December 2018 Monthly Running Challenge

1…2829313334…52

Replies

  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    No run for me today. I did this instead.
    iytr09tiat6u.jpg

    Tomorrow we'll be driving home. Not sure if I'll get a chance to run or not. But this weekend was worth it. I am so proud to have both of my kids graduated from college.

    WOOT! CONGRATS!
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    edited December 2018
    Regarding the ice and NSAID's:

    If the swelling is causing, could cause or could make injury worse, use them. I agree with @garygse that you shouldn't be using them to run.
    I believe that taking something earlier is better than later and typically requires a shorter duration.

    And never underestimate the power of Tylenol/paracetamol for pain. Just like NSAID's, don't use them to run through pain.
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    I already knew this, but my doctor happened to mention that you should never run when taking NSAIDs such as ibuprofen because it damages your kidneys.
  • quilteryoyo
    quilteryoyo Posts: 6,547 Member
    @MobyCarp Sounds like you, and probably a lot of the runners on this thread, are one of those people who amaze me and run the 5K before the race as a warm up to the 5K! It blew my mind in my first race when I heard some people talking about doing this. I doubt if I will ever get to that point, but I applaud those of you who do. I've changed my mind and don't think you are crazy now, just awesome.
  • Tramboman
    Tramboman Posts: 2,482 Member
    @MobyCarp Congratulations on yet another outstanding run!!!
  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    shanaber wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Interesting study on why maximalist shoes may not be a good idea:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187709-the-most-comfortable-running-shoes-may-actually-increase-injury-risk/

    (Behind a paywall, sorry. The gist is as follows.)
    Juha-Pekka Kulmala at the University of Helsinki in Finland and his colleagues studied the biomechanics of 12 healthy men aged 22 to 32 as they ran in two shoe types – a regular sneaker with 33 millimetres of cushioning under the heel and 22 millimetres under the forefoot, and a highly-cushioned “maximalist” sneaker with a 43-millimetre heel and 37-millimetre forefoot height.

    The participants ran at two different speeds – 10 and 15 kilometres per hour – along a 30-metre platform that measured how hard their feet hit the ground. They also wore reflective stickers that allowed video cameras to capture their motion.

    At both speeds, the runners landed on their feet harder when they wore the maximalist sneakers than the regular kind. The peak impact force was 6 per cent higher on average at the slower running speed and 11 per cent higher at the faster speed.

    Leg stiffness
    The video analysis suggested this was because the runners bent their knees and ankles less when they wore the maximalist shoes, which caused their bodies to decelerate faster as they landed and placed extra stress on their legs.

    Normally when we run, our legs act like springs that compress as the feet land and then release as they take off, says Kulmala. But because highly-cushioned shoes already compress under the feet, the legs don’t need to compress as much themselves, meaning they bend less at the knees and ankles, he says.

    This extra leg stiffness and higher ground impact means that running in maximalist sneakers is likely to increase the risk of injuries, particularly stress fractures, says Kulmala. It also means that the common advice given to injury-prone runners to buy shoes with more padding may actually backfire, he says.

    @rheddmobile - I know this was back a few days (I am slowly reading through and catching up) but wanted to thank you for this. I may just have to point my podiatrist to this study... She who thinks my Altras and Topos are not 'normal' running shoes and I need a good heavily cushioned Asics, Brooks or Saucony instead. No, she is not a runner and doesn't exactly approve of running for someone 'my age' pfffft!

    Can't quite parse that, sorry. xx Aren't Altras and Topos maximalist / highly cushioned?

    Not sure you read the study. The study supports your doctor's shoe recommendation.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35980-6

    For the bystander in any case:

    The study compared maximalist shoes and conventional shoes and found that conventional/cushioned shoes are better.

