anyone fancy coming with me?
@Farnie - another entirely useless post from you - a nice collection of completely unrelated content. You asked specific questions and I addressed them all. You even quoted things I've said that have no relation to my running style whatsoever. My injury was as a result of coming off a bike in a car park. Sore nipples are to to with clothing. Feel free to explain how any of those injuries could be helped by spending £100 on a running improvement course You've entirely missed it on this one.
@Yorkshire Rob - go back to the first page. People clearly think Chi Running is crap. The OP got narked at the responses, so I stepped with something more constructive that the previous posters. People come here asking for advice, and on this topic that is generally "Don't". There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to improve or work out how to avoid injury, but there are better ways than this Chi crap, including joining a running club. Who cares if it's proven? Do you want some of my anti-dinosaur rocks, too? The OP has most certainly not had any abuse from me.
@dibbers - the interview also says "Previous studies show no meaningful difference in economy between different footstrike patterns. I think the best choice for a runner is to do what the body naturally wants to do rather than to try to change it to become someone they're not." Read the interview here. One of the last points Hunter makes is "Runners should not try to change their footstrike pattern from what their body naturally wants to do. This will lead to a greater injury risk and probably metabolic cost. There are no conclusive studies saying either footstrike pattern is better than the other for injury risk or performance."
@Kryten - stump up the wedge and I'll give it a go.
FWIW, the OP should go for the two day Chi Running course. Her money, her homeopathy.
HJ - Precisely my point, the OP got narked because you all started chuntering on about how crap Chi running was when she didn't even ask you that.
Hywel Jenkins wrote (see)This was the first time I've heard of it, so I had a quick google. £100 seems steep for something that's got foundations in Wu, but I can appreciate how coaching in better technique might be useful. It would, however, help if there was any real evidence to support the claims its founder is making. Without that it's just homeopathy...Hywel Jenkins wrote (see)@Farnie - no, I haven't. Unless there's evidence for it (indepently verified) or someone else is paying, I'm not interested, regardless of what it is. I don't make decisions based on anecdotal opinion. I know I won't like the taste of dog crap, but I've never eaten that.@YorkLass - people would have been more supportive if you'd chosen something that isn't based on Wu. Even people who believe in Chi reckon DD has a poor undertanding of it.I have a collection of rocks that keep dinosaurs away. Anyone want one? They're £15 inc P&P.
Hywel Jenkins wrote (see)
This was the first time I've heard of it, so I had a quick google. £100 seems steep for something that's got foundations in Wu, but I can appreciate how coaching in better technique might be useful. It would, however, help if there was any real evidence to support the claims its founder is making. Without that it's just homeopathy...
@Farnie - no, I haven't. Unless there's evidence for it (indepently verified) or someone else is paying, I'm not interested, regardless of what it is. I don't make decisions based on anecdotal opinion. I know I won't like the taste of dog crap, but I've never eaten that.@YorkLass - people would have been more supportive if you'd chosen something that isn't based on Wu. Even people who believe in Chi reckon DD has a poor undertanding of it.I have a collection of rocks that keep dinosaurs away. Anyone want one? They're £15 inc P&P.
@Farnie - no, I haven't. Unless there's evidence for it (indepently verified) or someone else is paying, I'm not interested, regardless of what it is. I don't make decisions based on anecdotal opinion. I know I won't like the taste of dog crap, but I've never eaten that.
@YorkLass - people would have been more supportive if you'd chosen something that isn't based on Wu. Even people who believe in Chi reckon DD has a poor undertanding of it.
I have a collection of rocks that keep dinosaurs away. Anyone want one? They're £15 inc P&P.
In what way is that lot constructive? Fair play it wasn't just you at the beginning of the thread but you've constantly offered strong opinions on a technique you freely admit you know nothing about besides a quick google.
OP didn't mention getting into chirunning because it was based on wu or anything else but just because she's had injuries and has looked into chirunning and decided it was worth trying out in exactly the same way that lots of runners may choose to buy support shoes because they believe it may help them avoid injury (which incidently has never been properly proven either way)
Also btw your mention of not liking dog crap doesn't support the point you're trying to make, you don't offer any evidence why you won't like dog crap but merely an opinion which is exactly what people who advocate chirunning are doing (obviously not including those with a vested interest)
Mr Majestic - nothing wrong with what you're saying here, but if people want to go and try a workshop so they can feel more comfortable that they're doing things correctly then I don't see a problem with it.
That said, it's often advised by experienced barefoot and minimal shoe runners to avoid trying to transition by using thinner and thinner shoes. Apparently you learn quicker and pick up less bad habits if you start by going completely barefoot for 5 mins in your normal run (wearing your current shoes for the rest of the run) and build up to being able to do the whole run barefoot before buying minimal shoes. I don't know whether this is correct or not but it does seem to make sense to me anyway. (I don't have any hard evidence though in case HJ was wondering )
I don't bother with fora too much and this thread reminds me why! I checked this one because of the thread title but quickly became frustrated by the know it alls who know very little to nothing!
I have not been on a Chi running course but have the book and DVD. If I lived near Leeds or if a course was held near to me then I would attend. Most of my running is off road and, being a bit on the heavy side have always thought that I needed the most high tech' type of shoe for road running....since Chi running I now run in "bare foot" Nikes....no problems at all.
Chi running works for me, it may not work for you or others, but it works for me and so I would suggest that you can disregard the "Chi running is crap" comments because they are made by those "all the right gear and no idea" types who so haunt these fora.
