Danny's Blog

February 23, 2010

Winter Running Shoe Tricks


danny @ 10:46 pm
Great example of good positioning of the sheetmetal screws.

Great example of good positioning of the sheetmetal screws.

I’m sure I’ve mentioned in a past blog that my running buddies and I used to screw sheetmetal screws into the bottoms of our running shoes whenever the conditions got especially treacherous. Well, a good friend just sent me a picture of his newly enhanced running shoes and I thought I’d pass it along, so you could see how it’s done. Be sure to use 1/4″ screws unless you’re into S&M.

I was also recently sent a pair of Yaktrax to try out. I like them. They’re super easy to put on, they stay on, and they work great to keep you from slipping on ice or packed snow. They’re light weight and they don’t feel as weird under my feet as it thought they would. By that, I mean that my feet remain pretty flat in them. They don’t throw me off balance in any way and they don’t feel like I’ve got something strange stuck to the bottom of my shoe. I’d recommend them to anyone crazy enough to head out for a run regardless of how nasty the conditions might be…or how deep the snow.
All the best,
Danny

February 15, 2010

Comparison of Harvard Study Results with ChiRunning


danny @ 1:27 am

Since the release of Dr. Lieberman’s study I’ve had a few requests from folks wanting me to show my test results from a gait analysis I had done at the UVA human performance lab. They’re curious to see how my Ground Reaction Force (GFR) chart compares with the one shown in the Nature video showing a barefoot runner (I’m assuming Lieberman himself) landing on a strike plate with a GFR chart beneath.

In the tests I did at UVA, I was wearing three different pairs of shoes (I was never tested barefoot): tai chi shoes, NB-MF800’s and NB-790’s. I’ve pasted in three graphs below. The first two are of a barefoot runner running with a heel strike, a barefoot runner running with a forefoot landing and the third graph is of me with the graphs of all three of my tests overlaid onto the same chart in three different colors.

GRF for a Heel Striker

GRF for a Heel Striker


GRF for a Forefoot Striker

GRF for a Forefoot Striker


GRF for Danny

GRF for Danny

Notice the differences in GFR between the three runners shown as a multiple of Body Weight measured during the initial weight-bearing phase. The Barefoot runner had a multiple of 1.85 x Body Weight. To make the comparisons fair, let’s assume all three tests were done with a runner who weights 150 lbs., that would mean (with a GFR of 1.85 x Body weight) that his heels were absorbing a force of 277.5 lbs. upon impact. Let’s say that his heel has an area of 5 sq. inches. that would mean that his heels were experiencing an impact of about 55.5 lbs./sq. inch. Ouch!!!

In the second figure, the runner is landing on his forefoot and his GFR is 2.64 x Body Weight during his support phase which figures out to 2.64 x 150 lbs. = 396 lbs. Now let’s say that the area of his forefoot is approximately 16 sq. inches. That would mean that his foot would be absorbing about 24.75 lbs./sq. inch. … or less than half of what the heel striker feels.

In the third figure I’m landing in a midfoot (or fullfoot) strike which means that the entire bottom of my foot is landing as my foot hits the ground. My GFR was measured at 2.47 x Body Weight or 2.47 x 150 lbs. = 370.5 lbs. Now, if the surface area of the entire bottom of my foot is roughly 30 sq. inches. (I’m a size 9.5 shoe), that would mean that the impact felt by my feet would be approximately 12.35 lbs./sq. inch. or half as much as the forefoot striker. That’s less than 25% of the impact per square inch the heel striker feels and half of what the forefoot striker feels. You can also see that my GFR was the same no matter which shoes I was wearing. I imagine that it would still have been the same had I been tested barefoot… possibly implying that there’s something to be said for working on improving your running technique. It’s about the runner, not the shoe.

I’ve used 150 lbs. as a standard weight for all three runners because I don’t know how much Dr. Leiberman weights. I also used the size of my feet in my calculations because I also don’t know his shoe size. BUT, the point I’m trying to make here is that whether or not you run with shoes on, your impact with the ground will be most if you land in a heel strike because there’s a lot of force going into a relatively small area of your foot. Subsequently, if you land in a forefoot strike, you land with more area of your foot touching the ground and it spreads the force of impact over a larger area thereby reducing the amount of impact per square inch. And lastly, if you land in a fullfoot strike, you spread the impact out over a much larger area and lower your impact per square inch even more still.

Since greater impact with the ground can most likely be directly related to greater incidence of impact injuries, this all boils down to one big question. How do you lower your impact with the ground so that you don’t hurt yourself when you’re running. My premise is that although some types of shoes can reduce shock and impact, it’s the runner who, in the end, is responsible for learning how to manage his or her impact with the ground in a way that consistently works. This is the need that is presented to every runner and it is one of the main reasons why ChiRunning was developed.

Dr. Liebermans study was a good beginning into seeing the difference in impact forces between shod and barefoot runners. Next, I would like to see a study comparing the difference in impact between heel strikers, midfoot strikers and forefoot strikers; with bare feet, with minimal shoes, racing flats, and with your basic high-heeled running shoes.

There are times to run with a forefoot strike. There are times to run with a fullfoot strike. And, there are times to run (believe it or not) with a heel strike. I’ll cover these in a future blog.

Run well…be well,
Danny

February 7, 2010

ChiRunning Recommendations for Minimal Shoes


danny @ 3:17 pm

In response to all the current interest in barefoot running (spurred on by Chris McDougall’s Born to Run book and the recent study published in the journal Nature by Dr. Daniel Lieberman, suggesting that barefoot or minimal-shoe running creates less impact on your legs) I’ve come up with a list of recommended shoes to try if running barefoot is just not what you’re drawn to. The shoes on this list represent only a small smattering of the spectrum of shoes available to those wishing to try running in a low-profile, minimal shoe instead of the basic “high-heeled sneaker that has been the trend for the past 40 years.

