Gebrselassie and Beijing Part 3

Gebrselassie hints at reversing his decision to withdraw from the Olympic Marathon

Just time for a very short post today (I promise I'll find time and tackle running shoes and barefoot running soon!), and thanks to Lorenzo for providing the following link, which hints that Haile Gebrselassie may actually go back on his decision to pull out of the Olympic Marathon!

BBC News article: Gebrselassie drops marathon hint

In the article, Gebrselassie is quoted as saying that he will consider running the Marathon, but only if:

1. The start time is changed, to take place in the cooler part of the day, and;
2. The course is moved away from the city centre, where pollution is in theory the worst

"I do not want to rule anything out at this point," were his words.

Now, I remember a previous occasion where Gebrselassie made similarly bizarre requests. The event was the IAAF World Championships in athletics, held in Seville, Spain, in 1999. Gebrselassie withdrew from the 10,000m event saying that the track surface was too hard to run long distance races on! There was talk at the time, if I remember correctly, that he actually asked the meeting organizers to pour water on the track just before the start, so that it could be softened!

They refused (I suspect they knew that it wouldn't work, along with everyone else), and so he said he would not run. Eventually, he was "persuaded" to run by a combination of pressure from the Ethiopian federation, and I seem to recall that his shoe sponsor Adidas designed extra-cushioned spikes for him to run in!

So perhaps this is all just the same thing, 11 years later. Or maybe it's Gebrselassie's rather unique sense of humour. Whatever the case, when I first read the announcement, I was quite sceptical that he'd actually go through and pull out. He may yet, but I wouldn't be that surprised if he changes his mind and lines up on the roads, even if it is inside the city centre!

More information on the conditions in Beijing

Just one more story I picked up on in the news in the last couple of days - apparently, in September last year (which is only a few weeks after the Olympics will end this year, so weather conditions are much more similar than for the Beijing Marathon in October), Beijing hosted a pre-Olympics Mountain Bike event, to serve as a trial run for the Games.

Well, 50 cyclists started the race, and a grand total of.......EIGHT athletes managed to finish, most dropping out, in part due to oppressive heat, in part due to difficulty breathing! It's apparently difficult to differentiate between the two - very hot and humid air is certainly difficult to breathe (if you've ever been in a steam bath, you'll relate). And we received a great comment with some personal experience from Jamie, which you can read below in the Comments section - he was in Beijing last August for a test event on the rowing course. His report? Heat and humidity were significant factors, but the pollution not so noticeable.

We've of course neglected to focus on the heat in the last few posts, courtesy of Gebrselassie's decision based on the pollution. But there's no question that the heat and humidity are going to be significant factors. If that's what Beijing has in store come August this year, then it's anyone's guess who'll win the endurance events. My money is still on an athlete who is based in the Far East - a Kenyan who lives and races there (think Wanjiru), or one of the locals, seems the best bet.

But, in closing I do just have to add that I don't believe there is a long term danger of exposure to that pollution on a very short term basis. Gebrselassie has been quoted as saying that he fears for his long term health, and more recently, that "our [the athletes] safety has to be protected". I certainly believe the pollution will compromise performance, but the worst case scenario, in my estimation, is that an athlete will be unable to breathe, maybe feel nauseous and pull out of the race quite early on. But he'll live to fight another day, and no long term, residual effects will slow him/her down for years to come. So as I said previously, a short term negative effect, absolutely. But I don't buy this theory of long term damage - the exposure is just too short.

Anyway, that's all on this issue, for now. I have a feeling that we'll be coming back to it again in the future.

Oh, and last thing, as much as I would love to claim that Haile Gebrselassie is changing his mind as a result of reading this site, I can't bring myself to do that!

Ross

The Beijing Olympics: Pollution and performance

The Beijing Marathon - Pollution and Performance

Yesterday bought the sensational news that Haile Gebrselassie had made the "99% sure" decision to withdraw from the Olympic Marathon in Beijing and rather enter the 10,000m event.

His reason? The pollution, combined with his asthma, the heat and the humidity in Beijing posed a risk to his health, and he did not wish to compromise his chances in the 2012 London Olympics, or his ambition to run a 2:03 Marathon in the future.

