AMarkets
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[-]
IC Markets
Number 1 Broker
IC Markets

[-]
ads
Promotional Material.
Brokers:
Trading Army

[-]
xm ads
XM.
Promotional Material:

asics gt 2000 4 women's
#1
He asks asics gel shoes for ONE piece of evidence, so here's one. Again to Squadrone and Gallozzi, 2009. Running in zero drop Vibram Fivefingers compared to traditional shoes reduces oxygen consumption and reduces ground contact time (which has been shown to be associated with greater speed). Maybe it's not a perfect example, but the claim that there is NO evidence is false. We can turn this around and ask for peer reviewed, published evidence of a benefit to running in ASICS shoes. What is the benefit of a 12mm lifted heel? You'll typically hear about reduced Achilles problems, but has this been proven? Richards et al., 2008 state that "& the overall impact on injury rates of running in a shoe with an elevated heel remains untested in clinical trials ." 

How do you know which category you belong to? What you'll find next are instructions on how to determine your arch type based on the "wet footprint test." Once you determine your arch type, you can translate it into a pronation category and choose a shoe from one of three categories: high arch gets cushioning, medium arch gets structure cushioning, low arch gets maximum support. These are basically different words for neutral, stability, and motion control. Since we're in the business of asking for peer reviewed, published evidence, I'd ask what the evidence for using arch height to choose a shoe might be? I'd ask whether pronation has been reliably shown as a major cause of running injury that needs to be controlled by a shoe? I'd ask whether ASICS shoes or pronation control devices have been proven to prevent injuries? 

I think I've said enough here. My position is and has been that each runner is an individual, and I agree with Bartold when he states that. Given this, different runners have different preferences and needs. Some may want a 12mm lifted shoe, but others don't. Some of those who don't might have made the switch to escape a long term injury, and it's clear that in many cases switching to minimalist shoes has helped. Some (like me) switch simply because we enjoy running in minimalist shoes more than in big heavy clunkers (and yes, I have run in Asicsa Kayanos as well as the 2100 series). I was never injured seriously in bulky shoes, and I haven't been injured seriously in minimalist shoes. I may or may not be faster now, it's really hard to tell. But I will say that I am enjoying running more, and that's all that really matters to me, and I really don't care if that gets published in a peer reviewed journal. 

*You mentioned before about a 12mm heel height being ideal? Why is that the standard? *Well, that's a very interesting question because it hasn't been settled on at all. With ASICS we've always worked on a 10mm gradient. That's the difference between the height of the forefoot and the height of the rear foot, so if you've got a cushion asics gel venture 6 mens type shoe it might be 24mm and 14mm off the ground. A racing flat might be slimmer at 10mm and 20mm. We've done a lot of research on this and we understand that it actually puts your foot in a mechanically better position, makes it more stable, takes a load off the Achilles tendon& so there's a lot of positives. There's a lot of myths and all that sort of crap and the problem is that every time you add a little raise, people are going to say  oh but you're removing the foot from the ground therefore you're going to make it more unstable and you're more likely to sprain an ankle', which is complete nonsense. That's scientifically unsustainable. There's no evidence to say that happens at all.* 

Pete.. I hope I am not playing a game! I certainly did not think thats what it was about..you know, the interesting thing is that in a crazy way we are both saying the same thing.. asics gel torrance and please do not represent me as the ASICS mouthpiece. I entered this debate as an individual with 30 years in the world of biomechanics and sports medicine, and the views I am putting across.. in the spirit of asking questions and receiving answers, are my own. It seems a pity for the discussion to get personal. I have been trying to make only one point.. everyone is different.. some people do well running barefoot, some people do well running heel toe, some people do well forefoot srtiking. I have never.. ever, said do not do these things. What I have said is allow the athlete to make the choice. You will note that not at any point have I said everyone should run in an ASICS shoe.. of course not.. they have choice, and for some people, this product will.. for whatever reason not suit them, so they should and must look elsewhere.. but the key here is to allow choice. The problem I have with this argument is the sense that the advice is that everyone will benefit from wearing a minimalist shoe, or at the very least, a shoe with zero raise gradient. Sorry, I do not agree, and that is taking the choice away frm the athlete. It also has the potential to injury them.. which is never good. Now I know you are immediately thinking hah! so do conventional shoes, but as you rightly point out, we have no proof either way. Many in these blogs have demanded a study proving conventional fotwear reduces injury rates. Well you sound like a guy with a scientific background, so maybe you can explain to the punters on this blog just how dificult it would be, if not impossible to design a meaningful study to ask that scientific question. If i put mY ASICS hat on, I would LOVE to do that study.. really, really interested in the answer, good or bad for the ASICS brand.. but how do i asics gt 2000 6 womens or you control all the variables this study would throw up. If you have an answer, i would genuinely like to know your thoughts. I do not want this discussion to degenerate into a p*##ing match because it can and should be a healthy debate, no an us versus them argument. I have an opinion, so do you, both equaly valid. ASICS has a point of view, and we base this on the science that is available at this point in time. If that opinion does not match others, then that's OK because other choices are available. Does that mean ASICS direction is wrong.. time will tell. It is, at times difficult to swallow the criticism, when we were the only brand to fly in the face of rigid, inflexible,heavy shoes all those years ago, and make changes no-one else would& based on the available science.. for what we believed was for the benefit of the athlete. Do you and the bloggers really believe that it is only about selling shoes? if that is the case my entire professional career has been a waste, and whatever small contribution I have made to footwear science has been worthless, because, i can say, hand on heart, everything I have ever done has been only with the wellfare of the athlete in view. Sure we hope  whatever we do will sell shoes, but c'mon, do you really think we do not have the athletes best interests at heart? If that is really the case I find that really sad. In relation to the references you quote..in the words of my good mate Craig Payne from Podiatry Arena, where this all started "There is no debate about if barefoot running is good or not. The debate is about the misuse, misrepresentation, misquoting and misinterpretation of the science" An example of this is your reference "see this review paper by Zadpoor and Nikooyan, 2011". to quote the actual paper.. results showed no significant differences between the ground reaction force of the lower-limb stress fracture and control groups (P>0.05). How does this support you argument? Furthermore, the Liebermann Nature article (which by the way is not a peer reviewed scientific publication), has been so badly misrepresented that Dan himself has posted a discalimer on the Harvard website saying the research has been misrepresented. People are reading what they want into it.. and by the way.. there were big holes in this.. like comparing a cohort of 19 year olds to a cohort of 40 year olds and also mixing genders.. hmm. I am sure you would agree when reading scientific papers,  critical appraisal' is very imoprtant. A number of the papers you quote did not actually show what you are claiming they show. This does not mean you are wrong; you are just assuming you are right by using references that do not actually show what you claim they show. Anyway.. thats my 2 cents worth.. interesting and hopefully healthy debate.. maybe one day we can meet and go at it face to face.. much more enjoyable than blogging, especially since I am such a crap typer! Can I once more emphasise that I do not claim to have all the answers, and that this discussion should be light and maybe even a little tongue in cheek, without getting personal.. to quote Fox Mulder, the truth is out there.. hopefully we find it sooner or later. best.. Simon 

You want a spirited and open debate, then refer to your friend Craig Payne, who I have heard from numerous folks is the anonymous writer of the Barefoot Running is Bad website which likes to denigrate the barefoot runners (I suppose I'll now be accused of misrepresenting what is on that site& ). Both sides could stand to be a bit more civil and open minded. I have read Craig's thoughtful post on the podiatry arena (I do lurk there from time to time as I believe in learning from as many sources as I can). I agree with most of what he says, contrary to his charges that I misrepresent study results. The debate is not barefoot vs. traditional shoes. As Jay Dicharry so eloquently wrote in response to the post on Zero Drop, the debate should be about how best to find the optimal shoe for each runner. My belief is that in order to do this, more options are needed. In a case where the science is hard to do, anecdote has to play some role, and anecdote suggests that some people do better in less shoe. Thankfully, more easily accessible options are appearing in regular shoe stores, and runners are conducting individual experiments on a daily basis. Heck, I have run in just about every type of shoe imaginable, probably much to my own detriment, and only recently have I come to determine my own personal preferences. Sometimes I like a soft shoe like the Saucony Kinvara, other times I like an ultraminimal shoe like a Vibram Fivefingers or Merrell Trail Glove. I don't like anything that has much more than a 6mm heel lift. That's a personal preference, and I am a n of 1. However, if I went by the advice of the shoe store clerk when I first started running, I'd still be in typical stability shoes. I feel that the shoe fitting process asics gt 2000 4 women's is flawed, and more research needs to be done on how to fit runners to shoes. You say that Asics has long tried to work to allow the natural movement of the foot, so why not start a massive education program to educate shoe stores that pronation is not the evil that it is made out to be, and is not the only factor to consider when choosing a shoe. Why does ASICS persist in advocating arch type as a factor in choosing a shoe when the best evidence we [Image: asics%20gel%20shoes-733vwt.jpg] currently have suggest that this is not a useful tool.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
[-]
Statistics
» Members: 4,858
» Latest member: jamescewger
» Forum threads: 3,719
» Forum posts: 5,451

Full Statistics

[-]
Recent Posts
https://www.thenutracafe.com/fr/testo-bo...
Testo Boost Plus : A...testoboostpluse — 07:31 AM
jordan hat
He sprawls hat acces...EdenHouse — 02:13 AM
fila ray mujer
Él dijo:  Un sacerd...EdenHouse — 02:10 AM
zapatillas trail
Los zapatos de ancho...EdenHouse — 02:07 AM
https://www.thesupplementstudy.com/beau-...
You must get pleasur...tonnarantos — 06:24 AM

[-]
FXVM
FXVM VPS
FOREX VPS
160x600-Banner-AK-09-10-2015

AMarkets
Bumerang - Yazarkafe