After consultation with my personal psycho-analyst I've decided to return to the world of clean eating.
I did this in the spring, lost weight easily, discovered a range of new recipes, felt great. Then I began to revert to the old ways and whilst I still cook some clean eating recipes, try to stick to the snacking principles and eat less of certain junk foods overall I've not kept it up. That was a shame as I was, ironically, enjoying my food far more then.
Back to the present and October isn't working. September went well and not weighing worked very well. I still think that is the way to go, but perhaps the focus or the objective needs to refocussed alongside?
If someone were to ask me my main motivation for losing weight and getting down to the nominal target of 11st I'd say its running. Losing weight means a faster runner, simple as that. Sure, I also want to look good and there's a small element of long term health and longevity as motivators but its mainly the running.
How strong is the motivation now though?
Well, the long term health and longevity is never going to be strong enough on its own and I'm already in a healthy weight range. Looking good isn't a biggie now either. If I look back at pictures from when I was carrying another 3st or I don't like what I see but where I am now looks ok. Sure I might look a little better a few pounds lighter but overall I'm pretty happy with how I look.
That just leaves the running but that's become a bit nebulous. My main target is Paris which is still nearly 6 months away; secondary target races aren't until January and to a lesser extent the end of November. I'm racing on Sunday but it wasn't motivating me enough in recent weeks to trim down. They're now less important and, for the most part a long way away. That makes the connection between what I eat today and how I perform then a very tenuous one.
That's where clean eating comes in.
That will switch the focus to healthy eating and rediscovering that feeling of energy and vitality I had in the spring. Weight loss will almost certainly be a bi-product and if it isn't, well, there certainly won't be any risk of weight gain and I'll still feel good.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Monday, 18 October 2010
Walking like an ape
Not too bad on the aches and pains front - just enough to have me walking with a rather lolloping simian gait.
I remember last year that on Sunday morning (the race had been held on a Saturday) I felt quite stiff but still went on to stupidly run a 10k race that morning. This year definitely isn't so bad.
Virtually nothing from the calves (which were tightened by the uphills no doubt, but also stretched by the steepest due to the foot position); hammies are fine; quads have a hint of soreness from the long fast down hills but most of the stiffness is in the glutes (mede and max) which will be from the steep uphills.
A good stretch and some Pilates later will sort that lot out.
The groin/pelvic fatigue I had on Saturday is completely gone so I can go back to daily core exercises today too.
The only other after effect is the top of the left foot just below the leg is a bit sore and feels unstable. I know this came from turning my ankle early on in the race on a loose rock but the pain wore off after a couple of minutes, only returning last night. I think that will be fine with rest but hopefully still OK to run on tomorrow evening.
I really want a good dieting week this week - October has been at best 'inconsistent' and at worst downright bad - and with the Wistow 10 mile race looming on Sunday I want to trim off a couple of genuine pounds as well as lose any food in transit for then.
Wish me luck!
I remember last year that on Sunday morning (the race had been held on a Saturday) I felt quite stiff but still went on to stupidly run a 10k race that morning. This year definitely isn't so bad.
Virtually nothing from the calves (which were tightened by the uphills no doubt, but also stretched by the steepest due to the foot position); hammies are fine; quads have a hint of soreness from the long fast down hills but most of the stiffness is in the glutes (mede and max) which will be from the steep uphills.
A good stretch and some Pilates later will sort that lot out.
The groin/pelvic fatigue I had on Saturday is completely gone so I can go back to daily core exercises today too.
The only other after effect is the top of the left foot just below the leg is a bit sore and feels unstable. I know this came from turning my ankle early on in the race on a loose rock but the pain wore off after a couple of minutes, only returning last night. I think that will be fine with rest but hopefully still OK to run on tomorrow evening.
I really want a good dieting week this week - October has been at best 'inconsistent' and at worst downright bad - and with the Wistow 10 mile race looming on Sunday I want to trim off a couple of genuine pounds as well as lose any food in transit for then.
