48 replies to this topic

[BOG]

Do you compete annually in fun runs or other distance running events?

Ever wondered what combination of running shoes and running style will get you over the finish line fastest?

We are conducting a research trial to help us determine whether you run faster landing on the front of your foot in a forefoot-strike running shoe or landing on your heel in a traditional heel-strike running shoe.

We are seeking 60 runners who meet the following criteria:
• You are aged 18 years or over
• You run for at least 30 minutes 3 times a week
• Your heel is the first part of your foot to touch the ground when you run
• You wear running shoes with thick cushioned heels
• You have raced over the same distance (eg 5km, 10km, ½ marathon, marathon)
in both the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons and intend to compete over this distance
again during the 2009-10 season.
• Your season best time over this distance in 2008-09 was within 5% of your best
time during the 2007-08 season
• You expect your 2009-10 time over this distance to be within 5% of your 2008-09 season best

Participants will be randomly allocated to wear either the fore-foot strike running shoe or a traditional heel-strike running shoe when training and racing for 18 months. If allocated to wear the heel-strike running shoe you will be asked to land on your heel
when running. If allocated to wear the fore-foot strike shoe you will be asked to land on the ball of your foot.

During the study you will be asked to complete 3 monthly questionnaires and to complete a 5km time trial every six months.

Eligible? Interested?

For further information and eligibility requirements please contact

Dr Craig Richards
E Craig.Richards@newcastle.edu.au
T 0438 264 264

[BOG]

Hi all

For anyone interested I have attached an information statement and the full list of eligibility requirements. Please note that if you want to participate in the trial you will need to come to Newcastle every 6 months to run a 5km time trial. I have also attached a consent form for anyone who definitely wants to enrol in the study after having carefully read these documents.

I am happy to answer any questions either by replying to posts or via email!

cheers

Craig

Attached Files

•  InformationStatement_Heel_vs_Forefoot_REVISED.doc   238.5K   28 downloads
•  Eligibility_Checklist_Heel_vs_forefoot_REVISED_1_.doc   161.5K   23 downloads
•  Consent_Heel_vs_Forefoot_REVISED.doc   130K   10 downloads

Edited by BOG, 02 September 2009 - 04:10 PM.

[pbig]

Quote

If allocated to wear the heel-strike running shoe you will be asked to land on your heel
when running. If allocated to wear the fore-foot strike shoe you will be asked to land on the ball of your foot.

... doubt that it would be that easy - pretty sure that I'd be virtually incapable of landing on the balls of my feet for any more than a short sprint or when running uphill!

[TrackRunner]

I think this whole thread is funny.
You guys doing the study have missed the most economical running style of them all which is the MIDFOOT landing. I deliberately changed from a heel striker to midfoot so as to reduce the braking action on landing which prevents injury and to become more economical. The end result is i got faster and havent been injured since.

[samjay]

The study sounds interesting BOG and i am eligible, however not sure if i was allocated the forefoot shoes that i could use them appropriately for all of 10km, let alone a marathon...

[Colin]

LOVE22RUN, on Sep 2 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

I think this whole thread is funny.
You guys doing the study have missed the most economical running style of them all which is the MIDFOOT landing. I deliberately changed from a heel striker to midfoot so as to reduce the braking action on landing which prevents injury and to become more economical. The end result is i got faster and havent been injured since.

See , even a 15 yo can see the pseudoscience...well done

See my response on the "Barefoot" thread , where I say that the promotors of concepts such as pose or forefoot strike in general, use heel striking (which is accepted as less efficient and not widely used by efficient runners) as the counter argument...so they then 'win' that argument and then claim their proposal is better.
The researcher is also a designer of a shoe that is supposed to solve this need once the argument is 'won'.
How more flaky can it get.

Just looking at the docs linked, it says you will be given a 'heel striking shoe' i.e brand name or a 'forefoot striking shoe' which I suppose is the BOG designed shoe.

Now please tell us the brand name and model of the 'heel striking shoe', because I thought it was runners that landed on the heel rather than shoes.
And if you are going to be bold to publish that, then what is the manufacturer going to say about that 'accusation'.

Anyway...

Edited by Colin, 02 September 2009 - 11:05 PM.