Gebrselassie is a great athlete, maybe the greatest ever, but this story has a bizarre sound to it. For one thing, to make a decision now based on a race he hopes to run in four years' time, when there's even less chance of being competitive (he'll be 39, at the end of a career that has lasted 19 years!) does not seem a very sound one.

Secondly, it's highly unlikely that running the marathon in Beijing would affect his health in the long term. What it might do (and we'll get to this later) is affect his performance in the short term! That is, he might not have a very good race, perhaps, and worst case scenario, he'd be forced to bail from the race with breathing difficulties. But to suggest that his marathon running future is at stake is a little extreme.

Third, the pollution in Beijing is something of an unknown quantity, in that no one can say with any certainty how it will affect performances. To make a decision like this, fully 5 months out from the Olympics, seems to be jumping the gun a little. However, since we only know what is reported in the media, any speculation as to the process he followed (that is, consulting experts, visiting and trying to run in Beijing etc.) would be pretty wild. So instead of speculating wildly, I thought it better to dig up some information on the Beijing Marathon and see if it might be a guide as to what we could expect.

Performances in the Beijing Marathon - are they a guide to what we can expect?

This morning, I received an email from Amby Burfoot, providing a link to a really great site for statistics and marathon information.

The site has records on the Beijing Marathon, which is run every year in October. Some of these statistics are shown in the table below:


So, of interest is that despite not attracting a world class field of sub-2:07 men and 2:22 women, the times in Beijing (in October, at least) are quite decent - a 2:11:00 seems pedestrian compared to what we've seen in recent times in London, Berlin and Chicago, but it's by no means a disaster, particularly considering the relative weakness of the field. The worst performances in the last 12 years, incidentally, are more likely due to weak fields than any weather conditions, because in 2000, when the men were particularly slow, the women's winning time was 2:26, which is reasonable, and close to the overall average. Similarly, in 2006, when the women were slow, the men's race was won in 2:10:36, suggesting that conditions were not too hostile for fast times.

Speaking of conditions, what do we expect of Beijing?

Admittedly, the weather in October changes between August, when the Olympic Marathon takes place, and mid-October, when the Beijing Marathon is run. The weather stats are shown below:

The change in minimum temperature is particularly marked, I was surprised at how large it was. That 13 degree difference would of course have a profound effect on performances. Similarly, the change in relative humidity is significant. So the environmental conditions, it would seem, are a very real factor. But then we've known that all along, and it's going to be no hotter in Beijing than it was in Osaka last year for the World Championships, where times were slower, but it certainly was not impossible to run. And then of course, this is an issue mainly about pollution, not heat. The above racing performances seem to suggest that the pollution in Beijing is not so bad that it slows athletes down profoundly. Then again, one might argue that these athletes don't have asthma, as Gebrselassie apparently does...

The comparison between the Beijing Marathon and the Olympic Marathon therefore probably leaves us with more questions than answers! The two big unknowns, of course, are:

1. What is the pollution level in August compared to October?
2. How much does pollution, heat and humidity affect the very best elite athletes?

If anyone out there has access to pollution statistics in Beijing, please let us know! It would be interesting, as one commenter noted in the previous post, to compare London to Beijing. Again, this would serve only to provide some level of numerical comparison, just as the comparision between October and August does, because to actually predict performance implications based on this is not quite as simple as one might have hoped!

I'm sure there's a lot left in this story, and certainly in the pollution in Beijing story. We'll follow its developments!

Ross

Gebrselassie out of the Olympics

Haile Gebrselassie OUT of the Beijing Olympics - the air pollution is a "threat" to his health

Dramatic news being reported today by news sources is that Haile Gebrselassie, Ethiopia’s marathon world record holder and multiple world and Olympic champion has withdrawn from the Olympic Marathon in Beijing, citing concerns over the air pollution as the reason!

Gebrselassie had previously mentioned the possibility that he might not run in Beijing, but today’s news represents a definitive ("99% sure", apparently) decision. Gebrselassie is quoted as saying the following:

"The pollution in China is a threat to my health and it would be difficult for me to run 42km in my current condition,"

“My current condition”, incidentally, refers to Gebrselassie’s asthma, which he says forced him out of the London Marathon in 2007.

How bad is Beijing? And is this a justified decision?

