I built this over the last few days to try and provide a better way to provide help within our communities.
This is still rough around the edges, I'm dropping it here to collect feedback so that I can continue to iterate on it in a way that would be useful to the disadvantaged members of our respective communities.
As someone who ran collegiately and have multiple friends that were Olympians, national champions, and national record holders (quite humbling really), I would caution people from 'switching' to barefoot running.
It certainly has its place, but I've heard of too many people trying to make a switch to it only to get injured. The biggest arguments behind it are that 'it's a more natural way to run' and that 'a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians do it and they're the best in the world'.
The truth is, they've been running that way pretty much their entire life. You (most likely) have not. Your feet will not be able to handle the beating that their feet can. I have never met a professional runner that identified as a 'barefoot' runner. A lot of runners will work in some sort of 'barefoot' training, but it's minimal and used to build up stabilizing muscles. When a single run can take you over gravel, onto a sidewalk, and through a trail in the forest, it's next to impossible to run barefoot or even with a 'barefoot' running shoe.
You are certainly free to do as you wish, but barefoot running should most likely be used as a tool at best. If you really want to make a complete transition, you would likely need to approach it with the same rigor and dedication someone would use when training for a marathon.
Yes there's definitely some muscles that need to be built up. Most noticeably for me are the ones on the sides of the foot that control rolling: in a conventional shoe there's a broad heel sole and a ridgid heel cup to give roll support. Without that, your foot wants to roll, even when walking flat. I needed to add some exercises to help supplement, and the ankles are still a little sore. But I'll take sore muscles over tendonitis.
I think you're making the right argument, I just don't think you're making it super clear.
(I think) what you're saying, is 'There is nothing wrong with supporting an opposing viewpoint. There is a huge problem with supporting Benito Mussolini. Sam Altman has compared Donald Trump to Benito Mussolini. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with supporting Donald Trump. Peter Thiel supports Donald Trump. Because of this, Sam should have a huge problem with his association with Peter Thiel.'
Keeping my political views out of the equation, I agree with that line of logic. The problem I think Sam is facing and why I think it's such a difficult issue is this.
Donald Trump is not Benito Mussolini. Unless he wins the presidency, he won't even have a remote opportunity at becoming him. So I think Sam is in sort of a lose-lose situation. On one hand, Sam remains steadfast in his decision, Donald Trump wins the election, Donald Trump enacts changes that make him on par with Benito Mussolini and Sam has now been complicit in the support of someone on par with Benito Mussolini. On the other hand, if Donald Trump loses or even if he wins and is anything less than a Benito Mussolini look-alike, he has effectively suppressed the support of an opposing political viewpoint.
I'm not pretending to know the solution, not even a little bit. I do think it's important to recognize how difficult of situation Sam is in.
That's not in fact the argument I am making. I do not support ostracizing or blacklisting all Trump supporters, just as I wouldn't have supporting ostracizing all Republicans in the wake of our catastrophic war on Iraq. However: I am comfortable with calling on people to divest from investments in the architects of the war on Iraq, like Doug Feith and Donald Rumsfeld, and I am comfortable with calling on Altman to divest from Peter Thiel, a key figure in the Trump campaign.
Altman's ulterior motive here is that it's bad for business if yComb departs from Thiel. And at the end of the day it comes down to money, so regardless of what Altman says, they will never part ways and ultimately become directly competitive with one of SV largest venture investors.
I didn't mean specifically in the comment above, I meant earlier.
'If you do not believe that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then, while I implore you to reconsider, I am content to agree to disagree.
But you might take that disagreement up first with Paul Graham and Sam Altman. They do not agree with you. They aggressively don't agree with you. They compare Donald Trump with a fascist dictator. I think they're right about Trump, and therefore that they're very wrong about continuing to endorse Thiel.
I would be doing Sam Altman no favors to pretend otherwise.'
It seemed like you were getting attacked from all angles, so I chose a comment that didn't have much on it. I wasn't trying to attack your argument (from above). I was attempting to put it into a more objective light.
False equivalence to Rumsfeld and Feith (and interesting you leave out Rice and Powell). What about somebody who contributed money to the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004?
I'm glad you brought Rice up, because this site had absolutely no problem calling for a boycott of Dropbox over their inclusion of Rice as a director.
(I don't support that boycott, because I think Rice's role in the Iraq war is far more complicated than that of Rumsfeld or Feith, who are the literal architects of the war plan she consistently criticized. Rice isn't blameless, but she's no Doug Feith.)
Location: Des Moines, IA
Remote: Only
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: iOS, Android, Java, CSS, Javascript, Web & Mobile Design
Résumé/CV: https://s3.amazonaws.com/nschulze/resume.pdf
Portfolio: www.nickschulze.com
Email: nschulze16@gmail.com
SEEKING WORK
Location: Des Moines, IA
Remote: Only
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: iOS, Android, Java, CSS, Javascript, Web & Mobile Design
Résumé/CV: https://s3.amazonaws.com/nschulze/resume.pdf
Portfolio: www.nickschulze.com
Email: nschulze16@gmail.com
Running is incredibly therapeutic, it's the perfect time to clear your head and get deep in thought. It's almost meditative in a way, I loved hitting the point just before I really started to push myself, where my body and mind seemed almost perfectly in-sync.
That is not the truth. While generally not over 6 feet tall, the Olympic distance runners had a very normal height distribution. One of the shorter, Hillary Bor, is still 5' 7".
Still not closer to 5 foot tall. I don't know how or why this is still an argument. Marathon runners are not 5' tall. That's tiny. And average height in the Netherlands is right at 6'.
Netherlands is an extreme outlier (world's tallest people). 5 foot 7 is actually standard in my country and even on the tall side for my continent, South America (although better diet is fixing that). It's also tall for Asia and Africa.
Yep, and the other two guys were both over 5'8". Actually, out of every distance event, 2/3 of the medal winners were over 5'8".
Feyisa Lilesa is 5'9"
Galen Rupp is 5'11"
Mo Farah is 5'9"
Bernard Lagat is 5'8"
Matt Centrowitz is 5'9"
Paul Chelimo is 5'11"
Tamirat Tola is 5'11"
Taoufik Makhloufi is 5'9"
Nick Willis is 6'
Evan Jager is 6'2"
Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad is 6'3"
This is pretty far off. I'm 6'4" and weighed 165 when I ran cross country competitively. I didn't look like the type of runner you're describing, neither did 90% of my teammates. Running more than a mile at a time won't turn you into a stick thin marathoner. Olympians are hardly what people should be comparing themselves to if they're looking to get into running.
6'4" and 165lbs (193cm/74.8kg) seems quite thin though - I don't think you are necessarily providing the counterexample you think you are here? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Internet BMI calculator says that would make you "underweight" and put you in the 7th percentile for your height and weight (as in, 93% of people as tall as you weigh more than you).
I'm not saying I wasn't thin. I definitely was. However, you wouldn't have been able to pick me out from a crowd as a 'cross country runner'. And to be competitive at that level, you can't be carrying around any extra weight. While BMI can be a helpful tool, it's pretty flawed. It doesn't take into account muscle/fat ratio. I really don't have much body fat, but am now only 5 pounds away from being 'overweight' accordingly to BMI.
Really, my point was that running 15-20 miles a week won't give you the body of a Kenyan Olympian. Running can be incredibly rewarding, I was simply trying to state that if I had to run 90 miles a week to be barely underweight, 15 miles a week shouldn't scare anyone off if they're just trying to be healthier.
I ran 80-90 miles per week while in college and continued running 20-30 per week for a couple of years after until my knee stopped cooperating (I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October).
I have experienced some of the described symptoms (irregular heartbeat and etc), but wouldn't have done much differently. Honestly, this article basically boils down to 'do what your body can handle'.
People are different. Bodies are different. Some people can handle 120 miles per week. Some people struggle to run one. Running is obviously good for your health, just don't over do it. And stretch and foam roll, that's as important as anything.
Running was clearly bad for my health: at 17 I f’d up both of mine. “Oh its just shin splints, run through it.”
Yeah, until I couldn’t run through the pain any more. Quit running track, bloated up like Pacheco’s pig. Found out later that I wore grooves through the cartiledge and into my bones.
Also, discovered that if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain. Its juts ingrained to hate it now.
I was lucky and avoided running myself into that kind of issue in high school. But I did get stuck with recurrent problems with my lower legs, and I did run through pain.
I was heel striking, which was encouraged by equipment (thick padded shoes) and by coaching. I took years off, learned to row, and came back literally running barefoot and on my toes. Tired of pulling glass out of my feet, I started using racing flats and then vibrams when training.
It took five years to get to where I could do the same mileage as before. Now my knees don't hurt any more than any other part of my body after running. I think the soft landings of toe strike running make all the difference.
Those early years definitely did damage. In my case I feel I have overcome it. I hope you will too. Running is a beautiful thing and a shame to lose.
I popped in specifically to search for "barefoot" to see if anyone was using barefoot running techniques.
When I first heard about the book "Born to Run", and how the Tarahumara use their legs/feet as the natural shock absorbers that they may have evolved to be, I said, "This is the style for me. I'm not a fan of running, but I do love efficiency, and this sounds like a fun way to give it a shot." It didn't really pan out--I have some Vibrams that get used once or twice a year--but I do like to sprint on rocky trails a lot, and going downhill is a lot more fun using something like BRT.
Interestingly, the only other comment besides yours mentioning "barefoot" is one from neilsharma, who writes that he had lots of problems from running that he chose to ante up on the footgear, which ended up further weakening his feet. I don't know if there have been studies done that show how our current shoe designs are bad for our feet--only that Vibram got in trouble for claiming that their shoes are better for you without anything backing them up--but it seems like something that ought to be looked at.
Coaching was definitely a factor. Was taught that heel strikes were more efficient. Also: instead of running long distance, I should have been sprinting.
Seems like you discovered it already, but shin splints, knee problems, back problems, etc. are usually based in either bad shoes or bad form. There are also strengthening exercises you can do for each to make you less susceptible to them.
Often times the body's limitations are caused by problems that can be fixed or worked around, allowing you to push yourself farther and harder without hurting your health.
Sounds like this person had an injury, didn't treat it, and it got worse. It seems like a pretty huge, unsubstantiated leap to claim that running "causes significant health problems".
I second what some others have said - many injuries in running are caused by bad form.
The guys who do my bike fitting (basically, ensuring your bike is properly adjusted so as not to cause undue stress on your body) also do running coaching - I recently did two sessions with them which I found useful.
(If you're in Sydney, it's The Body Mechanic in Milson's Point)
One of the big takeaways for me was increasing my cadence - where previously I was around 150-170 bpm, I now aim for around 180 bpm. The higher cadence seems to have helped me put less stress on my legs with each step.
Also, I'm working on having good posture, and ensuring my feed land under my torso (as opposed to in front or behind me).
And what mpol said about keeping your torso/head stable is correct - you do not want your head bobbing up/down as you run.
But yeah - if you are keen on running, definitely go see a professional, who can give you good advice based on your own individual running style.
Not a direct answer to your question, but I see many people running past my house and balkony, since there is a nice walkway next to my house. I see them do it in many different ways, some of which are good, some of which are really bad.
Many people seem to bounce up and down on every step, putting shocks of weight on their knees at every step. That will hurt you in the long term, probably even in the short term.
You should have a certain flow in running, where your upper body just remains at the same height, and your legs are the only moving parts. Like your upper body is just sliding forward, that is the effect you want.
And you might think you do it right, but chances are you don't. I do not run myself, but I can imagine there are running trainers who specialize in ergonomics and health. You might want to have someone like that take a look at how you are running.
I had some knee problems for a time, which a physical therapist diagnosed as a muscle imbalance - basically one leg was stronger than the other, and it caused me to twist my legs a bit while running.
The main exercises to correct this were one legged squats, leg extensions (again, one leg at a time), and several balance exercises to help me position my hips properly while running.
Obviously, though, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that there's a lot of variety in our bodies, so if you're having pain, see a doctor first and if they think it's necessary you can get a referral to a physical therapist or another doctor that specializes in that area.
To protect against shin splints, we spent a lot of time walking on our toes. Like, 100m on toes, then 100m on toes but with feet pointed out, then 100m on toes with feet pointed in. Then repeat all three on heels.
Note that this is a preventative exercise. Iirc if you already had shin splints this would make it worse. Those with shin splints either swam or biked, but mostly iced and rested. Running was strongly discouraged so that recovery could happen.
> if I ran on my toes instead of heel strikes I can run now without pain
I can't for the life of me understand how people bear to run landing on heels. The whole ankle system is "designed" to recover as much energy as possible by loading up the Achilles tendon while at the same time saving both the knee and hip joints.
FWIW, swimming was no better; "[swim] through it" is pretty common from any bad coach.
As a result, I have two bum knees (the breastroke kick puts so much lateral force on the knees that they separate), a pair of dodgy hips (again, I blame breaststroke), and shoulders which literally dislocate at will (I pin it on butterfly and bad form). Too much focus on the major muscle groups, and none on the muscles which keep all of those joints where they should be.
Is running through shin splits, or any kind of recurring consistent pain, a good idea? Did someone really give you that advice? I've always been advised to reduce the milage right down (or even stop) and focus on strength exercises before slowly building the milage back up.
> ran 80-90 miles per week [...] I'm really looking forward to knee surgery in October)
Apologies for being a bit harsh but the cause-effect-relationship is crystal clear. Extensive running puts a tremendous strain on our knees. You don't need to be a doctor, scientist or professional runner to know this. And just 20-30 miles/week over a long period is already way too much for the majority. Most will write, 'nah that works great for me, I run that amount for many years and my knees are in perfect shape'. Just wait till you're older and then it's pay back time.
It is not clear that running is bad for the knees. Recent studies ([1], [2]) find no evidence of any adverse effects, rather the contrary (lower incidence of knee osteoarthritis in the running group). One possible explanation is that the runners were less likely to put on weight over the years, leading to lower day-to-day stresses on the knees.
[1] Eliza Chakravarty et al. "Long distance running and knee osteoarthritis: A prospective study," American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008, 35(2), 133-138
[2] David Felson et al., "Effects of recreational physical activities on the development of knee osteoarthritis in older adults of different weights: The Framingham Study," Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2007, 57(1), 6-12
Is it 20-30 miles/week over a long period, which you claim is already way too much for the majority? If I read study [1] correctly the runners were running 3.5 hours a week at the beginning of the study, which would be around 20 miles/week. That same group had a lower incidence of osteoarthritis than the control group.
its far from crystal clear - each body is different, what builds one breaks another one (even if fitness levels are similar). genetics is not fair.
our bodies require challenge, otherwise they get weak and fragile. challenge too much, it will break. this point of diminished return is again different for each of us, and varies over time for same person.
BUT - if you give it enough time to fortify itself - I don't mean muscles, they grow faster than rest of the body. I mean when bones, tendons, ligaments and generally joints catch up (ie for climbing it takes years of gradual progression to train your fingers), they hold the body together better (knees, feet, spine etc.) and can manage stress put on it, even till high age. I have a friend who is 80 year old mountain guide and he still climbs easier stuff.
But to find the balance, the edge of benefits vs losses that is never stable and unique to each of us is very hard
I don't think you know anything about the cause and effect relationship considering you have no idea who I am let alone what is wrong with me knee.
I haven't been running like that since I was in college. I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while. I wasn't taking care of myself the way I should have been. If you take the time and care to make sure you stay healthy, 20-30 miles a week is nothing. If your logic held than 'pay back time' should have happened for my peers a long time ago, they all ran more mileage than I did and some still run 100 plus miles per week. If there is some magic number of miles knees get, they would have hit it a long time ago. That is not how it works. People are different, bodies are different, you just need to make sure you take care of yourself and don't ignore the maintenance.
With only that tid bit of information you have about him, there is nothing crystal clear. There is not a single individual build the same way. Some people can run 7 marathon in 7 days, and they have been doing that for 20 years, others are going to have knee injury after a couple years of running. Some of it might be technique, but it is likely combined with different bone/joint/muscle architecture.
> I don't think you know anything about the cause and effect relationship considering you have no idea who I am let alone what is wrong with me knee.
Why are you getting aggressive? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no need to snap.
> People are different, bodies are different
Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself few sentences before and tell us that '20-30 miles a week is nothing' and treating everybody the same? I think, I was more differentiating, I said 20-30 miles/week for a long period is already too much for the majority—not for all.
> I wore down cartilage in my knee while running through pain I had been having for a while
Ok, doesn't really make your stance better. Who says that every other runner is so wise and stops running while having a pain? Maybe most of them do the same mistake like you did? Maybe they just want to win, just want to outperform other runners, just fear loosing or just want to prove themselves that they can run more than last week—all while slowly crushing their knees. And maybe it's the dynamics or game mechanics of running itself—it's not that easy to stop.
Sorry, but the cause-effect-relationship is getting even clearer with your last comment. Extensive running can get quickly dangerous and the problem is that the runner might realize this too late.
> Why are you getting aggressive? You have your opinion, I have my opinion, no need to snap.
I hope you don't think that counts as aggression, hardly. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, considering you know nothing about me, my running history, or my medical history, it's pertinent that people know your opinion is based on zero knowledge of the situation.
> Ok, I agree. But why do you then generalize yourself...
I was not generalizing. The conversation is about distance running. For a distance runner, 20-30 miles per week would be nothing, considering the shortest distance race is 5 miles long.
I honestly don't know how to address your last comment. You jump wildly from conclusion to conclusion and then just dismiss everything outright. And your argument isn't based on anything other than the fact that I personally got hurt, which is a dumb reason for others not to run. I don't have a great singing voice, but just because my singing hurts my ears, it doesn't mean others shouldn't sing to their hearts content. Really, the only cause-effect relationship that is clear is ->
cause: be nbschulze for 25 years effect: need knee surgery.
Which people can take with and do what they want. Yeah, knee surgery is a bummer, but I've enjoyed my life other than that and will continue to enjoy it.
The only stance I've taken is 'If you're going to run, make sure you take care of yourself'. I was trying to help others learn from my mistakes. If you want to argue with that, feel free. We don't caution people from buying cars just because a select few choose not to get the oil changed and ruin their cars. And you should not be caution people from running just because I personally ignored persistent and intense knee pain and damaged my knee.
Except you still don't know what's the matter with his knee, and you definitely don't know what caused it. It seems a bit premature to assume that overtraining was the cause, and it's pretty ridiculous to imply that because some runners have hurt their knees, it is unsafe, or pointless.
Please avoid a harmful tone when replying here, there's no need for that :)
As for the 70 year-olds still running marathons, I've heard of plenty more 25 year-olds dying of heart attacks. Anecdotes are not enough here it seems.
In my experience the untrained people are the ones that gets problems early when they age. If you can't run when you are 50, don't expect to walk without problems when you are 70. If you are a decent runner when you are 60, you have a good chance of being in quite good shape when you are 85.
https://findsome.help/
Hoping to open-source it this weekend. Trying to create a better way for communities to coordinate aid.