[steenbokpixie]

Colin, on Sep 2 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

or a 'forefoot striking shoe' which I suppose is the BOG designed shoe.

I don't know anything about the study or the BOG designed shoe, but he mentioned in another thread that one of the forefoot striking shoes would be a Newton shoe, so it appears that if they do use their own designed shoe, it won't be the only forefoot striking shoe they test.

Edited by steenbokpixie, 02 September 2009 - 11:32 PM.

[DontStop]

This is a bit odd.

I wear these 'heel strike' shoes. When I'm doing a slow recovery jog, I land predominently heel/midfoot. When I'm running 4min kays or quicker, I land midfoot in them.

So I can answer this one already: I run faster when I land midfoot, than heel. When I wear racing flats, I generally can cover the ground a little quicker, but with no discernable difference in footstrike. At least, that's what wear-patterns tell me.

And I'd never run any kind of long distance landing solely on the balls of my feet. Who the hell would????

[chilliman]

BOG, on Sep 2 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

Please note that if you want to participate in the trial you will need to come to Newcastle every 6 months to run a 5km time trial.

I assume you are not paying for flights ?

How may pairs of shoes are allocated to each participant over the 18 months ?
Some here maybe running up to 200k per week.
I rotate through 3-4 pair at a time, will this be an option ?
What are the shoes like on trail ? Ultra's ?

Just curious, not that I can sign up anyway as I am a half size.

Quote

The second shoe is designed to be used with a forefoot strike running style. It also features a thick heavily cushioned sole but also incorporates an elastic spring system under the forefoot of the shoe. This is designed to store energy when you land and then re-release it as you push off.

Sounds like a reworked version of these for heel strikers.

 spring_shoes.png   237.24K   50 downloads

[otisr]

I don't like the idea of a shoe that removes any stability in the heel. Sounds like they are not good for trails. I do up to 100km per week, but all heel strike except when i get up to a race gallop of 4min/km pace when i revert to a forefoot. Sorry - no mid foot for me.

Edited by otisr, 03 September 2009 - 01:31 PM.

[tim]

I don't want to do the study but I just wanted to say something cause that is what everyone else does on here.

[Colin]

tim, on Sep 3 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I don't want to do the study but I just wanted to say something cause that is what everyone else does on here.

Isn't that what the hijackers thread is for

"Everyone else" actually said something pertaining to their knowledge of or experience of footstrike, which was relevant to the original post.

Isn't there some sort of level of maturity at least expected of moderators, rather than purposely trying to derail it?

[tim]

I thought the original poster asked for volunteers.

not for bored people's opinions.

thanks for taking the bait.

and to argue anything about foot strike seems a bit like groundhog day.

[Colin]

tim, on Sep 3 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

I thought the original poster asked for volunteers.

not for bored people's opinions.

Yes he asked for volunteers, but is also (and not the first time) trying to promote the concept of forefoot striking on a forum, by contrasting against an incorrect and accepted less effecient strike...in order to promote his research leading to a product.

...so counter opinions are not only valid , but necessary.

...it seems that it is only you that is bored by it.

cheers

[batavia]

I am actually quite entertained, get in there lad's!!!

[tim]

Colin, on Sep 3 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

...so counter opinions are not only valid , but necessary.

necessary for what?

for his research?

he asked for volunteer not for the opinions. i would imagine that after he did his stuff you can shoot it down his findings.

do you make a gun hand and blow the smoke away from your finger after you make a post?

Bam!

Six gun Colin shoots another misinformed idea down.

[DontStop]

Groundhog day on footstrike? This forum is chock full of the same posts, repeated over and over again, on all manner of topics, is it not?

But anyway, if the moderators/site owners want a more disciplined approach to posting, where things don't go off topic and discussions aren't organic, and people's questions get answered or challenged in ways that maybe the OP didn't expect... then that's fine too.

Although I'd think someone asking for volunteers to run for 18 months on the balls of their feet, and having to do periodic time-trials, is 'different' enough to spark discussion and debate?

Or have I completely misunderstood the purpose of discussion forums?

[BOG]

Hi guys

Thanks for your questions and... umm... accusations?

Anyway, I will try and answer them all here. Give me a prod if I miss any.

The shoes we will be comparing are a Newton shoe (forefoot strike) and a Mizuno shoe (heel strike).

