News on Barefoot Running: Part II

Previously I discussed how wearing shoes alters the human running stride. For millennia, our feet functioned well enough to get us to the 1970s when we put them into running shoes. The result seems to be our adopting a running stride (heel strike) that may be more stressful and injurious than an unshod stride (forefoot strike). I want to continue the discussion by looking at a few more studies of our feet and the effect of shoes.

The original ATV...

I’ll go back to a Science Daily article from November of 2007 called Your Knees Want to Take you Shoe Shopping. The research was originally presented in 2007 at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting. Researchers analyzed the effects of various footwear on patients with knee osteoarthritis. Specifically, they looked at loading of the knees.

The first point the researchers make is this:

“In knee osteoarthritis, there is abundant evidence that patients with abnormally high loading knees (high amounts of stress on part or all of the knee joint) are at increased risk of both injury and disease progression.”

Now, the important research findings were these:

“Researchers found that clogs and stability shoes were associated with significantly higher loading of the knees, while the walking shoes and flip-flops resulted in lower knee loads similar to those occurring when walking barefoot. Therefore, shoes that allowed natural foot motion and flexibility appeared to be more beneficial in terms of knee loading.”

That final statement goes to the point that a natural stride, unaffected by modern high-tech footwear seems to be more healthy for us. Here’s more supporting information. Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot is a 2009 Science Daily article that profiles a study on barefoot walking. Specifically the researchers studied people who’d never worn shoes. The researchers wanted to observe the biologically normal function of the foot which had evolved for millions of years without the influence of shoes. They indeed saw habitually unshod feet moved performed differently from shod feet. The article notes:

“Barefooters have a relatively wide forefoot and manage at better distributing pressures over the entire surface of the foot sole, resulting in lower (and most likely favourable) peak pressures. As such, the fundamental scientific results are also important for clinicians and for the design of quality footwear, which should not hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.”

In Part III of this series I’ll discuss new research that demonstrates running shoes actually contribute to greater stress at the ankles, knees and hips.

The cutting edge of running technology!

First of all, a disclaimer: I am NOT telling everyone to throw out their running shoes/inserts/orthotics and go barefoot to run all the time forever. If you’re having success then keep doing what you’re doing. I do however suggest reconsidering what you think you know about the human foot and the shoes we put on them. If you’re in pain then you MIGHT consider changing from a highly structured foot environment to something less structured. Alright, on to the important stuff.

The case against running shoes (or maybe FOR going barefoot from time to time) seems to be mounting. What we’ve got here is more evidence that for running, the human foot all by itself is likely the most highly advanced instrument for the job.

I’ve posted previously on the issue of running and human evolution, and the issue of running shoes vs. barefoot running. Research continues on the issue. An article in Science Daily titled Barefoot Running: How Humans Ran Comfortably and Safely Before the Invention of Shoes tells us of research on three groups of people: those who had always run barefoot, those who had always worn shoes, and those who had converted to barefoot running from shod running. (This analysis of different types of runners is one strong point of the study.) Runners in Kenya and the U.S. were subjects. The project was a joint effort between Harvard, University of Glasgow, and Moi University. The full article can be accessed for a fee in the journal Nature.

The researchers observed very different patterns during barefoot running vs. shod running. Barefoot runners land on the mid-foot or the forefoot whereas running in shoes tends to promote a heel strike. Barefoot running results in a more spring-like step by utilizing the arch of the foot rather than driving the heel into the ground.

“Our feet were made in part for running,” Daniel Lieberman (researcher) says. But as he and his co-authors write in Nature: “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.“

The researchers suggest than in fact barefoot running may be less injurious than running in modern running shoes. They caution that running barefoot or in minimal footwear must be a gradual process if one has been running in shoes for a long time. Lieberman delves further into the biomechanics of barefoot running on his web page called (surprise!) Barefoot Running. I haven’t read this site yet but I’m planning on digging into it ASAP. Looks very interesting.

From what I’ve learned as a personal trainer I recognize the immense importance of properly functioning feet. If you take a look at your feet and how much movement is available to those things you may be surprised. There’s a lot of potential movement there! Proper foot movement brings on proper knee movement which brings on proper hip movement which makes the trunk and the shoulders move properly. Liberman observes that humans have been using their feet for far longer than the modern running shoe has been around. In our modern age we’ve decided that much like our food, we’re going to out think nature and “improve” on something that’s worked well for a very long time. But what happens when we put our feet in running shoes? We start to take away movement. We put a big piece of foam between us and the ground so that we desensitize our feet. (Compare this to going to a movie in sunglasses or listening to music with earplugs in.) In other words, we seriously alter something that’s been working pretty well for thousands of years. This alteration in function is made even more dramatic if we use orthotics. So it seems entirely likely to me that many cases of knee pain, hip pain, even shoulder and neck pain may well be rooted in what we’ve done to our feet. At the very least, I think it’s worth examining the issue. I’ll discuss more on the issues around barefoot vs. shod running in upcoming posts.

Z-Health for Toe Pain

This will be brief. I’m enormously excited over the results I’ve been getting from my Z-Health work. My back pain, Achilles pain and shoulder pain have all improved quite dramatically over the past few weeks. (I also added 70 lbs. to my deadlift in one fell swoop!) Yesterday it was my wife’s chance to be surprised by Z-Health.

My wife is a triathlete who’s had intermittent big toe pain in her left foot over the past several months. It comes and goes and it never had a clear-cut cause. Yesterday, after visiting with Jason Wood in Lakewood, CO I went home and had my wife go through some Z-Health R-Phase drills. One of the Z-Health concepts deals with opposing joints. That means since my wife’s toe pain was in her left foot, I had her go through drills with her right hand and thumb. The result? No toe pain whatsoever! As she gaped in bewilderment, she drove her foot into the ground and wiggled her foot all over and she could not replicate the pain. The toe pain returned this morning during a dog walk, she went through the drills again for a few moments and again the pain was gone. (As an aside, the toe pain comes on most notably in a pair of hiking boots. Perhaps the shoe is interfering with the natural function of her foot, as I’ve discussed here.) Pretty cool stuff this Z-Health.

I’ll be taking the R-Phase certification in March and April of this year and I’m extremely excited. I’ve just barely begun to scratch the surface with this exercise protocol and I expect to see more and more dramatic results. If you’re a fellow personal trainer, a chiropractor, physical therapist or anyone else involved in the health & fitness business, I highly suggest you look into Z-Health for everything from injury treatment to increasing sports performance. If you’re an athlete or just an everyday fitness fan who’s either in pain or not performing as well as you’d like, you would do well to seek out a Z-Health trainer for help and advice.

A Look at Massage Therapy

Monday’s New York Times Fitness & Nutrition section recently featured an article titled Athletes take massage into their own hands. The article discusses the benefits to athletes of massage but more specifically we learn about self-massage methods and the tools for the job. The article states that ideally hard training athletes should get a massage once a week or every other week. For many athletes (pros or the wealthy among us) massage is as integral to their preparation as their time in the gym, on the bike, in the pool or on the court. However for many of us the price is somewhat prohibitive. Enter self-massage. We’re told tools such as foam rollers (available here, here, and here), golf balls, tennis balls as well as your own hands are useful in addressing tight, stiff muscles. DVDs on self-massage techniques are available and there are many demonstrations of these techniques on Youtube.

Over recent months, I’ve come to believe that these massage techniques are beneficial to athletes and everyone else who exercises. But on what do I base my evidence? Well, it’s just about all anecdotal. Massage seems to be beneficial (i.e. it feels good), various experts recommend it, and many athletes swear by it. What does science tell us? Much like everything in the world of science, the value of massage, and the mechanism(s) by which it works is debatable.

To that point, there are three articles on Science Daily that discuss different massage studies. Massaging Muscles Facilitates Recovery After Exercise profiles a study by the National Institutes of Health and Ohio St. University. The study suggests that massage indeed does facilitate recovery from strenuous exercise. The study was done on rabbits though, and both the “exercise” and “massage” was performed by machines which moved the rabbits’ limbs and performed the massage. This study may well indicate the recuperative value of massage, however we can’t be entirely certain that the same effects occur in humans.

In contrast, Massage After Exercise Myth Busted refutes some of the claimed effects of massage, namely that massage improves circulation and that it speeds removal of lactic acid. (Not to run away on a very different issue, but the common knowledge on lactic acid and its role and effects on muscle is inaccurate. Read about lactic acid, lactate and muscular fatigue here.) I don’t have full access to the Queen’s University study but apparently researches found that neither circulation nor lactic acid removal was facilitated by massage. Does this then mean that massage is not beneficial in aiding recovery from strenuous exercise? No. It simply means that in this study neither circulation was increased (it was actually decreased) nor was lactic acid removed any faster than without massage. It’s entirely likely that massage promotes recovery by other means. Perhaps the reduced circulation somehow aids in recovery. It’s also possible that another different study may find conflicting information.

