by Grampahawk » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:16 pm
by ksolem » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:25 pm
by Ze » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:27 am
by foweyman » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:57 pm
by Ze » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:58 am
foweyman wrote:It is not a properly controlled experiment. People run with different form when they remove their shoes (didn't save the ref.), mostly to reduce the increase in impact that occurs without the cushion of shoes. This change in form could easily cause changes in the measured parameters that were attributed to the shoes. Before thay can ascribe the observed differences to the shoes, the experimenters would have to make sure that the subjects run with the same form when barefoot and shod.
I'm guessing that the best way to minimize impacts is to use barefoot form while wearing good shoes. It takes some kinesthetic awareness, but with practice and concentration it is reasonably obtainable.
There is also a good bit of variation in the cushioning ability of "typical running footwear". Without controlling and specifying the model(s) it is difficult to ascribe the effects to running shoes in general.
There is also no biomechanical reasoning provided for the conclusion that "These increases are likely caused in large part by an elevated heel and increased material under the medial arch, both characteristic of today's running shoes."
by Ze » Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:19 am
ksolem wrote:Since torque is by definition a rotational force, how does one define a "flexor" torque?
Flexion is a linear, not rotational movement.
What am I missing here?
by seanpeckham » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:57 am
foweyman wrote:It is not a properly controlled experiment. People run with different form when they remove their shoes (didn't save the ref.), mostly to reduce the increase in impact that occurs without the cushion of shoes. This change in form could easily cause changes in the measured parameters that were attributed to the shoes. Before thay can ascribe the observed differences to the shoes, the experimenters would have to make sure that the subjects run with the same form when barefoot and shod.
I'm guessing that the best way to minimize impacts is to use barefoot form while wearing good shoes. It takes some kinesthetic awareness, but with practice and concentration it is reasonably obtainable.
There is also a good bit of variation in the cushioning ability of "typical running footwear". Without controlling and specifying the model(s) it is difficult to ascribe the effects to running shoes in general.
There is also no biomechanical reasoning provided for the conclusion that "These increases are likely caused in large part by an elevated heel and increased material under the medial arch, both characteristic of today's running shoes."
by Smoove910 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:37 am
by EastcoastMike » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:51 pm
Smoove910 wrote:use these shoes... lol, I still have yet to bite, but think they would offer a new experience...
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/produc ... trek_m.cfm
by Chris » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:50 pm
Smoove910 wrote:use these shoes... lol, I still have yet to bite, but think they would offer a new experience...
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/produc ... trek_m.cfm
by ksolem » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:39 pm
Ze wrote:ksolem wrote:Since torque is by definition a rotational force, how does one define a "flexor" torque?
Flexion is a linear, not rotational movement.
What am I missing here?
Well flexion can be a rotational movement.
Those terms are based on movement in the anatomical planes of motion.
Flexion and extension rotational movements are prescribed in the sagittal plane. Abduction / adduction rotations in the coronal plane, and internal / external rotation in the transverse plane.
by foweyman » Sat Jan 16, 2010 1:05 pm
seanpeckham wrote:I didn't get the idea they were trying to control form or were ignorant of form as a variable. Indeed the point seems to be that the way that shoes change your form increases the impact forces beyond what the shoes are able to absorb. What exactly would be the point of a study that is controlled in the way you suggest? To test the prediction that it would be superfluous (save perhaps for fashion) to run in shoes that interact with the feet in the exact same way that the ground does?
by Ze » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:51 pm
foweyman wrote:The reason for controlling this variable is that it would allow the determination of whether it is the shoes or changes in the running form that causes the observed differences. It would be important to know if the shoes caused the changes or if they only allowed or encouraged them.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests