PBS’s The Truth About Exercise

Standard

“The chair is a killer.”
– Michael Mosley, PBS, The Truth About Exercise

Attention all exercise geeks and anyone fond of learning about the ins and outs of regaining or maintaining your health: You must check out the new series from PBS called The Truth About Exercise with Michael Mosley.  (Actually, it seems that each episode has it’s own title “… with Michael Mosley.”)  I watched the first episode and it’s tremendously interesting.  The second episode is titled “Eat, Fast and Live Longer.”  I just started it.

(Thanks to my mom for telling me about this show.)

Mosley uses himself as an experimental subject as he delves into some of the following topics:

  • How to reduce your insulin response with 3 minutes of (very) intense exercise per week.
  • How and why exercise can help remove fat from the blood stream.
  • The very deadly perils of sitting too much.
  • Why some people are “non-responders” to some aspects of exercise (and why exercise is still healthy for “non-responders.)

I know very little about Mosley but that he seems to be a fairly common sort of guy who’s not in particularly good shape.  He has the questions about his health that many of us have.  He talks to various exercise physiologists, nutrition scientists and coaches as he searches for answers and examines several exercise myths.  I love it because much of what he discovers is informed by the latest science.  He’s not rehashing the “common knowledge” (which is commonly stale and fairly inaccurate.)  It’s a very entertaining show that moves quickly and isn’t overly science-y.  It has a pretty decent soundtrack as well.  I highly recommend it to anyone reading this right now.  Previews of each episode are below.  Go here to watch the full episodes.

Watch The Truth About Exercise with Michael Mosley – Promotion on PBS. See more from Michael Mosley.

Watch Guts with Michael Mosley – Preview on PBS. See more from Michael Mosley.

“Body Talk” Lecture Series by Rick Olderman

Standard

If you’re in Denver and you’re either in pain or your a trainer/therapist who’s interested in helping people who are in pain, then I highly suggest you attend one or more of the following lectures from Denver physical therapist and certified personal trainer Rick Olderman.  I’ve mentioned Rick before (here, and here) and his hugely important role in helping me recover from back pain and regain my running ability.  Without question he’s one of the main reasons I was able to resume running and run my first marathon last year.  He’s part of the Body in Balance physical therapy office. The information here will be practical and probably very powerful in helping you or someone you know get out of pain.  And it’s free!

  • Neck Pain & Headaches: Innovative answers you’ve been missing.
    Tuesday, 4/9, 6pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Trauma, Pain, and the Brain: How to use your brain to fix your pain.
    Saturday, 4/13, 1pm
    Presented by  Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • 3 Patterns Causing Back Pain and How to Change Them.
    Tuesday, 4/16, 6 pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Accidents and Chronic Pain: Why you’re not getting better and how can you change your outcome.
    Saturday, 4/20, 1pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • How You Walk Can Fix Your Back, Hip, Knee, and Foot Pain.
    Tuesday, 4/23, 6pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Stretching: Is there a better way to lengthen muscles?
    Saturday, 4/27, 1pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Core Performance Versus Core Strength: Common mistakes with abdominal strengthening.
    Tuesday, 4/30, 6pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • How Does Walking Contribute to Chronic Foot and Ankle Pain?
    Saturday, 5/4, 1pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Thoracic Outlet Syndrome: A unique approach to solving pain.
    Tuesday, 5/7, 6pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Running Injuries: It’s more than just foot-strike patterns.
    Saturday, 5/11, 1pm
    Presented by Rick Olderman MSPT, CPT.
  • Dry Needling: How is it different than acupuncture and how can it help you?
    Tuesday, 5/14, 5:30pm
    Presented by Aline Thompson PT, MSPT, OCS.

The Problem(s) With Surgery

Standard

“In America the scalpel reigns supreme. Some patients accept that surgery isn’t for them and gladly follow the non surgical recommendations, but others go from surgeon to surgeon until they get the surgery they think they need.”
– Dr. Jennifer Gunter MD, FRCS(C), FACOG, DABPM

I just read a very enlightening post from an MD regarding surgery vs physical therapy.  In To cut isn’t always to cure: knee surgery, health care, and our love affair with the scalpel Dr. Jen Gunter hits several nails very squarely on the head.  First, she discusses research comparing physical therapy alone vs arthroscopic surgery for treatment of knee miniscus repair and osteoarthritis.  What did the study find?  Dr. Gunter says,

“Patients over 45 with OA and a meniscus tear were randomized to typical arthroscopic surgery (which included post operative physical therapy) or physical therapy (PT). They were allowed to cross over to the other group if they so desired. At 6 months and at 12 months those who had surgery were no better off pain or function wise than those who stuck with the physical therapy regimen (30% of people decided to switch from PT to surgery).”