Wish me luck!
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Turbo X Race Report
Ran the Salomon Turbo X trail race near Sheffield this morning. Damned hard work.
I ran it last year when it was held in September following a dry spell and pushed myself fairly hard, but not all out. I then finished in 1:48:03 for what is an 11.1 mile course.
Now, compared to a road race I know that's very, very slow but some of the uphill sections (and its all hills) were so steep that they had to be climbed on all fours, and the man made muddy sections could only really be walked if you wanted any chance of staying upright. Overall that put me in 95th place from about 400 runners.
This year it was the same course but it had a very different character - a wet and muddy one! Last year a lot of the narrow trails were very uneven but they were dry, this year they were constant mud and deep puddles and even with Innov8s on I was slipping and sliding quite a bit.
I'd pretty much made the decision not to race it just to complete it but after setting off was starting to reconsider but a mile or so in fate intervened to make the decision for me. The runners in front abruptly veered left along a muddy beck down a heavily wooded valley but after about a minute I heard a lot of shouting that we'd gone the wrong way so we had to turn round and climb back to the main path, by which time 100 or so runners must have gone past and I'd guess that I'd lost about 3 minutes. With that 95% of the desire to race was gone.
I carried on and for the first 5 miles or so the route generally followed wide forestry commission tracks up and down steep and long hills as well covering maybe 2 miles of undulating forest trails littered with tree branches, roots, mud, becks, rocks and holes. along one of these I nearly went over when I decided to plow straight through a big puddle rather than pick around it and found it to be a whole lot deeper than I'd expected.
At 5 miles came the first big challenge: 'Ayers Rock' a very long, very steep slope made of red mud. My guess is that it climbed straight up for about 200m at a 60 degree incline as it was only really possible to climb on all fours. Even at that pace it was far more draining than the running had been and at the end of it my Achilles tendons felt about an inch longer.
What followed for the next 3 miles was a series of long steep climbs, muddy descents on treacherous paths and very occasional stretches back on forestry tracks. In addition there was my favourite bit - 100m+ of steep descent down a very rocky but generally mud free path where I could switch the breaks off and hurtle down fell runner style past about 15 people. I love bits like that as most people fight the hill and try and brake whereas I'm happy to take more risks with the route or line I take and can really fly down. Very exhilarating stuff.
At somewhere just after 8 miles we entered the 'Turbo Zone' a mile of obstacles that's timed in addition to the main chip timing. This bit consisted of a lot of mud, bogs, river crossings, barriers and what I'd guess was about 400m of mud and water filled trench that smelled awful and regularly came close to waist height causing 'runners' to have to wade slowly through it. That mile took me over 22 minutes.
After that it was undulating woodland trail with the usual becks, mud, tree roots, rocks etc, one longish drag uphill then back round some fields for the final uphill half mile to the finish.
I was feeling pretty tired by then and had no desire to put on a spurt. I was slowly catching the guy in front and I'm pretty sure I could have gone past him had the desire been there but it wasn't and there was nobody within a minute of me behind so nobody to push me either.
Finishing time was 1:54:39 so over 6 minutes slower than last year, but if I take into account the detour that cost 3 minutes or so and the muddy, slippy conditions its probably comparable: about 20 seconds a mile slower if you ignore the 3 lost minutes, which would easily be accounted for by the mud and the less race orientated approach. Happy enough.
I'm fairly knackered now but probably not as much as I was after last year's. Although I may tell a different story in the morning...
I ran it last year when it was held in September following a dry spell and pushed myself fairly hard, but not all out. I then finished in 1:48:03 for what is an 11.1 mile course.
Now, compared to a road race I know that's very, very slow but some of the uphill sections (and its all hills) were so steep that they had to be climbed on all fours, and the man made muddy sections could only really be walked if you wanted any chance of staying upright. Overall that put me in 95th place from about 400 runners.
