubt cast on it (Lieberman, Daniel. et all).) If that is true then in groups of people who run without the “aid” of modern running shoes we should see a significant spike in the number of injuries sustained. What we see is the exact opposite. Among the Tara Humara Indians of northern Mexico, a people known for their extreme running predilection, there are almost no cases of all the common ailments suffered by runners who use modern running shoes. The same holds for the various groups of runners in Africa. So then with that information in mind we move to a study (Lieberman, Daniel. et all) that shows that evolutionarily speaking humans are evolved to be incredibly capable distance runners. Persistence hunting is a method were the prey is literally run to death by the hunter. This method relies on the fact that most mammals perspire through their mouth (panting) and are not particularly efficient at dissipating heat. Humans are able to perspire over our entire bodies, and are capable of doing it while running and breathing in the manner required by that activity level. Something most animals are not capable of. While not nearly as fast as quadrapedalism, bipedalism is biomechanically significantly more efficient in terms of the energy use required for distance covered. Case in point once the distances become great enough we can run down almost any animal on earth. There is a Man vs. Horse race in Wales where humans on foot have beaten horses in a 22 mile race, there are video’s of African hunters running down kudu, literally chasing the animal until it falls over from exhaustion, then walking up and thrusting a spear in the animal while it gasps for air. There is ample evidence to suggest that humans are evolved to run great distances, those that claim that humans are not well suited are spreading lies so as to enforce the perceived need for specialized products for running. Science is starting to support the theories that have been gaining momentum over the past few years (Kerrigan DC, et all). The backlash of course is building momentum and trying to discredit the idea of the health benefits of barefoot running. What’s strange is there is no research to support a lot of the claims made by the opposing camp (Richards, Craig E. Parker, Magin. Robin, Callister.) What we hear is mostly fear mongering from those individuals who stand to lose money over the loss of shoe sales, or from the medical side of the equation, loss of sales in custom orthotics (a very large business.) As of yet there has yet to be any reasoned response to the evidence coming out of various studies and the growing number of personal anecdotes from runners who have suffered for years in traditional shoes but are now running pain free in minimalist or no shoes at all.
The fact that there is no research to back up claims, no logical reason to support the claims, and no history of success to back up the claims implies that the claim made by the major shoe manufacturers are fallacious at best and purposely harmful at worst. While I am not inclined to think that the orthopedic shoe insert business is in collusion with the major shoe manufacturers in creating a death spiral of injury causing shoes, orthotics to ease the pain of injury and furthered injury as a result of the individual not actually receiving any actual treatment for the injury. It certainly seems like that is the way things have turned out. I think it’s important for people to stop trusting people whose only concern is the monetary health of their company. It doesn’t pay Nike to bother to pay attention to what is or is not healthy. They will respond only to market pressures that affect their sales. The change will come from people finally realizing that they have been lied to for so long and demanding shoes that won’t injure them while running. As with so many ills, both in our personal lives and in terms of a the greater context of our society, it is the hoi polloi who will effect change, that is assuming they can get up off their butts and chase after it.
Works cited:
Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister. Is your Prescription of Distance Running Shoes Evidence Based? British journal of sports medicine April 18 2008
Hirschmüller A, Baur H, Müller S, Helwig P, Dickhuth HH, Mayer F. Clinical Effectiveness of Customised Sport Shoe Orthoses for Overuse Injuries in Runners- a Randomized Controlled Study. British journal of sports medicine Nov, 1, 2009
Kerrigan DC, Franz JR, Keenan GS, Dicharry J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP. The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques. PM&R: The Journal of Injury, Function , and Rehabilitation. Dec, 2009
S.Robbins, E.Waked. Balance and Vertical Impact in Sports: Role of Shoe Sole Materials*1 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 463-467
Lieberman, Daniel. Dennis, M. Bramble. David ,A. Raichlen. John, J. Shea. The First Humans-Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo. Chapter 8; Brains Brawns and the Evolution of Human Endurance Running Capabilities.
Running in traditional running shoes is damaging to the human body. Human beings have only been running in large wedge heeled over cushioned shoes for about the past 40 years. It has been only in the past 40 or so years that we have seen a rise in both the number and the severity of the types of injures that are the constant plague of active runners today. Plantar fasciitis, IT band syndrome, Patellofemoral syndrome (aka; runners knee), these are all conditions that are way more common place than would stand to reason.
Depending on the sources one site's about 40-70% of active runners can expect to become injured over the course of one year of active running. This seems like an extraordinary number of people to be injured by such a simple and innate activity such as running. This injury rate is spread across the board as well; marathoners aren’t more prone to injury than individuals who run 10k’s or 5k’s. It seems as though anyone who has a regular schedule of running will be guaranteed to at some point suffer from one of a multitude of common runner injuries. This seems odd because there is very little in the way of record of these injuries being so common in the past. So it seems that the frequency of injury is a modern phenomenon. Which may lead some individuals to point out that the “jogging trend” was started by Bill Bowerman with the publication of his 1966 book “Jogging.” The injury rates we see today are a result of this increase in the number of people taking up recreational running.
This seems a solid premise till one notices that there is a long history of casual running across cultures of the world, and the curious fact that Bill was also one of the cofounders of Nike, and that the increase in injuries sustained by this new crowd of “joggers” runs a pretty close race with the sales of Nike shoes.
The concept of adding a cushioned heel to the shoe was that the runner would have something softer to land on and that it would cause his body to lean forward and add some minor “propulsion” to the stride of the runner based on the incline of the heel. All these assumptions were based on what might be charitably described as “hunches.” The result of these hunches and decades of advertising (though propaganda is a more apt term in my opinion) the “common wisdom” of the modern day is that the human body is not well suited to running for any significant distance, and that doing so is to incur great injury. The “solution” to this “problem” has been the liberal application of cushioning to shoes, along with air pockets, and a vast array multicolored dials and knobs that I will never understand (apologies to Hunter).
However, as time has marched on the amount of technology we pump into these shoes increases, the one thing that is supposed to happen never seems to. The injury rates have not gone down at all. We have been led astray by the shoe companies for so long that the idea of massive cushioning seems to be a-priori knowledge almost. It’s only been in within the last decade that people have truly started to question the reasoning behind this shoe design. If the claim that running hurts people is true, and the claim that running with these shoes will reduce the risk of injury, and there is a new shoe design every 6 months that purports to have “better” technology, why has the injury rate stayed the same?
Let us assume then the claim humans are poorly built for running (which is a claim that is getting quite a bit of doubt cast on it (Lieberman, Daniel. et all).) If that is true then in groups of people who run without the “aid” of modern running shoes we should see a significant spike in the number of injuries sustained. What we see is the exact opposite. Among the Tara Humara Indians of northern Mexico, a people known for their extreme running predilection, there are almost no cases of all the common ailments suffered by runners who use modern running shoes. The same holds for the various groups of runners in Africa. So then with that information in mind we move to a study (Lieberman, Daniel. et all) that shows that evolutionarily speaking humans are evolved to be incredibly capable distance runners. Persistence hunting is a method were the prey is literally run to death by the hunter. This method relies on the fact that most mammals perspire through their mouth (panting) and are not particularly efficient at dissipating heat. Humans are able to perspire over our entire bodies, and are capable of doing it while running and breathing in the manner required by that activity level. Something most animals are not capable of. While not nearly as fast as quadrapedalism, bipedalism is biomechanically significantly more efficient in terms of the energy use required for distance covered. Case in point once the distances become great enough we can run down almost any animal on earth. There is a Man vs. Horse race in Wales where humans on foot have beaten horses in a 22 mile race, there are video’s of African hunters running down kudu, literally chasing the animal until it falls over from exhaustion, then walking up and thrusting a spear in the animal while it gasps for air. There is ample evidence to suggest that humans are evolved to run great distances, those that claim that humans are not well suited are spreading lies so as to enforce the perceived need for specialized products for running. Science is starting to support the theories that have been gaining momentum over the past few years (Kerrigan DC, et all). The backlash of course is building momentum and trying to discredit the idea of the health benefits of barefoot running. What’s strange is there is no research to support a lot of the claims made by the opposing camp (Richards, Craig E. Parker, Magin. Robin, Callister.) What we hear is mostly fear mongering from those individuals who stand to lose money over the loss of shoe sales, or from the medical side of the equation, loss of sales in custom orthotics (a very large business.) As of yet there has yet to be any reasoned response to the evidence coming out of various studies and the growing number of personal anecdotes from runners who have suffered for years in traditional shoes but are now running pain free in minimalist or no shoes at all.
The fact that there is no research to back up claims, no logical reason to support the claims, and no history of success to back up the claims implies that the claim made by the major shoe manufacturers are fallacious at best and purposely harmful at worst. While I am not inclined to think that the orthopedic shoe insert business is in collusion with the major shoe manufacturers in creating a death spiral of injury causing shoes, orthotics to ease the pain of injury and furthered injury as a result of the individual not actually receiving any actual treatment for the injury. It certainly seems like that is the way things have turned out. I think it’s important for people to stop trusting people whose only concern is the monetary health of their company. It doesn’t pay Nike to bother to pay attention to what is or is not healthy. They will respond only to market pressures that affect their sales. The change will come from people finally realizing that they have been lied to for so long and demanding shoes that won’t injure them while running. As with so many ills, both in our personal lives and in terms of a the greater context of our society, it is the hoi polloi who will effect change, that is assuming they can get up off their butts and chase after it.