She goes on to discuss our view of surgery, and that we often view surgery as the ultimate best solution for pain.  Couple that view with our widely available yet very expensive MRI technology and we are a society hungering for surgery even when it’s clearly a questionable solution in many cases.  More from Dr. Gunter:

“A lot of people have arthritis of the knee (we know this because of all the knee MRIs that we do in this country at $1200 or so a pop). According to the NEJM study, 9 million Americans have osteoarthritis of the knee confirmed by x-ray or MRI and 35% of people over the age of 50 will have a meniscus tear on MRI. A torn meniscus itself doesn’t necessarily identify the cause of the pain because 2/3 of meniscus tears are totally asymptomatic. MRIs are so sensitive they identify tons of things that are not causative as far as pain is concerned.

Because we have an aging population, because we MRI everyone, because we have a problem with obesity (a major co-factor in osteoarthritis), and because surgery is highly reimbursed almost 500,000 people get their partially torn meniscus trimmed by a minimally invasive surgery called arthroscopy (using a surgical telescope) each year in the United States.

However, recent studies have called into question the value of arthroscopic knee surgery. For example, we know that arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis (OA) alone is no better than sham surgery. Yup. Put a patient to sleep, nick the skin with a scalpel. squirt water on his leg or stick a telescope into it and fix what you think needs to be fixed… the outcomes are identical.”

Dr. Gunter makes a great point regarding treatment of arthritis and by addressing obesity via lifestyle:

“And what about diet and lifestyle? Obesity is a major co-factor in osteoarthritis of the knee. Not only because the knee is load bearing, but the fat pad in the knee is metabolically active like the fat around the belly and contributes to the inflammatory changes of arthritis. The average body mass index in the NEJM study was 30. That means that obesity was the norm.”

I’m very pleased to see an MD making these kinds of observations.  The big message is that surgery isn’t always the best solution is tremendously valuable.  We love to think American medical care is wonderful but in so many cases it’s just incredibly wasteful.  We spend the most of any 1st world country on medical care yet our outcomes are questionable when compared to other modern countries.  We spend too much on things we don’t need when there are practical ways to reduce costs and maintain a high quality of care.

I would add that surgery often only treats a symptom rather than the cause of something like arthritis.  Osteoarthritis is typically related to poor movement patterns.  If we can use our muscles to correctly control our joints then we have sloppy movement.  The result is friction within the joint and thus a buildup of bone–arthritis.  The process is similar to the formation of a callous on the skin.  If we only clean up the arthritis and we do nothing to correct movement, then we should expect to continue to have pain.  Surgery doesn’t correct movement.  That’s what physical therapy and similar modalities are for.

 

An FMS Discussion: Part I

Standard

The Functional Movement Screen is a subject I’ve been studying (and writing about) recently. I recently had the pleasure of traveling to San Francisco to attend the Functional Movement Screen (FMS).  I got to meet some interesting, smart people and some great information found its way into my brain.  So what is the FMS?  From the FMS site:

Put simply, the FMS is a ranking and grading system that documents movement patterns that are key to normal function. By screening these patterns, the FMS readily identifies functional limitations and asymmetries. These are issues that can reduce the effects of functional training and physical conditioning and distort body awareness.

The FMS generates the Functional Movement Screen Score, which is used to target problems and track progress. This scoring system is directly linked to the most beneficial corrective exercises to restore mechanically sound movement patterns.