This year it was the same course but it had a very different character - a wet and muddy one! Last year a lot of the narrow trails were very uneven but they were dry, this year they were constant mud and deep puddles and even with Innov8s on I was slipping and sliding quite a bit.
I'd pretty much made the decision not to race it just to complete it but after setting off was starting to reconsider but a mile or so in fate intervened to make the decision for me. The runners in front abruptly veered left along a muddy beck down a heavily wooded valley but after about a minute I heard a lot of shouting that we'd gone the wrong way so we had to turn round and climb back to the main path, by which time 100 or so runners must have gone past and I'd guess that I'd lost about 3 minutes. With that 95% of the desire to race was gone.
I carried on and for the first 5 miles or so the route generally followed wide forestry commission tracks up and down steep and long hills as well covering maybe 2 miles of undulating forest trails littered with tree branches, roots, mud, becks, rocks and holes. along one of these I nearly went over when I decided to plow straight through a big puddle rather than pick around it and found it to be a whole lot deeper than I'd expected.
At 5 miles came the first big challenge: 'Ayers Rock' a very long, very steep slope made of red mud. My guess is that it climbed straight up for about 200m at a 60 degree incline as it was only really possible to climb on all fours. Even at that pace it was far more draining than the running had been and at the end of it my Achilles tendons felt about an inch longer.
What followed for the next 3 miles was a series of long steep climbs, muddy descents on treacherous paths and very occasional stretches back on forestry tracks. In addition there was my favourite bit - 100m+ of steep descent down a very rocky but generally mud free path where I could switch the breaks off and hurtle down fell runner style past about 15 people. I love bits like that as most people fight the hill and try and brake whereas I'm happy to take more risks with the route or line I take and can really fly down. Very exhilarating stuff.
At somewhere just after 8 miles we entered the 'Turbo Zone' a mile of obstacles that's timed in addition to the main chip timing. This bit consisted of a lot of mud, bogs, river crossings, barriers and what I'd guess was about 400m of mud and water filled trench that smelled awful and regularly came close to waist height causing 'runners' to have to wade slowly through it. That mile took me over 22 minutes.
After that it was undulating woodland trail with the usual becks, mud, tree roots, rocks etc, one longish drag uphill then back round some fields for the final uphill half mile to the finish.
I was feeling pretty tired by then and had no desire to put on a spurt. I was slowly catching the guy in front and I'm pretty sure I could have gone past him had the desire been there but it wasn't and there was nobody within a minute of me behind so nobody to push me either.
Finishing time was 1:54:39 so over 6 minutes slower than last year, but if I take into account the detour that cost 3 minutes or so and the muddy, slippy conditions its probably comparable: about 20 seconds a mile slower if you ignore the 3 lost minutes, which would easily be accounted for by the mud and the less race orientated approach. Happy enough.
I'm fairly knackered now but probably not as much as I was after last year's. Although I may tell a different story in the morning...
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Kinky Sex Dungeon
That's where I've been doing Pilates.
Not only have I been massaged and manipulated on a PVC covered bench surrounded by a metal frame adorned with rubber straps and furry hand cuffs (aka the 'Cadillac') but I've now booked in for 7 sessions on a piece of kit called a 'reformer'. Its like the wildest fantasies of a Tory MP or Evangelical minister.
I think its worked well though. I had 5 x 1:1 sessions and got my sore neck and sciatica treated as well as some extra mobility from massages to lower body. Additionally I've been given two sets of Pilates exercises to do at home, picking up the second lot yesterday. I spent yesterday's hour doing the latest ones and can certainly tell I've done them this morning!
At £38 a week I can't afford to keep it up though but have booked for a 7 week course in the run up to Christmas working on the previously mentioned 'reformer'. Kath, the instructor, believes it'll suit me well and has suggested moving onto the more dynamic Pilates 'jump board' after Christmas as a natural progression.
Should be good!
