I agree as well, oh the unfortunate state of journalism in this era.
I agree as well, oh the unfortunate state of journalism in this era.
NYT is full of trolls.
If anyone is curious to scientific evidence that contradicts this whole article, there is an article on pubmed that looked actually at different surface stiffness and the effects on runners.
It can be found on pubmed.gov and it free to download.
Title: Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses
Abstract:
Mammals use the elastic components in their legs (principally tendons, ligaments, and muscles) to run economically, while maintaining consistent support mechanics across various surfaces. To examine how leg stiffness and metabolic cost are affected by changes in substrate stiffness, we built experimental platforms with adjustable stiffness to fit on a force-plate-fitted treadmill. Eight male subjects [mean body mass: 74.4 ± 7.1 (SD) kg; leg length: 0.96 ± 0.05 m] ran at 3.7 m/s over five different surface stiffnesses (75.4, 97.5, 216.8, 454.2, and 945.7 kN/m). Metabolic, ground-reaction force, and kinematic data were collected. The 12.5-fold decrease in surface stiffness resulted in a 12% decrease in the runner's metabolic rate and a 29% increase in their leg stiffness. The runner's support mechanics remained essentially unchanged. These results indicate that surface stiffness affects running economy without affecting running support mechanics. We postulate that an increased energy rebound from the compliant surfaces studied contributes to the enhanced running economy.
Apparently Kolata is a forefoot runner
smd wrote:
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?
That is representative of the kind of reasoning found throughout everything Gina Kolata writes. The woman knows less than nothing about exercise.
long sox wrote:
[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.
Or if you're someone like me who seems to have the minority opinion on a topic you're likely to read an article that suggests you're not wrong.
Decades ago, when everyone was running 100 or more miles a week we pretty much all ran on roads and sidewalks and held up pretty well. Now, in my gimpage, I find irregular surfaces are murder on my knees and most soft urfaces are irregular. Asphalt and concrete don't bother me nearly as much as grass does.
The is a difference between running on irregular surfaces and softer surfaces. You don't sprain your ankle on softer surfaces unless they are also irregular.
BRG/253 wrote:
smd wrote: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?
That is representative of the kind of reasoning found throughout everything Gina Kolata writes. The woman knows less than nothing about exercise.
I agree. This is a much more rational explanation than some of the ones above saying that she's deliberately and cynically writing against-the-grain stuff to draw more eyeballs. Like Christopher McDougall, she simply doesn't know enough to know that's she askew of the relevant issues.
When she speculates that her "forefoot" strike might be poorly suited for trails I know she is a dingbat.
BRG/253 wrote:
smd wrote: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?
That is representative of the kind of reasoning found throughout everything Gina Kolata writes. The woman knows less than nothing about exercise.
The funny thing is - she is probably a faster runner than many on here
If she is a forefoot runner, she probably has better form than most of you too.
Aghast wrote:
The funny thing is - she is probably a faster runner than many on here
http://www.athlinks.com/myresults.aspx?rid=6428645Aghast wrote:
The funny thing is - she is probably a faster runner than many on here
Take ten veteran runners and put them in a new pair of their favorite training shoes. Have them train 200 miles on exclusively soft surfaces. Then have these same ten people take another new pair of the exact same shoe. Have them train 200 miles on exclusively asphalt surfaces. Compare the wear patterns and degrees of wear between both pair of shoes. Also for fun compare injury rates and tweakage. Your 'study' is well on its way to being completed.
If you are of the minimalist camp, you can likely run on hard surfaces with little or no difference in damage to the body. If you're a heel striker, then it's clear that softer surfaces will help. What was also implied was that variation of the surface (landing at different angles0 is a contributor to injuries. I'm confident this is true, especially if you make a sudden transition and your stabilization muscles in your feet and ankles are weak. (And Rich, I think this may be the root of your issue.)
smd wrote:
Aghast wrote:http://www.athlinks.com/myresults.aspx?rid=6428645The funny thing is - she is probably a faster runner than many on here
Note: age 63! She's got my respect.
Soft shoes.... soft surfaces.... more muscular stress (exerted on bones) to achieve a stable landing.... can't be good for preventing stress injuries. 7 stress fractures later, I should know. :)
I have also found sleeping on a cinder block to be as comfortable as sleeping on a down pillow.
Regards,
NYT Retard
One summer at a research program, there was a guy from Colombia in the program. He couldn't stand sleeping on the mattress in our dorm (~typical dorm mattress) cause it was too soft and hurt his back. He took the mattress off and slept on the board under it.
A much more balanced article about this issue by Alex Hutchinson in the Globe and Mail:
"The bottom line, for now, is that the simple picture – harder surface leads to more pounding leads to injury – isn't supported by the existing evidence. Indeed, on-the-ground studies such as one from 2003 that followed 844 runners preparing for the 10-kilometre Vancouver Sun Run have failed to find any association between running surface and injury rate.
But there are other factors to consider, Dr. Boyer says. Smooth, flat, paved surfaces will result in every stride being basically the same, so your muscles and joints are stressed in exactly the same way throughout the run."
VS wrote:
No evidence, really?
Yes, no evidence, really.
I prefer running on hard surfaces and I suspect that one day (50-100 years) my view will be scientifically proven to be the right one. All of the people that say soft surfaces are bettter than hard surfaces aren't thinking rationally/considering all variables.
And to the people that said that the pictured person in the article has terrible form/will probably get injured no matter what, I thought the exact same thing.
Perhaps if you have a heel strike there is a higher chance you will get injured on hard surfaces, but otherwise, there isn't.
Did anyone actually read the article? The writer twisted his ankle running off a road. Of course there is more of a risk of that when you run off the road. You compensate by using by using the brain power of a 12 year old and be more aware of the ground you are running on. Or run on a well groomed bark path.
There are no "experts" involved here. Everybody just move on.
At least for me. I have fallen flat on my face on trails. I have sprained ankles on trails and gotten trail rash.
On sidewalks I have hurt my knees. On regular roads I have had many near misses with cars and developed plantar fascitis. Cambered roads give me fits.
Running is not a particularly safe activity for me, no matter where I have done it. I have run for about 15 years, mostly on roads, but definitely a lot on dirt roads and trails too.
In contrast, I have not hurt myself swimming to date.