Movement patterns vs. Muscles

A key component of the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) paradigm is the idea of training movement patterns rather than individual muscles. For example, what muscles does the squat use?  Pushups? The deadlift?  For that matter, what muscles does basketball, gymnastics, swimming, or raking leaves use?  The answer is a lot of muscles, and these muscles must work together in sequence to create movement. (A better question might be “What muscles don’t these activities use?) This concept of addressing and thinking in terms of patterns rather than muscles is important in terms of how our brain works.  When we walk, our brain doesn’t say, “Fire the glute max, and medius, now the semimembranosus, now the semitendinosis, biceps femoris, now the gastroc, soleus…”  The brain says, “Extend the hip.”  The brain has a map of our movement patterns and it executes our movements based on that map.  An analogy might be a song.  When we hear a song we hear a song.  We typically don’t listen to the individual instruments absent the other instruments.  We hear a cohesive, coordinated song. While it may be appropriate and necessary to analyze individual muscles in some therapeutic processes, remember that our brain drives our movements via coordinated patterns.  Very typically our pain and dysfunctional movement is due to faulty movement patterns in our brain.  The FMS strategy helps restore those patterns.

Mobility first.  Stability second.

World-class mobility and stability

Gray Cook discusses developmental movement from infancy on up.  Babies start as helpless, wiggly blobs with no balance or coordination of any sort.  At some point in their lives they may become gold-medal gymnasts, top professional tennis players, surfers, piano players, chansaw jugglers, stilt walkers–who knows what?!  In other words they go from a highly mobile yet uncoordinated state to a much more stable and coordinated state.  This ability to blend mobility and stability into movement is called motor control. (Unfortunately due to the Western lifestyle which is chock full of sitting, these former masters of motor control often turn into weak, rigid, unbalanced, uncoordinated zombies racked with pain.  It’s not simply “age” that robs us of motor control.  We choose to avoid moving–and then we become unable to move well.)  The big point here is mobility precedes stability, and we certainly need both.

It’s important to understand that joint stiffness isn’t the same as stability.  A joint often stiffens due to injury or lack of movement.  If we are unable to effectively stabilize a joint, then that joint may stiffen as a sort of a plan B by the nervous system.  A stiff, poorly moving joint is not a healthy joint.  Why?  Primarily a stiff joint brings on poor proprioception.  In the grand scheme, a stiff joint is a poor transmitter of information to the brain, and a poor receiver of information from the brain.  It doesn’t pay attention well.  If you have trouble standing on one leg, it’s very likely that one or more of your joints are stiff.  For an illuminating discussion of the mobility/stability concept, please read the Joint by Joint Approach from Gray Cook.  The concept was born out of the observation that as we look at the skeleton from the ground up, we tend to see an alternating pattern from joint to joint in which one joint tends to be stiff and the next joint tends to be loose and sloppy. It might be a bit technical for some people but the big chunks of information will be digestible for most and it’s a very powerful concept when thinking about movement dysfunction.

Asymmetries

Might an asymmetry be hiding in this athlete?

A key part of the FMS is the recognition of and correction of asymmetries. Often when someone goes through the FMS we’re able to expose asymmetries in range of motion (ROM), balance, coordination, strength, etc. One side of the body is good at a movement while the other side isn’t.  (The half-kneeling exercise often exposes an asymmetry.) Typically the test subject has no idea the asymmetry exists. He or she has been moving through life unconscious that they’re lopsided and out of whack.  In other words, we’re helping create awareness.

 

But why do we care about asymmetries?  Think about this: If we go to perform a squat, a deadlift, a jump, a press–some sort of movement that requires strength, power and coordination–but we’ve got one side of the body that can’t handle the job, do you think at some point we might incur an injury?  If one side is mobile, stable, and strong while the other side isn’t, what do you think might happen?  Could we see a situation where lifting something off of the ground might cause some weird torquing forces through the hips or spine?  Hello herniated disk.

Next I’ll discuss the corrective process and use some of my own issues as examples.


Diabolical Junk Food Science and Pharmaceutical Subterfuge

Standard

Science and it’s use by industry are the topics of two recent articles.  One story looks at the food industry’s use of science to hook us on their products.  Another article shows us how the pharmaceutical industry does its best to hide science from us to… well… hook us on their products.

Junk Science

“With production costs trimmed and profits coming in, the next question was how to expand the franchise, which they did by turning to one of the cardinal rules in processed food: When in doubt, add sugar.”
– The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food, NY Times

If you haven’t read it yet then I highly recommend you check out a recent article from the New York Times Magazine titled The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food.  It’s a little long but well worth the read.  Lest anyone think

Thank you science.

that giving up junk food is all about willpower, this article might change your mind.