Not only have I been massaged and manipulated on a PVC covered bench surrounded by a metal frame adorned with rubber straps and furry hand cuffs (aka the 'Cadillac') but I've now booked in for 7 sessions on a piece of kit called a 'reformer'. Its like the wildest fantasies of a Tory MP or Evangelical minister.
I think its worked well though. I had 5 x 1:1 sessions and got my sore neck and sciatica treated as well as some extra mobility from massages to lower body. Additionally I've been given two sets of Pilates exercises to do at home, picking up the second lot yesterday. I spent yesterday's hour doing the latest ones and can certainly tell I've done them this morning!
At £38 a week I can't afford to keep it up though but have booked for a 7 week course in the run up to Christmas working on the previously mentioned 'reformer'. Kath, the instructor, believes it'll suit me well and has suggested moving onto the more dynamic Pilates 'jump board' after Christmas as a natural progression.
Should be good!
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Kylie Minogue
That's what one of the tracks was at my first ever spinning class - Spinning Around by the petite antipodean songstress. Its been in my head ever since and it was only a few minutes ago I twigged as to why.
Spinning seems a good one though. A number of people had suggested it to me in the past but I've avoided it as part of my general fear of any class based gym activity but on a whim booked in earlier this week.
Fortunately I bumped into an old colleague who showed me how to set up the bike for my height and reach and how to control resistance. That meant I was then able to go straight into the class. It was undeniably hard work though I liked the fact I had some control over how hard and suspect my resistance setting tended to be rather tougher than some of those about me. I certainly hope so - I was sweating cobs within a couple of minutes whereas some didn't seem to break a sweat despite the studio being relatively small and airless.
Overall the class lasted a little over half an hour and was well worth it, not least because it didn't aggravate the blister, but it pushed me hard and gave a decent workout for heart, lungs and legs.
I've booked again for next week.
Wednesday, 13 October 2010
Ouch.
No, its nothing terrible like a broken leg, recurrence of groin injury or sudden development of ITBS. No, its far more painful than that.
Its blisters.
Sunday's run, blogged a couple of entries below, gave me blisters from running with tight calves which changed my gait/footstrike. On Monday I applied 3 large Compeed plasters to each foot and that really helped - almost no discomfort during the day yesterday. Not so for last night's run.
After about 2 miles I began to feel them and by 4 miles they were effecting me. The inside edge of the right big toe and ball joint seemed to be rubbing badly through the Compeeds and the one right beneath the gap between big and second toe on the left foot felt like someone was holding a lit match to the skin (not helped by the compeed there having worked loose as its an awkward spot).
I may have to avoid running for the next 4 days to let them settle ahead of Sunday's race and apply a taped dressing to the left foot before the event.
That's a real b*gger as other than the blisters I feel good.
I've got back on the logging/weight loss process since Sunday and have worked out a loose daily exercise plan to get me doing Pilates exercises daily along with concerted work on the recalcitrant calves and a general stretching and lower body strengthening routine. I'd got very lax with all of that for many weeks so I'm just setting myself up to do calves and Pilates about 6 days a week and the other stuff about 3 times a week each. Ethos is the same as weight loss - less structured pressure hopefully leading to more compliance.
Last night's run was a club run of 7.34 miles at an average of 7:57 a mile over a fairly hilly course - a series of long up or down hills with about 170m of ascent overall. Pleased with that - just the sort of run, pace and gradient I want from Tuesday runs - tough enough to give some good training effect but not cause any particular feeling of fatigue or stiffness the next day.
Assuming running is off the agenda the rest of the week probably will contain...CV at the gym today, Friday and maybe Saturday and my very first Spin class tomorrow.
Wish me luck! Anyone got any tips for spinning?
Its blisters.
Sunday's run, blogged a couple of entries below, gave me blisters from running with tight calves which changed my gait/footstrike. On Monday I applied 3 large Compeed plasters to each foot and that really helped - almost no discomfort during the day yesterday. Not so for last night's run.