The third piece, Massage Therapy May Have Immediate Positive Effect On Pain And Mood For Advanced Cancer Patients, tells of a National Institutes of Health study of 380 advanced cancer patients in which both pain and mood was improved through massage therapy. The article states:

“Researchers think that massage may interrupt the cycle of distress, offering brief physical and psychological benefits. Physically, massage may decrease inflammation and edema, increase blood and lymphatic circulation, and relax muscle spasms. Psychologically, massage may promote relaxation, release endorphins, and create a positive experience that distracts temporarily from pain and depression.”

So what conclusions should we draw? First, we can say that the mechanisms of massage are not fully understood. Far more study must be undertaken to determine the hows and the whys of massage. Second we might take note that there’s very little out there suggesting that massage is unhealthy or harmful. (The unskilled massage therapist may however pose harm. Further, there is probably a right and wrong time to employ a specific massage technique–relaxation vs. deep tissue for instance.) Though massage’s proposed mechanisms–increased blood flow as an example–may be in question the fact that it has been used effectively by so many for so long suggests strongly that there is something good to be had from massage.

Next, I’ll post three self-massage techniques you can use.

Artwork: St. Petersburg Times, FL

A day of severe gluttony is headed our way like a runaway chuck wagon. Therefore, how about a discussion of two articles on obesity? For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful was published back in August of this year in the New York Times Health Guide. The other, Energy Gap Useful Tool for Successful Weight Loss Strategy is from early November in Science Daily. The two articles present very daunting insights into our fight against obesity. The Times piece tells us the following:

Weight control is not simply a matter of willpower. Genes help determine the body’s “set point,” which is defended by the brain.
Dieting alone is rarely successful, and relapse rates are high.
Moderate exercise, too, rarely results in substantive long-term weight loss, which requires intensive exercise.

The article further states:

“…the notion that Americans ever ate well is suspect. In 1966, when Americans were still comparatively thin, more than two billion hamburgers already had been sold in McDonald’s restaurants, noted Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California. The recent rise in obesity may have more to do with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles than with the quality of our diets.”

Our bodies are remarkably stubborn in their ability to keep us at our current weight (discussed further here). We eat smart and healthy one day, a little less so the next. In contrast to the Times article, from everything I read and understand, the food component of weight loss is far more powerful than the exercise component (suggested here, and here). In fact the issue is poor eating plus a sedentary lifestyle that’s gotten our nation so heavy. Things like this are never isolated to one cause. (By the way, body weight isn’t the only measure of health. Look here for more on the issue of fit vs. fat.)

There are two things not mentioned in the Times article that we should consider. First regarding the way we ate decades ago vs. how we eat now is the presence of processed foods. I don’t have statistics but I think it’s safe to assume that in the 1960s we were eating more fresh, unprocessed food. We now eat gobs of food every day that is packed with calories but contains very little actual nutrition. For a sober, practical, in-depth look at our nation’s obsession with “nutritionism” you must read what Michael Pollan says in Unhappy Meals. Another comment on Pollan’s work is found at Disease Proof. (For truly fascinating insights into the American food system, you must read Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma and/or In Defense of Food.)

The second component of our eating we must consider is portion size. Portion size is a tremendous component of obesity. In recent decades past, our overall calorie intake was lower than it is now, thus there was far less obesity. The article notes the billions of McDonald’s hamburgers that were sold but do you know what those hamburgers looked like? You can still buy it today. If you look at a McDonald’s menu they actually have something simply called a hamburger; not a Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, Titanic Monster Burger, or whatever. It’s a small thing with one meat patty, pickles, onions and ketchup. A customer in the ’60s may have gotten fries and a soft drink, but the fries came in a small paper envelope, not a cardboard crate, and the soft drink was an eight ounce cup rather than an industrial drum.

For more on portion sizes and our consumption habits, the Centers for Disease Control provide a report called Do Increased Portion sizes Affect How Much We Eat? It’s amazing to see how we can unconsciously eat a lot more than we need to if it’s sitting there in front of us.

The Science Daily article tells us that once one is obese, the body fights extra hard to stay there. In contrast, one who never becomes obese seems far less likely to become obese. The article discusses the Energy Gap, a term used by the American Dietetic Association to estimate the change in energy balance (intake and expenditure) behaviors required to achieve and sustain reduced body weight outcomes in individuals and populations. We’re told that the energy gap to prevent weight gain is about 100 calories. That is, someone can prevent weight gain with a combination of reduced energy intake and increased physical activity that amounts to 100 calories. The news isn’t so good for those trying to lose significant amounts of weight. The energy gap may be 200-300 calories for someone looking to lose 10%-15% of their body weight. That means serious eating modification and quite a bit of time exercising.

According to James O. Hill, PhD,

“This analysis indicates that to create and maintain substantial weight loss (ie, obesity treatment), large behavioral changes are needed. This is in stark contrast to primary obesity prevention in which small behavioral changes can eliminate the small energy imbalance that occurs before the body has gained substantial weight. Because the body has not previously stored this ‘new’ excess energy, it does not defend against the behavioral strategies as happens when the body loses weight.”

What does all of this mean? First, obesity is much like any other disease in that preventing it is much easier than treating it once you’ve got it. (This makes the topic extremely relevant to the current health care debate. Preventing obesity will result in prevention of obesity related illnesses, and we’ll all spend less on health care.) Second, there’s much evidence to suggest that losing weight is a complex battle that is more than simply making a decision. We have a very tenacious system wired into us (likely rooted in some prehistoric survival strategy) that makes dropping pounds extremely difficult. It’s akin to telling the drug addict to just stop.

Just stopping–a conscious decision to change a behavior in other words–is still the heart of the issue. Weight loss still comes down to willful decisions to make changes. There’s no way around it. I learned a little bit about human psychology and behavior in graduate school. It seems that most of us adhere to changes if they’re made in small, gradual steps. Just one healthy decision made today is one more than was made yesterday. That’s a step toward whatever healthy goal we have in mind. Keep making healthier daily decisions and over the course of a year, two years, 10 years and you’ll have made a lot of them. Guess what’s around the corner though: the New Year’s Resolution.

We’re getting close to the time of year when many people will make the big decision to lose weight this year. Gyms will be packed with people exercising like they’ve never done before–at least not since the beginning of the previous year. They’ll make attempts to banish their favorite foods from their plates and replace it with food they’ve never much liked. Most of these noble attempts will be abandoned by the end of February. This is the perfect example of people making drastic lifestyle changes which cannot be maintained. As a personal trainer, I see this happen every year.

Speaking from personal experience, I look back to childhood, high school and college and see what I ate and/or drank–and in what amounts–and I’m amazed at the amounts of junk I once consumed. I’ve spent over a decade making changes here and there and I’ve found that it hasn’t been too terribly painful at all. Of course I can’t extrapolate my experience out to everyone else, but it seems to me a strategy of small changes in both eating and exercise made over time, plus the decision to stick with these changes is still the best strategy to lose weight and get healthy. If there’s a better strategy, please let me know.

Beyond that, here’s more to read on a variety of topics:

Are we Insane? Part II: the Cookie Diet. Does this even need any explanation? Cookies and dieting…. I think I’ll try breathing underwater later today, or maybe flapping my arms and flying. (Ever notice how everyone who was on a diet… WAS on a diet? No one stays on any of these things.)
To thrive longer, get stronger. The Washington Post discusses Consumer Reports’ findings on various clinical trials of strength training. Turns out picking up heavy objects is good for you in many ways.
Runners: Train less and be faster. OK, this will be controversial to some and I’m not saying this is true for everyone all the time. However the findings here help support some of the arguments made at Power Running that running fewer miles (low volume) while running faster (high intensity) may increase race performance. Science Daily profiles a report in the Journal of Applied Physiology on the topic of running less but running faster. Again, do not assume this is the be-all-end-all for everyone, but it might be exactly the strategy that will work for you.
Ice or Heat? The topic of icing or heating an injury is often debated. Like many issues of sports conditioning and rehabilitation, the jury is still out. The following is a reprint of a comment by the late Dr. Mell Siff from the Supertraining forum:
ICE OR HEAT?
by Dr. Mel C SiffThe use of ice treatment may not be universally superior to the use of heat
in enhancing recovery or rehabilitation.

THE PROBLEM

The use of localised or more extensive ice or cold treatment has been well
authenticated over the years and there is little doubt that, in many cases,
it is a highly effective and cheap method of restoration and rehabilitation.

However, any literature searches for definitive studies that compare the
effectiveness of ice cold versus very hot treatment of the same sort of injury are not as common as one would believe.

It seems as if we have all accepted that heat is contraindicated largely on
the basis of theoretical considerations or extrapolations form cases where
bleeding is apparent. We know that heat causes blood vessels dilatation,
temporary increase in inflammation and the decrease in blood viscosity, but
does this necessarily imply that it will be detrimental to the course of
restoration or rehabilitation of all sore, bruised and fatigued soft tissues?

Why I am saying this is because I have been experimenting, much against my
education and scientific traditions, with the use of very hot water as a
restorative means with myself and several other athletes, some of whom are
top pro footballers and basketballers.

Surprisingly, this seems to diminish muscle soreness and speeded up recovery
in many cases, especially if we use alternate hot and cold bathing. I have an
8 ft deep jacuzzi and long lap swimming pool and have my athletes alternate
between hot and cold immersion. Interestingly, I have found that the water
has to be almost unbearably hot (about 108 deg F or 41C) to be optimally
effective. Movement under these conditions also seems to be valuable
(‘cryokinetics’ for ice old immersion and ‘thermodynamics’ for hot
immersion).

Certainly my comments on this controversial topic merely constitute anecdotal
evidence at this stage, but I am curious to hear if anyone else has had
similar experiences or come across scientific research which legitimately
shows that dedicated ice treatment is significantly better than very hot
treatment or ice-heat contrast methods. Failing that, is there any evidence
that the use of heat is a general contraindication for musculoskeletal
recovery and rehabilitation, other than cases where there is obvious bleeding
or serious pathology?

Are we promoting ice therapy far too liberally to the exclusion of heat
therapy, when the latter may well also play a very helpful role in
musculoskeletal rehabilitation? Are we unfairly proclaiming that heat is
potentially harmful for treating any soft tissue repair? Does this attitude
go against our recent attestations to the value of ‘holistic’ treatment?

There have been a huge number of studies on the effect of stretching,
jogging, supplements, heat, cold, drugs, you name it …. and virtually
nothing has yet been found that appears to make some significant and
consistent difference to the dissipation of DOMS. Do a Medline search
and you will see what I mean. Many higher level weightlifters and
ppwerlifters rarely if ever suffer from DOMS even after very heavy
workouts, which afflicts mainly newcomers to a given exercise or
routine – or certain more susceptible individuals. For general recovery,
I have found it difficult to beat sensible program (or periodisation) design and
hot-cold contrast bathing, as I have written in previous letters. Your
recommendation to do some mild post-exercise activity probably is
a sound idea for general relaxation and recovery, but it has not been
shown to have any real effect on DOMS.

A Little Bit on Stretching: Part II

So where are we? We’ve covered the different flavors of stretching. I now need to go back to something I said in Part I: No human movement is possible without stretching. This is going to get a little more complicated before it gets simple–but I promise to give you information that you can actually use outside the game of Jeopordy!

Look at the stride--the STRIDE!--not the filthy habit. Photo by Ed Yourdon / CC BY-SA 2.0

Each time we move, we use energy stored in stretched muscles to drive our limb into movement. When I take a step forward for instance, I hit the outer part of my heel and it rolls inward (calcaneal eversion). The arch of my foot pronates a bit, and it pulls my calf muscles (soleus, gastrocnemius, posterior tibialis, among others) inward which takes my lower leg (tibia) inward into internal rotation. At the same time, my body is moving forward over my ankle which creates dorsiflexion. The tibial internal rotation also causes my knee to flex and internally rotate. Once the knee moves in, it pulls on the IT band which is attached to my glute complex and now my glutes lengthen both forward and inward and my hip flexes–and if my hip is functioning properly it will move sideways into adduction in the direction of this leg that just took a forward stride. So all these muscles have worked and stretched to keep my foot and leg from collapsing into the earth. Now these muscles have all been turned on and with the energy stored inside them like stretched rubber bands they will propel me forward into my next stride.

Without going into every single action, the muscles and limbs of the opposite leg are contracting and creating extension, external rotation and abduction (though the adductors are stretching and slowing external rotation of the femur) at the hip, extension and external rotation at the knee, and plantarflexion and external rotation at the calf and ankle, and supination at the foot.