We get an in-depth look at the very determined scientific efforts by processed food companies (General Mills, Frito-Lay, Cadbury Schweppes for example) to create food that stimulates us to an unbelievable degree.  The motive of course is to get us to buy and consume what most of us know to be poison filth.  The writer has interviewed hundreds of current or former food scientists, marketers and CEOs to get an inside look at how all this works.

These companies’ efforts include laboratory research into such things as “mouth feel” or how a snack feels in our mouths.  Based on the replies of focus groups, food engineers may manipulate a snack in a myriad of ways.  Degree of crunch, softness, creaminess, thickness, puffiness, smoothness, gumminess–all sorts of sensations and combinations of sensations are carefully manipulated to help create the ultimate user experience.

Closely associated to mouth feel is the “bliss point.”  Just what is a bliss point?  It’s sort of a holy grail for junk food.  It’s a concept that arose from the observation that very strong flavors may be enjoyable but quickly help tell our brain to stop eating.  Meanwhile bland food may be unexciting but we can eat loads of it without feeling the need to stop.  The bliss point is the fine combination of the two that leads to a snack that tastes amazing but also manages to sidestep our brain’s wiring so that we’ll eat more and more.  From the article:

This contradiction is known as “sensory-specific satiety.” In lay terms, it is the tendency for big, distinct flavors to overwhelm the brain, which responds by depressing your desire to have more. Sensory-specific satiety also became a guiding principle for the processed-food industry. The biggest hits — be they Coca-Cola or Doritos — owe their success to complex formulas that pique the taste buds enough to be alluring but don’t have a distinct, overriding single flavor that tells the brain to stop eating.

Thirty-two years after he began experimenting with the bliss point, Moskowitz got the call from Cadbury Schweppes asking him to create a good line extension for Dr Pepper. I spent an afternoon in his White Plains offices as he and his vice president for research, Michele Reisner, walked me through the Dr Pepper campaign. Cadbury wanted its new flavor to have cherry and vanilla on top of the basic Dr Pepper taste. Thus, there were three main components to play with. A sweet cherry flavoring, a sweet vanilla flavoring and a sweet syrup known as “Dr Pepper flavoring.”

Finding the bliss point required the preparation of 61 subtly distinct formulas — 31 for the regular version and 30 for diet. The formulas were then subjected to 3,904 tastings organized in Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago and Philadelphia. The Dr Pepper tasters began working through their samples, resting five minutes between each sip to restore their taste buds. After each sample, they gave numerically ranked answers to a set of questions: How much did they like it overall? How strong is the taste? How do they feel about the taste? How would they describe the quality of this product? How likely would they be to purchase this product?

All this  is outrageous in terms of the lengths to which food companies go to sell us garbage.   It shouldn’t be surprising though.  Food companies are in a high-stakes game.  They need to sell stuff. Fortunately, because of information like this, these companies and their products may come under the same scrutiny the tobacco industry experienced a few years ago.  What else can I say?  I think all this is highly fascinating.  Read up!

The medical wool over our eyes

So the junk-food industry loves science because it helps them create products that we love to death.  In sort of the opposite direction, the pharmaceutical industry isn’t quite so interested in paying attention to science. Truth About Your Medicine: Ben Goldacre on How to Reform the Pharmaceutical Industry comes form the Daily Beast.  In it, Ben Goldacre tells us how the drug companies choose to ignore, diminish or squash unflattering research into their products.  He writes:

“The systematic review evidence on missing results shows that, for the treatments we use today, our best estimate is that half of all trials haven’t been published; trials with flattering results are twice as likely to be shared. This is an issue with academic trials, as well as industry sponsored research.”

So what he’s saying is that much of the evidence and scientific analysis of drugs isn’t available for anyone to read.  It hasn’t been published.  He further states:

“This presents such huge problems for informed decision making, which are obvious to even the most casual observer, and the issue of missing trials could not possibly survive informed public scrutiny. This is why a battle has been waged to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist, helped along by a series of “fake fixes” that have delivered little more than false reassurance.”

The article also links to the transcript of a recent live chat with Goldacre on this topic.

Ben Goldacre is a fairly interesting guy.  I wrote about his previous book Bad Science.  He makes laudable efforts to both demystify science and call on the carpet questionable industries such as complimentary/alternative medicine to the drug companies.  His new book is Bad Pharma.  Sounds interesting.