After about 2 miles I began to feel them and by 4 miles they were effecting me. The inside edge of the right big toe and ball joint seemed to be rubbing badly through the Compeeds and the one right beneath the gap between big and second toe on the left foot felt like someone was holding a lit match to the skin (not helped by the compeed there having worked loose as its an awkward spot).
I may have to avoid running for the next 4 days to let them settle ahead of Sunday's race and apply a taped dressing to the left foot before the event.
That's a real b*gger as other than the blisters I feel good.
I've got back on the logging/weight loss process since Sunday and have worked out a loose daily exercise plan to get me doing Pilates exercises daily along with concerted work on the recalcitrant calves and a general stretching and lower body strengthening routine. I'd got very lax with all of that for many weeks so I'm just setting myself up to do calves and Pilates about 6 days a week and the other stuff about 3 times a week each. Ethos is the same as weight loss - less structured pressure hopefully leading to more compliance.
Last night's run was a club run of 7.34 miles at an average of 7:57 a mile over a fairly hilly course - a series of long up or down hills with about 170m of ascent overall. Pleased with that - just the sort of run, pace and gradient I want from Tuesday runs - tough enough to give some good training effect but not cause any particular feeling of fatigue or stiffness the next day.
Assuming running is off the agenda the rest of the week probably will contain...CV at the gym today, Friday and maybe Saturday and my very first Spin class tomorrow.
Wish me luck! Anyone got any tips for spinning?
Sunday, 10 October 2010
The case for minimalist footwear
Regularly on the 'Runners' messageboard on www.weightlossresources.co.uk I'll see people ask what trainers they should get and see a flurry of responses that they MUST get suitable shoes from a specialist shop. That to do so is the first rule of running.
well, in a somewhat disjointed manner here's my take and experience on that subject.
When I first started running in 2006 I was quickly advised to get some trainers suitable for my running style, and that I should get these from a proper running shop rather than a general sports shop.
The basis of this advice was that we each needed one of three types of shoe: neutral cushioned; stability or motion control. If we didn't get the right shoe we'd get injured. It was inevitable. If we didn't have enough cushioning then the impact would wreck our knees and if we were in the 80% of runners who apparently 'over pronated' and we didn't get some stability or motion control shoes we were heading for a world of injury.
Since then a host of new shoe technologies have been launched and gait analysis testing has been introduced at most of the ever increasing number of specialist running shops and this, its claimed, will ensure the right shoe is advised for the individual.
If it doesn't then there's also the option of custom made orthotics from a podiatrist to fully correct the various failings of your gait.
I never thought to question any of this but I now regard it as, for the most part, utter bollocks. It just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Just for starters:
We have many millions of years of evolution during which time a principal reason for our survival and dominance has been the ability to run for long distances. How does that square with the notion of 80% of us over pronating and so courting debilitating injury?
Cushioned running shoes have only been available since Nike launched them in the early 1970s, and stability shoes since the 80s. How is it that generations of runners seemed to survive with minimalist running shoes prior to then?
Why is it that running shoes need to be heavily cushioned and have stability functions yet people can safely run several miles in a game of football, hockey or rugby without either benefit?
If we're generally put into the right shoes why are so many runners injured each year with shin splints, runner's knee, plantar fasciaitis, ITBS etc? In fact, if the shoes are a great help why haven't the numbers of lower leg injuries decreased since their introduction, and why have some ailments actually increased during this time?
I digress, but in the last couple of years an alternative view has been presented:
In the early 70s Nike came up with the master stroke of introducing a cushioned, raised heel running shoe claiming it would increase speed and protect from injury. They created a market and a product that fulfilled it in one go.
The trouble was that this raised heel, cushioned shoe interfered with proprioception and encouraged un-natural heel striking and resultant injury. In other words it created another new market: for the stability and motion control shoe full of gadgets to partially correct the problems that the shoes themselves caused in the first place.