It is a radical decision to take, particularly with all of 150 days to go before the Olympic Games. Yes, there are concerns over the pollution, and yes, it's likely that conditions will be difficult in Beijing, heat and humidity adding to the problems. We won't go into huge detail on air pollution and exercise performance now, since we've looked at the pollution situation in Beijing in two previous posts.

First, we discussed the likely problems the athletes will encounter in Beijing, and how some nations are planning to send athletes to locations OUTSIDE Beijing to avoid the pollution. That was amidst claims and promises that Beijing was doing all it could to improve the pollution situation.

However, a few months later, it was being reported that the air pollution situation in Beijing was actually getting worse, with many of the promises about cleaning the air (including the closure of factories in Beijing) being forgotten or ignored in the face of economic pressure to keep factories open. It has been a problem that has plagued the build-up to Beijing since last year, and this is the most dramatic story arising out of the pollution controversy so far.

A premature decision?

But rather than make this decision now, why not wait out the next three or four months and see how things develop? Consult with an expert or two (because this is an issue where you'd get a sixth and seventh opinion IF you really wanted it) on asthma. Find experts on pollution, as Paula Radcliffe did, and see whether there is a contingency plan that might allow you to run and challenge for what is really the only major title or accolade you're still missing?

The British Olympic team even announced that they would provide masks to their help their athletes breathe more easily if required. Perhaps Gebrselassie has done all this, and the advice he received is that there is no way he'll be able to run in Beijing. It's still almost unbelievable that he wouldn't wait out a month or two before announcing a decision that, in the words of his manager Jos Hermens, is "99% sure".

For the reality is that Gebrselassie has achieved pretty much all he can in international running, apart from winning the Olympic Gold in the marathon. It's a goal he himself has expressed on many occasions and it really does seem peculiar to me that he could so easily let go of the goal.

Instead, his manager Hermens is quoted as saying:

"He doesn't want to put his career in danger and he still wants to run at the 2012 Olympics in London. His dream is to run in two hours and three minutes and to be the first to do that. It's more important for him than to win another gold medal."

The pollution - an unknown quantity

Quite what the long term implication for his health is is difficult to know - certainly, his career would hardly seem in danger if he raced in Beijing. His marathon race, yes, but to suggest that his long term health would be affected is a little extreme. The worst that would happen would be that he could not breathe, and so he'd stop and pull out of the race within the first 10km, and live to fight another day - there's no reason to believe that his 2012 race is at stake thanks to the Beijing air of 2008.

Then again, I'm not sure that elite athletes have ever been exposed to the kind of pollution they'll encounter in Beijing, so the Olympics will be interesting simply from that point of view. Perhaps Gebrselassie tried to jog on a recent trip to Beijing, and found that he simply could not breathe - his mind may have been made up by his lungs!

However, it would seem to be a question of priorities, which is a deviation from the usual line given by athletes (including Gebrselassie) that the medals are more important than the records. Of course, it's Gebrselassie's choice, and good luck to him going for that 2:03 marathon (that is another issue altogether - we've discussed the chances of a 2:03 before). But it certainly is a shame, and hopefully, that 1% chance will still come into play and we'll see Gebrselassie on the roads, rather than the track, in Beijing.

If not, then it's the 10,000m event, as Gebrselassie has announced his intention is to qualify for Ethiopia's team for the 10,000m race in Beijing. This might be part of the reason for such an early announcement - perhaps he felt he needed to make the decision this early to allow him to adjust the training leading into the European summer. However, even that doesn't quite ring true, and I can't help but wonder whether the decision is really as simple as saying that he has other goals, and he is concerned over his health...is there any chance that in two months' time, Gebrselassie will announce that he's changed his mind and WILL in fact run the marathon in Beijing? It would not be the first time that he'd announced his "absence" from a major championships, only to be "persuaded" to go after all...

Suspicions and questions - a valid reason?

Such is the climate around international sport these days, that there is already lively debate and cynicism about the given reason. Does Gebrselassie really have asthma? Or is this an excuse not to be tested by drug control authorities? The problem with that "conspiracy theory" is that Gebrselassie has announced that he'll try to run the 10,000m race in Beijing instead, where he'd be tested anyway. So scratch that theory off the list.