I was not involved in designing either shoe and have no commercial relationship with either company.

We are not promoting either shoe or foot strike pattern. We are seeking to test the claim that converting a heel striker running in a heel strike shoe to a forefoot striker in a forefoot shoe makes them run faster with fewer injuries.

Whether it is difficult or easy to make the transition from heel strike to forefoot strike will be one of the things we measure. You can withdraw from the trial at any stage so if you find this too difficult to do.

This study is the first of a series comparing a variety of different shoes and foot strike patterns. This information will allow us to begin developing evidence based footwear prescribing guidelines for distance runners.

We are unable to subsidise travel to Newcastle for the time trials, so yes, flights are out!

We will replace shoes as required.

cheers

Craig

[Colin]

tim, on Sep 3 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

necessary for what?

for his research?

he asked for volunteer not for the opinions. i would imagine that after he did his stuff you can shoot it down his findings.

do you make a gun hand and blow the smoke away from your finger after you make a post?

Bam!

Six gun Colin shoots another misinformed idea down.

Tim ...I thought you moderators were so busy moderating that you wouldn't have time for triviality.

This is a bloody forum...you volunteering as a moderator means you recognise that, and there are many many threads, even ones I started that brought forth opinions that were not necessarily expected...or don't you know how forums work?

You want to take a low dig at me without even reading the entire thread. I purposely put my view (response) on this on an entirely different thread where it was in context (the 'barefoot shoe' thread)...and only linked that here and responded here after others ...including a 15 yo who saw the discrepancy ...had responded with their opinions and had already commented.

Or is it as a moderator that you can just say what you want to and dictate discussion?

I am perfectly entitled to 'shoot down' (your words)...but more correctly 'highlight' that the proposed research to determine whether forefoot striking "makes you run faster with less injuries" should be measured against the way the majority, including the fastest runners, are running not against a way that we know is ineffecient.

And as someone who has done research I would say the way it is being done is to effect a pre-determined outcome...and therefore disengenous if not said upfront that that is what's expected.

Why does one have to wait until the outcome to comment?...why can't you comment on the flawed methodology?

If you propose to research whether an apple is different to an orange...do I have to wait until your findings to tell you the answer?

edit:

I am not "shooting down a misinformed idea", I do not pretend that my ideas are more informed than others'...nor am I telling him he can't do his research...I am just saying that if you want to prove a method the fastest, least injurious, then measure it against the way the fastest, least injury prone runners are running.
...but if you have so much time for triviality or dictating discussion, perhaps you can do that and/or point it out to CRs

Edited by Colin, 03 September 2009 - 07:48 PM.

[flyingemu]

Colin, on Sep 3 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

If you propose to research whether an apple is different to an orange...do I have to wait until your findings to tell you the answer?

yes. if you define "different" in terms of "being fruit or not being fruit" then an apple and an orange are the same.

Edited by flyingemu, 03 September 2009 - 07:52 PM.

[tim]

Colin, on Sep 3 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

You want to take a low dig at me

always

actually I would have loved to taken part in the study but I land on my forefoot. Funny enough even 120 miles into a run i am still doing it when i am running that is.

My shoe wear pattern agrees with me.

but I am not fast. Don't really care about speed.

What was my point again.

i don't remember.

and I was not posting as a mod. Should I start another identity so i can just post in my own way?

Quote

If you propose to research whether an apple is different to an orange...do I have to wait until your findings to tell you the answer?

now this is an interesting question.

why do you feel the need to give the answer?

[technicallyfit]

Good times good time. Tim I quite enjoy your responses. Having been involved with development of footwear for a major shoe brand I have quite enjoyed reading through this thread. I have seen and read some funny and 'different'ideas put on this site which keeps me entertained. Now I read an article recently which was interesting from a Dr in Newcastle suggesting there was 'there was no published research that showed running shoes that controlled how much the foot rolled in and had elevated cushioned heels helped prevent injuries'. Im sure the research being conducted has absolutely no correlation, otherwise footwear would not be involved? Is my logic right...

I began writing evidence from previous studies.. however decided to delete it as Im sure this new research will come out with some interesting facts. Also poses the question, from the target group identified, what will be the control to determine the average?