 

Check out Kinetic Revolution

Standard

If you’re a runner, or triathlete or if you’re a therapist or trainer who works with runners and or triathletes, then you should have a look at Kinetic Revolution. It’s an English site run Neil Scholes and James Dunne. Between them they have fairly impressive credentials as both athletes, coaches and rehab specialists.

For a fee, Kinetic Revolution offers coaching on running technique, flexibility, strength and other topics. Online courses on running technique and strength are also available.

I’ve been digging through the blog recently and I’ve found a lot of thoughtful, informative stuff.  Most recently I read through ITB or Not ITB… That is the Question.  As you might guess it’s about IT band syndrome. I like the discussion on why the foam roller probably won’t help you get over IT band troubles.  To that point the article discusses that in fact your IT band pain probably isn’t an IT band problem, but rather is a problem with some of the muscles that attach to or near the IT band.  For more good information, check out the lively comments following the article.

The big picture here is that if you’re a runner/triathlete and/or you’re geekily into reading about this stuff like me, you’ll find a lot of great information at Kinetic Revolution.

Health & Fitness News: Sit-to-stand test predicts mortality, Kids who walk or ride bikes to school concentrate better, Further evidence against gluten

Standard

Getting up off the floor predicts mortality

Several stories may be worth your reading.  First there’s an interesting test that seems to fairly strongly predict mortality risk.  It involves getting up from the floor using a minimal amount of assistance and support.  A Simple Test Assessing Ability to Sit Up From the Floor Predicts Mortality come from Medical News Today.  It discusses research from Brazil published in the European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention. Here’s the pertinent information:

“They told the participants to try and sit up with the least amount of support that they believe necessary, and not worry about their speed. They scored the participants’ ability to both sit and rise out of 5. For each time the participants used support from their hand, knee or other part of their body the researchers would subtract a point. A total composite score out of 10 was assigned to them which would determine which category or group they belonged to (C1, 0-3; C2, 3.5-5.5; C3, 6-7.5; and C4, 8-10).

A total of 159 people died (a 7.9% mortality rate) at the end of the study, with significantly more deaths occurring among people with low test scores. They found that the rates of mortality between the four groups differed by quite a great deal, even when controlled for gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Those belonging to group C1, which had the lowest score range, were 5-6 times at higher risk of death than those in group C4. This difference suggests that the sitting score is good predictor of all-cause mortality.

Participants with scores below 8 had mortality rates 2 to 5 times higher than those with scores ranging from 8-10. The authors noted: “‘a 1-point increment in the [sitting-rising] score was related to a 21% reduction in mortality.'”

Watch the video below to see an explanation of the sit-to-stand process.  Try it out.  What’s your score?

Kids who walk or bike to school concentrate better

An article in the Atlantic tells us a) kids who move around more think better and by extension, b) there really is no division between the mind and the body.  The Link Between Kids Who Walk or Bike to School and Concentration discusses Dutch research that indicates the following:

“The survey looked at nearly 20,000 Danish kids between the ages of 5 and 19. It found that kids who cycled or walked to school, rather than traveling by car or public transportation, performed measurably better on tasks demanding concentration, such as solving puzzles, and that the effects lasted for up to four hours after they got to school.”

Niels Egelund is the researcher who conducted the research.  I love what he says about moving and sitting (emphasis is mine).

I believe that deep down we were naturally and originally not designed to sit still,” Egelund said. “We learn through our head and by moving. Something happens within the body when we move, and this allows us to be better equipped afterwards to work on the cognitive side.”

I’m going to go way out on a crazy limb and say that if movement is good for cognition in kids, it’s probably just as good for adult cognition.  And we see here that the concept of a division of the mind and the body simply doesn’t exist.  The health of one depends on the health of the other.  The evidence shows that the French philosopher Descartes got it wrong with his idea of dualism.

More on gluten

Going gluten-free is probably the biggest, most discussed issue in nutrition these days.  By eliminating gluten, are we improving our health or are we just following the latest fad?  The jury is out.  Certainly if someone has celiac disease then it’s vital that gluten be eliminated for good health.  But it’s unclear if everyone else will benefit from avoiding gluten.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there to support the health benefits of cutting gluten, but anecdotal evidence isn’t terribly powerful evidence.  Gluten-free whether you need it or not comes from the New York Times Well Blog.  The article discusses all of these details.  It doesn’t come down firmly on any side but it provides evidence that perhaps the anecdotal evidence supporting gluten avoidance is worth further investigation:

“Crucial in the evolving understanding of gluten were the findings, published in 2011, in The American Journal of Gastroenterology, of an experiment in Australia. In the double-blind study, people who suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, did not have celiac and were on a gluten-free diet were given bread and muffins to eat for up to six weeks. Some of them were given gluten-free baked goods; the others got muffins and bread with gluten. Thirty-four patients completed the study. Those who ate gluten reported they felt significantly worse.