Works cited:
Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister. Is your Prescription of Distance Running Shoes Evidence Based? British journal of sports medicine April 18 2008
Hirschmüller A, Baur H, Müller S, Helwig P, Dickhuth HH, Mayer F. Clinical Effectiveness of Customised Sport Shoe Orthoses for Overuse Injuries in Runners- a Randomized Controlled Study. British journal of sports medicine Nov, 1, 2009
Kerrigan DC, Franz JR, Keenan GS, Dicharry J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP. The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques. PM&R: The Journal of Injury, Function , and Rehabilitation. Dec, 2009
S.Robbins, E.Waked. Balance and Vertical Impact in Sports: Role of Shoe Sole Materials*1 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 463-467
Lieberman, Daniel. Dennis, M. Bramble. David ,A. Raichlen. John, J. Shea. The First Humans-Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo. Chapter 8; Brains Brawns and the Evolution of Human Endurance Running Capabilities.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Notes from Beirut 2
I'm currently in Beirut doing an academic year abroad, but I fear that may get cut short.
A U.N. backed court is probably going to be releasing names of members of Hezbollah involved in Lebanon's former prime ministers assassination (Rafiq Hariri). Hezbollah says it's all B.S. and that it will cause a ruckus and great instability in the country (ie; don't say anything or we will raise holy hell.) In an attempt to maintain peace, the release of these names is going to be postponed because Ahmadinejad (Iran's president) is visiting this week to show support for Hezbollah. To compound matters Syria has just announced arrest warrants for 33 individuals involved in the case concerning the assassination, claiming that false testimony was given by said individuals which caused the imprisonment of one Jamal As-sayyed. Furthermore rumors that that false testimony was given due to economic incentive by Saad Hariri (Rafiq's son) current prime minster of Lebanon,is being tossed around which has caused some members of parliament to call for his resignation as prime minister These calls of course coming from the largest opposition party, the March 8th Alliance, which holds the second largest number of seats in the Lebanese parliament, and is generally considered to be pro Syrian.
Syria seems to have gotten the names of these individuals from the former general security chief Jamal As-sayyed who was just released from prison recently after a 4 year stint on charges of being involved in Rafiq Hariri's assassination. The only reason he got out was because an international investigation (the STL, or "Special Tribunal for Lebanon" the same people who are potentially going to be implicating Hezbollah personnel) just had him released (in 2009) due to lack of evidence. Upon arriving in the Beirut airport he was given an armed guard escort buy Hezbollah to the executive lounge. What does that say about his loyalties? Or how about the fact that Hezbollah can still just waltz into the airport armed to the teeth without any resistance?
Furthermore we all know that Syria and Iran are good chums, and Iran has been supporting Hezbollah for years.
A U.N. backed court is probably going to be releasing names of members of Hezbollah involved in Lebanon's former prime ministers assassination (Rafiq Hariri). Hezbollah says it's all B.S. and that it will cause a ruckus and great instability in the country (ie; don't say anything or we will raise holy hell.) In an attempt to maintain peace, the release of these names is going to be postponed because Ahmadinejad (Iran's president) is visiting this week to show support for Hezbollah. To compound matters Syria has just announced arrest warrants for 33 individuals involved in the case concerning the assassination, claiming that false testimony was given by said individuals which caused the imprisonment of one Jamal As-sayyed. Furthermore rumors that that false testimony was given due to economic incentive by Saad Hariri (Rafiq's son) current prime minster of Lebanon,is being tossed around which has caused some members of parliament to call for his resignation as prime minister These calls of course coming from the largest opposition party, the March 8th Alliance, which holds the second largest number of seats in the Lebanese parliament, and is generally considered to be pro Syrian.
Syria seems to have gotten the names of these individuals from the former general security chief Jamal As-sayyed who was just released from prison recently after a 4 year stint on charges of being involved in Rafiq Hariri's assassination. The only reason he got out was because an international investigation (the STL, or "Special Tribunal for Lebanon" the same people who are potentially going to be implicating Hezbollah personnel) just had him released (in 2009) due to lack of evidence. Upon arriving in the Beirut airport he was given an armed guard escort buy Hezbollah to the executive lounge. What does that say about his loyalties? Or how about the fact that Hezbollah can still just waltz into the airport armed to the teeth without any resistance?