There's actually a great deal of controversy around the drug testing issue and asthmatics, incidentally - for example, if you take an average sample of people and compare it to a sample of Olympic athletes, you find that often, the Olympic group will have a much higher incidence of "asthmatics" - if , that is, you choose to believe all the medical clearances that are issued giving them exemption to use inhalers (which are otherwise banned). But again, the fact that Gebrselassie is not pulling out of the Olympics, but just the Marathon, would suggest that the drug theory is slightly misplaced, on this occasion anyway.

The Olympic Marathon without Gebrselassie

As for where this leaves the marathon, well, it's dramatically weakened by his absence. His anticipated race against the Kenyans, whoever they chose, was due to be a real highlight of the Beijing Games. The marathon will be somewhat lacking its lustre if indeed he doesn't change his mind. So a real shame for the Olympic Games, and let's hope that it's a premature decision and that he announces that he will, after all, take his place in the race come August.

Ross

Related articles

Air Pollution in Beijing: Symptoms and issues facing athletes in Beijing

Olympic events in danger: Athletes will need masks in Beijing

Ryan Shay Autopsy

Ryan Shay Autopsy: Why the delay?

In the last 4 months, everyone has waited patiently for the autopsy results of US runner Ryan Shay to be released. It was in November last year, during the US Men's Olympic Trials, that Shay collapsed at the 10km mark in Central Park, New York. He was later pronounced dead, and the story shocked the athletics world.

We have now reached March, and still no final report on the cause of death or the results from the autopsy which is performed on all sudden deaths in apparently healthy people. For example, earlier this year, actor Heath Ledger died in mysterious circumstances and an autospy report was released only two weeks later.

So not surprisingly, the voice of those who wanted to know some answers was growing steadily louder or discontented. Apparently, the Medical Director of the race was receiving 25 calls a day from various people. Even here on this site, we've received a number of questions from people asking whether we knew - of course, we are as much in the dark as anyone else. But now, it seems there may be some answers...

Runners World finds some answers

On Thursday this week, Amby Burfoot wrote an article which you can read here, detailing some of the progress made so far.

According to the article (summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing), the Medical Examiner's Office refuses to comment on any case, which is understandable, if not doubly frustrating for those wanting to know. The official word out of the Medical Examiner's office is:

"Every case is individual, and we have to do a complete job on every case that we do. We do the testing that we need until we're satisfied that we can determine the cause of death."

Apparently the four month wait for the report is not completely exceptional - it usually gets released far sooner, but four months still falls inside what the Office considers an acceptable time frame. Final testing is apparently now taking place, and according to the spokesperson, "It should be very soon now."

So within the next week or two, perhaps, we'll have some conclusive (hopefully) answers as to what would cause an apparently healthy and very fit 27 year old to collapse and die during an activity he did just about every day.

But there are some answers, provided by Ryan Shay's father, Joe. In a telephone conversation with Runners World, Shay revealed that:

A toxicology report had been conducted on the supplements Shay was using - he was sponsored by the company EAS, and so any possible contamination was investigated. Apparently, Joe Shay requested that the toxicology report be released before the rest of the results, but the Medical Examiner's Office refused, as policy is to release the report in its entireity. The toxicology report became the focus of attention because at the time, many people wondered whether drug use might have been responsible for Shay's death.

A second part of the investigation was done on tissue samples which were genetically examined. Shay's family specifically requested this to make sure that no other family members were in any danger of a similar cardiac event. Joe Shay revealed to Runners World that this testing showed that Shay DID NOT have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which was a widely reported candidate for the cause of death (including here).

So one possible cause has been eliminated, the others remain possibilities. The signs are encouraging that within two weeks, a report will be released, which will hopefully provide some answers. If and when that report is released, we'll do our best to bring to you.

Ross

Sports news interlude

Some news snippets ahead of the weekend

We're taking a break from the series on running shoes today, to look at some sports news that came across the wires in the last couple of days. I'll tackle another post on running shoes over the weekend when there is a little more time to get through some biomechanics articles on the subject - the thing about shoes that it takes you into the field of biomechanics of running, which is highly specialised and vast, so I would want to do justice to the studies.

But for today, some sports news from the last few days, starting with the latest installment in the Oscar Pistorius case.

