Am I not meant to be a runner?

Tip: if you want to insist that something isn't true, you should at least know what that thing actually says.

No kidding. But then, MFP wouldn't be half the fun it is without unknowledgeable people making definitive statements.

:drinker:

With any luck the Flat Earthers will now dog pile this thread....

I just love how people conveniently forget we had this EXACT same set of arguments over plate tectonics less than 50 years ago. Just a theory, can't prove it, don't teach it in schools! Any guesses why you never hear main stream arguments about plate tectonics any more?

Most Evangelicals (at least in the US) do not believe in plate tectonics, believe it or not, as it's pretty inconsistent with the Young Earth fantasy.

Tip: if you want to insist that something isn't true, you should at least know what that thing actually says.

No kidding. But then, MFP wouldn't be half the fun it is without unknowledgeable people making definitive statements.

:drinker:

With any luck the Flat Earthers will now dog pile this thread....

I just love how people conveniently forget we had this EXACT same set of arguments over plate tectonics less than 50 years ago. Just a theory, can't prove it, don't teach it in schools! Any guesses why you never hear main stream arguments about plate tectonics any more?

Most Evangelicals (at least in the US) do not believe in plate tectonics, believe it or not, as it's pretty inconsistent with the Young Earth fantasy.

Of course not, they can't. But it's A LOT harder to dispute in the general public without making it abundantly clear just how far gone you are.

Pointing out that humans often aren't very good at sitting a horse doesn't mean that the horse is not a much more efficient runner.

Wrong again.

Get Eric Orton's "The Cool Impossible" and follow his routines for building foot, ankle, knee, hip and core strength... I struggled at first... plus I have had both hips replaced... his routines helped me get to 45-50 miles per week and up to running ultras in about three years

Finally something about the topic!

Looks like it's time for this:



The "non-belief" in science also explains so much.

The thing about science...there are laws that are absolutes (like gravity). But after that there are lots of theories that have been backed up by research, tests and evidence and conventions. That doesn't mean they are all infallibly correct.

Some theories are disproven as technology/knowledge improves. The scientific community can sometimes turn "nay sayers" into outcasts. Anyway, talk about off topic....

Wow - that went off course quickly.

OP: have you been to see a physio on a regular basis? If you find one that sees a lot of runners specifically, they may be able to help you when they see the same strains and sprains in you time over and be able to let you know what body position/pronation/running style is most likely to be causing these injuries.

I'm not going to get into an argument about whether it's good or bad for the body, because I only have one person to base this on, but my husband is a long distance runner and his legs and feet are perpetually screwed.

The following have made things better though:

* finding out he's flat footed and having better suited shoes fitted with orthotics (not off the shelf, custom made for him - good old NHS provided these, as all shoes cause him pain, so he can taken them out of his regular shoes and use them when he runs)

* seeing a sports physio (who treats a lot of runners, rather than rugby players)

* stretches in the evening

* joining a running club - they have coaches who will look at what you're doing wrong and right. He has been running for over 10 years, but it's really improved over the last couple of years, including injuries.

Hope you find something that works, it must be really lousy to be prevented from doing something you really enjoy because of pain.

The only thing I can add to this, because seeing a physio at least once would be an excellent idea, is that you should make sure you're not running through injury. If something hurts, stop and walk. See if the pain goes away. Don't run through something that hurts, it could make it worse. And if things continue to hurt when you slow to a walk, take some time away from running. You don't want to aggravate anything and make the problem worse.

Hi OP. I know exactly how frustrating this is. I ran for about 6 months and lost an entire stone in weight. I felt so good about myself. I was doing the couch to 5k, and was on week 8 of 9. Then bam. I got pains in my shins. I had shin splints. Granted my shoes were quite worn. So I ditched the shoes and got a new pair. But it didn't matter, I had shin splints, I couldn't run in the new shoes.
So I started walking to and from work. 5 miles in total. The repetitive action of me walking every day caused me to have tendonitis! I just felt like I couldn't win. I thought, ' I can't walk, I can't run, am I just meant to be fat?' So I ended up putting all the weight back on again. I felt awful. I'd been to the Dr, they just told me to take ibuprofen...
Started up at the gym, and they were really helpful and created a program where I could continue to improve my fitness, without causing pain in my feet and shins. I was able to use the cross trainer as it is very low impact. So that's one thing that you can do, if you can afford it.
It has been a year since I got shin splints. I don't get the pain anymore, and decided that I could maybe go for a run last week, but I ran for about 2 minutes, and the pain came back.
I now just cycle a lot. I do squats, stretches, and the occasional walk when my foot feels up to it.
Sorry for the lengthy story. I'm actually glad I'm not the only one, but also hope you find a way.

