"The truth about sports products"

Although on some products the 'buy cheap, buy twice' motto applies. (I'm thinking of almost anything I've ever got from Sports Direct)

Ach, the Vicky Pendleton one... now it did the one thing that really turns me off from this sort of documentary: it played music behind every shot. I hate being urged to feel a particular emotion at times that are emotive enough in themselves. So we go sad music when it all went a bit tits up with the team because she'd fallen in love with on the coaches, inspirational music when she was doing well, dramatic chords when she lost a major race to Anna Meares. When did this need for music to underpin everything come about. It's as if we don't know when something is amazing/sad/worrying. I have to admit, though I admire her sporting achievements immensely, she came across as a bit immature (a tendency for a lot of sports people these days who never seem to have contact with the real world) and touchy. No wonder she was difficult to deal with at times. I also, probably unfairly, learned to hate her pushy and seemingly unempathetic dad. Ms Pendleton is, of course, a stunner.

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’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??

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...

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.

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,

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.