Bear in mind that any switch to either barefoot running or to a more minimal shoe (than you’re currently wearing) will require you to make a GRADUAL transition into the new way of running. If you’re going the minimal shoe route, start off by wearing them for brief periods around the house and for only short runs until you see how your body responds to the change. As your body “tells you” that it’s ok, you can slowly increase your time or distance accordingly. This isn’t macho training, it’s sensitivity training, so be smart about it. If you feel the slightest bit of discomfort in your plantar fascia, your ankles or your calves…back off and try it again tomorrow. As Barefoot Ken Bob Saxton says, “Don’t strike the ground. If you do it’ll strike back!” The idea of running barefoot or running in a minimal shoe is to feel what your feet are telling you about how to create less impact with the ground… so that you don’t get injured. It just wouldn’t make any sense to run in minimal shoes if you didn’t listen to what your feet are telling you.

The other thing I’d like to add is that the shoes listed here are only recommendations. Since everyone has different feet and different tastes when it comes to comfort and feel with their shoes, I leave it up to you to do the research at your local running shoe store to see which shoes actually work best for your feet and running needs. If all of the shoes choices is just too overwhelming…keep it simple and Go Barefoot!!!

Good luck with the journey.

Danny

The List

NB-790 (9 oz.) One of the best ever made for all terrains, from running a marathon on pavement to ultra trails. This shoe might be too much for someone really interested in feeling the barefoot feel. (discontinued in men’s models only…go figure…or better yet, write NB and complain) $60
NB-505 XC racing flat (7 oz.) very light, flexible and fast on trails or roads. $60
Adidas – Adizero Rocket (7.2 oz.) very flexible and wicked fast – better for narrow feet. $90
Brooks Mach II Spikeless (7 oz.) ultra-thin carbon rubber aggressively lugged sole – $60
FeelMax – Niesa 1mm thick sole with Kevlar to protect against sharp objects (Barefoot Ted likes them) Some complain that they’re too hot, but they are extremely minimal and give a good sense of the ground against your feet. $80
VivoBarefoot EVO– I’ve tried the Vivo street shoes and I’m waiting to be sent a pair of their running shoes to test (not available to the public yet). I love my street shoes and they are my favorite traveling shoe. They’re wonderful for any kind or any amount of walking.
Vibram FiveFingers – KSO’s are the most popular model of the VFF’s and I can see why. They’re thin, flexible, easy to get on and off and the next best thing to running barefoot. I prefer my Treks when I’m trail running because they have more traction in the dirt.
ECCO – haven’t tried them yet because I can’t afford a pair (hint…hint)
Wilcor Aqua Shoes – Bought these at a hardware store in Hot Springs, NC for $10 and they’ve proven to be one of the best trail and wet-running shoes I’ve ever had on my feet. They’re like moccasins with an attitude. Get some if you can find them for sale somewhere (not in running stores). This shoe, like most shoes designed for water sports and poking around tide pools at the beach, is a great way to run close-to-barefoot without spending over $30.
PUMA Cabana Racer II – (7 oz.) Was first introduced as a lightweight racing flat in 1981. Features a leather upper, EVA midsole and rubber outsole. As far as I can tell it is the exact same shoe brought back from the dead. $45
Asics Hyperspeed 3&4- (7 oz.) I haven’t run on these shoes myself, but I’ve heard from a number of folks that this is a good minimal shoe…very light and very fast. The downside of the shoe (as with many racing flats) is that they’re very narrow in the toe box, so they’re off my shopping list because my feet are EEE width. It’s a shame they don’t make racing flats in widths…they could multiply their sales by tenfold. $60

TRAIL SHOES
La Sportiva Crosslite – A great trail racing flat built low to the ground with extremely aggressive treads. Not a true minimal shoe, but one of the more minimal (while still aggressive) trail shoes. Reasonably light (10.0 oz.) for a trail shoe. $85
INOV-8 Rocklite 295 – (8.5 oz.) This is a fabulous shoe for trail runners looking for a very low-profile, light-weight shoe with great traction and flexibility. Sticky rubber soles with very aggressive lugs. They have a nice rounded toebox with plenty of room for my paddle feet. This is a more subtantial trail shoe for those looking for a good, dependable, lightweight, aggressive-soled shoe. $90
INOV-8 Talon 212 - (7.5 oz.) This is the stripped-down, mininal heel lift version of the 295 reviewed above. It’s a no-bones-about-it-flat-out trail racer…. a bit narrower in feel than the 295, but not uncomfortably so. It hugs your foot well and transfers the traction from the sticky rubber soles directly into your feet. I feel like a spider with them on. I haven’t tried walking up the side of a brick building yet, but they tempt me to try. I feel very fast and agile in them, and I’m sure I’ll be running in these at the next USATF Nat’l Trail Championships later this year. Hats off to INOV-8! Note: These shoes have very minimal cushioning and might not be for everyone. If you run on very hard-packed trails, these might be too minimal for you unless you’re minding all your ChiRunning P’s & Q’s. If you’re doubtful, go for the 295’s. (BTW, the numbers show the weight in grams of the shoe model!) $100
NB-MT100 – (7.0 oz.) One of the lightest trail shoes ever made. Very flexible and breathable…also drains well when wet. Great for most trail running, but tend to lose traction on wet surfaces, especially wet rock. Personally, I’d like the lugs a bit more aggressive for these North Carolina mountains, but they’re totally adequate on dry trails. $70



Powered by WordPress