Functional Path Training

Stones into Schools

I really enjoyed this book on many levels. Greg Mortenson is a very intersting and inspirational man. His passion for what he does without any motive for personal gain is inspiring. This along with Three Cups of Tea are books that everyone should read. Tremendous insights into Afghanistan and Pakistan, the people and the culture. This is the straight stuff, no spin masters or political agendas here. A true humanitarian effort. Once I started it I could not put it down. The fact that there are people like Greg Mortensonout there certainly gives me hope for good and peace in the world. I hope someday I can meet this guy. He is on my list. One of the funniest scenes in the book is when some elders visit one of the schools and play on the playground equipment for 30 minutes. They gave permission to build a school in their area on the condition that it have a playground.

Wilf Paish - A Real Pioneer

Many of you do not know who Wilf Paish was. Wilf was a British track & Field coach who passed away this past week For me Will was and is an iconic figure in coaching. It was sad to hear of his passing, but it brought back a rush of memories. I did not know Wilf personally, although many of my close colleagues did. My introduction to Wilf Paish came in my first year coaching when I bought the whole British Amateur Athletic Coaching series. Wilf wrote Javelin Throwing, a booklet that I read and reread as I was trying to learn the event as an athlete as well as a coach. Then I began to subscribe to the technical publication of the BAAB, Athletics Coach. He seemed to have an article in every issue. His articles were gems; I always found his ideas were ideas I could understand and immediately apply to my coaching. His background as a physical education teacher came through loud and clear. In 1978 at the Sports Science Congress before the Commonwealth games in Edmonton, Canada I finally got to hear him speak. He was a fiery presenter that left no doubt where he stood. During that presentation I picked one coaching cue for the throws – Chin/Knee/Toe – See it go and a concept I have used ever sense – Toenails to fingernails. (For those of you who know Kelvin Giles, I am convinced that Wilf taught Kelvin his presentation style as part of his mentoring of Kelvin) Daley Thompson introduced me to Wilf briefly at the Olympic Village at UCLA right before the LA Olympics, he could not talk because he was off to coach Tessa Sanderson, the Gold medal winner in the javelin in one of her final training sessions before the games. He also originated the throws pentathlon that is still popular and used today. This man contributed so much to sport, it is hard to find words to express his contributions. He is one of a great generation of coaches that taught and inspired many of us. As each of them pass away I hope you younger coaches will take the time to learn what these people contributed to the great sport of track and field. People like Sam Adams, Harmon Brown and Ed Parker in this country have all passed away in the in the last eighteen months. Great people  and great coaches who loved the sport like Wilf did. There are many from that generation out here right now that we need to stay in touch with and continue to learn from. I really wish someone would do an oral history project and a Ken Burns style documentary on these people to keep their ideas and memories alive. I really hope there are more Wilf Paish’s out there in the up and coming generation of coaches. We need people to innovate, stand up for they believe in and carry the torch as he did.

Barefoot Foot - Some Facts

Reprinted this from http://www.sportsscientists.com/ (Great blog by the way) Some outstanding comments. Think,Think,Think before you jump on the bandwagon. This study has already been massively quoted out of context. I am a big advocate of barefoot work where and when it is appropriate and with whom. Each foot is different. There is no universal prescription. The first day I wore the Vibrams I pulled my calve, I should know better. I was looking for something that would allow me run on the wet (Hard packed sand) at the beach without cutting up my feet on the little shells. Read this and then read the study very critically, then think again how you would barefoot work. Notice I said barefoot work, not just running. Agility work and some plyo's done barefoot can be very beneficial.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Running barefoot vs shoes

Barefoot running - new evidence, same debate

It's been a rather frantic week, and I know there is a series on weight hanging in between Part 3 and Part 4.  I'm hoping to get to that next week, when hopefully I'll have a little more time!

But today, I have to comment on this latest study, which I know will become bigger in the coming days - it is a new study that will reignite the barefoot vs. shoe debate, one of the more controversial issues in running.

I am actually planning a whole series on this topic, because I was recently interviewed by a Dutch Running magazine, Run2Day, and I'm going to post that entire interview (with additions) on the site at some point in February.

The study 

For now though, the paper is called Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners, and it is published in Nature (Full reference: Lieberman et al., Nature, 463, 531 - 535).

The scientists took five group of runners and had them run both barefoot and in shoes. The groups were: Habitually shod adults in the USA, Recently shod adults in Kenya, Habitually barefoot adults in the USA, Barefoot adolescents in Kenya, and Shod adolescents in Kenya.

Each group ran in shoes and barefoot and they measured foot-strike pattern (whether the runner lands on the heel, midfoot or forefoot) and kinematic and kinetic variables like impact force, loading rate, and joint angles.

The findings - a shift in landing, a reduction in force


It turns out that people who run barefoot, even when shifting from shoes to the barefoot condition (the habitually shod groups),  shift the landing point to the forefoot.  There's nothing new there - it's been known for many years that running barefoot changes the footstrike.  Hundreds of studies exist to show this.  The next difference is the ankle angle - the barefoot runner has a more plantarflexed ankle when they land - what this means is that the toe is pointed away from the body more (compared to dorsiflexion, when you pull it back towards you at the ankle).  Again, hundreds of studies have shown this.


Next are the impact forces.  Here's where there is some disagreement.   Previous studies have occasionally disagreed on how barefoot running affects impact forces - some say it actually increases them, with high variability between individuals.  Most suggest a reduction, particularly early on during impact (first impact).   The Nature study has found that being barefoot AND landing on the forefoot reduces both the loading rate and the peak impact force.  In fact, it's three times lower in barefoot runners who forefoot strike (which is most of them) than in heel strikers wearing shoes.  In theory (though this too is disputed), higher impact forces and loading rates equals greater injury risk, and so the study is suggesting that perhaps people who are barefoot or minimally shod have a better chance of avoiding injury.

A stimulus plan for physical therapists and podiatrists?

And here is where it gets tricky.  I must point out that the title of the paper is Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.  I highlight the word "habitually", because it's quite important to appreciate the impact that this word may have on how you apply this finding.

I guarantee that the media are going to be all over this and they are going to tell you that you should be running barefoot or in Vibrams.  You will hear how science has proven that being barefoot will prevent injuries, and that those of you who are injured should blame your shoes as you lob them into the garbage bin.

None of these suggestions is true, yet.  And Dan Lieberman who headed up this latest study would not even be suggesting this himself.  The final sentence in the paper in fact reads "controlled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced injury rates" (good science always recognizes what it DOESN'T say, and Lieberman and co fit this category).

What the Nature study hasn't measured is the long term (or even the short term) effects of the change on loading rates on different joints.  If you wish to guarantee yourself an injury, then go out for a 2km run barefoot on a hard surface, and you will be asking your calf muscles and Achilles tendons to do work that for perhaps 30 years, they haven't had to do.

And I will illustrate this with our own insight into footstrike and injury.  When the Pose research was done in Cape Town, athletes basically had their footstrike patterns changed through 2 weeks of training in the new method.  The biomechanical analysis found lower impact forces (sound familiar? Same as the Nature paper), and even less work on the knee joint.  This was hailed as a breakthrough against running injuries, because lower impact plus lower work on the knee meant less chance of injury.  Jump ahead 2 weeks, and 19 out of 20 runners had broken down injured.  Why?  Because their calves and ankles were murdered by the sudden change.  And the science showed this - the work on the ANKLE was significantly INCREASED during the forefoot landing.  

The point is, changing how you run, whether by technique training or a change in shoes (like running barefoot) will load muscles that may be very weak, and joints and tendons well beyond their means.  If however, you are a habitually barefoot runner, then you can do this, because your body has been prepared for it.  For everyone else, I think we may be underestimating the time it will take to transition successfully to barefoot running (or forefoot striking, if you're going to force that change 'unnaturally').

And there is my point - taking this kind of interesting study, and dispensing advice, is a risky business.  As a friend pointed out yesterday - the media's interpretation of this study will be a "stimulus plan for physical therapists and podiatrists".  Going from years of shoes into minimal shoes or barefoot will injure you if you are not careful. 

Conclusion

The Nature study provides a good discussion point.  It's intriguing, and certainly does suggest advantages to barefoot running.   It is not the last word, but rather the latest word in this debate.  Nor is it revolutionary, because for many years, we've known that being barefoot changes ankle angle on impact, footstrike and loading rates (though quite how they change is not agreed upon).

I'm sure a lot more will be written - I'll even cover some of it when I do that interview series on this topic in the coming weeks.  For now, that's the last I'll say on this particular issue, but debate is always welcome!

Ross

P.S.  Daniel Lieberman has launched a website on this topic, and it's well worth a look.  It is obviously based on his research (this study forms the bulk of it), but it's a good, clear explanation of the concepts.  Again, the same word of caution applies - don't jump from one to the other.  If there is one section of that website that you should read over and over, it is the Training tips section.  Most will not, and they'll become the statistics (and the stimulus for physical therapy), but if you manage it right, then the site will be a great help to you!