Then came gait analysis. Another marketing master stroke. Put a treadmill, camera and laptop into the growing numbers of specialist shops that have come into existence on the back of the specialist shoe marketing message, give the owners a brief guide and let them loose. Not only do runners now get a 'scientific' shoe but its prescribed by 'scientific' method. However, the method is flawed in two ways: firstly the training of staff is sketchy and second the start point for gait analysis is a pair of heavily cushioned 'neutral' shoes.
That's a really important point. Put 100 runners on a treadmill barefoot and you'll see their natural gait with 99/100 naturally landing on the fore/midfoot. However, put the same 100 on the treadmill in cushioned shoes and 80% will heel strike...
In recent years the very same shoe companies have been launching minimalist unstructured shoes designed to mimic barefoot running whilst at the same time continuing to claim the need for cushioned and/or stability. They want their cake and to eat it.
Returning to where this entry started, what's my experience been?
Well, despite being pain free I did as I was advised and went to a specialist shop. Having looked at me stood in bare feet the sales assistant decided I needed stability shoes and, having watched me jog 4/5 metres across the car park, confirmed I had the right shoes. Kerching!
It seemed a good job I'd got them as within a couple of weeks I was getting shin pain...so I went to a different specialist shop, where the assistant told me that the stability shoes were obviously insufficient so I should try motion control shoes. As for the previous shop, he watched me jog a few yards and decreed that they were what I needed. Kerching!
They didn't feel right though, really unnatural, and over the next couple of weeks the shin pain was getting worse. So I went to a third specialist shop. This time they didn't bother seeing me run a few paces but instead just looked at me stood up and decided it was back to stability shoes. Kerching!
That shin pain just wouldn't go away though and I couldn't run more than twice a week for very short runs over the next couple of months so I went to see a podiatrist who advertised regularly in Runners World. He looked at me stood up barefoot and then got me to run on a treadmill in my stability shoes before taking moulds of my feet as he confidently said I needed custom orthotics in addition to stability shoes. It seemed a rushed experience, particularly as it was costing me over £250. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!
For several months I ran with the orthotics and stability shoes but still struggled to get above 2 runs a week due to lower leg pain.
So, having moved in the intervening period, I went to a different podiatrist. This was a different experience. He thought the orthotics I'd been made looked 'very crude' but didn't suggest I replaced them or even carried on. His advice was to cut back on running lengths and concentrate on strengthening and stretching lower leg muscles.
Partial success. During this time I had my first experience of gait analysis and was 'prescribed' heavy end stability shoes. Kerching! I was still missing runs with injury though. A few months later a similar experience at another running shop though this time it was lighter stability shoes that the analysis apparently revealed. Kerching! With the third visit it was back to highly stable stability shoes. Kerching!
Roll forward to early 2009 when I returned to running after a couple of months off with lower leg pain (funny how my specific shoes hadn't prevented that). I tried a third podiatrist who tried to get me to spend £400 on some highly durable custom orthotics but we settled on a £300 pair. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!
Several months on and they'd cracked near the base and I'd again had a month off with lower leg pain.
In June I went on a Chi running course where I was videoed. When I watched the video I was shocked at how I severely heel struck, with the foot fully dorsiflexed, and was told that this would cause alot of lower leg problems.
So, I went to a non-specialist shop and bought a pair of neutral shoes and started running in them. At the same time I made an effort to increase leg turnover to shorten the stride and reduce the heel striking.
I'd done everything wrong and according to the podiatrist, the shoe companies' marketing claims and running shop specialists I should have got terrible shin splints. Instead the pain completely disappeared and hasn't come back since.
In other words, whilst the 'counter-interpretation' seems to be far more credible when I think about it, its my own experience that confirms it for me.
