Inicio
>
Bienvenida y presentaciones
>
Tema
Converse Canvas Mens cheap sale、
Enviado por yanda
|
Converse Canvas Mens cheap sale、 21-June-2016 15:23 |
Registrado: 8 años antes Mensajes: 93 |
Last time Converse All Star High Womens sale I checked, a change in footstrike is itself a kinematic change. I was unable to find this reference anywhere, so hard to evaluate it, but kinematic changes have been shown many times between rearfoot and forefoot strikers. For example, consider this statement from a conference abstract by McClay and Williams, 1998 (published later in the Journal of Applied Biomechanics as Williams et al., 2000):
Bartold goes on to cite a reference by researchers from the University of Massachusetts that reports ¡°a 7% decrease in running efficiency in the barefoot group in a model predicting barefoot vs shod running.¡± I¡¯m not sure exactly which paper he is referring to, but if it¡¯s the one I think it is, it¡¯s a conference abstract in which a computer model was developed based on measurements from a single individual. No oxygen consumption measures from living human beings were involved. So, the two-dimensional computer model based on one person referred to in an unpublished conference abstract ran better on its heels¡not sure I consider that to be strong evidence. Jenkins and Cauthon (2011) summarize a number of studies which have shown reduced oxygen consumption in barefoot running compared to shod running. However, to be fair, it¡¯s quite possible that this is simply a mass effect since removing shoes removes weight from the end of the limb. Squadrone and Gallozzi (2009) found oxygen consumption to be lower in in experienced barefoot runners running in Vibram Fivefingers vs. traditional shoes, and noted that running in traditional shoes resulted in significantly greater dorsiflexion of the foot on landing (i.e., they were heel striking, albeit mildly). Interestingly, barefoot was not Converse All Star Low Womens uk significantly more efficient than either traditional or Vibram Fivefinger running (i.e., it was in between the two). The efficiency question might just be a wash, but I don¡¯t think we can really say either way with any great degree of certainty at this point.
Surely the folks at ASICS must be aware of the paper by Ryan et al., 2010. They showed that neutral runners did better in stability shoes, overpronators did better in neutral shoes, and all severe overpronators in motion control shoes got hurt. In other words, either the shoes don¡¯t do what they are supposed to, or static measures of the foot are not a good basis for assigning shoes. And the study was supported by Nike.
There have been more than four years since the two American classics, Converse and DC Comics, joined forces to create a collection destined to become a hit among sneakers and comics fans alike. There have been years when superheroes such as Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman or The Joker have found their way into our hearts once again. With an already huge comics fan base, DC Comics came up with various ways to satisfy the growing demand, with movies, cartoons and various accessories featuring their bellowed characters.
He asks 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.¡±
As I have written previously here on Runblogger, forefoot striking has been shown to reduce vertical impact peak (many studies, Squadrone and Gallozi, 2009 and Lieberman et al., 2010 are recent examples) and vertical impact loading rate (Oakley and Pratt, 1988; Williams et al., 2000) relative to heel striking. Data showing no difference between forefoot and rearfoot impact loading rate is out there (e.g., Laughton et al., 2003), but data are limited that involve people well acclimated to multiple landing types. Data on loading rates are sometimes difficult to interpret if runners are not acclimated to a barefoot running style ¨C for example, De Wit et al., 2000 showed dramatically increased vertical loading Converse Canvas Womens outlet sale rate in barefoot runners compared to shod runners, but their barefoot runners were heel striking. One would fully expect a barefoot heel strike to exhibit a higher loading rate since little cushion other than the heel fat pad is present to slow down force application. Lieberman et al., 2010 showed that habitually barefoot runners overwhelmingly land on the forefoot, which suggests caution when interpreting studies of barefoot heel strikers (who were probably unaccustomed to running barefoot). See this recent (2011) paper by Jenkins and Cauthon in the Journal o Converse SB Womens cheap sale f the American Podiatric Medical Association for more on this issue.
Bartold goes on to cite a reference by researchers from the University of Massachusetts that reports ¡°a 7% decrease in running efficiency in the barefoot group in a model predicting barefoot vs shod running.¡± I¡¯m not sure exactly which paper he is referring to, but if it¡¯s the one I think it is, it¡¯s a conference abstract in which a computer model was developed based on measurements from a single individual. No oxygen consumption measures from living human beings were involved. So, the two-dimensional computer model based on one person referred to in an unpublished conference abstract ran better on its heels¡not sure I consider that to be strong evidence. Jenkins and Cauthon (2011) summarize a number of studies which have shown reduced oxygen consumption in barefoot running compared to shod running. However, to be fair, it¡¯s quite possible that this is simply a mass effect since removing shoes removes weight from the end of the limb. Squadrone and Gallozzi (2009) found oxygen consumption to be lower in in experienced barefoot runners running in Vibram Fivefingers vs. traditional shoes, and noted that running in traditional shoes resulted in significantly greater dorsiflexion of the foot on landing (i.e., they were heel striking, albeit mildly). Interestingly, barefoot was not Converse All Star Low Womens uk significantly more efficient than either traditional or Vibram Fivefinger running (i.e., it was in between the two). The efficiency question might just be a wash, but I don¡¯t think we can really say either way with any great degree of certainty at this point.
Surely the folks at ASICS must be aware of the paper by Ryan et al., 2010. They showed that neutral runners did better in stability shoes, overpronators did better in neutral shoes, and all severe overpronators in motion control shoes got hurt. In other words, either the shoes don¡¯t do what they are supposed to, or static measures of the foot are not a good basis for assigning shoes. And the study was supported by Nike.
There have been more than four years since the two American classics, Converse and DC Comics, joined forces to create a collection destined to become a hit among sneakers and comics fans alike. There have been years when superheroes such as Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman or The Joker have found their way into our hearts once again. With an already huge comics fan base, DC Comics came up with various ways to satisfy the growing demand, with movies, cartoons and various accessories featuring their bellowed characters.
He asks 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.¡±
As I have written previously here on Runblogger, forefoot striking has been shown to reduce vertical impact peak (many studies, Squadrone and Gallozi, 2009 and Lieberman et al., 2010 are recent examples) and vertical impact loading rate (Oakley and Pratt, 1988; Williams et al., 2000) relative to heel striking. Data showing no difference between forefoot and rearfoot impact loading rate is out there (e.g., Laughton et al., 2003), but data are limited that involve people well acclimated to multiple landing types. Data on loading rates are sometimes difficult to interpret if runners are not acclimated to a barefoot running style ¨C for example, De Wit et al., 2000 showed dramatically increased vertical loading Converse Canvas Womens outlet sale rate in barefoot runners compared to shod runners, but their barefoot runners were heel striking. One would fully expect a barefoot heel strike to exhibit a higher loading rate since little cushion other than the heel fat pad is present to slow down force application. Lieberman et al., 2010 showed that habitually barefoot runners overwhelmingly land on the forefoot, which suggests caution when interpreting studies of barefoot heel strikers (who were probably unaccustomed to running barefoot). See this recent (2011) paper by Jenkins and Cauthon in the Journal o Converse SB Womens cheap sale f the American Podiatric Medical Association for more on this issue.