December 2018 Monthly Running Challenge

Orphia wrote: »

show previous quotes

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 wrote: »

show previous quotes

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.

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

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.