Ultimately I consider the whole 'correct shoes for your gait' to be a complete con. Its worth many millions of dollars to the footwear manufacturers each year, publications like Runners World rely on the advertising of the manufacturers and retailers and the retailers themselves (for the most part) would soon go out of business were they not portrayed as specialist purveyors of specialist products. They all have a very strong interest in promoting the shoe manufacturers marketing messages.
To some extent its a self maintaining con too. The overly cushioned, wedge heeled shoes cause an unnatural gait...which can cause injury...which is partially controlled by features in the shoes. Moreover, the presence of a constantly evolving series of patented technologies in the shoes undoubtedly appeals to the gadget loving generation as does the feeling that shoe science can somehow make us better runners - we're very receptive to the warped messages and that's why we don't question the received wisdom from our peers.
The only exceptions I'd make are for the tiny minority of people who genuinely do have a problematic gait for whom custom made orthotics (from a credible podiatrist rather than those that have jumped on the bandwagon) is definitely the correct answer.
well, in a somewhat disjointed manner here's my take and experience on that subject.
When I first started running in 2006 I was quickly advised to get some trainers suitable for my running style, and that I should get these from a proper running shop rather than a general sports shop.
The basis of this advice was that we each needed one of three types of shoe: neutral cushioned; stability or motion control. If we didn't get the right shoe we'd get injured. It was inevitable. If we didn't have enough cushioning then the impact would wreck our knees and if we were in the 80% of runners who apparently 'over pronated' and we didn't get some stability or motion control shoes we were heading for a world of injury.
Since then a host of new shoe technologies have been launched and gait analysis testing has been introduced at most of the ever increasing number of specialist running shops and this, its claimed, will ensure the right shoe is advised for the individual.
If it doesn't then there's also the option of custom made orthotics from a podiatrist to fully correct the various failings of your gait.
I never thought to question any of this but I now regard it as, for the most part, utter bollocks. It just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Just for starters:
We have many millions of years of evolution during which time a principal reason for our survival and dominance has been the ability to run for long distances. How does that square with the notion of 80% of us over pronating and so courting debilitating injury?
Cushioned running shoes have only been available since Nike launched them in the early 1970s, and stability shoes since the 80s. How is it that generations of runners seemed to survive with minimalist running shoes prior to then?
Why is it that running shoes need to be heavily cushioned and have stability functions yet people can safely run several miles in a game of football, hockey or rugby without either benefit?
If we're generally put into the right shoes why are so many runners injured each year with shin splints, runner's knee, plantar fasciaitis, ITBS etc? In fact, if the shoes are a great help why haven't the numbers of lower leg injuries decreased since their introduction, and why have some ailments actually increased during this time?
I digress, but in the last couple of years an alternative view has been presented:
In the early 70s Nike came up with the master stroke of introducing a cushioned, raised heel running shoe claiming it would increase speed and protect from injury. They created a market and a product that fulfilled it in one go.
The trouble was that this raised heel, cushioned shoe interfered with proprioception and encouraged un-natural heel striking and resultant injury. In other words it created another new market: for the stability and motion control shoe full of gadgets to partially correct the problems that the shoes themselves caused in the first place.
Then came gait analysis. Another marketing master stroke. Put a treadmill, camera and laptop into the growing numbers of specialist shops that have come into existence on the back of the specialist shoe marketing message, give the owners a brief guide and let them loose. Not only do runners now get a 'scientific' shoe but its prescribed by 'scientific' method. However, the method is flawed in two ways: firstly the training of staff is sketchy and second the start point for gait analysis is a pair of heavily cushioned 'neutral' shoes.
That's a really important point. Put 100 runners on a treadmill barefoot and you'll see their natural gait with 99/100 naturally landing on the fore/midfoot. However, put the same 100 on the treadmill in cushioned shoes and 80% will heel strike...
In recent years the very same shoe companies have been launching minimalist unstructured shoes designed to mimic barefoot running whilst at the same time continuing to claim the need for cushioned and/or stability. They want their cake and to eat it.