Furthermore we all know that Syria and Iran are good chums, and Iran has been supporting Hezbollah for years.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Notes on Beirut part 1
To those of you just joining the broadcast I am currently doing an academic year abroad in Lebanon. These are just some thoughts I felt were necessary to share with...well someone I'm not sure who reads this.
Let me clear up some illusions that you may or may not have concerning Lebanon, and Beirut specifically. First, the Lebanese are a multilingual people who speak French, Arabic, and English. So far here are my findings on this...in retrospect I hesitate to say illusion, so I shall rephrase it to an statement. Now this statement is thrown about willy-nilly all over the internet, and by the Lebanese themselves. Even our own CIA world fact book lists french as spoken here. Well if we shipped a Frenchman to the moon we could say that french is spoken on the moon, when clearly it is not a lingual-franca despite the prevalence of cheese on said astral body. All joking aside there is some french here. One will find it on the menus, the street signs, and rarely someone passing by will be speaking it. But that my dear francophone is as far as the dream goes. One of our first days in Beirut we went to a restaurant and upon sitting down I was delighted to see that the menu was in french. Imagine my confusion when upon ordering in french the waiter looked at me in utter confusion, I must have looked at him with utter confusion at that point and it soon became apparent to both of us that neither of us knew what was going on, but he gave me a look that said “this is a restaurant, you order food here, you do understand that right?” So I ordered in English and he nodded and smiled and came back later with the food I ordered. I had a similar experience in Italy, I thought that sharing a border as they do with France I might get to use some french to help me get along. However french only confused the Italians beyond any hope of understanding what I was trying to say. I did much better with short English sentences and lots of gesticulating.
In theory Lebanese people speak 3 languages and interchange them as they go. The reality is that the Lebanese people speak Lebanese Arabic, know a few phrases in french (if anything) and speak a level of English that varies widely. The Arabic class I took at UNM, turns out it was Egyptian, and all the phrases and whatnot that I remember have turned out to be 70% useless. Not useless because they aren't useful, but useless because the Lebanese dialect is spoken here, and while the two are not incomprehensible to each other they are different enough to make what I remember of minimal value. The french I know (up to and including 201 at a university level) has proved useless outside of reading things. I haven't (successfully) spoken to anyone in french outside of the 202 class I’m taking.
The other interesting factor I’ve noticed is that those individuals who do speak some french(or claim to*) are older, usually more affluent individuals. Here is my theory, someone versed in the topic please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The french mandate was enacted by the league of nations after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Mandates were pretty much the European powers cutting up the middle east to suite there desires. France happened to get the area we now call Lebanon, and through collusion with the Maronite community managed to have a relatively successful exploitation. I say collusion because it was primarily the Maronites wanting to carve out their own state in the region that they worked so willingly with the french to create “Lebanon” the vast majority of the Muslim population (which was and still is the majority of the population, it's currently 59% currently as of a 2007 census I believe) wanted to rejoin with Muslim Syria (another french mandate.) But the Maronite Christians saw an opportunity to create a nation for themselves and so worked with the french.
The point of this history lesson? Those who wanted seats of power. Those who wanted to do well in business. Those who wanted the best education. Those people had to deal with the french to achieve those goals. As is still the case if you want to successfully deal with the french, it requires that one use their language. Which leaves the people of Lebanon with social stigma that states “knowledge of french probably equates to money power and intelligence.” So knowing french was a sign of the sophisticates, it separated them from their hoi polloi Arab speaking countrymen. Since everyone pretends to be above their station in life of course, lots of people learned french. There was a time I imagine when Lebanon truly was bilingual. However, the french mandate ended and in 1946 the last french troops were pulled out of Lebanon.
Crazy as it sounds, that was 64 years ago, over half a century. That's 3 generations of people who've no longer had any reason to maintain the french component of the overall language profile. That mixed with the almost viral like nature of English and what we see today is the tail end of some serious attenuation of use for french within Lebanon. It's a cultural remnant of something most Lebanese weren't even alive for.
