Forums >Gears and Wears>"Sporting myth" on running shoes
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/hc/healthtips/11/201008runningshoes.cfm
Absolutely amazing... They are starting out with a myth only to figure out that it was a myth??? Furthermore, they don't even define "foor shape". Rather they only talked about shoe-industory fed "arch shape".
This, to me, is the extent of so-called scientific or "academic" reserach.... Hope they didn't use tax-payers money!
http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/hc/healthtips/11/201008runningshoes.cfm Hope they didn't use tax-payers money!
I'm guessing only if taxpayers pay for the Army.
Well to be fair this isn't the primarily literature that was the output of their study. It's closer to a pop media article. If you have a basic understanding of logical fallacies, and then go read pop media articles which are about scientific studies, and then read even just the abstract of the primary literature, the results are often comical. Whenever you read a pop media article that rejects a default hypothesis it is a good idea to ask yourself, what does the author of the article want me to think, and would this really be an article if the default hypothesis wasn't refuted.
What's depressing is that there exist a large number of caretakers out there who feed themselves with pop media moreso than primary literature.
The way they did this, with groups of trainees in Basic Training, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think it's a pretty easy position to defend that there is a lot more going into injury risk than your shoe. For me it's about 90% training and 10% shoes. And the drill sargeants in Basic Training aren't exactly training wizards, and for all intents and purposes working with complete newbies.
CyclingAHEAD until 2012
Well to be fair this isn't the primarily literature that was the output of their study. It's closer to a pop media article. If you have a basic understanding of logical fallacies, and then go read pop media articles which are about scientific studies, and then read even just the abstract of the primary literature, the results are often comical. Whenever you read a pop media article that rejects a default hypothesis it is a good idea to ask yourself, what does the author of the article want me to think, and would this really be an article if the default hypothesis wasn't refuted. What's depressing is that there exist a large number of caretakers out there who feed themselves with pop media moreso than primary literature. The way they did this, with groups of trainees in Basic Training, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I think it's a pretty easy position to defend that there is a lot more going into injury risk than your shoe. For me it's about 90% training and 10% shoes. And the drill sargeants in Basic Training aren't exactly training wizards, and for all intents and purposes working with complete newbies.
Thank you. Good; that makes me just a tiny little bit better. But the sad thing is; like you said, there are A LOT of such things...
"The military services are keenly interested in preventing injuries from running, and for good reason."
Oh they are? Hm, not when I was in the military. I never really had the feeling that they were very interested in my physical well being. Now that I've learned about creating training schedules for improving performance, I also realize most people dealing directly with the soldiers knew very little about increasing individual physical performance or avoiding injury.
Live the Adventure. Enjoy the Journey. Be Kind. Have Faith!
Your name sounded like something I remember from a couple of weeks ago when I read 'Healthy Intelligent Training' (which was awesome), so I looked it up, and confirmed that you are indeed the guy.
I hope you are OK with me asking questions because I will probably annoy the crap out of you now.
Do you know where I can find more information (than is in H.I.T.) on: 1) complex systems and 2) sausage training? I would like to create a training plan that incorporates both.
Your name sounded like something I remember from a couple of weeks ago when I read 'Healthy Intelligent Training' (which was awesome), so I looked it up, and confirmed that you are indeed the guy. I hope you are OK with me asking questions because I will probably annoy the crap out of you now. Do you know where I can find more information (than is in H.I.T.) on: 1) complex systems and 2) sausage training? I would like to create a training plan that incorporates both.
How can you know that I'm the same "Nobby"? I mean, it's a common name, isn't it? I mean, in Australia... Nah, I won't go there again.
Well, I'm probably one of the best sources but we are not quite ready to post these two--Complex system was developed by Pat Clohessy of Australia, along with Chris Wadlow (spelling?) and probably most notably applied it to Rob de Castella and Steve Monegetti (spelling???). Sausage was developed (or termed) by Roger Robinson of New Zealand (sometimes referred as KV Switzer's husband!! ;o)). It's basically a interval training for Cross Country. Both of these I do have some literature and am intending to someday post them on Lydard Foundation website because both of them are Lydiard disciples (and I do know them both well). As much as I would like to offer to make a copy and mail it to you, it'll probably take some months by the time I get to it... I'm sure some of RA people can relate to it; I tend to over-extend myself and never even get around to fulfill some of my promises. And while I do feel bad, well, like I said, I tend to over-extend myself. What can I say...
You are certainly more than welcome to send me a personal message or personal e-mail and ask some specific questions. If I can answer it, I'll be more than happy to do so.
By the way, if you ever watch the award winning and freakishly long REDS (with Warren Beaty and Dian Keaton), at the end of the movie, with credit, there was a guy by the name of Nobby Clark.