    "For the highly cushioned shoe in this study, we used the Hoka Conquest men’s running shoe (Hoka One One, Marina Bay, CA, USA), as the maximalist (MAX) shoe. This shoe had a 43 mm heel and 37 mm forefoot height, respectively, (heel-toe drop of 6 mm), and its measured weight was 321 g. The Brooks Ghost 6 men’s running shoe (Brooks Sports, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) was the conventional (CON) cushioned running shoe used in this study. This shoe weighs 301 g, and has a 33 mm heel and 22 mm forefoot height, respectively (heel-toe drop of 12 mm). "


  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    edited December 2018
    Orphia wrote: »
    shanaber wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Interesting study on why maximalist shoes may not be a good idea:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187709-the-most-comfortable-running-shoes-may-actually-increase-injury-risk/

    (Behind a paywall, sorry. The gist is as follows.)
    Juha-Pekka Kulmala at the University of Helsinki in Finland and his colleagues studied the biomechanics of 12 healthy men aged 22 to 32 as they ran in two shoe types – a regular sneaker with 33 millimetres of cushioning under the heel and 22 millimetres under the forefoot, and a highly-cushioned “maximalist” sneaker with a 43-millimetre heel and 37-millimetre forefoot height.

    The participants ran at two different speeds – 10 and 15 kilometres per hour – along a 30-metre platform that measured how hard their feet hit the ground. They also wore reflective stickers that allowed video cameras to capture their motion.

    At both speeds, the runners landed on their feet harder when they wore the maximalist sneakers than the regular kind. The peak impact force was 6 per cent higher on average at the slower running speed and 11 per cent higher at the faster speed.

    Leg stiffness
    The video analysis suggested this was because the runners bent their knees and ankles less when they wore the maximalist shoes, which caused their bodies to decelerate faster as they landed and placed extra stress on their legs.

    Normally when we run, our legs act like springs that compress as the feet land and then release as they take off, says Kulmala. But because highly-cushioned shoes already compress under the feet, the legs don’t need to compress as much themselves, meaning they bend less at the knees and ankles, he says.

    This extra leg stiffness and higher ground impact means that running in maximalist sneakers is likely to increase the risk of injuries, particularly stress fractures, says Kulmala. It also means that the common advice given to injury-prone runners to buy shoes with more padding may actually backfire, he says.

    @rheddmobile - I know this was back a few days (I am slowly reading through and catching up) but wanted to thank you for this. I may just have to point my podiatrist to this study... She who thinks my Altras and Topos are not 'normal' running shoes and I need a good heavily cushioned Asics, Brooks or Saucony instead. No, she is not a runner and doesn't exactly approve of running for someone 'my age' pfffft!

    Can't quite parse that, sorry. xx Aren't Altras and Topos maximalist / highly cushioned?

    Not sure you read the study. The study supports your doctor's shoe recommendation.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35980-6

    For the bystander in any case:

    The study compared maximalist shoes and conventional shoes and found that conventional/cushioned shoes are better.

    "For the highly cushioned shoe in this study, we used the Hoka Conquest men’s running shoe (Hoka One One, Marina Bay, CA, USA), as the maximalist (MAX) shoe. This shoe had a 43 mm heel and 37 mm forefoot height, respectively, (heel-toe drop of 6 mm), and its measured weight was 321 g. The Brooks Ghost 6 men’s running shoe (Brooks Sports, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) was the conventional (CON) cushioned running shoe used in this study. This shoe weighs 301 g, and has a 33 mm heel and 22 mm forefoot height, respectively (heel-toe drop of 12 mm). "

    My Altra Timps are 29mm zero drop. So less than the heel height of the conventional shoe in this study.

    Altra Lone Peaks are 25 mm.

    I didn't know anything about Topos so I looked at their page, and one of their top listed shoes is the Runventure 2 which is described as "lightly cushioned" at 19 mm.

    Not sure why these brands have a rep for being maximalist. They aren't exactly Hokas where you have a mattress strapped to your foot.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    @orphia the conclusion of the study. "These discoveries may explain why shoes with more cushioning do not protect against impact-related running injuries."

    It is one study. And one must remember to run in what works best for ones self. I personally need minimal cushion. Overly cushioned shoes do cause me to over stride, run too fast for my ability and allow my glutes to turn off. But that's me. Others without my issues, may have no problems with the cushion. My retired dentist runs Boston, Chicago etc and loves the overly cushioned shoes.
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    I definitely prefer my 0 drop Altra Lone Peaks over any other shoe I have run in. I save them for trail running, but if we get good snow this year will use them for that too.

    My road shoes have a bit too much cushion and I think 8mm drop. I plan to try Altra's road shoe when they die, but that is a long way off yet.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Orphia wrote: »
    shanaber wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Interesting study on why maximalist shoes may not be a good idea:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187709-the-most-comfortable-running-shoes-may-actually-increase-injury-risk/

    (Behind a paywall, sorry. The gist is as follows.)
    Juha-Pekka Kulmala at the University of Helsinki in Finland and his colleagues studied the biomechanics of 12 healthy men aged 22 to 32 as they ran in two shoe types – a regular sneaker with 33 millimetres of cushioning under the heel and 22 millimetres under the forefoot, and a highly-cushioned “maximalist” sneaker with a 43-millimetre heel and 37-millimetre forefoot height.

    The participants ran at two different speeds – 10 and 15 kilometres per hour – along a 30-metre platform that measured how hard their feet hit the ground. They also wore reflective stickers that allowed video cameras to capture their motion.

    At both speeds, the runners landed on their feet harder when they wore the maximalist sneakers than the regular kind. The peak impact force was 6 per cent higher on average at the slower running speed and 11 per cent higher at the faster speed.

    Leg stiffness
    The video analysis suggested this was because the runners bent their knees and ankles less when they wore the maximalist shoes, which caused their bodies to decelerate faster as they landed and placed extra stress on their legs.

    Normally when we run, our legs act like springs that compress as the feet land and then release as they take off, says Kulmala. But because highly-cushioned shoes already compress under the feet, the legs don’t need to compress as much themselves, meaning they bend less at the knees and ankles, he says.

    This extra leg stiffness and higher ground impact means that running in maximalist sneakers is likely to increase the risk of injuries, particularly stress fractures, says Kulmala. It also means that the common advice given to injury-prone runners to buy shoes with more padding may actually backfire, he says.

    @rheddmobile - I know this was back a few days (I am slowly reading through and catching up) but wanted to thank you for this. I may just have to point my podiatrist to this study... She who thinks my Altras and Topos are not 'normal' running shoes and I need a good heavily cushioned Asics, Brooks or Saucony instead. No, she is not a runner and doesn't exactly approve of running for someone 'my age' pfffft!

    Can't quite parse that, sorry. xx Aren't Altras and Topos maximalist / highly cushioned?

    Not sure you read the study. The study supports your doctor's shoe recommendation.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35980-6

    For the bystander in any case:

    The study compared maximalist shoes and conventional shoes and found that conventional/cushioned shoes are better.

    "For the highly cushioned shoe in this study, we used the Hoka Conquest men’s running shoe (Hoka One One, Marina Bay, CA, USA), as the maximalist (MAX) shoe. This shoe had a 43 mm heel and 37 mm forefoot height, respectively, (heel-toe drop of 6 mm), and its measured weight was 321 g. The Brooks Ghost 6 men’s running shoe (Brooks Sports, Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) was the conventional (CON) cushioned running shoe used in this study. This shoe weighs 301 g, and has a 33 mm heel and 22 mm forefoot height, respectively (heel-toe drop of 12 mm). "

    My Altra Timps are 29mm zero drop. So less than the heel height of the conventional shoe in this study.

    Altra Lone Peaks are 25 mm.

    I didn't know anything about Topos so I looked at their page, and one of their top listed shoes is the Runventure 2 which is described as "lightly cushioned" at 19 mm.

    Not sure why these brands have a rep for being maximalist. They aren't exactly Hokas where you have a mattress strapped to your foot.

    I have the topos runventure. The stack height (mattress) seems similar to the brooks ghost i have. Although the crash pad, (forefoot) is thinner. And the brooks are way more cushioned than the topos, so the material absorbs less impact, forcing me to adjust my form. So, stack height may not be the issue. But rather does the shoe allow for your running mechanics to absorb the impact, or is the shoes allowing you to land with a force great enough to lend injury, if you are you injury prone.

