Cargando...

study view my post on it or this

En este foro podéis presentaros y hablarnos un poco de vosotros, qué hacéis, a qué os dedicáis...
Labi1995
Fluorita
Mensajes: 209
Registrado: Mié, 04 Abr 2018, 08:10
Gender: None specified

study view my post on it or this

Mensajepor Labi1995 » Lun, 13 Ago 2018, 03:11

A few weeks ago I wrote a post on a new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in which I predicted that media headlines/articles would get the interpretation of the results wrong. Well, yesterday Reuters published an article on the study titled “Switch to minimalist running shoes tied to injuries, pain.” And the first two lines of the article are:“Advocates of trendy “minimalist” running shoes promise a more natural experience, but runners in a new study reported higher rates of injury and pain with the less structured shoes. Three months after switching from traditional running shoes to the minimalist variety, study participants had two to three times as many injuries compared to runners who stuck with traditional Nike Air Max 95 Homme shoes.”
I Nike Air Max 2017 Womens disagree with this headline and interpretation. What did the study really show? Well, injury rates were indeed higher in the partial minimalist Nike Free 3.0, and runners in Vibram Fivefingers reported greater calf/shin pain, but the most interesting result to me, and the one that seems to keep getting overlooked in reports about this study, is that it found no significant difference in injury risk between runners who stayed in a more traditional running shoe and those who transitioned into the ultraminimal Vibram Fivefingers. Only those moving into the Nike Free experience higher injury rates. (for more on the details of this study view my post on it or this post by Blaise Dubois in which we discuss the results with the lead study author in the comments).To be quite honest, these results surprised me. A lot.I would have Nike Air Presto Mujer expected Nike Air Max 1 Womens that transitioning from a traditionally cushioned trainer to a very minimal, barely cushioned shoe with toe pockets would have resulted in a much higher risk of injury. I even wrote an entire post on why I thought that Vibrams were risky and why I generally don’t recommend them. But the results of the BJSM study don’t support my own stance on the shoes. Runners who transitioned to them in this study were not at elevated risk of injury in any of the analyses they performed.That calf/shin soreness was elevated in Vibrams was not a surprise at all (I’m guessing it was mostly all calf soreness, but the authors don’t break it down). Calf soreness is a typical experience for those going to minimal shoe because the calf presumably has to work harder. Would sore muscles after going to the gym lead you to say that lifting weights is Nike Air Huarache Womens a bad Adidas Superstar Mens thing? My guess is that muscles on the front of the shin worked less, and if the runners in the study had been suffering from anterior shin splints or anterior compartment syndrome then their pain symptoms might have improved – it’s all about shifting forces around and knowing which areas of your body are most prone to injury.As the science starts to come out on the pros/cons of barefoot and minimalist running what we are finding is that in general claims about improved performance or reduced injury risk are not being borne out. But, claims of increased injury risk in minimal shoes are not being borne out either. Last May I wrote about another study which found no difference in injury rates between traditionally and minimally shod soldiers. It was based only on an abstract from a presentation given at the American Society of Adidas NMD Womens Sports Nike Air Max 2017 Damen Medicine Nike Air Max 90 Hombre annual meeting, but the results are consistent with the findings of the BJSM study.

Comparte esto



Comparte esto


Volver a “Geólogos por el Mundo-Presentaciones”

¿Quién está conectado?

Usuarios navegando por este Foro: Bing [Bot] y 5 invitados

cron