I wonder how many people have multiple identities on here? Is this a discussion for a new thread

tim, on Sep 3 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

always

actually I would have loved to taken part in the study but I land on my forefoot. Funny enough even 120 miles into a run i am still doing it when i am running that is.

My shoe wear pattern agrees with me.

but I am not fast. Don't really care about speed.

What was my point again.

i don't remember.

and I was not posting as a mod. Should I start another identity so i can just post in my own way?



now this is an interesting question.

why do you feel the need to give the answer?

[SMC42K]

Forefoot strike, heal strike, sounds like a bloody union meeting to me

[dino]

What was the original topic again?

It would be really nice if people could actually say something positive for once and leave the attitude/ego somewhere else.

Oh thats right everyone is entitled to have an opinion even if it is .........

Have a nice day everyone.

[technicallyfit]

Good contribution

dino, on Sep 5 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

What was the original topic again?

It would be really nice if people could actually say something positive for once and leave the attitude/ego somewhere else.

Oh thats right everyone is entitled to have an opinion even if it is .........

Have a nice day everyone.

[slowboat]

I see 2 problems with this study.

1. You will mostly need runners from the central coast and surrounding areas so this will limit the amount of people that will be able to conduct it for you.

2. Every runner has his/her own running style and takes a major amount of effort to change how they would strike the ground when running. You are concerntrating on all different factors when running ie: breathing, stride etc. If you some how did concentrate on the way you want them to strike they may not either make the distance required to run, give you false information as they go back to running the way that makes them feel normal or even wosre end up with an injury.

Other then those good luck with your study.

[BOG]

slowboat, on Sep 6 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

I see 2 problems with this study.

1. You will mostly need runners from the central coast and surrounding areas so this will limit the amount of people that will be able to conduct it for you.

2. Every runner has his/her own running style and takes a major amount of effort to change how they would strike the ground when running. You are concerntrating on all different factors when running ie: breathing, stride etc. If you some how did concentrate on the way you want them to strike they may not either make the distance required to run, give you false information as they go back to running the way that makes them feel normal or even wosre end up with an injury.

Other then those good luck with your study.

Yep, good observations. We still need more participants so we are certainly experiencing the limitations posed by requiring runners to come to Newcastle for time trials.

With regard to how hard/effective/dangerous it is to deliberately change footstrike, this is exactly the purpose of the study. We know that what shoe you wear (or whether you wear a shoe at all) dramatically changes what is considered a 'natural' footstrike. One question being examined by the study is certainly whether the Newton shoe makes a forefoot strike 'natural'. If it doesn't, then we would expect to see higher drop out rates in the Newton group compared to the Mizuno group. Whether the degree to which the forefoot strike becomes 'natural' for the runners in this group translates into improved performance and decreased injury risk won't be known until we do the study!

Edited by BOG, 10 October 2009 - 12:14 PM.

[maryclaire]

Aside from the fact that I am excluded from the study on several prerequisites (location/shoe size), I wouldn't take part in this anyway - as in my experiment of one I tried to move from heel strike to midfoot strike with the assistance of Newtons earlier this year. The motivation was to try and relieve chronic plantar fasciitis. Of course I managed to change my foot strike and dramatically improve pace with little additional perceived effort.....until the stress fracture.

Edited by maryclaire, 09 October 2009 - 11:15 AM.

[Colin]

BOG, on Oct 9 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

One question being examined by the study is certainly whether the Newton shoe makes a forefoot strike 'natural'. If it doesn't, then we would expect to see higher drop out rates in the Newton group compared to the Mizuno group. Whether the degree to which the forefoot strike becomes 'natural' for the runners is this group translates into improved performance and decreased injury risk won't be known until we do the study!

Can be quite easily answered by a quick look at the pointy end of any big marathon...or even anyone below 3hrs.

Or are we going to see a massive breakthrough in times (sub 2hrs anyone) based on these findings once the elite change their style?

[gus]

Seems to be getting hot in here...
Well here is a story from the coal face. Let me state I am in no way related to Dr Craig, did not know of him, had never met him or been involved with any shoe companies or shoe retailers.
I signed up for the project as I am always up for a challenge, have had previous issues with knees and would love to go faster. If I got the Mizunos well I have not lost anything but would meet some like minded people who enjoy running and have extra motivation to hit the training track.