Oscar Pistorius announces that his own research suggests he has no advantage, and the IAAF were wrong

Well, this is hardly surprising, of course - Oscar Pistorius yesterday announced that he has conducted his own studies in Texas, and they have contradicted many of the results from the IAAF testing performed in Cologne, Germany, last year.

Regular readers will know my take on the situation, and this is simply the latest act in a saga that threatens to be drawn out well beyond Beijing. The IAAF, for their part, have dismissed the research, which is understandable, given that Pistorius and his team went off and had it done all by themselves.

Remember, when Pistorius was tested in Germany last year, he and his team were given opportunities to discuss and consult with the IAAF on the tests. That is, they had input and opportunity to help design the studies, and were of course on-hand when the testing was done, to ensure that it was being done fairly. Pistorius was allowed by the IAAF to have representation in whichever form he chose - lawyers, scientists, podiatrists, coach, family - whatever he wished.

That is the reason why, when the IAAF announced that the testing had found large advantages (25 to 30% for mechanical and energy efficiency), it was strange that Pistorius questioned the completeness and validity of the research. This reaction was tantamount to an admission that his own team had failed to contribute to the research, since they had opportunities to ensure its validity before and while it was conducted.

So now, Pistorius has gone off to an unnamed lab in Texas and done his own work. Work he paid for, consulted on, designed, and was involved in. Not a single IAAF official was present, the IAAF was not consulted in any way, and had no opportunity to view the testing while it took place. The IAAF have therefore dismissed the test result - it is the equivalent of a court case in which the "defendant" is not even invited to the trial.

So what did they find?

I would love to be able to give you a critical analysis of the Pistorius testing, but unfortunately, that is not possible, since Pistorius and his lawyer have refused to say who did the testing, what it consisted of, and what it showed. This is however understandable - one would hardly expect him to reveal the results in the media while a case looms on the horizon. As one reader commented this morning:

"Oscar is playing high stakes poker with the IAAF and the Court for Arbitration in Sport. He and his team would be foolish to show their hand at this point..."

I agree with that, but then it's odd that he chose to announce the test result at all - the great paradox here is that he chose to release a provocative press release. Clearly, the comparison with poker is a good one, because Pistorius may be playing a great game of deception in the media. I don't see that the IAAF are playing the same game - they have flat out dismissed the research, no case of bluff and double-bluff there. Does he have proof? Who knows? Does the result show anything conclusive? Your guess is as good as mine!

One thing I will say is that we have always been big on conflicts of interest here on this website. And I cannot think of a bigger conflict of interests than when you pay for your own research, with the specific intention of proving other work wrong in order to retain a spotlight that must be providing financial rewards. Think for a second about what possible conclusion they could draw - that the blades do in fact give an advantage, and the IAAF were correct?

Can you imagine the headlines: "Pistorius commisions his own tests confirming his advantage over able-bodied athletes", or "Blade runner performs his own research, finds an advantage". Well, of course not - that's a headline that will not seem out of place in a few weeks on April 1! The reality is that Pistorius cannot say anything but that his research proves the IAAF wrong - his entire campaign, and all the spinoffs, depend on it. Similarly, the IAAF cannot at this point apologize for their science being "wrong" and welcome Pistorius into the sport! So we have an impasse, but the circumstances of this latest "research" are so dubious, so suspect, that I find it inconceivable that he would be so presumptious as to even make the claims he has.

What I would love, however, is to see what the "evidence" is. It struck me yesterday that to date, the science of the issue has never been debated - it's been science vs. marketing, no dialogue, only monologues. We've tried to cover the story here, and evaluate the science, and we've received a few emails from people who have blasted it and claimed that it's unfair and untrue. Yet no one has actually presented the counter-argument, either in terms of theory or research results. To date, the rhetoric has been abundant - claims and promises and threats, but nothing concrete. Perhaps Pistorius now has this concrete result, but I'd love to hear how he is going to cancel out a 30% advantage found by the IAAF.

The other thing that is strange is that this testing was done in Texas a month ago - I know for a fact that three weeks ago, Pistorius was investigating the prospect of actually doing the testing here in South Africa. He wanted to have his scientific case prepared from here - so that seems peculiar given that two weeks before this, he had this "exciting" result from Texas. If this is a game of poker, then either someone is bluffing, or perhaps simply ignorant of the science. I've seen little science in the last year, apart from a claim that the human tendon returns 240% of the energy it stores! That "science" was laughable, but perhaps the latest installment will be similar?