I've had a lot of running friends advocate the front-foot running route, as they find it a great way to eliminate many of the issues they faced while running in the typical heel-striking way. Basically, instead of landing on your heel first with each stride, you land on the middle/ upper-middle part of your foot, which seems to result in a lot of the impact stress being taken by your tendons and muscles, instead of the joints in your body (ie heels and knees).

Anyway, I'm no expert, just wanted to suggest a potential alternative that others have found useful, although as a way of reducing the stresses on the joints, it would be a running form I would be sympathethic to, as I definitely have some long held running goals I wish to pursue in the near future.

If you are going to go this route, it pays to inform yourself fully before you do, as you basically ditch the wonder shoes of modern times, and go back to the more basic type of running shoe without any of the modern cushioning/ gel/ raised heel. Without such cushioning you don't want to be landing on your unprotected heels, so technique is important, as is building up gradually, as basically you are putting the stress from your heel onto your tendons and muscles instead, and these need to be allowed time to adjust and adapt to the task. Some even seem to say, start with something like 100 metres a day, a few times a week, and give yourself several months to get used to it all.

Anyway, the goal is basically to emulate barefoot running, or how you would run in bare feet, a form of running where injuries don't seem to be as frequent. All anecdotal from my end here, but perhaps this might be an alternative you might find useful to consider, or not

I love to run, it makes me feel alive but I have been plagued by injuries from running for a long time. I've tried everything. I bought top of the line motion control shoes, highly rated inserts, went to PT, tried minimal shoes, have lost weight, and stretching and nothing seems to prevent injury.

I just came back from 3 months of rest and PT for three types of tendonitis in my foot, which included my achilles, plantars fasciitis, and peronnial tendonitis. Now Im back and followed a jeff galloway Couch25K plan and now not only is some of tendonitis coming back but I can feel shin splints forming again too. I'm only running about 2 x 3 times a week for 1.5-2 miles max. I don't understand what I am doing wrong.

Are some people not meant to be runners or has anyone else done something that helped them triumph over a similar situation?

I'll probably get jumped on for this but: My personal opinion is that almost no one is meant to be a long-distance runner. It is extremely hard on the body but those who are addicted to it would run even if it killed them. I understand the exhilaration thing (I do pool exercise and nothing makes me happier than sprints in the water--amazing for the mood). In addition to being hard on the body, those who are very successful as long-distance runners look pretty awful. You end up consuming your muscle and most long-distance runners look very haggard in addition to having numerous musculo-skeletal problems. One of my MFP friends is a long-distance runner and she is plagued by injuries--is going for p.t. and has to get cortisone shots. Her physiotherapist told her to take up water exercise instead. I have had other running friends with the same problems. Not worth it.

You'll only get jumped on it because this opinion is demonstrably wrong. Evolutionarily, running is what human beings are designed to do. Not sprinting (we're not going to outrun any other animal over short distances), but for long, steady-state running. Sure, people do it wrong, they ramp up to fast, they don't wear the right gear, and they get injured. People also get injured squatting too much weight and dropping barbells on their throats. Not liking running is one thing, and that's cool, but it really is what we are designed to do.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/full/nature03052.html

the abstract: "Striding bipedalism is a key derived behaviour of hominids that possibly originated soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee and human lineages. Although bipedal gaits include walking and running, running is generally considered to have played no major role in human evolution because humans, like apes, are poor sprinters compared to most quadrupeds. Here we assess how well humans perform at sustained long-distance running, and review the physiological and anatomical bases of endurance running capabilities in humans and other mammals. Judged by several criteria, humans perform remarkably well at endurance running, thanks to a diverse array of features, many of which leave traces in the skeleton. The fossil evidence of these features suggests that endurance running is a derived capability of the genus Homo, originating about 2 million years ago, and may have been instrumental in the evolution of the human body form."

Here's a summary if you can't get the scholarly article
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041123163757.htm

Tell it to Pheidippides. I don't believe that mankind "evolved" from apes either so the article would be a "no sale". I think we are exactly as we were designed to be. Most of us are lousy runners and I expect that is why horsemanship developed. :laugh:

Well, the article didn't say we evolved from apes, so...not sure where you are getting that. It says our ancestors were ape-like, and then we diverged into separate lineages, which is what happened.

But can't argue with someone who is just dead set on an opinion, no matter what reality says, so I guess this is good day?

Didn't say that it did but the poster mentioned evolution as the basis of our ability to run. You may accept evolution as "reality" but I see it as the underpinning of a religion.