WOW!!! Are you kidding me!! What a lot of stuff!! And that’s the story from just from the waist down! All that and this lady can still manage to smoke a cigarette. Did you notice how many muscles were stretched in this process, and in what directions? Parts were moving forward, back, inward, outward and sideways. As Gary Gray terms it, this is 3-D loading to exploding.

In all seriousness, this sequence of events must happen in order for our bodies to efficiently produce force and absorb shock. Each stretch of each muscle in turn activates muscles up the line. If this process is inhibited (could be due to injury, sitting too much, doing the same thing over and over and over, or who-knows-what) then we tend to get knee pain, back pain even shoulder or neck pain.

These movements aren’t just important for walking and running. Proper movement in all three dimensions is vital for cyclists, skiers, dancers, even swimmers–even though their movement patterns are different from walkers and runners.

In Part III I’ll build on this whole process and show you an effective way to mobilize some important regions of the body via dynamic stretching.

Artwork for the cover of Fantastic Four vol. 3, #52 (Apr, 2002). Art by Mike Wieringo.

I’m all over the place here! I’m tremendously excited over some new concepts that I’ve been learning; concepts concerning human movement and how we function. A lot of it has to do with stretching but not necessarily the type you automatically think of (more on that in a little bit.) My difficulty is in how to write about all this without putting out a some sort of treatise. Maybe I’ll make it more than one part… Here’s the start.

A recent Washington Post MisFit column tackles the issue of stretching. Is it beneficial or is one of those things that we do just because we’ve always done it? What’s the evidence that there is any benefit to doing it?

I’ll tell you that I’ve done just about a 360 and then a 180 back the other way on stretching. Like most people I was taught that stretching was important so I did it but I didn’t really understand it. Then, several years ago I was persuaded to change my view. I became convinced that dedicated (static) stretching was not effective and not safe. Now I will tell you without hesitation that stretching absolutely must be done–in fact no human movement is possible without it! Remember that fact because it’s enormously important, and I’ll discuss it more later.

First, let’s figure out what stretching is. Most people have an idea what it looks like to stretch but most likely there are other methods that might not come to mind immediately. So let’s look at what might qualify as “stretching.”

Static stretching: This is probably what first comes to mind when you think stretching. This involves moving a limb into a position to the point where a slight burning is felt in the muscle and the position is held for anywhere from several seconds to a minute or so. Static stretching addresses passive flexibility.
Dynamic stretching: This is stretching with movement. Maybe the best examples of dynamic stretching are found in the animal kingdom. Ever see a cat or dog wake up from a nap? Essentially, dynamic stretching involves moving limbs or the trunk through its available range of motion. You often see athletes do this prior to a game. Examples include kicking the legs, swinging the arms, twisting the torso, lunging and other such movements. Dynamic stretching often involves swinging an implement such as a golf club, tennis racquet, or baseball bat. Dynamic stretching addresses active flexibility.
PNF Stretching – Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation: I won’t go into much detail on PNF as there’s a lot to it and I’m not terribly well versed on the topic.

The popular perception of (static) stretching says it’ll reduce likelihood of injury, increase range of motion, decrease muscle soreness. Is any of this true? Well, the evidence is not entirely clear. There’s very little evidence that static stretching prior to exercise or competition decreases injury. In fact it very likely contributes to injury. Why? I won’t go into every single physiological detail of stretching here but I’ll try to explain the big ideas as best I can.

Static stretching actually weakens the ability of a muscle to contract. Though you may gain range of motion (ROM) from static stretching it also results in a less-active muscle and thus a less stable joint or joints which that muscle crosses. This phenomenon has been shown by testing athletes strength and/or jumping ability pre- and post-stretch. So if you stretch statically prior to your soccer or softball game what you’ve done is create weaker muscles and less stable joints. That’s not what you want. Dynamic stretching is safer and more pertinent to real-life situations.

Dynamic stretching is now generally recognized as an appropriate activity prior to a workout or athletic even, as research (see ch. 3 of Siff’s Supertraining) has shown that active flexibility is more closely correlated to sporting proficiency than is passive flexibility. In this way, you wake up the nervous system and prepare the body for action. A dynamic stretch routine should include movements that you will perform in the workout or game. Examples include body weight squats, various lunges, twisting the torso and swinging and reaching the arms in various directions.

How’s that for part I?

Achilles Tendon Injury Resource

I just found this site The Running World According to Dean and it’s got some very interesting information, particularly some good information on Achilles tendonitis and/or tendonosis. I’m going through this issue right now and it’s tremendously frustrating and mysterious.