Time will tell how this all transpires, and just what testing was done in Texas. To take on the very best scientist in this field in the world (Prof Bruggemann), and the best research facility for this purpose in the world (Cologne), that research must be spectacular.

The IAAF World Indoor Championships

The big sporting event (from a running point of view) this weekend is the IAAF World Indoor Championships from Spain. It's the culmination of the indoor season, and some big names are taking part.

For two informative articles on the weekend, and who to watch, check out the following two articles:

Guide to men's events in Valencia (they don't have a women's guide, unfortunately)
Steve Cram picks his 10 to watch (a bit biased towards British athletes)

If I had to pick two big events to watch, they would be:

• Dwain Chambers in the 60m sprint - only because this is a story we featured here in the last few weeks, and for all the wrong reasons - Chambers is returning to international competition following a break, which followed a forced break caused by his drugs ban. There was huge controversy as to whether he should even be picked for the squad, and he now takes on what is a relatively thin field. If he wins, the story will gather momentum and the headache for the British Athletics (and the world's) fraternity will increase - the spotlight on drugs in sport will only be intensified. Apparently, Chambers is hoping that a medal will help him re-integrate into the sport. Fact is, it's likely to fragment it even further...
  
• Men's 60m hurdles, where the new sensation Dayron Robles will have his first chance to turn up the heat on Liu Xiang ahead of the Beijing Olympics. Robles has been in great form this year, while Liu has hardly raced, so this is the ideal opportunity for Robles to make a statement on what is possibly the most unequal playing field he'll encounter this year. Liu is going to go through 2008 under the most intense pressure perhaps ever placed on an athlete, because he is the face of the Beijing Olympics, and once in Beijing, he'll be carrying the hopes of billions. He's withstood it so far, but Robles can add to it in this race

But, there are some great races in the middle distance events too - the men's 800 and 1500m races, and then Craig Mottram races in the 3000m in a field that's missing Kenenisa Bekele, so he's a good bet for a title there. And in the women, the farewell season of Maria Mutola begins as she runs in the 800m.

Paula Radcliffe to miss London Marathon with injury

Bad news for Paula Radcliffe as she builds up to the Beijing Olympics and the elusive gold medal - she has injured her toe and will not race in London.

The Radcliffe camp are downplaying the significance of the injury, and the reports are that she probably could have raced in London, but would have been below her best, so the wise approach is to rather focus on training for Beijing.

Fortunately, we're far enough away from Beijing that this kind of injury doesn't threaten her big season goal, but it does affect her racing schedule - Radcliffe has always been an athlete who races well and regularly, and of course, given the long layoff she had before New York last year, a few races will be an important part of her Beijing build-up.

However, perhaps this incident will be beneficial - she may now end up racing more at the shorter half-marathon distance, which might ultimately prove to be an advantage, if she can go into Beijing with a little more speed and racing experience in what are likely to be tighter races.

All in all, disappointing for London, but Radcliffe remains on course for Beijing. Time will tell, once again!

She could always try barefoot running - maybe it was her shoes that hurt her big toe!

Join us soon for the third part of the running shoe trilogy!

Have a great weekend!
Ross

Running shoes continued

Running shoes and injuries: Debate continued

Yesterday, we did a short post looking at the debate around running shoes, and whether the shoes which claim to reduce injury risk are in fact part of the problem! Thanks to everyone for the spirited input on the debate - it's been lively and interesting so far. I thought it better to respond in a new post and perhaps lead the discussion based on those comments than bury my response in the Comments section to that post.

Another study on expensive shoes - money doesn't buy you comfort

First, thanks to Clyde for providing the link to the article from BJSM. You can find the article abstract here if you would like to read it. I have a copy of the article as well, and it makes for some interesting reading.

Basically, the researchers set out to evaluate three differently priced running shoes:

• Expensive - priced over 70 Pounds (around $140 or R1100)
• Medium price - around 60 Pounds ($120 or R900)
• Low cost - 40 Pounds ($80 or R600)

The shoes were evaluated primarily on the basis of pressure under the foot and comfort, which is a subjective rating. So they didn't really tackle the issue of motion-control/anti-pronation devices, which is a pity (but more on that later).