I have read on other threads about how "this" is crap and "that" is rubbish, they add nothing to any topic.
Bye the way, I seldom use any sort of chemical substance when I have a cold or pain etc....the "placebo" affect of homeaopathy or Reiki always works. Unlike the chemicals and antibiotics used by the "know it alls"!
Mr MTo me this method makes sense. You’re letting your own body adapt at its own rate. The human body is pretty good at that, it knows and learns what it needs to do – millions of years of evolution for you.
Yes,only to a point. My body learns and adapts to slouching when I sit in a chair; my core goes weak, my sholders round over. The more I do it, the more natural it feels. Certain muscles stretch, whilst other shorten making the slouching feel even more natural over time. You see many people walking around with one shoulder lower than the other, orone foot lands pointing outwards. I'm pretty sure they think they're nicely aligned and feel their body positions are 'natural'.
What I'm trying to say is that our bodies do adapt to things but not always in a positive way, and at times we need to body sense, be pro-active and make adjustments. Often you're trying to break life long habbits, and that takes focus, time and energy. Not everyone wants to make that investment. A workshop such as Ch, or Pose, or even Yoga and Pilates calsses all help with this process. It's a good thing.
My analogy is this: If you were making a wheeled vehicle to be very efficient and last as long as possible, you'd make sure the wheels were aligned with each other, nice and smooth rims and perfectly balanced. Imagine if those wheels were not perfectly round, but hexagon shaped, and one wheel pointed outwards, the back wheel was slightly loose and there was uneven weight placed upon it, and was a bit weak between the front and back wheels. It wouldn't do very well, would it? It would iether break down before long, or just be slow and use lots of energy.
@Wej - although the sample size is small, it's the only publicly available information produced by real scientists I could find. Since then, I've also found this one from Science of Sport.
@the old buzzard - your points on reiki and homeopathy have blown all credibility for your standpoint out of the water. Shhh. I've provided links to real research, yet all the arguments against mine are basically "it works for me" or "you're an idiot", which is not a-typical of people who've parted with cash and may now be wondering why.
You will, no doubt, be pleased to know that I'm finished with this topic. I maintain that it's purely a mechanism for sucking money out of people who already have all the gear and still don't have any idea. "It works for me" is no validification for anything. A friend of mine reckons that Arnica 30C works for he when she uses it over the course of a week.
Your money, lose it as you best see fit.
There are science journals and there are HIGH IMPACT science journals. Nature is at the top of the tree. This very recent Nature paper shows that barefoot fore-foot striking produces less impact than shod heel-striking. It doesn't show that this leads to less injury ... that requires further research. It also doesn't show whether fore-foot striking in shoes is different to fore-foot striking barefoot.
Lieberman et al. (2010) Nature 263: 531-535 "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners"
ABSTRACT: Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH: Evidence that barefoot and minimally shod runners avoid RFS strikes with high-impact collisions may have public health implications. The average runner strikes the ground 600 times per kilometre, making runners prone to repetitive stress injuries. The incidence of such injuries has remained considerable for 30 years despite technological advancements that provide more cushioning and motion control in shoes designed for heel–toe running. Although cushioned, high-heeled running shoes are comfortable, they limit proprioception and make it easier for runners to land on their heels. Furthermore, many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis. Although there are anecdotal reports of reduced injuries in barefoot populations, controlled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced injury rates.
I just know that heel striking (in the correct shoes) has resulted in injuries. I can't really blame overtraining as I have never got past a 10k and I haven't done more distance/time than is recommended, I've repeated training weeks, taken rest weeks, done all the *right* things and now it's time to start looking around for a different solution.
Why people can't understand that is beyone me though. I'm not saying that chirunning is the answer to everything, that it is any sort of miracle solution for anything, or that everyone should do it - horses for courses and all that! But it's worth checking out for me, and I just wondered if anyone else fancied it?!
I'm not gettin into the debate LOL.
Yorkslass, contact me via PM - I want to go with you.
TurboElli - I don't seem to have the "message member" option under your post - can you contact me?
Edited to add: yep I've checked - you have your setting things set so that you don't accept messages. x
I brought the Chi running book last Autumn as I seemed to be suffering from injury after injury.
I do not particularly subscribe to the inner Chi thing but the mechanics of the style make sense. I have over the last 6 months gone from heel striker to mid - fore foot runner and have not have any injuries since.
But and this is a big but this could also be down to the fact that I have upped my mileage and trained smarter and stuff.
So I'm not sure if Chirunning cured me from injury but I know it make me run more efficiently and faster.
So I would say for me it has worked
oh and as a side effect I managed to make a pair of shoes last for 1300 miles
So Yorklass I would go for it.
You will, no doubt, be pleased to know that I'm finished with this topic. I maintain that it's purely a mechanism for sucking money out of people who already have all the gear and still don't have any idea. "It works for me" is no validification for anything.
It probably is a way of making money but who really cares? If you're interested in learning correct technique and this is the way you want to do it then why should anyone else have a problem with it?
And why is "it works for me" not worth anything? You telling me that you never ever try anything new without scientific evidence to back it up? that must be a boring way to live
Mr. Majestic wrote (see)
Sure Rob, I can see that would be another way to convert. But it doesn't answer the question "do we need to be taught how to run barefoot?" (and don't neglect your other threads...)
I don't think we need to be taught to run barefoot but I don't have a problem with somebody wanting to learn by visiting a workshop or buying a book or whatever.
Which other threads are you on about? I hope that wasn't some sort of dig?
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2014 |