That influenced many experts to acknowledge that the disease was not just in the heads of patients. ‘It’s not just a placebo effect,’ said Dr. Marios Hadjivassiliou, a neurologist and celiac expert at the University of Sheffield in England.”

Something else caught my eye in the article. Experts who caution against everyone going gluten-free have suggested the following:

“They also worried that people could end up eating less healthfully. A gluten-free muffin generally contains less fiber than a wheat-based one and still offers the same nutritional dangers — fat and sugar. Gluten-free foods are also less likely to be fortified with vitamins.”

Okay, here’s the big revelation: EAT FEWER MUFFINS!  Anyone worried that gluten-free muffins don’t offer the same nutritional benefits of wheat-based muffins is looking at gluten-free grains of sand on the beach and ignoring larger issues.  To me, the big picture is still one in which we’ll have better health if we reduce processed food consumption.  Eat less stuff that comes out of boxes, bags and cartons.  That includes all kinds of stuff that contains gluten: bread, crackers, chips, cereal, etc.  Eat more plants.

Good Core Strength Artice

Standard

“I have a section called, ‘Stop doing crunches,'” said Westfahl. “If your core routine mainly consists of crunches, you are training for bad posture.”
– Alison Westfall personal trainer, Boulder

Briefly, if you’re an athlete (particularly a cyclist), a fitness enthusiast and/or interested in addressing back pain, you should check out a recent article from the Denver Post titled, Tom Danielson, Tour de France cyclist from Boulder, focuses on core strength, writes book to address back pain. The article covers former pro cyclist Tom Danielson and his trainer Alison Westfall and their approach to addressing Danielson’s back pain.  The two teamed to write a book called Core Advantage: Core Strength for Cycling’s Winning Edge.

Five clients mentioned this article to me and it definitely has some useful information in it.  The admonition to quit doing crunches is the first good piece of advice.  The second is the inclusion of the glutes as part of the core:

“Pain in Danielson’s spine compelled him to see Westfahl, who found his problem wasn’t rooted in his back, but in his glutes. She had him stop doing crunches — his primary core workout — and switch to other exercises, ones that, among other things, would persuade his glutes to start working properly when he rode.”

There’s more good information in the article including descriptions of three core exercises.  Have a look.  The book sounds interesting to me as well.  Probably need to put it on my wish list.

Running Awareness: Cadence, Foot Placement, Lean

Standard

I just started the new year with a run in the cold with my dog.  It was a good run and I can report that I’ve tuned into something(s) important. I was aware of several gait-related details that I adjusted and played with, those being cadence, foot placement and the degree to which I lean while running.  Why was any of this on my mind?

Cadence

First, upon reading the excellent Anatomy for Runners I’ve become more aware of my running cadence aka how often my feet hit the ground.  The author Jay Dicharry discusses a popular notion that the ideal cadence is about 170-180 RPM.  I’ve run with a metronome a few times to investigate this idea and compare this range to my normal cadence.  Turns out my cadence was quite a bit slower.  The problem I found when running at  this higher cadence is that my cardiovascular system felt overwhelmed!  Maintaining even the low end of that cadence was very challenging.  Seems that I may have found a simple solution.  Before I get to that, let’s discuss why a quick cadence may be beneficial.

Changing cadence to prevent overstriding

I mentioned in my last post that where your foot lands is very important in running.  You want the foot to land as near to your center of mass as possible, not way out in front of you, a situation also known as overstriding.  Several elite-level running coaches have discussed cadence and foot strike position.  I’ll let their words do my talking.  First, Steve Magness at Science of Running says:

“Then why is everyone in a rage over increasing stride rate? Because as I’ve pointed out before, most recreational runners simply overstride, which artificially creates a very low stride rate. Why? Because the foot lands so far out in front of the Center of Mass that it takes a while for your body to be over it and ready to push off. So, when some running form coach says to increase stride rate to X, what ends up happening is the runner is trying so hard to increase stride rate, he chops his stride a bunch by putting his foot down earlier and landing closer to his center of mass, thus decreasing the overstriding. Nothing particularly wrong with that.