Assertion number 2: the Lebanese are CRAZY drivers. Frankly I saw just as much swerving and weaving in Italy. Don't get me wrong here traffic is hectic, and people do use their horns WAY to much. But watch the traffic for a while and clear order and pattern emerges. Imagine a game of chicken at every light, every crossing etc. This is pretty much how traffic works here. Who wants it the most is who gets it. There are lanes, but they are ignored. Now to most Americans (and I assume Europeans) this sounds horrifically dangerous, and it should be, but let's take into account the compounding effect of so many people doing it. In Beirut traffic is so horrific that it can take over a half an hour to drive what would amount to maybe a 15 minute walk. In all the vehicle rides I’ve taken in this city the car rarely makes it over 30 miles an hour and even then it's only for a moment or so. As a result I also haven't seen many bad accidents, people just can't get enough speed to really damage each other. Let us also consider, as I was told today, that for every two people in Beirut there is one car. If everyone is trying their best to get where they are going at the expense of those around them what happens, Beirut traffic happens. It's like everyone in a very crowded room running for a fire exit and all trying smash their way out at the same time. What ends up happening is that no one gets out quickly and we all sit around jockeying for position to no real avail because it's just a huge press of people and only 3 or 4 are getting through those doors at a time. Traffic here could be much smoother, if everyone worked together that is, which as we all know the Lebanese seem to have a difficult history of doing.
*we've met a few older people who claimed to be french tutors who never once spoke to us in french even when they were floundering for words in their limited English
Let me clear up some illusions that you may or may not have concerning Lebanon, and Beirut specifically. First, the Lebanese are a multilingual people who speak French, Arabic, and English. So far here are my findings on this...in retrospect I hesitate to say illusion, so I shall rephrase it to an statement. Now this statement is thrown about willy-nilly all over the internet, and by the Lebanese themselves. Even our own CIA world fact book lists french as spoken here. Well if we shipped a Frenchman to the moon we could say that french is spoken on the moon, when clearly it is not a lingual-franca despite the prevalence of cheese on said astral body. All joking aside there is some french here. One will find it on the menus, the street signs, and rarely someone passing by will be speaking it. But that my dear francophone is as far as the dream goes. One of our first days in Beirut we went to a restaurant and upon sitting down I was delighted to see that the menu was in french. Imagine my confusion when upon ordering in french the waiter looked at me in utter confusion, I must have looked at him with utter confusion at that point and it soon became apparent to both of us that neither of us knew what was going on, but he gave me a look that said “this is a restaurant, you order food here, you do understand that right?” So I ordered in English and he nodded and smiled and came back later with the food I ordered. I had a similar experience in Italy, I thought that sharing a border as they do with France I might get to use some french to help me get along. However french only confused the Italians beyond any hope of understanding what I was trying to say. I did much better with short English sentences and lots of gesticulating.
In theory Lebanese people speak 3 languages and interchange them as they go. The reality is that the Lebanese people speak Lebanese Arabic, know a few phrases in french (if anything) and speak a level of English that varies widely. The Arabic class I took at UNM, turns out it was Egyptian, and all the phrases and whatnot that I remember have turned out to be 70% useless. Not useless because they aren't useful, but useless because the Lebanese dialect is spoken here, and while the two are not incomprehensible to each other they are different enough to make what I remember of minimal value. The french I know (up to and including 201 at a university level) has proved useless outside of reading things. I haven't (successfully) spoken to anyone in french outside of the 202 class I’m taking.
The other interesting factor I’ve noticed is that those individuals who do speak some french(or claim to*) are older, usually more affluent individuals. Here is my theory, someone versed in the topic please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The french mandate was enacted by the league of nations after WWI and the fall of the Ottoman empire. Mandates were pretty much the European powers cutting up the middle east to suite there desires. France happened to get the area we now call Lebanon, and through collusion with the Maronite community managed to have a relatively successful exploitation. I say collusion because it was primarily the Maronites wanting to carve out their own state in the region that they worked so willingly with the french to create “Lebanon” the vast majority of the Muslim population (which was and still is the majority of the population, it's currently 59% currently as of a 2007 census I believe) wanted to rejoin with Muslim Syria (another french mandate.) But the Maronite Christians saw an opportunity to create a nation for themselves and so worked with the french.
The point of this history lesson? Those who wanted seats of power. Those who wanted to do well in business. Those who wanted the best education. Those people had to deal with the french to achieve those goals. As is still the case if you want to successfully deal with the french, it requires that one use their language. Which leaves the people of Lebanon with social stigma that states “knowledge of french probably equates to money power and intelligence.” So knowing french was a sign of the sophisticates, it separated them from their hoi polloi Arab speaking countrymen. Since everyone pretends to be above their station in life of course, lots of people learned french. There was a time I imagine when Lebanon truly was bilingual. However, the french mandate ended and in 1946 the last french troops were pulled out of Lebanon.