Dr Craig organised a baseline 5km TT at a track for a group of us on a balmy Sunday in Newcastle and once completed we were informed which shoe we would be wearing. I am in the Newton group. Dr Craig informed me the show selection was random and it does appear that way.

Had my first run in Newtons on a treadmill as it was conveniant and could control my speed. Ran 2 * 1km sets at around 11km/h and then 1km at 14km/h with 400mtr walk recovery. Each run I was trying to run on the "lugs".
I found the next day my calf muscles are sore and I have a twinge in the arch of one of my feet. I plan to run twice a week in them less than 5km a session and 1 session in my "normal" shoes that will be a 12km session until my body has adjusted.

In 6 months time we will have another TT, this time in our new shoes.

Cheers...

[kiwirunner]

Don't know if this has been covered yet but thought i'd add my two cents.

Wouldn't it just be easier and make more sense to find natural ''forefoot'' strikers who are running in ''heel'' striking shoes and get them to run in Newton’s to see if there is an improvement in their times? Not just throwing people into a certain timeframe to become more ''forefoot'' orientated and testing them while increasing their likelihood of incurring an injury? This exercise seems somewhat flawed on a few levels but who am I to judge. Good luck to the ''volunteers'' taking part and I hope you don't do some long term damage if you fail to become a ''forefoot'' runner.

Also if I was a betting man I would most certainly say that if you were a ''forefoot'' runner then a transition from a tradition ''heel'' striking specific shoe towards a Newton than you would see a increase in performance and overall efficiency conserving more energy which may result in a decreased time over a specific distance.

Would be great for some feedback

[Leofisio]

It is a pitty that someone is offering a randomised controlled trial (which is the best research design for measuring the effects of interventinons) trying to answer one of million questions about shoes and running injuries and at the same time receives criticisms without any clear reason...

Coolrunning is a perfect place/site to find volunteers for studies that need runners as the study population... so it is disappointing to see a researcher trying to to his job and see people trying to interfere even with the STUDY DESIGN!!!

This is similar when we are in busy conference saying that we have results from lots of studies and one clinician stand up and say: but in my clinical experience I am sure that your study is flawed (without even reading the results).

Again disappointing...

Good Luck BOG I wish you find sufficient volunteers for your studies!

disclaimer: I don't even know BOG, etc

Leo

[Colin]

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

It is a pitty that someone is offering a randomised controlled trial (which is the best research design for measuring the effects of interventinons) trying to answer one of million questions about shoes and running injuries and at the same time receives criticisms without any clear reason...

I thought the previous poster showed quite clear reason....

kiwirunner, on Nov 24 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Wouldn't it just be easier and make more sense to find natural ''forefoot'' strikers who are running in ''heel'' striking shoes and get them to run in Newton’s to see if there is an improvement in their times? Not just throwing people into a certain timeframe to become more ''forefoot'' orientated and testing them while increasing their likelihood of incurring an injury? This exercise seems somewhat flawed on a few levels but who am I to judge. Good luck to the ''volunteers'' taking part and I hope you don't do some long term damage if you fail to become a ''forefoot'' runner.

i.e. The study time short.
You need to be clear about what parameters you are studying...trying to measure how forefoot strikers go in shoes with less heel padding or trying to convert heel strikers to forefoot strikers.
Also...it is already quite clear that heel striking is not as good as midfoot striking and yet the two categories are spoken of as one, as opposed to forefoot which has not shown any benefits in performance at elite level.
So...as I said before, trying to prove 'a' is better than 'b' by measuring it against 'c'(as a substitute for 'b' ), then saying it is better than 'b'...is scientifically misleading.

edit: oh it doesn't matter what others thingk of the study parameters...its an RCT after all.

btw...re RCT's that you bang about in many posts, how many RCT's of yourself have so far resulted in practical benefits...just curious.

btw...isn't the best RCT out there just the running population in general...after all we can clearly see how the fast runners/low injury runners run vs the slower injury prone ones...or doesn't that pay?

Edited by Colin, 24 November 2009 - 02:57 PM.

[Leofisio]

Colin, on Nov 24 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

btw...re RCT's that you bang about in many posts, how many RCT's of yourself have so far resulted in practical benefits...just curious.

btw...isn't the best RCT out there just the running population in general...after all we can clearly see how the fast runners/low injury runners run vs the slower injury prone ones...or doesn't that pay?

