"The truth about sports products"

Panorama, tomorow (Thurs 19)

81 to 100 of 122 messages
20/07/2012 at 15:34

I’m pretty new to running and have been increasing my mileage over the last couple of months. I was all set to take a trip to my nearest running shop and have my gait measured for some new trainers. The programme has thrown me off a bit and I am wondering if I should bother. Runners World always stress the importance of proper running shoes. Surely this isn't because they have been bought by sports manufacturers??

20/07/2012 at 15:55
Colmeister wrote (see)

Is there even any solid science that milk is benefitial for recovery?  What about the 4:1 ratio of carbs to protein?

Programmes like this make you question lots of things you considered as facts.  That's probably a good thing, but can leave you more confused than when you started!

 

I think that was one of the areas that annoyed me a bit on the program when Prof Lean said something along the lines of being better off drinking milk than a protein drink.  IMHO that's garbage and worthy of the era of milk at school (in the 1970s).  Had he said "you're better off just really spending time understanding your requirements and basing your balance diet to meet that" then that would have been fine - what he said was either for the Daily Mail or the BBC breakfast news to use...

 

20/07/2012 at 16:24
Louise Walker 9 wrote (see)

I’m pretty new to running and have been increasing my mileage over the last couple of months. I was all set to take a trip to my nearest running shop and have my gait measured for some new trainers. The programme has thrown me off a bit and I am wondering if I should bother. Runners World always stress the importance of proper runningshoes. Surely this isn't because they have been bought by sports manufacturers??

This bit annoyed me - one of "the leading experts in the science of sports shoes", Dr Benno Nigg, advised the likes of Reebok, Nike, Adidas. As a result of science of the time, I find myself running in a support shoe. Now he has some new science, and he's telling me a comfortable neutral shoe will do - forget the gait analysis etc. Problem now is that I have trained myself to run in a support shoe, and can only see switching to neutral shoes as a whole new world of pain.

20/07/2012 at 16:50

i think what they dont say is that, whilst a neutral shoe might be just as good as a stability shoe or cushion shoe for most people, what it doesnt point out is that wearing  the wrong shoes or one that is for the "opposite" of your gait will cause you injury,

Getting a gait analysis and knowing how you run is important, but use that information to do your own research and buy shoes accordingly.

for example, (i was far from a beginner) i made the mistake of buying kayano's (i was stupid, didnt do my reseach and just believed the sales girl when she said they were for under pronation) and i supinate, they gave me shin splints bad enough to take me out of action for some time after just 1 run,

20/07/2012 at 17:47

Are you sure it was the shoes that gave you shin splints, and not just overuse as per most beginners?

20/07/2012 at 18:19
Man those shoes were shit. They gave you an overuse injury in just one run.
20/07/2012 at 18:42
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Hypothetical situation; Beginner runner starts to run. He gets shin splints because he's a beginner. Someone suggests that they should get some fancy trainers. Beginners recovers and gets used to running and they shin splints go away. Beginners conclusion " wow these fancy trainers really work"

 

Or alternatively...

Beginner is happily running 2 miles, twice a week in their Dunlop green Flash with no problems – because they’re not over stressing their body.

Enters the London Marathon so decides they go get fitted for some "proper" running shoes.

A few weeks in to their marathon training, starts suffering from shin splints – due to the sudden increase in mileage.

Beginners conclusion "Ow, these fancy trainers have caused me to get injured!"

 

I fully agree with the programs assertion that it’s the running (volume, intensity, lack of rest) that is the main cause of running injuries over anything that the shoe may or may not contribute to the equation. But I do think the shoes have slightly more of a role either way than the miniscule amount that they suggest.

 

One more thought…

Surely, if any detractors of modern running shoes agree with the program’s assertion that modern shoes have only a miniscule role in the prevention of running injuries, then doesn’t it follow that they must also therefore, play a miniscule role in the cause of them as well!

Edited: 20/07/2012 at 18:43
20/07/2012 at 21:18

Without a doubt, my first pair of running shoes made a huge difference - it definitely wasn't no 'placebo' effect.  Every time I went running before using them, I had various aches, usually ankle/feet.  First time out with the proper ones (Nike Triax something or other), nothing - not a whisper.

20/07/2012 at 21:33
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Thankyou for allowing me my opinion Bob Roberts. I don't believe I ever suggested you weren't entitled to yours. Just suggested you were dim. Nice..but Dim

Wow, Sussex Runner, you're really rude - are you a troll?

Or are you an elite runner who feels he can put an amateur down because she's not as good as he, or she, is?

 

20/07/2012 at 21:35
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Thankyou for allowing me my opinion Bob Roberts. I don't believe I ever suggested you weren't entitled to yours. Just suggested you were dim. Nice..but Dim

You seem incredibly obnoxious and rude.  I'm genuinely interested to know what trainers you run in?  Presumably a pair of 10 year old £10 specials?  Absolutely no need to be so condescending.

20/07/2012 at 21:42

Regarding the programme I found it interesting, made some valid points, but also left more questions than answers.  In terms of sports drinks I very rarely drink any for runs of less than 90 mins, however would always want one over that.

Trainers I aim to spend around £60 ish, am keen to stick to what works, however like others have said, i've suffered in the past with injuries as a result of incorrect footwear and am always wary of trying anything else.

Finally would have like to see something on gels, I certainly found them a god-send on the marathon earlier this year.

20/07/2012 at 21:55
They didnt really mention any products that do work. Maybe that wouldn't support the stance they were trying to make. While they were rubbishing the benefits of sports drinks that cyclist recommended we should drink water and eat bread (carbs) and jam (sugar) which is essentially the ingredients of sports drinks just minus the electrolytes, which we need. A bottle of drink is also easier to carry round a 20 mile run.
20/07/2012 at 22:23
Haha, NLR spicing up the forum nicely I see!