Returning to where this entry started, what's my experience been?
Well, despite being pain free I did as I was advised and went to a specialist shop. Having looked at me stood in bare feet the sales assistant decided I needed stability shoes and, having watched me jog 4/5 metres across the car park, confirmed I had the right shoes. Kerching!
It seemed a good job I'd got them as within a couple of weeks I was getting shin pain...so I went to a different specialist shop, where the assistant told me that the stability shoes were obviously insufficient so I should try motion control shoes. As for the previous shop, he watched me jog a few yards and decreed that they were what I needed. Kerching!
They didn't feel right though, really unnatural, and over the next couple of weeks the shin pain was getting worse. So I went to a third specialist shop. This time they didn't bother seeing me run a few paces but instead just looked at me stood up and decided it was back to stability shoes. Kerching!
That shin pain just wouldn't go away though and I couldn't run more than twice a week for very short runs over the next couple of months so I went to see a podiatrist who advertised regularly in Runners World. He looked at me stood up barefoot and then got me to run on a treadmill in my stability shoes before taking moulds of my feet as he confidently said I needed custom orthotics in addition to stability shoes. It seemed a rushed experience, particularly as it was costing me over £250. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!
For several months I ran with the orthotics and stability shoes but still struggled to get above 2 runs a week due to lower leg pain.
So, having moved in the intervening period, I went to a different podiatrist. This was a different experience. He thought the orthotics I'd been made looked 'very crude' but didn't suggest I replaced them or even carried on. His advice was to cut back on running lengths and concentrate on strengthening and stretching lower leg muscles.
Partial success. During this time I had my first experience of gait analysis and was 'prescribed' heavy end stability shoes. Kerching! I was still missing runs with injury though. A few months later a similar experience at another running shop though this time it was lighter stability shoes that the analysis apparently revealed. Kerching! With the third visit it was back to highly stable stability shoes. Kerching!
Roll forward to early 2009 when I returned to running after a couple of months off with lower leg pain (funny how my specific shoes hadn't prevented that). I tried a third podiatrist who tried to get me to spend £400 on some highly durable custom orthotics but we settled on a £300 pair. Kerching! Kerching! Kerching!
Several months on and they'd cracked near the base and I'd again had a month off with lower leg pain.
In June I went on a Chi running course where I was videoed. When I watched the video I was shocked at how I severely heel struck, with the foot fully dorsiflexed, and was told that this would cause alot of lower leg problems.
So, I went to a non-specialist shop and bought a pair of neutral shoes and started running in them. At the same time I made an effort to increase leg turnover to shorten the stride and reduce the heel striking.
I'd done everything wrong and according to the podiatrist, the shoe companies' marketing claims and running shop specialists I should have got terrible shin splints. Instead the pain completely disappeared and hasn't come back since.
In other words, whilst the 'counter-interpretation' seems to be far more credible when I think about it, its my own experience that confirms it for me.
Ultimately I consider the whole 'correct shoes for your gait' to be a complete con. Its worth many millions of dollars to the footwear manufacturers each year, publications like Runners World rely on the advertising of the manufacturers and retailers and the retailers themselves (for the most part) would soon go out of business were they not portrayed as specialist purveyors of specialist products. They all have a very strong interest in promoting the shoe manufacturers marketing messages.
To some extent its a self maintaining con too. The overly cushioned, wedge heeled shoes cause an unnatural gait...which can cause injury...which is partially controlled by features in the shoes. Moreover, the presence of a constantly evolving series of patented technologies in the shoes undoubtedly appeals to the gadget loving generation as does the feeling that shoe science can somehow make us better runners - we're very receptive to the warped messages and that's why we don't question the received wisdom from our peers.
The only exceptions I'd make are for the tiny minority of people who genuinely do have a problematic gait for whom custom made orthotics (from a credible podiatrist rather than those that have jumped on the bandwagon) is definitely the correct answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)