Continual Adaptation

 

The concept of continual adaptation is something I have been working to get my arms around since we all met to plan the Michigan Women’s swim dryland program this past September. Jim Richardson, Women’s swim coach at Michigan got me thinking about this. Continual adaptation is not continual improvement. Continual adaptation is a viable concept because different physical qualities adapt at different rates. By taking advantage of and manipulating the differing adaptation times it is possible to achieve continual adaptation. It is not liner it is an ever-ascending sinusoidal curve. Progress in performance is very step like. I liken it to a series of small plateaus with stairs in between the plateaus climbing to the desired peak performance in the peak competitive season. We must provide an optimal environment for continual adaptation by manipulating the training variables in a very systematic and sequential manner. Never lose sight of the fact that all systems of the body work at the same time very synergistically. Despite conventional wisdom that attempts to isolate systems of the body and then bring them back together at some magical time in the future. This is a process that is obviously coach driven. It demands careful monitoring of the key training parameters in the athletes program.

Training - It's More Than a Workout

Training is a cumulative process. The workout is one piece of a much bigger picture. Training is not one spectacular or particularly tough workout, rather it is a succession of workouts designed to fit into the overall plan in pursuit of specific training objectives. Anyone can make a workout hard, but the essential element is context. Where does it fit? One workout cannot stand alone. One great workout does not necessarily lead to a great competition result. In fact it can be detrimental. To achieve an outstanding workout the athlete may have to dig deep into physiological, psychological, and emotional reserves to achieve that result. That potentially may detract from competition performance. The concept that has stood the test of time for me is Bill Bowernan’s concept of hard easy rhythm of training days.  As the athlete progresses in their career and you can assess their adaptability you can progress to a hard day, followed by a medium day, followed by an easy day. Too many hard days without easy days to balance them out will result in failing adaptation. Ideally we want to achieve continual adaptation as a consequence of supercompensation. You achieve this by having clearly defined training goals, a sound plan to achieve those goals, a thorough knowledge of the athletes physical capabilities and specific competitive goals. Remember one workout cannot make an athlete, but one workout can break an athlete.

Revolutionary Thought?

This is really amazing (from today's new York Times). I figured this out about 58 years ago when I was in elementary school. As far as the logistics problems I think any of us that went to school before recess and PE was abandoned in the endless pursuit of academic excellence might be able to help them out. Read this and weep! Tears of joy and tears of sadness. I know personally without recess I would have never made it.

Play, Then Eat: Shift May Bring Gains at School

By TARA PARKER-POPE

Kirsten Luce for The New York Times SWITCHED Children playing before lunch at Sharon Elementary School in Robbinsville, N.J. “Kids are calmer after they’ve had recess first,” the school’s principal said.

Can something as simple as the timing of recess make a difference in a child’s health and behavior?

Some experts think it can, and now some schools are rescheduling recess — sending students out to play before they sit down for lunch. The switch appears to have led to some surprising changes in both cafeteria and classroom.

Schools that have tried it report that when children play before lunch, there is less food waste and higher consumption of milk, fruit and vegetables. And some teachers say there are fewer behavior problems.

“Kids are calmer after they’ve had recess first,” said Janet Sinkewicz, principal of Sharon Elementary School in Robbinsville, N.J., which made the change last fall. “They feel like they have more time to eat and they don’t have to rush.”

One recent weekday at Sharon, I watched as gaggles of second graders chased one another around the playground and climbed on monkey bars. When the whistle blew, the bustling playground emptied almost instantly, and the children lined up to drop off their coats and mittens and file quietly into the cafeteria for lunch.

“All the wiggles are out,” Ms. Sinkewicz said.

One of the earliest schools to adopt the idea was North Ranch Elementary in Scottsdale, Ariz. About nine years ago, the school nurse suggested the change, and the school conducted a pilot study, tracking food waste and visits to the nurse along with anecdotal reports on student behavior.

By the end of the year, nurse visits had dropped 40 percent, with fewer headaches and stomachaches. One child told school workers that he was happy he didn’t throw up anymore at recess.

Other children had been rushing through lunch to get to the playground sooner, leaving much uneaten. After the switch, food waste declined and children were less likely to become hungry or feel sick later in the day. And to the surprise of school officials, moving recess before lunch ended up adding about 15 minutes of classroom instruction.

In the Arizona heat, “kids needed a cool-down period before they could start academic work,” said the principal, Sarah Hartley.

“We saved 15 minutes every day,” Dr. Hartley continued, “because kids could play, then go into the cafeteria and eat and cool down, and come back to the classroom and start academic work immediately.”