The programme sounds okay, and Debs defends it well.

I can't believe people are such wusses (or aren't looking where they're going enough) that they won't run barefoot on a beach - you must have had a really fun childhood.

When I started running a bit more seriously, I wore Adidas cheapo shoes that weren't really running shoes (you know the type, I'm sure) for a good while. As I got more experience, I chose to use a mix of Mizunos with support for long distance races on road, Nike racing flats for shorter road races and VFFs and huaraches for slow-paced distances. I use XC spikes and Innov8s for trail runs. Sure, these weren't cheap, but I had enough experience with the shitty Adidas fashion trainers, black toenails and tendinitis to know that they're the most suitable shoes for the job, and well worth the cost. The staff at the Sweat Shop I've visited really knew what they were talking about, and several different runners (with different areas of expertise) helped me make the most suitable choice of shoes.

Just go along to a running club, run behind the pack for a while and watch the array of wildly oscillating limbs on show: different people are served best by different types of shoe. Some problems can be fixed by concentrating on technique and strengthening muscles. Others are purely physical, and the body needs some help in these cases.
21/07/2012 at 00:04

millsy1977 dont forget he was eatying brown bread well known for having plenty of salt (simple electrolyte) in it.

The US Army survey on shoes was interesting, when i joined the British army i was issued canvas pumps and boots, that was all we ever ran in, never new anyone who suffered from shinsplints or any other leg injury, but the training was structured and varied so we built up steadily. That is probably where most older and wiser runners go wrong, we try to rush things and we arent as young as we once were. Also now nearly everyones feet have been pampered with training shoes so we have become soft, barefoot running sounds interesting as it must assist in using more small muscles, just need to find a sensible place to start.

21/07/2012 at 00:09
Oops I forgot about the salt in the bread. So he was consuming the same basic contents of a sports drink then.
21/07/2012 at 01:09
happy9053 wrote (see)

 when i joined the British army i was issued canvas pumps and boots, that was all we ever ran in, never new anyone who suffered from shinsplints or any other leg injury, but the training was structured and varied so we built up steadily.

My canvas pumps were white; we called them Slaps 'cos when you ran they went 'slap slap slap slap slap slap'.  My shorts were too tight and the V on my PT vests went massive from the handwashing/wringing and kept on slipping off my shoulders.

Army PT kit was 'orrible stuff, but you're right; I can't remember many people having lower limb injuries (though there was a few I'm sure); and those who did, "It's ma shins, Corporal, ma shins", were cured with a good shouting at.

Apologies for swinging the lantern.  Ignore me.

21/07/2012 at 08:53
More interesting chat! Seems to be the best forum for it. A few quick points- the reason why the programme didn't focus on what works we really struggled to find good science in any area. We read over 700 studies- and only found 3 good ones that all suggested that the product has no benefit on a particular outcome. In science, that says a lot.

So, for trainers that was injury, sports drinks it was performance etc etc. It's disappointing that these huge companies can't do better. Lucozade, for example, is owned by drug company, GSK. you'd have thought that with their immensely skilled scientists that they could have done better.

No-one said it wasn't fine to drink sports drinks- it is. Glycogen stores get depleted and you need replenishment in what ever form you like to take carbs. But why would sports drinks improve your performance? Do you really need them if you're not running for a long period of time?

Also, the idea that you need electrolyte replenishment isn't always true. You only lose tiny amounts in sweat and you automatically adjust your urine output accordingly. We consume far too much salt in our diets anyway and GSK confirmed to me that the amount of salt in their drink was "trace".

About trainers, there just isn't the evidence on a large scale that wearing stability shoes reduce rates of injury. It just doesn't exist- despite companies trying for many years to show they do.

I guess the point is think about how you run rather than just focus on what's on your feet. People have their own preferences, but I've been into lots of running shops and gone on the treadmills etc, had my gait analysed and been 'prescribed' a shoe. The evidence just isn't there to support this. It's a case of what feels right for you. No one is saying don't do it- just that it's not based on sound science.

Just one quick point- how many different foot shapes and gait styles are there and how much variance is there in the stability shoe?
21/07/2012 at 09:14

"Also, the idea that you need electrolyte replenishment isn't always true. You only lose tiny amounts in sweat and you automatically adjust your urine output accordingly. We consume far too much salt in our diets anyway and GSK confirmed to me that the amount of salt in their drink was "trace"."

That's interesting. I don't use sports drinks but I do use electrolytes (in the form of Nuun tablets or equivalent) during long runs on hot days. I'm not a big guy but I sweat out bucketloads and often get gritty white salt streaks down my face - so I'm obviously losing a fair bit of something. The Nuun tablets do make a difference, I do feel less lethargic afterwards if I take them. Not a scientifically valid trial, just going on my own experience. Even if it is all in my mind.

21/07/2012 at 09:55
That's essentially the conclusion we've come to after looking a literally hundreds of studies- Do what works for you through trial and error. It's just worth bearing in mind that what we do isn't necessarily backed up by sound science
21/07/2012 at 09:56

I think this is the difficulty. I share Muttley's experience of finding white deposits on my clothing after exertion (ooo er mrs) and using Nuun tablets. 

And, likewise, the experience others have described of suffering persistent knee pain when I first started running, having gait analysis and being "prescribed" different shoes, and the pain very quickly going away.

This is all just anecdotal, but it is hard for us to believe that the studies that find no proven benefit have not somehow missed the point.

81 to 100 of 122 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums