Re: Zu viel Bedeutung
hm,ich denk du hast bei dem artikel über korrekte übungsausführung was missverstanden,lies ihn dir vielleicht nochmal durch...
zu den schuhen:hab selber keine erfahrung damit,aber stolper manchmal über artikel,die mein interesse wecken und für mich vernünftig klingen,wie zb folgender:
This article should be of great interest to those of you who enjoy running
in
your latest fashionably expensive running shoes.
-----------------
Running Shoes,
by Paul Talbot
I've been thinking a lot about the training shoe question lately. If we
look
at the shoes from the early 70's and earlier, they were no more than what
we
today would consider racing flats and people put in 100+ mile weeks in
them,
no problem (and they were probably faster 100 mile weeks as well). If we
look
at the days of interval training, we'll find distance runners getting in
100+
mile weeks on the track in spikes! Gordon Pirie (former 5,000 WR holder)
argued that 70% of running injuries today are directly attributable to the
poor running shoes of today that force people to run incorrectly (and that
correct running is injury free).
In his book, "Marty Liquori's Guide for the Elite Runner," Liquori states
that before the market became dominated by shoes aimed at the common
jogger,
achilles tendon problems were virtually unknown. Lydiard advocated
training
and racing in the lightest shoes possible.
Modern shoes force most people to run in a particular way. They are
designed
to reduce pronation, force a heel strike, "protect" the ankle or achilles
tendon, etc. If you run barefoot you will find that:
(a) it is nearly impossible to land on your heel, the natural motion is
ball
of the foot strike or flat footed strike, and
(b) there is no noticible pronation.
The heel-strike character of most running shoes is troublesome. First, the
heel is not a natural shock absorber. Your arch, and foot are the first
areas
of shock absorption, while the achilles and calf muscles control
pronation.
Furthermore, landing flat footed allows for the knee to come over the foot
and bend more quickly which allows the legs to take up more of the shock
absorption. Some studies have actually shown that barefooted running is
more
shock absorbent than running in common running shoes.
Secondly, because most shoes are designed for a heel-strike, they build up
the "cushioning" under the heel. While this undoubtedly helps absorb some
of
the shock that jars your leg bones while heel-striking, the build up of
cushioning under the heel also elevates the heel. This can have a
shortening
effect on the achilles and calf which can make it more prone to injury.
The build up also reduces stability. This is often compensated for by
other
gadgets in the shoe which try to hold the heel firmly in place and reduce
the
pronation (which is a way the body reduces shock). Unfortunately, this
places
more and more burden on the achilles and calf to control the foot when it
hits the ground. Lets remember that the shoe industry is based on the
average, overweight, weekend jogger and not the serious runner. I don't
mean
to trash the entire shoe industry here, some models are very good, but at
the
same time lets realize that many of the injuries of today were rare 25
years
ago and can be attributable to the shoes of today.
For many -- perhaps most -- a light, simple shoe that tries to do the
least
may be the best.
Incidentally, the best "cure" for any lower leg injuries has always been,
for
me, to run a few miles barefoot on grass. This has worked for me for shin
splints and plantar fascia problems.
Many are sure to disagree with what I've said here, that's fine, but I
thought I'd put forth one perspective for people to think about.
cheers,klaus