Crazy as it sounds, that was 64 years ago, over half a century. That's 3 generations of people who've no longer had any reason to maintain the french component of the overall language profile. That mixed with the almost viral like nature of English and what we see today is the tail end of some serious attenuation of use for french within Lebanon. It's a cultural remnant of something most Lebanese weren't even alive for.
Assertion number 2: the Lebanese are CRAZY drivers. Frankly I saw just as much swerving and weaving in Italy. Don't get me wrong here traffic is hectic, and people do use their horns WAY to much. But watch the traffic for a while and clear order and pattern emerges. Imagine a game of chicken at every light, every crossing etc. This is pretty much how traffic works here. Who wants it the most is who gets it. There are lanes, but they are ignored. Now to most Americans (and I assume Europeans) this sounds horrifically dangerous, and it should be, but let's take into account the compounding effect of so many people doing it. In Beirut traffic is so horrific that it can take over a half an hour to drive what would amount to maybe a 15 minute walk. In all the vehicle rides I’ve taken in this city the car rarely makes it over 30 miles an hour and even then it's only for a moment or so. As a result I also haven't seen many bad accidents, people just can't get enough speed to really damage each other. Let us also consider, as I was told today, that for every two people in Beirut there is one car. If everyone is trying their best to get where they are going at the expense of those around them what happens, Beirut traffic happens. It's like everyone in a very crowded room running for a fire exit and all trying smash their way out at the same time. What ends up happening is that no one gets out quickly and we all sit around jockeying for position to no real avail because it's just a huge press of people and only 3 or 4 are getting through those doors at a time. Traffic here could be much smoother, if everyone worked together that is, which as we all know the Lebanese seem to have a difficult history of doing.
*we've met a few older people who claimed to be french tutors who never once spoke to us in french even when they were floundering for words in their limited English
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Barefoot is the new shoe
It is argued that running shoes are necessary for the health of the human foot if an individual is doing a great deal of running, yet at the same time history tells us a different story. There is now a growing tide of evidence that suggest that the modern running shoe may in fact be the “Achilles heel” of most active runners.
The available literature on the benefits of cushion soled running shoes in decreasing the instances of injury in active runners is scant to say the least. In fact one study (Richards, Craig E. Parker, Magin. Robin, Callister.) from 2008 showed that there is no original research that shows that use of modern running shoes for health reasons is evidence based. The closest I could find was an article (Hirschmüller A, et al.) discussing the use of custom insert orthotics to aid people with running injuries. But what the study did not cover was the origin of the injuries, merely the treatment.
There are however studies starting to come out that point in the direction that perhaps running shoes are to blame for the majority of overuse injuries sustained by runners. One example is a study (Kerrigan DC, et al.)that showed that the amount of torque placed on all 3 of the lower major joints (ankle, knee, hip) was significantly greater while running in modern running shoes. While they make concessions that perhaps some other style of running shoe may give differing results, I think it’s safe to say that as long as the shoe abides by the thick heel over cushioned style it will (to a greater or lesser degree) cause the sort of force loads and shocks to the body that were evident in the research.
Though it is clear that based on the number of studies done on custom orthotic inserts that there is some value in them in terms of offering pain relief for injured runners, they fail to address the issue at hand: what is causing the pain. This issue was clearly addressed in the second paper I mentioned ( Kerrigan DC, et all). The study clearly shows that running shoes and the heel to toe running style exerts significantly greater pressure on the lower body. This kind of repeated stress can most certainly give rise to the multitude of injuries suffered by (depending on who one reads) anywhere from 45%-70% of active runners over the course of a year. The prevailing wisdom of course being that if one suffers pain while running the best solution is 1; stop running, or 2; get custom orthotics. As the study shows, orthotics are effective ways to relieve pain for a temporary time, but that then begs the question; what is it that the shoes are failing to do that gives rise to injuries that necessitate more padding inside the shoe. These shoes are already padded to the extreme so it should stand to reason that adding more padding might not fix the problem. As it turns out we evolved to use our feet as our primary source of information gathering for our body while attempting to balance ourselves (go figure). In fact one study (Robbins, S. E, Waked) found that the softer the landing surface the harder humans land on it. They theorized that the reason behind this is that when landing the human foot is looking for a solid surface on which to find purchase and thus gain balance. The softer the surface, the harder people hit in an unconscious attempt to compress the soft material into something firm that could be used by the foot to secure balance. So keeping this in mind we turn once again to the orthotic study, and one can’t help but think “is more padding what needs to be going on here?” This question is answered pretty clearly by Kerrigan, running in thick cushioned shoes causes the individual to land with much greater impact, which in turn causes significantly more stress for the rest of the body. So where does this leave us? Are people simply not meant to run long distances? One anthropology research paper says that this is not the case (Lieberman, Daniel. et all). In the paper a pretty convincing case is made for the idea that humans are evolutionarily designed for long distance running. Our ancestors would likely not have survived long had they been subject to the injury rate of modern runners. So it would seem that modern running shoes are the root of the problems facing (almost all) modern runners.