I don't need to show my research results and their benefits to you as I am not used to sell my own research... (even because I don't work with runners, unfortunately).

People take antibiotics, insuline or do exercises because of RCT findings... or do you think this is also based upon experience???

"edit: oh it doesn't matter what others thingk of the study parameters...its an RCT after all." also strange as you probably haven't read the full study protocol at all... really common issue in people who love to criticise reseach by just reading the abstract, etc

You second sentece shows that you understand something about research: RCTs are designed to show the AVERAGE effect of the intervention in a GENERALIZABLE population... so you are right that this trial would show an average effect on runners as most of the elite runners won't be willing to test something different in a RCT study... BUT most of the runners are not elite are they??? So this study could be very useful to answer that specific question...

Again Colin, it is disappointing that people believe in word of mouth + current affair + TV adds, but not in scientific data... that is my only concern.

Cheers,

Leo

Edited by Leofisio, 24 November 2009 - 03:42 PM.

[undercover brother]

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

it is disappointing that people believe in word of mouth + current affair + TV adds, but not in scientific data... that is my only concern.

well said - though i would add that it's not just belief in scientific data it's firstly having access to it then understanding it.

[Colin]

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

Again Colin, it is disappointing that people believe in word of mouth + current affair + TV adds, but not in scientific data... that is my only concern.

undercover brother, on Nov 24 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

well said - though i would add that it's not just belief in scientific data it's firstly having access to it then understanding it.

Quite insulting really...Remind me to return my research post grad degrees to the rental place I got it from....its overdue.
I wonder what that 'cum laude' thing means...should have done Latin too.


Leo,

I expressed no problem against RCT...I just express a problem against your high and mighty attitude about anything scientific, in that no-one else can comment on the parameters of a study because "hey its an RCT"

And your response shows that you did not even read my posts properly....where did I make an analogy that antibiotic use etc is based on people's 'experiences'.

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

I don't need to show my research results and their benefits to you as I am not used to sell my own research... (even because I don't work with runners, unfortunately).

Then stop banging on about RCT in every thread.

[undercover brother]

Colin, on Nov 24 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Quite insulting really...

no, just reality.
hand the average person in the street an RCT paper on something like what's proposed above and i would think the vast majority would be completely lost.
especially the terminology and stats.
i might have a hope in understanding most of it and i have been looking at RCTs for a damn long time.

we should be thanking leo for his input into this site over the last 18months.
thankyou leo!

Edited by undercover brother, 24 November 2009 - 05:10 PM.

[Leofisio]

Colin, on Nov 24 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Then stop banging on about RCT in every thread.

I will do this only if you promise to stop banging everyone about everything in every thread

As I said before (many times) I am not a good runner, but I love to run... so I learn with you guys about training etc (including going to SMC, etc) and try to help with things that I know better, unfortunately it seems that you don't like this...

Bye!

Leo

Edited by Leofisio, 24 November 2009 - 07:57 PM.

[Colin]

undercover brother, on Nov 24 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

no, just reality.

So despite me telling you otherwise about research I have actually very successfully done, you still believe that I don't understand research papers of others??
Ok...back to ACA and TT for me.

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

I will do this only if you promise to stop banging everyone about everything in every thread

As I said before (many times) I am not a good runner, but I love to run... so I learn with you guys about training etc (including going to SMC, etc) and try to help with things that I know better, unfortunately it seems that you don't like this...

Leo,

I have never spoken down to you because of your level of running the way you constantly talk down to others because they 'don't understand research' like you do, or 'don't understand RCTs' etc or are dumb people that "depend on ACA etc for their knowledge'.

That's how you come across to me and that's why I 'bang on about you' in a few threads....most of the threads on CR I don't even read let alone comment...but hey, maybe that's what your skewy interpretation of data tells you
To be honest...I don't even know what your times are, and it doesn't matter really to any debate, unless the debate is about your performance. I recall you were at one SMC, but I would have to check results on web to know what you did.

Leo...do you make any decision without research or an RCT?..really a serious question, because you try and counter every scientific proposition that way.
Most things in life don't require that.
I don't need an RCT to tell me that most 4 cyl cars are more economical than V8's, nor do I need one to know that my wife's Astra is more economical than my Ute (no matter who drives it) and I don't even need one to know that my wife drives my Ute less economically than me.
Some factual things are pretty obvious and easy to work out.