Their findings? As you probably might have guessed based on Clyde's comments and the general trend, there were no differences between the shoes for either of these two factors - the cheap shoes produce the same pressure (cushioning), and the same perception of comfort as the expensive shoes. The difference in price of R500, then, results in little difference in terms of cushioning or comfort or pressure distribution.

In a follow up letter to this article, the reasons for this were pointed out - it's simply not feasible to change pressure by shoe-design, because the result would be a dramatic change in biomechanics - the analogy would be to switch from running on tarmac to running on soft, spongy sand. So in effect, the above-mentioned study was "doomed" to find no difference anyway. And of course, this might be true, but then it introduces the obvious question - if shoes can't change the pressure/cushioning, why the enormous price difference? And that's where the debate leads next...

What is missing - research on the 'gadgets'

This study is interesting in that it evaluates one aspect of running shoe design - pressure or cushioning. However, it fails to tackle what I believe is the bigger source of "controversy" around the shoe industry - all the gadgets and gimmicks that are inserted to provide MUCH NEEDED support to runners who over-pronate.

And a good many of the comments to our previous article are from runners who do pronate and have had experience in these shoes. Basically, the premise for these shoes is that upon landing, excessive pronation, which refers to the rolling in motion of the ankle (called eversion of the foot), is responsible for injury, since the pressures and loads placed on the shins and knees is excessively high. Therefore, control the pronation and you control the injury risk...

So shoe companies have all developed their own unique devices to do this. Apart from the devices that are proposed to aid with cushioning (Nike Air, Asics Gel, Adidas Adiprene, and so on), I would dare say that most of the product (and price) differentiation takes place with regards to these motion-control devices. Yet so little research has been done on them. Well, let me qualify that - there is "overwhelming evidence" on all of them, but they're done exclusively by the shoe companies and never published! The funny thing is, I can almost guarantee that one company will have research that proves their device superior, while another, having done almost identical research, will conclude that theirs is the best available!

So it's hardly surprising that Dr Richards and most of you writing into this post are suggesting that anti-pronation shoes are being over-emphasized, and that a well-cushioned shoe is the way to go.

My personal take on the issue - it's the training, not shoes

So let me take that one step further and actually put my head on the block on this one. I fully agree with that assessment - I don't believe that huge, heavy anti-pronation shoes are the solution for running injuries. I stated yesterday that if I were advising an athlete with injury problems, I'd look first, second, and third at their training, and then start to consider their footwear! The point is, training errors are responsible for injury, the rest is detail!

Of course, factors like biomechanics, muscle strength or flexibility imbalances are contributing factors, and so if a runner is "biomechanically correct" (incidentally, that term is thrown around with freedom but without a clear definition of what it actually means! But that's another issue!), they will get away with training that would cause injury to someone who is not so fortunate. Body size and weight are key factors, and then of course, you get leg length discrepancies that throw off alignment, making some people far more susceptible to injury - the result is that one person's ideal programme is another's "boot camp", guaranteed to break them down in a few weeks!

However, I don't believe that simply changing the shoe is the solution - changing the training, and gradually increasing the load is far more likely to resolve the injury.

At the two extremes (high arches or very flat feet), I believe that orthotics may be helpful. I myself have very flat feet (I could probably walk on water if I tried, and certainly on snow!) and I've been in orthotics before. However, I found they caused more problems than they resolved - super rigid, stiff and heavy. So I eventually ditched them, went back to the drawing board as far as training goes (did I mention that I believe training is the key to injury?), and basically started running as a beginner again - I spent a month doing a walk-run programme, consisting of 5 minutes jogging, 2 minutes walking, and eventually managed to phase out the walking part, and the problems are a thing of the past. And all in a pair of very well cushioned, neutral shoes. I certainly lie on the far end of the pronation continuum, but I really am convinced that given the right training, anyone can wear neutral shoes. I don't believe that buying a super-expensive motion control shoe will improve your chances, rather look at orthotics if you feel you have to obtain some support.