Where we go wrong is in the logic that the stride rate increase is the key. No, it’s not. It’s the elimination of the overstriding. Using the cue to increase stride rate is a way for coaches/runners to reduce the heel striking overstride.”

The key concept here is that it’s not cadence in and of itself that’s so important, but rather by manipulating cadence we can improve the location of where the foot lands.  Pete Larson at Runblogger puts it well when he says:

“In other words, reaching with the leg is bad, and increasing cadence can help us avoid doing that. Let me repeat – overstriding is what we are trying to prevent by manipulating cadence. If you don’t overstride, manipulating cadence might not be wise or necessary.”

Now, you may be asking why is overstriding an issue?  Essentially overstriding is harder on the body.  In contrast, keeping the foot closer to you won’t beat you up so much.  I won’t go into the details but if you’re interested, then please check out Jay Dicharry’s posts on Loading Rate Part 1: What Does it Mean for You and Part 2.  (Part 2 is a very interesting discussion as to why a forefoot, midfoot or heel strike may not matter at all.)

Leaning forward

I’m obviously on the lookout for gait and running mechanics information.  I recently discovered a very good site called Kinetic Revolution. There’s all sorts of very useful science-based information there for runners and triathletes. Among all this wealth of good stuff, I came across the post titled Essentials of Running Mechanics. That post features a video from a South African running coach named Bobby McGee.  (Insert whatever obvious Janis Joplin joke you’d like.) Leaning forward is the first thing McGee discusses.  Through leaning we can go faster or slower: more forward = faster, more upright = slower.

 

Remember earlier I mentioned that this faster cadence was overwhelming my heart and lungs?  At the 1:34 minute of the video McGee discusses this issue. He says to simply get a bit more upright (don’t lean so far forward) to slow down and control the cardiovascular exertion.  I tried it today and it worked perfectly!  I was able to a) maintain proper foot placement under my center of mass by b) speeding up my cadence and c) adjusting my lean so that I was more upright.  The overall result is that I maintained a quick pace and felt good doing it. I felt my glutes working well.  Foot placement felt ideal.  All-and-all I was very pleased with what this small adjustment did for me.

 

Book Review: Anatomy for Runners

Standard

Are you a runner?  Do you know a runner?  If yes, then I HIGHLY recommend Anatomy for Runners by Jay Dicharry. MPT, CSCS.  It’s simply a fantastic book on the hows and whys of overcoming running injuries and increasing your performance.

Dicharry hits numerous nails very solidly on the head.  He doesn’t just talk about treating the symptoms of our injuries. Rather, he gets at the true causes of our injuries–namely we don’t know how to stabilize our spine, hips, knees, ankles and feet appropriately.  We’ve forgotten how to move!  The book covers anatomy, gait mechanics, soft tissue maintenance, corrective exercises, footwear, orthotics, stretching, strength. Chapter 9 is a self-assessment process to help you figure out if you’re both mobile and stable enough to run.  If you’re lacking in those departments, he presents strategies and exercises to shore up your weak areas.  Impressively, he presents all this fairly technical information in a very easy-to-read kind of way.  This isn’t a dry, boring textbook.

Dicharry is a physical therapist, strength coach, running coach and a cycling coach; so he knows his science.  But, I think one of the most important aspects of Anatomy for Runners is that Dicharry writes from the perspective of a formerly often-injured runner.  This point-of-view is one with which I and probably a lot of other people will identify.  He cites numerous conversations with doctors that told him to rest and he’d get better.  He’d rest, run again, then he’d be injured again.  (Guess what, resting doesn’t fix anything!  If you’ve got a flat tire and you quit driving the car, the flat won’t fix itself.)  Other docs told him him he should probably quit running.  If you’ve heard that then you know how maddening and disheartening that advice is!  He didn’t quit.  He did the good work of figuring out how to run properly. I think his words will give hope to people who may have arthritis, worn cartilage, worn menisci (that’s plural for miniscus) and other “injuries” that may have lead physicians to tell you to quit running.

So it’s almost Christmas.  People are asking you what you want and you’re wondering what to buy for them.  Click the link below and get this book!