There is a growing community of individuals who advocate barefoot, or minimalist running. While these communities are claiming that there is less injury and less stress placed on the body utilizing these methods of running, the movement seems to be having a hard time gaining ground due primarily to the ingrained belief that running shoes are a necessary item for safety purposes. But a cursory examination (or an in depth one: Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister.) shows that there is no evidence for this belief. So what is a runner to do if the fear of injury is present but they are unwilling to run without their beloved shoes? I think the answer is to be found in looking at form.
When an individual runs in modern cushioned heel shoes one is almost forced into the heel to toe running style that causes such stress to the body. While running barefoot (or in minimalist shoes) allows the foot to land on the edge of the forefoot slowly dropping the heel rolling across the ball and then springing off of the toes. This style of running is bio-mechanically what we evolved to do. As a result it is the least damaging way for us to run. People’s fear of broken glass and nails, the hard surface of the sidewalk, there are a multitude of reasons to look askance at running in either bare feet or in minimalist shoes. So you don’t want to get rid of your shoes? That’s fine. The knowledge gained by reading these studies can still be applied to how you run now. Adapt your style, don’t heel strike. Sure it will be harder to run in this manner when your shoes are designed to make you run in the exact opposite way you should. But there are ultra marathoners (Scott Jurek comes to mind) who run in racing flats, which while better than normal running shoes are a far cry from minimalist or bare feet. But a good portion of them remain injury free. The secret? they run in the same way someone who is running unshod would run ( see the book “Born to Run“ by Christopher McDougall.)
Injuries are almost guaranteed to occur in active runners, and orthotics seem to help reduce the pain of these injuries. But running in shoes with cushioned soles and heels seem most likely the cause of the injuries in the first place. If we take all the information available we can draw this conclusion; an awareness of style, and adaptation of form can take one significantly closer to running in a manner that will scientifically and significantly reduce the likelihood of injury.
Works cited:
Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister. Is your Prescription of Distance Running Shoes Evidence Based? British journal of sports medicine April 18 2008
Hirschmüller A, Baur H, Müller S, Helwig P, Dickhuth HH, Mayer F. Clinical Effectiveness of Customised Sport Shoe Orthoses for Overuse Injuries in Runners- a Randomised Controlled Study. British journal of sports medicine Nov, 1, 2009
Kerrigan DC, Franz JR, Keenan GS, Dicharry J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP. The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques. PM&R: The Journal of Injury, Function , and Rehabilitation. Dec, 2009
S.Robbins, E.Waked. Balance and Vertical Impact in Sports: Role of Shoe Sole Materials*1 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 463-467
Lieberman, Daniel. Dennis, M. Bramble. David ,A. Raichlen. John, J. Shea. The First Humans-Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo. Chapter 8; Brains Brawns and the Evolution of Human Endurance Running Capabilities.
The available literature on the benefits of cushion soled running shoes in decreasing the instances of injury in active runners is scant to say the least. In fact one study (Richards, Craig E. Parker, Magin. Robin, Callister.) from 2008 showed that there is no original research that shows that use of modern running shoes for health reasons is evidence based. The closest I could find was an article (Hirschmüller A, et al.) discussing the use of custom insert orthotics to aid people with running injuries. But what the study did not cover was the origin of the injuries, merely the treatment.
There are however studies starting to come out that point in the direction that perhaps running shoes are to blame for the majority of overuse injuries sustained by runners. One example is a study (Kerrigan DC, et al.)that showed that the amount of torque placed on all 3 of the lower major joints (ankle, knee, hip) was significantly greater while running in modern running shoes. While they make concessions that perhaps some other style of running shoe may give differing results, I think it’s safe to say that as long as the shoe abides by the thick heel over cushioned style it will (to a greater or lesser degree) cause the sort of force loads and shocks to the body that were evident in the research.