    Its a very good article and point to keep in mind that our gaits and form vary, as well as our shoe needs.

    I wish my feet could be naked everywhere.
  • workaholic_nurse
    workaholic_nurse Posts: 727 Member
    Treadmill intervals this morning. Have been fairly consistent with running and lifting. No upcoming races as yet, but will start seriously looking on the 22nd and 23rd for upcoming races. @ContraryMaryMary sorry to hear about the calf.

    @noblsheep stomach bugs just suck.

    @eleanorhawkins 41 is not old😂.

    Looking forward to run the year starting.
  • eleanorhawkins
    eleanorhawkins Posts: 1,659 Member
    @workaholic_nurse ikr? But try telling my doctor that. Same doctor though who has not even commented on the fact I quit smoking and lost 29 kilos, so it's not as if he's particularly attentive :-( Tbh almost 41 feels a hell of a lot younger than 38 did!
    Thanks everyone for your opinions/suggestions! Really interesting to see the different comments on ice and ibuprofen particularly...here in Spain that (along with rest) is pretty much the basic prescription for just about anything where no internal organs are hanging out! Yesterday I did nothing but shopping and housework and I stayed in bed really late with my coffee this morning while attacking my thighs and calves with a hand-held roller thingy under the duvet. Caused a few raised eyebrows, but felt good! lol
    My knees don't actually hurt right now, just feel a little mistreated. I'm thinking it could all just be due to everything being really really tight and abused from having been made to run all those miles they're not used to running.
    Going to take it easy today (except the ironing pile is taller than I am *sigh*) and if there's no pain in the morning I think I'll try a very gentle walk on the treadmill and see what they think. I've just about come to terms with the idea that a few down days are required, even though I'm itchy from not having run since Friday and not even being able to do it properly then. Husband's being a dick again too, which doesn't help.....me running is usually what saves his life so he could be in trouble ;-)
    Shoes..... funnily enough, I have two pairs I alternate. One are Adidas I was professionally fitted for, which I'm actually not all that keen on as they're a little narrow for comfort. The other are my favourite Asics that I had been running in even before I was fitted for the others and have never given me any trouble (or a single blister, which the Adidas sometimes do!). Coincidentally, I ran the HM in the Asics, and I was wearing them again on Friday when the pain started. However, they both have about 220km on them and that includes warm-up and cool-down walks, so I don't think they could be worn out yet. Would be VERY annoying if they are!
  • PastorVincent
    PastorVincent Posts: 6,668 Member
    ContraryMaryMary wrote: »
    Things I’ve learnt since I’ve been injured:
    1. Mowing lawns for two hours straight burns marginally more calories than a half hour run
    2. There are 42 calories in a single scorched almond
    3. No running means a lot less laundry

    #3 is so true! :lol:

    Sorry, you are down and out, but think of the savings on your water bill! That will help pay for the next running accessory! :wink:
  • quilteryoyo
    quilteryoyo Posts: 6,547 Member
    ContraryMaryMary wrote: »
    Ouch. Yours sounds way worse than mine. And tell me about the weight gain!! I love to eat and it’s Christmas, the season of yummy treats and overindulgence!! I can feel myself getting fatter at the thought.
    Hahaha I sometimes think I do gain weight just thinking about food. Enjoy the season of yummy treats. Hope your calf heals quickly and you can get back into running before you start the upward weight cycle. You look really fit in your picture, so I doubt you'll have the same problem I did.

  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    @orphia the conclusion of the study. "These discoveries may explain why shoes with more cushioning do not protect against impact-related running injuries."

    It is one study. And one must remember to run in what works best for ones self. I personally need minimal cushion. Overly cushioned shoes do cause me to over stride, run too fast for my ability and allow my glutes to turn off. But that's me. Others without my issues, may have no problems with the cushion. My retired dentist runs Boston, Chicago etc and loves the overly cushioned shoes.

    The study defines "more cushioning" as maximalist. i.e. more than regular cushioning.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories