Andrew Stemler is an obsessed student of running form and of the various techniques currently circulating the fitness world .
The reality is that you need to understand all the techniques to properly compare and contrast them: sometimes, pure sport science has helped us , other times it has hindered.
What is very obvious is that the recent trend in clumpy "sprung" running shoes has not had the effect suggested by the marketing.... after all, the manufacturers never said their flashy shoes would be good for you.
Andrew has studied with Lee Saxby ( POSE coach level 4) and is the preferred strength and conditioning coach to several good standard amateur runners.
"in many cases, its probably better to begin with walking than it is with running. Sure its about proper foot placement, but its equally about your body position. One without the other will not really work".
"Im a great fan of old style running, and I believe there is a lot to learn from the older running coaches My work with runners is complemented by my on-going sport science studies at the University of East London, and its useful to be part of a group of sport scientists actively promoting real understanding"
It does help if you understand that there is a Hierarchy of Forces in Movement
The hierarchy is :
Gravity
Ground Reaction
Elasticity
Muscle action
If you want some help on running style, please drop me an email Andrew@crossfitlondonuk.com
But, no doubt you are looking for a bit of training advise, or a tip to boost your performance., now! Well, speaking from a physiological perspective, slip in a bleep test once a week . Theres nothing like really pushing yourself.
The multi stage fitness test, also known as the bleep test and MSST, was designed by Leger and Lambert(1982) to assess the VO2 max of participants based on performance in a continuous, pace regulated, shuttle run between two points 20 m apart. The subjects are health checked and informed consent given (ACSM, 2005). The participant's are lined up between two lines 20 m apart and are asked to reach the opposite line before a bleep sounds. The bleeps increase at preset stages and controls the pace of work (Brewer, 2002). The test is maximal in that it requires the participants Ithats you by the way) to work to the point of exhaustion. Participants are withdrawn from the test when they fail, on two consecutive attempts, to complete the shuttle within the time allowed
The test is generally accepted as valid and reliable to the extent that is being considered by government as a standard test for schools to assess the fitness of school children (CMO, 2009).
In pilot trials 92 participants were tested against V02 max assessed via retro-extrapolation (Leger and Lambert, 1982), although only 25 performed the run twice. However, Ramsbottom, et al., (1988) re-validated the test by direct measurement of the VO2max of 74 volunteers with a correlation of 0.92. This can be seen as reliable a study needs more than 50 study participants, although 3 trials are preferred (Hopkins, 2000) However, Ramsbottom, et al., (1988) achieved this correlation among a homogeneous populations. This further validates the test as it is easier to improve correlations by using a heterogeneous population ( Atkinson and Nevill, 2001, Bonen et al., 1979)
Within the fitness and coaching community there are those who distrust VO2 max measurement for sporting use. Noakes, et al., (1990 et al) found VO2 max to be a poor predictor of race times: others can be confused by the abstract nature of the VO2max figure. In the mSST, the levels achieved in the test can form a fitness currency and for that matter the British marines and police force set bleep test standards (Brewer, 2002).
As the levels achieved can also be related to a running velocity. the test is further supported by McLaughlin, et al., (2010), who established that the velocity at vo2max correlated well with distance running and a "classic" endurance model, taking into account VO2max, %vo2max, lactate threhold and running economy. The MSST correlates well with 5k race times (Ramsbottom, et al., 1988) and 10k times (Paliczka, et al., 1987).
The test is ideal for team training where the sport is running based, as tests need to be sports specific (Lemmink, 2004). Many people can be tested at the same time with minimal equipment, and the subjects require motivation and encouragement which team members could supply . The test has been validated for both sexes as individuals or in groups.(Leger and Lambert, 1980)
For non athletes or special populations this test does carry very public connotations of success and failure. It is a maximal test so unsuitable for many special populations (ACSM, 2005), and can be subject to audibility.
Safety in training is a consistent concern . Gardner (2002) identifies the major cause of exercise related deaths in the US military to be related to atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, and the failure of screening procedures to exclude those suffering from ACAD. The increasing age of the participants was also flagged . Gardner (2002) suggests that vigorous exercise tests need to be conducted where immediate advanced life support measures are available. But Babraj ,et al., (2009) shows high intensity can be used even with medical populations.