Though it is clear that based on the number of studies done on custom orthotic inserts that there is some value in them in terms of offering pain relief for injured runners, they fail to address the issue at hand: what is causing the pain. This issue was clearly addressed in the second paper I mentioned ( Kerrigan DC, et all). The study clearly shows that running shoes and the heel to toe running style exerts significantly greater pressure on the lower body. This kind of repeated stress can most certainly give rise to the multitude of injuries suffered by (depending on who one reads) anywhere from 45%-70% of active runners over the course of a year. The prevailing wisdom of course being that if one suffers pain while running the best solution is 1; stop running, or 2; get custom orthotics. As the study shows, orthotics are effective ways to relieve pain for a temporary time, but that then begs the question; what is it that the shoes are failing to do that gives rise to injuries that necessitate more padding inside the shoe. These shoes are already padded to the extreme so it should stand to reason that adding more padding might not fix the problem. As it turns out we evolved to use our feet as our primary source of information gathering for our body while attempting to balance ourselves (go figure). In fact one study (Robbins, S. E, Waked) found that the softer the landing surface the harder humans land on it. They theorized that the reason behind this is that when landing the human foot is looking for a solid surface on which to find purchase and thus gain balance. The softer the surface, the harder people hit in an unconscious attempt to compress the soft material into something firm that could be used by the foot to secure balance. So keeping this in mind we turn once again to the orthotic study, and one can’t help but think “is more padding what needs to be going on here?” This question is answered pretty clearly by Kerrigan, running in thick cushioned shoes causes the individual to land with much greater impact, which in turn causes significantly more stress for the rest of the body. So where does this leave us? Are people simply not meant to run long distances? One anthropology research paper says that this is not the case (Lieberman, Daniel. et all). In the paper a pretty convincing case is made for the idea that humans are evolutionarily designed for long distance running. Our ancestors would likely not have survived long had they been subject to the injury rate of modern runners. So it would seem that modern running shoes are the root of the problems facing (almost all) modern runners.
There is a growing community of individuals who advocate barefoot, or minimalist running. While these communities are claiming that there is less injury and less stress placed on the body utilizing these methods of running, the movement seems to be having a hard time gaining ground due primarily to the ingrained belief that running shoes are a necessary item for safety purposes. But a cursory examination (or an in depth one: Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister.) shows that there is no evidence for this belief. So what is a runner to do if the fear of injury is present but they are unwilling to run without their beloved shoes? I think the answer is to be found in looking at form.
When an individual runs in modern cushioned heel shoes one is almost forced into the heel to toe running style that causes such stress to the body. While running barefoot (or in minimalist shoes) allows the foot to land on the edge of the forefoot slowly dropping the heel rolling across the ball and then springing off of the toes. This style of running is bio-mechanically what we evolved to do. As a result it is the least damaging way for us to run. People’s fear of broken glass and nails, the hard surface of the sidewalk, there are a multitude of reasons to look askance at running in either bare feet or in minimalist shoes. So you don’t want to get rid of your shoes? That’s fine. The knowledge gained by reading these studies can still be applied to how you run now. Adapt your style, don’t heel strike. Sure it will be harder to run in this manner when your shoes are designed to make you run in the exact opposite way you should. But there are ultra marathoners (Scott Jurek comes to mind) who run in racing flats, which while better than normal running shoes are a far cry from minimalist or bare feet. But a good portion of them remain injury free. The secret? they run in the same way someone who is running unshod would run ( see the book “Born to Run“ by Christopher McDougall.)
Injuries are almost guaranteed to occur in active runners, and orthotics seem to help reduce the pain of these injuries. But running in shoes with cushioned soles and heels seem most likely the cause of the injuries in the first place. If we take all the information available we can draw this conclusion; an awareness of style, and adaptation of form can take one significantly closer to running in a manner that will scientifically and significantly reduce the likelihood of injury.
Works cited:
Richards, Craig E. Parker, J, Magin. Robin, Callister. Is your Prescription of Distance Running Shoes Evidence Based? British journal of sports medicine April 18 2008
Hirschmüller A, Baur H, Müller S, Helwig P, Dickhuth HH, Mayer F. Clinical Effectiveness of Customised Sport Shoe Orthoses for Overuse Injuries in Runners- a Randomised Controlled Study. British journal of sports medicine Nov, 1, 2009
Kerrigan DC, Franz JR, Keenan GS, Dicharry J, Della Croce U, Wilder RP. The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques. PM&R: The Journal of Injury, Function , and Rehabilitation. Dec, 2009
S.Robbins, E.Waked. Balance and Vertical Impact in Sports: Role of Shoe Sole Materials*1 Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Volume 78, Issue 5, Pages 463-467
Lieberman, Daniel. Dennis, M. Bramble. David ,A. Raichlen. John, J. Shea. The First Humans-Origin and Evolution of the Genus Homo. Chapter 8; Brains Brawns and the Evolution of Human Endurance Running Capabilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)