I am a scientist just like you (I hope I can say that), but I have spent the best part of 30yrs in industry and am a practical scientist, and although I believe in research, I also believe that the real competitive world itself provides a very good test tube for improvement.

...and running is no different, when people are willing to sacrifice their health (drugs) for performance, why aren't they copying eg forefoot runners to run faster?

btw...back on topic, you mentioned that CR is the ideal place for recruitment for RCT...firstly we suspect that CR does not reflect the demography of runners and secondly most people on CR would react to the study based on their beliefs on footstrike and also may not be willing to risk interference (injury) and people are more likely to help if they already have a leaning towards the hypothesis (for whatever reason)..oh and despite the geographical requirement.
That's 'random' as the kids say.

cheers

[undercover brother]

Colin, on Nov 25 2009, 09:18 AM, said:

So despite me telling you otherwise about research I have actually very successfully done, you still believe that I don't understand research papers of others??
Ok...back to ACA and TT for me.

why do you think i was specifically referring to you?

[Leofisio]

Colin, on Nov 25 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

Leo,

Leo...do you make any decision without research or an RCT?..really a serious question, because you try and counter every scientific proposition that way.
Most things in life don't require that.
I don't need an RCT to tell me that most 4 cyl cars are more economical than V8's, nor do I need one to know that my wife's Astra is more economical than my Ute (no matter who drives it) and I don't even need one to know that my wife drives my Ute less economically than me.
Some factual things are pretty obvious and easy to work out.

I am a scientist just like you (I hope I can say that), but I have spent the best part of 30yrs in industry and am a practical scientist, and although I believe in research, I also believe that the real competitive world itself provides a very good test tube for improvement.

...and running is no different, when people are willing to sacrifice their health (drugs) for performance, why aren't they copying eg forefoot runners to run faster?

btw...back on topic, you mentioned that CR is the ideal place for recruitment for RCT...firstly we suspect that CR does not reflect the demography of runners and secondly most people on CR would react to the study based on their beliefs on footstrike and also may not be willing to risk interference (injury) and people are more likely to help if they already have a leaning towards the hypothesis (for whatever reason)..oh and despite the geographical requirement.
That's 'random' as the kids say.

cheers

OK, let's go:

I firstly agree with you that you don't need RCT's for everything... for example, we don't need a RCT to test the efficacy of parachutes in saving lifes (imagine people being randomised to jump from planes with or without parachutes! That would be funny!). Secondly I accept evidence from lower levels of studies IF we don't have a RCT available, for example in the absence of RCT for SHOES... we have to accept the best evidence available, for example an expert opinion or single case studies, etc... this does not mean that the real answer is there.

I have been fighting against my hamstrings for 2 years now, one of the doctors that I went suggested surgery... I went to the web and found no RCT's on this... just case studies and opted for not having the surgery... this was MY clinical option based upon the lack of available research (and my knowledge as a physio), other people would do differently, fair enough... on the other hand I think decisions on health are different from opinions about car consumption.

You maybe be right that CR may not be the "best" place to recruit runners based upon geography... I honestly think that no one would ague that this is a great place for recruiting, but anyway...

Anyway we could discuss this for ages... I honestly would love to talk to you face to face as I am sure that we have many ideas in common as well as many disagreements (as any good researchers)... maybe we should go for a run some day... and if you get angry about my ideas... all you have to do is to run faster! And I am sure you can do that easily.

Cheers,

Leo

undercover brother, on Nov 25 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

why do you think i was specifically referring to you?

That is exactly right... that ACA comment was not referred to you Colin... I said "people"...

[Duffman]

I was just listening to a song by snow patrol before I saw this thread. The chorus went:

Quote

Are you beginning to get get my point
That all this fighting with aching joints
It's doing nothing but tire us out
No one knows what this fight's about

Strong evidence helps us to make clear and accurate clinical decisions. Peer reviewed studies provide stronger evidence, as do comparisons/reviews of similar studies. Criticism is no longer constructive when emotion is involved.

(Cook, Mulrow and Haynes 1997)

[pipi]

Leofisio, on Nov 24 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Coolrunning is a perfect place/site to find volunteers for studies that need runners as the study population... so it is disappointing to see a researcher trying to to his job and see people trying to interfere even with the STUDY DESIGN!!!

This is similar when we are in busy conference saying that we have results from lots of studies and one clinician stand up and say: but in my clinical experience I am sure that your study is flawed (without even reading the results).

Why would you read the results if you had a strong belief that the study is flawed?

Any researcher who works for an Australian publicly funded University has to be open to answer questions and take on board critism. It is part of the job. Also the disemination of any findings to the general public is also part of the job.

[Leofisio]

pipi, on Nov 25 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

Why would you read the results if you had a strong belief that the study is flawed?

Any researcher who works for an Australian publicly funded University has to be open to answer questions and take on board critism. It is part of the job. Also the disemination of any findings to the general public is also part of the job.

Sorry Pipi... I don't think this quote is applicable to me...

Researchers love to be criticised... critics and questions are our major source of improvement, every researcher knows that this is part of the job.

Investigate something without dissemination (publication) in my view is crime...

So, I think we agree in everything.

Leo

Duffman, on Nov 25 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

I was just listening to a song by snow patrol before I saw this thread. The chorus went:

Strong evidence helps us to make clear and accurate clinical decisions. Peer reviewed studies provide stronger evidence, as do comparisons/reviews of similar studies. Criticism is no longer constructive when emotion is involved.

Totally agree.

Edited by Leofisio, 25 November 2009 - 02:01 PM.

[BOG]

Hi guys

Its great to see a debate about evidence and how an understanding of different levels of evidence can be applied to running.

The central question is this. Can we run a study which will accurately tell us what impact a change in foot strike and shoe has on running performance and injury rates?

Running performance and running injury rates are clearly affected by a large number of variables. Even if we knew what all the variables affecting performance and injury rates are (we don't), how could we possibly control for them all in an experiment?

A randomised controlled trial (RCT) such as the one we are running is specifically designed to meet this need. It generates the strongest evidence that an intervention (in this case concurrently changing shoe and foot strike) is either effective or ineffective. It is the gold standard study design used to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs and other medical treatments.

The benefit of this study design is that because participants are randomly allocated to either the intervention group (Newton plus forefoot strike) or the control group (Mizuno plus heel strike), all the other baselines variables that could affect the outcome of the study (eg age, weight, previous PB and injuries, attitudes to running) are also randomly distributed between the two groups. If these other factors are evenly distributed between the two groups then they cannot affect the outcome. This allows us to either 1)attribute any differences seen in the performance or injury rates between the two groups to mistakes made during the running of the trial that resulted in the two groups being treated differently, or 2) conclude that the change in shoe and foot strike is responsible.

A good non-sporting example is the use of RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness of cholesterol lowering agents in preventing heart disease. There are multiple factors which contribute to heart disease, many of which we haven't even identified yet. As such it would be seem impossible to properly control for these. However if we use a RCT we don't even need to know what these other factors are that we are controlling for and yet we can evaluate what impact the medication has on rates of heart disease.

Hope this helps!

cheers

Craig

[BOG]

PS If you would like to enter the trial I still have shoes in all sizes (US M8-12, W7-9). We will hold further baseline time trials in 6 and 12 months respectively (23/05/10 and 21/11/10). Please let me know well beforehand if you are interested!

[Danny]

Hi Craig,

I got all the way to the bottom - whew what an effort. I live down at Morisset where are you holding your time trials? I fit all your criteria and would be keen to help out.

Cheers,

Danny

[Fossil]

LOVE22RUN, on Sep 2 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

I think this whole thread is funny.
You guys doing the study have missed the most economical running style of them all which is the MIDFOOT landing. I deliberately changed from a heel striker to midfoot so as to reduce the braking action on landing which prevents injury and to become more economical. The end result is i got faster and havent been injured since.

Absolutely! No way I would intentionally land on my heel when running!

Edited by Fossil, 28 November 2009 - 03:26 PM.

[BOG]

Hi guys

We are in the process of enrolling a new group of runners into our study in time for the next time trial on Sunday May 23 in Newcastle.

Please get in touch (Craig.Richards@newcastle.edu.au) if you are interested.

cheers

Craig