As this is a maximal test, it can have a developmental training effect, which is an extra when training time is scarce. The test supplies an easily recordable benchmark.
Apart from direct measurement, the Cooper run test, which is the amount of distance covered in a 12 minute run seems the most viable alternative.However, the Cooper test is maximal from the start and has been criticised by Williamson and Hamley (1984) as it relies on motivation and self pacing skills and the results could be partly attributed to anaerobic systems. it calls for a bigger running area, which could mean it needs to be staged out doors and could be subject to the weather. Nevertheless it has an athletic component resulting in a real world effort. The suggestion being that both these tests are more suitable for athletic populations.
BUT, SHOULD YOUR KIDS BLEEP???
Andrew Stemler from Crossfit London UK, debates the controversial recommendation by Sir Liam Donaldson The Chief Medical Officer to bring the "bleep test" into all schools
According to fitness geeks, the bleep test developed by Leger & Lambert is quite fun, and a useful exercise tool in its own right. The test is pretty much established as both reliable and easy to stage, and is used by schools, clubs, some emergency services and armed forces to determine fitness levels. All you need is this: some stolen road traffic cones placed 20m apart, a million-pound sports hall, or park with not too many potholes/muggers/paedophiles - and a sound system loud enough to hear a "bleep" over the wheezing of other children (or adults and motivators).
Victims run between markers while the bleep intervals become shorter and shorter. The longer they continue, the higher the level they reach (like a very interactive computer game) the fitter they are. For comparison, here are some of the standards that some organisations use.
Royal Marines, 11
British army 10.2
English police force 5.4
Fire brigade 9.6
If (like grant-greedy sports scientists) you get swept away by extrapolation, it is possible to conclude that the test is to monitor the development of the athlete's maximum oxygen uptake - the infamous vO2 max. Back in the real world, the results can be used to predict (sort of) future performance (through correlation rather than causation), indicate weaknesses, measure improvement, assess the effectiveness of training programmes and motivate participants.
However, this shy test, beloved by generations of rugby players, runners, police recruits, (and hated by just about everyone else) has been pushed into the limelight and has now been proposed by the Chief Medical Officer (in the 2009 Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer) for mass introduction to schools. It is based, as you might have guessed, on a Californian experiment which brought an 8.2% improvement in fitness. In spite of the fact that the benefits of improving fitness in children lowers the lifetime risk of various nasty diseases, builds an active habit, leads to better educational standards, helps maintain a healthy weight and improves mental and social well being - some commentators are up in arms.
It is quite true that running back and forth can be boring - but so is most of life. But isn't this part of the real lesson - it doesn't have to be fun to be fun?
However, the more convincing criticism is that the overweight kids get to a few levels, give up, and are, of course, put off exercise for life. The average kids get to do a few more levels, and give up. The super-competitive kids work really hard and collapse:
This negative overview overlooks the benefits of properly constructed sports and team training.
This not a test scored by a teacher. Trying to score 30 kids is a near impossible task. Each child needs their own (child) scorer, and ideally their own (child) motivator. So, for a class of 30 everyone gets to score and motivate and run. Hmm, recording and motivating others, that's a good lesson. And who gets the prize for being the most enthusiastic motivator? Who gets the prize for stealing the traffic cones?
The future tests - well if the poor, fat kid got to level 2, they get a whopping 100% improvement and a "Good job!" when they get to level 4. Then you can be really crafty - you can match up the super-performer with the "fat kid" as a team, and score improvement. The reality is that it will be the overweight child who will get the points.
All tests can be driven into the ground and turned into abusive and awful experiences. The reality is that the better coach or trainer is quite capable of making even the toughest test "fun", although in honesty, based on my own experience, most PE teachers are genetically incapable of importing fun into the serious business of "fitness".
FOOTWEAR?
What to wear to run in, look good in, screw your Achilles in
FANCY A PAIR OF VIBRAM FIVE FINGERS?
FANCY A WHOPPING 5% Off?
Get AN AMAZING 5% discount as a reader of th Crossfit London UK site.
visit www.primallifestyle.com
and use this discount code crossfit5f
Five fingers footwear for functional feet
Vibrams
When a new (or some may say very old) concept comes along, it is often met with scepticism and resistance. The barefoot revolution, however, would seem to be an exception to the rule.