Keep talking, it makes you look smarter

I have no need to LOOK smarter. :smokin:

Looks like it's time for this:



The "non-belief" in science also explains so much.

On the contrary, I probably "believe in science" more than most people since I am married to a Ph.D. scientist who has published over 70 articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Tip: if you want to insist that something isn't true, you should at least know what that thing actually says.

No kidding. But then, MFP wouldn't be half the fun it is without unknowledgeable people making definitive statements.

:drinker:

With any luck the Flat Earthers will now dog pile this thread....

I just love how people conveniently forget we had this EXACT same set of arguments over plate tectonics less than 50 years ago. Just a theory, can't prove it, don't teach it in schools! Any guesses why you never hear main stream arguments about plate tectonics any more?

they mostly misuse the word "theory" and think it's a hypothesis. it's not. a theory is a proven and accepted explanation of what has happened.

Tip: if you want to insist that something isn't true, you should at least know what that thing actually says.

No kidding. But then, MFP wouldn't be half the fun it is without unknowledgeable people making definitive statements.

:drinker:

With any luck the Flat Earthers will now dog pile this thread....

I just love how people conveniently forget we had this EXACT same set of arguments over plate tectonics less than 50 years ago. Just a theory, can't prove it, don't teach it in schools! Any guesses why you never hear main stream arguments about plate tectonics any more?

Most Evangelicals (at least in the US) do not believe in plate tectonics, believe it or not, as it's pretty inconsistent with the Young Earth fantasy.

Of course not, they can't. But it's A LOT harder to dispute in the general public without making it abundantly clear just how far gone you are.

Or that you simply don't buy the "official" explanation. Today, evolutionary biologists can't reject any aspect of TOE or they would lose their jobs--it makes them heretics from the ruling belief system. I've spoken to graduate students in biology who say that it is fraught with peril to question any of it. Stephen Jay Gould was risking his career when he disputed gradualism--saying that there was NO evidence among the fossils to support it. Fortunately for him, the biology big deals were able to do a workaround on it. It was also fortuitous that he died and they now lie and say that he, of course, believed everything that they believe and that TOE is big enough to incorporate dissenting opinion. But, denying gradualism is a VERY BIG DEAL, whether they choose to recognize it or not. It absolutely stands in contradiction to "gradual change over time" which, by the way is the official explanation of how evolution works. Science should never be coerced by political expediency or belief systems.

I'm sorry, I have to ask, have you read Gould? And if so, what books? And to clarify why I'm asking, yes, he proposed controversial new theories on HOW evolution worked, but he never contradicted the concept of evolution via natural selection or that it was an important part of the evolutionary process. He DID suggest that evolution could potentially be equally influenced by other factors such as genetic drift (a theory which is now well accepted within the biological community). And he CERTAINLY never had ANY issues speaking his mind or arguing with people. He was actually well known for being a bit of a blow hard and regularly tore in to people he disagreed with in his papers and other publications.

This is like saying geologist are throwing plate tectonics out the window because they had several years of controversy over whether the primary drive of plate movement was convection currents in the mantle or slab pulling from heavy old oceanic crust. At no time were geologists suggesting plate tectonics as a theory was invalid, they were just arguing over specific mechanisms and their relative importance.

And as someone who has taught undergraduate biology, an undergraduate student simply does not have the education level necessary to grasp evolutionary theory in it's full complexity. I couldn't effectively begin synthesizing everything I learned in undergraduate until well in to my first year of grad school, and I was hardly the only one, this was actually a common topic for discussion. Things just suddenly started fitting together and making sense. Because this is fairly typical, it's not uncommon for undergrad students to feel their skepticism is being disregarded, when in fact it is a simple matter that we can only address so many questions in a single semester and with time everything will "hopefully" come together if they continue in the field.

I don't think everyone is meant to be a distance runner. I think you can overcome things, but I think we are naturally better at certain things than others, for one thing based on their proportion of different types of muscle fibers ( slow twitch and fast twitch a and fast twitch b). I've always been a fast twitcher! Good at explosive movements, sprinting, etc. but sucky at long slow endurance exercise. I can work to overcome it but it doesn't come naturally like many other sports do. That doesn't speak to your question, but it does go back to the post about the sprint/walker. I do 5K trail races, but I much prefer 100 m sprints or really anything up to 400 with a recovery period followed by more sprinting. I have been running for about 10 years off and on and this has never really changed. Distance running still feels bad today.:laugh:

Enough with all this stupid *kitten*.... lace up your effin shoes and run...