150 W. 58th - NYC 10019
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Barefoot Vs. Shod NYT article review
I'd like to address an article in the March 27th 2012 edition of The New York Times called "Making the Case for Running Shoes":
The abstract from the journal paper titled "Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better?"
cited in the NYT article, is below.
The first thing I'd like to state, is what is meant by "better"? The researchers wanted to test whether running barefoot has a lower energy demand then running in sneakers. In this case they found that running with shoes is "better" because it was shown to exact a lower metabolic demand on the body.
So if we are to believe this study (and I do have some issues with its design and results) then running barefoot burns more calories then being shod. Is that such a bad thing?
Here are some issues and thoughts I have with the research and NYT article:
-all of the running was done a treadmill which (as you know) is much different than running outdoors -- running down vs. running forward
-the sample size was quite small (12 individuals) and no women (women's bodies and gaits are different)
-weighted lead strips placed on the top of the foot does not equal a shoe weight which is equally distributed
-when running barefoot the increased amount of force is dissipated by the large muscles, which is a good thing....not bad
-the study does not state whether the shod runners were forefoot or heel striking (which would make a huge difference)
-the barefoot runners (with questionable "substantial experience") were using a mid-foot strike pattern-- which has been shown to be less efficient and more deleterious than a forefoot strike
-the "barefoot" runners were wearing socks which confines the toes and will prevent some of the natural toe spread that should occur during the gait cycle
-I wonder if Nike funded this research....just saying
Not all of us are good candidates for barefoot running, but if done correctly it has been shown to reduce chronic (running) injuries in many. Running barefoot may very well take more energy but then again it connects your body to the ground, increases your foot strength, proprioception, agility and maybe your enjoyment.
Metabolic Cost of Running Barefoot versus Shod: Is Lighter Better?
Franz, Jason R.; Wierzbinski, Corbyn M.; Kram, Rodger
Published Ahead-of-Print
Abstract
Purpose: Based on mass alone, one might intuit that running barefoot would exact a lower metabolic cost than running in shoes. Numerous studies have shown that adding mass to shoes increases submaximal oxygen uptake (V[spacing dot above]2) by about 1% per 100 grams per shoe. However, only two of the seven studies on the topic have found a statistically significant difference in (V[spacing dot above]2) between barefoot and shod running. The lack of difference found in these studies suggests that factors other than shoe mass (e.g. barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern, shoe construction) may play important roles in determining the metabolic cost of barefoot vs. shod running. Our goal was to quantify the metabolic effects of adding mass to the feet and compare oxygen uptake and metabolic power during barefoot vs. shod running while controlling for barefoot running experience, foot-strike pattern and footwear.
Methods: 12 males with substantial barefoot running experience ran at 3.35 m/s with a mid-foot strike pattern on a motorized treadmill, both barefoot and in lightweight cushioned shoes (~150 g/shoe). In additional trials, we attached small lead strips to each foot/shoe (~150, ~300, ~450 g). For each condition, we measured subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production and calculated metabolic power.
Results: V[spacing dot above]2 increased by approximately 1% for each 100 g added per foot, whether barefoot or shod (p<0.001). However, barefoot and shod running did not significantly differ in V[spacing dot above]2 or metabolic power. A consequence of these two findings was that for footwear conditions of equal mass, shod running had ~3-4% lower V[spacing dot above]2 and metabolic power demand than barefoot running (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Running barefoot offers no metabolic advantage over running in lightweight, cushioned shoes.
(C)2012The American College of Sports Medicine
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Yoga Bears it All
Yoga has been getting some bad press lately:
NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/how-yoga-can-wreck-your-body.html?pagewanted=all
NY Magazine article:
Over the years I have participated in a smattering of Yoga classes and individual lessons. That being said, I'm not a Yoga aficionado in any way (I'm not even that good!). However I believe that my biomechanics and exercise science expertise can objectively help me evaluate Yoga. There are some fantastic benefits of Yoga.
This ancient practice, when done correctly, can have a profound effect on the psyche and soma. It has been scientifically documented to have a positive benefit on one’s health by improving the cardiovascular system, breathing, meditation skills, muscular endurance and joint mobility. I think Yoga can play an integral part in one’s fitness endeavors as a good cross training tool. Like most things, too much of any one thing is not good. Depending on your health and fitness goals, Yoga may be appropriate for you but it is not for everyone.
Due to its resurgence in popularity and the many fly-by-night certifications available, a considerable amount of Yoga teachers are just plain bad and at worst, unsafe. I can hang a sign out my door and teach “Joachim’s Amazing Really Hard Chakra Aligning Yoga Class” and nobody can stop me. No one unifying body certifies or licenses these teachers (or trainers for that matter). As a fitness professional, I am keenly aware my instruction can cause injury, pain and/or in rare cases disfigurement (never happened). I am constantly weighing the cost and benefit of every exercise I prescribe against the intended goal. It is always easiest to control for problems when working individually with your teacher. In a classroom setting the potential for harm is increased exponentially.
Here are some quick rules to abide by when doing Yoga:
1- Find out your teacher’s background and know what it means
2- Take a few individual lessons before you jump into a class
3- Stay away from Bikram Yoga - can cause:
-dehydration
-heat stroke
-tears of your soft tissue (heat facilitates flexibility and will allow your body to stretch past their healthy resting point)
-nausea /dizziness
4- Stay away from headstands (unless you are training to be a gymnast or circus performer)
-can contribute to glaucoma symptoms
-been shown to cause herniated cervical discs
5- Stay away from the Plow(if you don't know what it is, chances are you haven't done it)
-can contribute to neck pain and possible herniation
-can contribute to lower back pain
6- If it hurts don’t do it! Duh.
7- Don’t try to show off (if you are anything like me, that rarely ends well!)
8- Use the time to learn how to breathe and mediate correctly - we can all benefit from that!
9- Don’t stretch past the point of what you can control
10- Integrate another form of exercise in your routine (weight training, running, mountain climbing, biking etc).
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Human-Powered River Gymnasiums for New York
Human-Powered River Gymnasiums for New York
The motion starved environments we live in are the antithesis of our being. Perhaps the most primal of all human function is locomotion. We need to move more!
Our concept encapsulates a new typology for the contemporary urban gym. It is intended to challenge our innate proprioceptive and multi-planer locomotive abilities while synchronously altering the surroundings. The River Gym will fulfill one of the major contemporary fitness goals of “functional training”. This training protocol will exploit the inherent disequilibrium of floatation devices. Often the average urbanite exercising at the gym performs controlled repetitive single plane movements using industrial fitness equipment. All of this energy is summarily dissipated and ultimately exhausted for the sake of a single individual’s wellbeing. Other potentials exist to harness this vast human expenditure of caloric energy. Why not have the simple transfer of this workout vigor supply New York with needed supplemental transport and amenities? How can we extend and capitalize on this untapped group potential? Into what form will this new kind of gym evolve?
By continuing to provide vital health amenities, the River Gym can leave the realm of the glass box and become a useful multi-planar kinetic space. Envision your gym becoming a machine of human propulsion that helps purify water, provide spectacular views, and transport less-motivated citizens. Why should gym members be forced to stare restlessly at a mirror, television, or static streetscape when their entire body is active? Imagine this new fitness center as a series of many soft floating micro-islands revolving on a fifteen minute river loop with an exquisite ever-changing panoramic view. Each River Gym vessel varies in size and critical mass population. Therefore some vessels will need only a few members to boost the craft on its predetermined computer navigated loop. Other larger floating units would require a superior sustaining population of club members and would only be used during peak hours.
These River Gyms would travel circuitously along the Hudson and East Rivers. Fitted with onboard purification devices, they would help mitigate water pollution. Equally as significant, they would ease the transportation burdens on various ferry lines and carry volunteering commuters in tow. The benefit of extra passengers increases the vessels’ mass and amplifies the intensity of the exercise. Along the edges of each river body a modest docking facility would serve members as a point of departure with lockers, a reception desk, health food kiosks, etc. The idea is that you can easily access your River Gym vessel to travel to and from multiple points in the city.
The notion of transforming wasted human mechanical energy into a useful kinetic gymnasium is unique. The multiple benefits of increased transportation, water purification, caloric energy expenditure, and superior changing views is invigorating. Our proposal is intended to redefine the urban gym in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner. This is the kind of munificent vision for which the great city of New York is renowned.
Entry for New York Magazine, Original Gym Concept Competition WINNER:
The motion starved environments we live in are the antithesis of our being. Perhaps the most primal of all human function is locomotion. We need to move more!
Our concept encapsulates a new typology for the contemporary urban gym. It is intended to challenge our innate proprioceptive and multi-planer locomotive abilities while synchronously altering the surroundings. The River Gym will fulfill one of the major contemporary fitness goals of “functional training”. This training protocol will exploit the inherent disequilibrium of floatation devices. Often the average urbanite exercising at the gym performs controlled repetitive single plane movements using industrial fitness equipment. All of this energy is summarily dissipated and ultimately exhausted for the sake of a single individual’s wellbeing. Other potentials exist to harness this vast human expenditure of caloric energy. Why not have the simple transfer of this workout vigor supply New York with needed supplemental transport and amenities? How can we extend and capitalize on this untapped group potential? Into what form will this new kind of gym evolve?
By continuing to provide vital health amenities, the River Gym can leave the realm of the glass box and become a useful multi-planar kinetic space. Envision your gym becoming a machine of human propulsion that helps purify water, provide spectacular views, and transport less-motivated citizens. Why should gym members be forced to stare restlessly at a mirror, television, or static streetscape when their entire body is active? Imagine this new fitness center as a series of many soft floating micro-islands revolving on a fifteen minute river loop with an exquisite ever-changing panoramic view. Each River Gym vessel varies in size and critical mass population. Therefore some vessels will need only a few members to boost the craft on its predetermined computer navigated loop. Other larger floating units would require a superior sustaining population of club members and would only be used during peak hours.
These River Gyms would travel circuitously along the Hudson and East Rivers. Fitted with onboard purification devices, they would help mitigate water pollution. Equally as significant, they would ease the transportation burdens on various ferry lines and carry volunteering commuters in tow. The benefit of extra passengers increases the vessels’ mass and amplifies the intensity of the exercise. Along the edges of each river body a modest docking facility would serve members as a point of departure with lockers, a reception desk, health food kiosks, etc. The idea is that you can easily access your River Gym vessel to travel to and from multiple points in the city.
The notion of transforming wasted human mechanical energy into a useful kinetic gymnasium is unique. The multiple benefits of increased transportation, water purification, caloric energy expenditure, and superior changing views is invigorating. Our proposal is intended to redefine the urban gym in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner. This is the kind of munificent vision for which the great city of New York is renowned.
Entry for New York Magazine, Original Gym Concept Competition WINNER:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)