Training barefoot has been advocated by many of the leading thinkers in the strength and conditioning industry (Chek 2001, Yessis 1999, McGill 2002), in the running industry (McDougall 2009) and in the rehabilitation sector (Liebenson 2007, Beach 2008, Oschman 2008, Chek 2001, Janda 2007, 1999, Wallden 2008). Nevertheless, there may be those who still maintain an air of concern - after all, we've been conditioned to believe that running on hard surfaces requires a cushioned sole; and that an arch needs support under it or it will collapse.
Yet any barefoot runner or gait lab assistant will be able to tell you something very different about the cushioning; just as an architect will be able to tell you something very different about the arch support.
For many years it has been well known that running barefoot is more efficient than running in a pair of running shoes or 'shod' (Warburton 1999). More recently, running in a minimalist shoe known as Fivefingers has been identified, similarly, as better than running shod (Squadrone & Gallozzi 2009). However, something intriguing happened in that research study.
To this point, it has always been assumed that the decreased efficiency of walking or running shod (versus barefoot) is down the added weight of a shoe at the end of a very long and swinging lever; the leg. Yet, in the study comparing Fivefingers footwear with barefoot and with running shoes, it was predictably the running shoes that were least efficient (higher oxygen consumption), the barefoot that was second and wearing Fivefingers was, confusingly, the most efficient (Squadrone & Gallozzi 2009).
Why this result came about needs further investigation; perhaps it was to do with the increased grip the Fivefingers offered over barefoot. Certainly it would seem the weight (a modest 6 ounces per shoe) didn't affect efficiency detrimentally. But why is barefoot, and now Fivefingers, more efficient than shod running (Squadrone & Gallozzi 2009)?
The answer is probably complex, however, there are several clues the biomechanics offer us.
First, going barefoot or barefoot equivalent, results in an increased angle at the ankle joint (ie more plantar flexion) during running, which results in more of forefoot/midfoot strike.
Runners in shoes typically heel strike.
The former is associated with lower joint torques and greater leg stiffness (DeWit et al 2000) a factor which means less energy from the ground reaction force is lost and hence can be utilised in forward propulsion.
Additionally, the ability to use the toes through their full range of motion (allowing at least 65 degrees of extension) means that the windlass mechanism is a means by which energy is stored and then released by the plantar fascia and can be actively engaged, something that running shoes may inhibit.
For more information on Vibram Fivefingers, please go to www.primallifestyle.com
References
Beach P (2008) Contractile fields: a new model of human movement. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies. 2002 12:80 Chek P (2001) Scientific Core Conditioning. 2 day seminar. Maidenhead, UK.
DeWit B, Clercg D, Aerts P. (2000) Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running. J Biomech 2000 Mar;33(3):269-78
Janda V (2007) Sensory Motor Stimulation, in Liebenson: Rehabilitation of the Spine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins pp513:530 Liebenson, C (2007) Rehabilitation of the Spine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins McDougall C (2009) Born to run. Profile books pp168-183
McGill S (2002) Low back disorders. Human Kinetics. Oschman J (2008) Charge transfer in the living matrix. Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies 13 215-228
Squadrone R, Gallozzi C. (2009) Biomechanical and physiological comparison of barefoot and two shod conditions in experienced barefoot runners. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2009 Mar;49(1):6-13
Wallden M (2008) Rehabilitation and movement re-education, in Chaitow: Naturopathic Physical Medicine.
Elsevier. Warburton M. (2001) Barefoot running. Sportscience 5(3), sportsci.org , 2001 Yessis M (2000). Explosive running. Illinois, USA. Contemporary Books
I do have to put a big warning here and say that if you run "normally" ie in a bad and naughty heel striking way, or with a forward reaching ball of the foot strike, you need to change your mechanics, before you start wearing your vibrams
The Barefoot Journey…oochie, ouchie!
Barefoot Running: sorting the problems Part 1. Achilles Tendinosis
Running, pose, Chi, Barefoot , Biomechanics and stuff
Barefoot: some pathways
Barefoot Journey…nice to have alternatives…well, possibly!
The new Crossfit London HQ
and training venue is
Unit 9
Gales Gardens,
Bethnal Green,
London
E2 0EJ
for more details