Click image for source.

It’s not a cut-and-dried sort of thing. It seems everyone’s Achilles issue is particular to them. It may arise from simple overuse like running too much, too fast, up too many hills and/or running too fast up too many hills. It could also arise from various biomechanical issues that aren’t always easy to identify. The wrong shoes seem to also play a role. Even certain types of medication can contribute to the matter.

Beyond the many causes, there are almost as many treatment recommendations: ice, heat, stretch, don’t stretch, run a little, don’t run at all, orthotics, shoes… Anyhow, if you’re going through any of this then this site might be of help to you.

The Benefits of Supervised Strength Training

Supervised Strength Training is More Effective, Swedish Study Finds, is an article from Science Daily. What does it tell us? It turns out that supervision and personalization is an important component of an injury-prevention (prehabilition) workout–at least when it’s performed by Swedish volleyball players. This information probably isn’t a huge shock but the implications are worth considering not only for injury-related issues but also for any fitness or sports performance goals.

The study surveyed 158 elite-level volleyball players by way of a questionnaire. The answers indicated that almost all the players performed some kind of injury-prevention program yet almost half of the players had been injured. Most of the players exercised without supervision. Further, two groups of players were given exercise programs. One group was given a personalized program and was supervised by a physiotherapist. The other group was given a non-personalized program and they were not supervised during workouts. The supervised group both improved their performance more than and had a lower injury rate than the unsupervised group.

Now, from the description of the study, there are several weak points that we could discuss: small sample size, physiological differences in the groups that might predispose or protect the players from injury, effect of the supervision vs. the effect of the personalized workout in the results, validity of the questionnaire. What’s more important though is that even elite-level athletes might benefit from a personalized, supervised conditioning program.

“I have a feeling that more athletes really stick to the program and focus on the task if there is a coach present. Many players may feel that the strength and conditioning training is the boring part of their sport, which makes it tempting to ‘cheat’ when nobody is watching,” says Sofia Augustsson, author of the study.

These are people for whom their sport is a major focus of their lives to the point that they may be earning a living from volleyball, so we might expect very strict adherence to any exercise program given to them. However, the behavior of these athletes and the results of their exercise programs confirms something I learned in graduate school: personalized programs and close interaction with individuals has impact. The more a fitness instructor or coach can work with one person or a small group the more likely that person or group will adhere to a program and succeed.

Does this sound like an argument for hiring a personal trainer? Well, yes, absolutely it does! Obviously I’m biased here but at the same time, there seems to be just a little bit of science to back up the idea.

To take it a little further, what I often see in the gym are people exercising but putting forth little effort. They’re often doing the same workout over and over. They may be neglecting their needs in favor of their “wants.” (“I want bigger pecs,” or “I want washboard abs” for example but what he or she may need is more hip or spine mobility, better shoulder stability or better nutrition.) So often these folks are putting in the time but they’re not getting the most value for their time–but at least they’re doing something in the way of exercise. Many more gym goers will give up altogether. They’ll spend some time exercising but never knowing the important whys and hows of getting to their goal. They’d stand as good a chance of getting a college degree without a degree plan. (BTW, here are some interesting stats on Americans’ exercise habits… Had to throw that in somewhere.)

It’s entirely likely that some time (and yes money) spent with a trainer could improve things dramatically. Just about anyone will benefit from a different set of eyes to look over their goals and their methods to achieving those goals. Even the most dedicated gym rat works harder when someone else is pushing him or her. Getting in shape and staying healthy is more than just reading an article or doing the workout you did in high school. So if you want to get the very most out of your time in the gym, or on the road, or on the track, the pool, the basketball court–wherever it is you exercise, seek out professional advice and you may achieve more than you ever imagined.

Denver Fitness Journal

All Things Health and Fitness by Kyle Norman, MS, CSCS, FMS, RRCA Running Coach

Injury Rehabilitation

News on Barefoot Running: Part II

News on Barefoot Running: Part I

Z-Health for Toe Pain

A Look at Massage Therapy

Holiday Reading: Obesity, Wacko Cookie Diet, Strength Training, Running Research, Ice vs. Heat for Injuries

A Little Bit on Stretching: Part II

A Little Bit on Stretching: Part I

Achilles Tendon Injury Resource

The Benefits of Supervised Strength Training