Since that pilot program, 18 of the district’s 31 schools have adopted “recess before lunch.”

The switch did pose some challenges. Because children were coming straight from the playground, the school had to install hand sanitizers in the lunchroom. And until the lunch system was computerized, the school had to distribute children’s lunch cards as they returned from recess.

In Montana, state school officials were looking for ways to improve children’s eating habits and physical activity, and conducted a four-school pilot study of “recess before lunch” in 2002. According to a report from the Montana Team Nutrition program, children who played before lunch wasted less food, drank more milk and asked for more water. And as in Arizona, students were calmer when they returned to classrooms, resulting in about 10 minutes of extra teaching time.

One challenge of the program was teaching children to eat slower. In the past, children often finished lunch in five minutes so they could get to recess. With the scheduling change, cafeteria workers had to encourage them to slow down, chew their food and use all the available time to finish their lunch.

Today, about one-third of Montana schools have adopted “recess before lunch,” and state officials say more schools are being encouraged. “The pilot projects that are going on have been demonstrating that students are wasting less food, they have a more relaxed eating environment and improved behavior because they’re not rushing to get outside,” said Denise Juneau, superintendent of the Office of Public Instruction. “It’s something our office will promote to schools across the state as a best practice.”

Children’s health experts note that such a switch might not work in many urban school districts, where lower-income children may start the day hungry.

“It’s a great idea, but first we’ve got to give them a decent breakfast,” said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital Boston. “A lot of kids skip breakfast and arrive at lunch ravenous.”

And for a seemingly simple scheduling change, it can create some daunting logistical problems. Children often have to return to hallways and classrooms after recess for bathroom breaks and hand washing and to pick up lunch bags. The North Ranch Elementary School regularly fields calls from schools in colder climates with questions on how to deal with coats, hats, galoshes and mittens. “In Arizona, we don’t have to deal with that,” said Dr. Hartley, the principal.

Many school districts say such problems make them reluctant to switch. A 2006 study in The Journal of Childhood Nutrition & Management reported that fewer than 5 percent of the nation’s elementary schools were scheduling recess before lunch.

But at the Sharon Elementary School, the principal, Ms. Sinkewicz, says the challenges have been worth it. In the past, children took coats, hats and mittens with them to the lunchroom, then headed outside. Now they have time to return coats to lockers so they don’t have to carry them to the lunchroom.

“For some reason, kids aren’t losing things outside,” Ms. Sinkewicz said. “The lost-and-found mound has gone down.”

TrainTrak™ Training Monitoring System

This is what I have been working on the past two years. I think it has the potential to change how we train. You can find our brochure with a short description and some technical details at: http://issuu.com/traintrakeu/docs/traintrak2010

Rules for Robots

No overhead lifting. When squatting do not let the knees go past the toes. Keep spine neutral. Draw in to activate TA. And on and on and on, bla, bla bla. Don’t fall into this trap, these are all rules made to be broken. They are all based on false assumptions. They will work if you live, work and play in phone booth. As humans and athletes we do not. We live in a proprioceptively demanding gravity enriched environment. As humans we are specialists at solving movement problems and self-organizing our movements to fit the demands of the activity. In preparation for work and play in this gravity enriched environment select exercises and training methods that promote connections and reinforce linking and synching. Great athletes are just geniuses at solving intricate movement problems. As coaches we need to give the athlete the latitude to create, move and solve those problems. 

ThedaCare Orthopedics Plus Sports Medicine

Just got back from a wonderful, enjoyable and fulfilling three days in Appleton, Wisconsin with ThedaCare Orthopedics Plus group doing staff development. This was the kickoff for a year long consultation to provide in-service and help them develop a program for orthopedic after care and athletic development. Really good group of professionals, great facilities and a good system to build upon. This is a group that already does a very nice job and wants to get better, that is always a great starting point. Looking forward to the next year working with this group. By the way I was oriented into winter when on Friday afternoon there was fire drill at the school where we doing the training and we got to stand outside for about five minutes. Now I know why I stay in Florida.

Only a Coach

I overheard someone the other day when he was asked what he did for a living he answered: “I am only a coach.” I wanted to scream, no your not, you are so much more than that. Being a coach is special, more special than we can ever imagine. As coaches we have the opportunity to reach and influence young men and young women in situations of stress and pressure that they might not experience anywhere else in their life. We can teach and change behavior. Being a coach is not a job it is a special calling, it is an opportunity to make the world a better place for that short time we interact with those athletes each day. Your not only a coach, you’re special, your make a difference everyday in those athletes lives! We owe to our athletes and ourselves to make it the best part of the day.