No evidence, really?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/nutrition/19best.html
But with no evidence that softer surfaces prevent injuries, there is no reason to run on softer ground unless you like to, Dr. Warden and other experts said.
No evidence, really?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/nutrition/19best.html
But with no evidence that softer surfaces prevent injuries, there is no reason to run on softer ground unless you like to, Dr. Warden and other experts said.
My legs feel much better when running on softer surfaces. Harder surfaces leave my legs feeling beat up. That's enough evidence for me.
It's the only way she will ever get hits on her article is to write up something completely contrary to reality and try to spin it as research.
Whoever is running in that photo has terrible form. They would get injured running on any surface.
>one instance where someone gets hurt on soft surfaces
>talk about studies that are not in too much support of running on soft surfaces
>never cite the studies
>closure with about road races on roads
Seems legit.
babe wrote:
It's the only way she will ever get hits on her article is to write up something completely contrary to reality and try to spin it as research.
Really. So a lack of research on something that can't be researched is evidence that what decades of runners have intuitively sensed is wrong?
How would one go about devising a double-blind study on incidence of injury in relation to running surface?
I have also found sleeping on a cinder block to be as comfortable as sleeping on a down pillow.
Regards,
NYT Retard
That is a good question however it would surely be in the realm of possibility I would think to condu ct a double-blind study. It seems as though a lot of variables would change from year to year. However I disagree and do think this can be researched and I also think hard surfaces inflict much greater shock and stress on the joints.
What would I look for? Maybe clue in on the frequencies of stress fractures for starters, shoe wear (mileage) would be a good indication on hard vs. soft surfaces. I would also talk to all of the Colorado guys and gals who moved to Oregon from Boulder and make an elite comparison there. Just some ideas to start with here...
When are you 'tards going to realize that runing shoes with any degree of cushion constitute running on "soft ground? If you put a giant strip of EVA on a concrete sidewalk you can run on it barefoot and assume it is soft ground.
FFS
Teg wrote:
When are you 'tards going to realize that runing shoes with any degree of cushion constitute running on "soft ground? If you put a giant strip of EVA on a concrete sidewalk you can run on it barefoot and assume it is soft ground.
FFS
Not exactly. Carrying around the weight of that EVA on your foot is much different than running barefoot on a strip of EVA a concrete.
I agree with you that it might have the same "softness" effect, but you can't disregard the weight effect and how that might influence form and/or injuries.
Teg wrote:
When are you 'tards going to realize that runing shoes with any degree of cushion constitute running on "soft ground? If you put a giant strip of EVA on a concrete sidewalk you can run on it barefoot and assume it is soft ground.
FFS
I run 140 mile weeks in Nike Vomeros. The most cushioned show I could find.
It hurts a lot more to run on asphalt/concrete compared to grass.
"Changing your running surface, Dr. Warden said, “is much like increasing your mileage, changing your shoes or some other aspect of your training program.” Abrupt changes can be risky."
^This is why pretty much any study that is ever created to test running injuries, forces etc will be largely pointless! If you take any runner and ask them to run differently they (probably) won't run efficiently at first, thus the data will be inconclusive at the best, and possible worthless.
Pro-minimalist, pro-shoe ... it doesn't matter. Every runner is in the end a study of one. If you have found a way to run injury free ... KEEP DOING IT! If you are always injured, get some good advice and ... TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT!
NYT is about selling newspaper, or driving more web page views.
Put up a topic that is contrary to common belief, and it generates discussion, clicks, etc.
If NYT put up an article that was inline with your beliefs, this topic wouldn't be discussed now. This is all geared toward driving revenue. This is the state of most news now ... put up a guest with one view, have them debate someone with a counter view, no matter how ridiculous, and immediately it generates more interest. Lame, but most people don't realize that they are being played.
I love running on trails in the woods, by my legs prefer smooth asphalt. Maybe woodchips would be best (how I miss those in Eugene), but there aren't any where I live now. it is not just the smooth surface of asphalt but also the traction that makes my legs happy. On gravel paths there is a slight slippage with each stride that adds up to achy and creaky the next day. Bumpy grass is worse. I still run on dirt for variety, but when I want to feel good tomorrow (eg race day) I run on asphalt.
“It is models, so God knows whether it is true,” Dr. van Mechelen said. “But to me it doesn’t seem far-fetched.”
Count me as persuaded!
If it's written by Gina Kolata you can rest assured it's not worth reading.
haha YO wrote:
Whoever is running in that photo has terrible form. They would get injured running on any surface.
Holy Heelstrike! I'm sore now that I've observed that photo.
VS wrote:
But with no evidence that softer surfaces prevent injuries, there is no reason to run on softer ground unless you like to
This may be true for generic "injuries."
I've never twisted an ankle or otherwise biffed on the road.
I have however twisted an ankle and tripped over a root on a trail. Heck-- I once literally flipped over a deer on a trail.
This guy would claim that my injury rate on trails is higher than my injury rate on roads-- and from one perspective he's right.
However-- trail and grass running forces me to change my stride-- to move from side to side instead of always following the exact same motion. It may be mental-- but I swear my knees feel better too.
If I prevent long-term chronic injuries by running off road-- I am more than willing to accept the occasional acute injury.
Oh Please wrote:
haha YO wrote:Whoever is running in that photo has terrible form. They would get injured running on any surface.
Holy Heelstrike! I'm sore now that I've observed that photo.
Not to mention, their legs are two different colors.
Flounder wrote:
NYT is about selling newspaper, or driving more web page views.
Put up a topic that is contrary to common belief, and it generates discussion, clicks, etc.
If NYT put up an article that was inline with your beliefs, this topic wouldn't be discussed now. This is all geared toward driving revenue. This is the state of most news now ... put up a guest with one view, have them debate someone with a counter view, no matter how ridiculous, and immediately it generates more interest. Lame, but most people don't realize that they are being played.
This is it... if the article had said that studies tend to support the long held belief that softer surfaces are better than hard roads and footpaths, most people would have shrugged their shoulders and ignored the link.