To sum up - when you buy your shoes, try them on for comfort and cushioning and fit, and once you find what works, then stick with it. But don't commit to the 'gadgets', well cushioned is sufficient.

The future of the shoe industry

Finally, if I may put on my marketing hat for a moment, I would predict that the heavy motion-control shoe will one day become an extinct species - it may already be on the endangered list! It's difficult to know what stimulated the massive growth in the area, but I suspect what happened was that in the 1970's, when the running "boom" hit, a good many people with "less than perfect" biomechanics took up running. And of course, marketing is all about meeting people's NEEDS. And when the NEED doesn't exist, then you simply create it - "science" is often a big help in this regard!

So the companies recognized that perhaps a million people who never ran before were now running and this represented a huge market to be tapped into. But they needed a selling point, and Point of Differentiation, and the "combat overpronation" campaign was just the ticket!

Now, in 2008, I feel the opposite is happening. More and more people are talking about barefoot running, which is probably a little too extreme, a case of over-compensation, perhaps. But the point is, there is a shift in the market, and I'm sure the companies will respond and try to create a new need - I suppose they already have, with the barefoot shoe concept. But all this adds up to the beginning of the end for the heavy, anti-pronation shoe, which will probably become a relic in the next 20 years. But then again, those may be famous last words!

Thanks again for the debate, keep it coming!

Ross

Running shoes: Solution or the problem?

Running shoes and running injuries: Do the shoes actually cause the injuries?

After a couple of posts on doping, a bit of a change of theme for today, as we look at running shoes and injuries. This post was inspired by a link I was sent by one of our regular readers (thanks John - the link is further down the page, incidentally) and it's a really great article, a real conversation starter, so it follows on nicely from our great discussion after the previous post on lifetime bans for dope cheats. Thanks to everyone for their input on that one, let's see how this one goes.

The other reason to post links is because we've both been incredibly tied down with other work just lately, so in true academic fashion, we'll borrow from the excellent work that already exists and just steer the discussion and the traffic in that direction! Having initially thought that it was Albert Einstein who said that he had "stood on the shoulder of giants", one of our readers pointed out that it was in fact Isaac Newton! To save face, I will however point out that Einstein did quote Newton by saying this later in his own life, which of course only reinforces the idea that in science, don't say something in a new way when someone has already said it perfectly for you! And so we borrow that concept today and refer to a great article on running shoes and injuries...

The running shoe debate: An old topic revisted

To date, we have not really tackled the running shoe subject directly here at The Science of Sport, but it has come up incidentally in previous posts.

For example, it came up in the first post on our series on the Pose Running technique, where it was pointed out that ever since the "boom" in the running shoe industry about 30 years ago, the percentage of runners who get injured each year has remained pretty much the same.

So despite technological advances and developments in the industry, injury incidences have remained largely unchanged. Shoe companies make many promises, such as:

"Anti-pronation devices limit movement of the foot, reducing the risk of injury in overpronators", or "Forefoot and rearfoot cushioning devices reduce impact and the risk of injury"

Yet there's little reason to believe that this is true. The latest studies suggest that anything between 40% and 70% of runners are injured every year. And fascinatingly, in 1989, a study found that runners who ran in shoes costing more than $95 actually were twice as likely to get injured than runners who ran in shoes costing only $40! That was even after correcting for training and racing mileage! Of course, it's impossible to conclude that "expensive shoes CAUSE injury", because there are other factors that can't be accounted for. And one might argue that the typical runner of 2008 is quite different from the runners of the 1970's, who tended to be lightweight, biomechanically very different athletes. So maybe the fact that the injury rates are the same is actually a positive for the shoe industry? But let's pursue it a little further...

Points of differentiation and running shoe research

And what is more, the companies very rarely make their research available for all to see. Even if they did, you can pretty much guarantee that the research (which would be funded by the company, remember) would show "conclusively" that the shoe positively influences biomechanics, cushioning and hence reduces injury risk. The cynics among us would challenge the research on the grounds that they company could hardly spend money on scientific research and conclude that their latest selling point on the new models DOESN'T make a difference!

And in order to understand the full extent of the issue, you have to appreciate what is relatively obvious from a marketing point of view - all shoe makers are doing their utmost to differentiate their shoes and get their "share of wallet" in what is a very competitive, very lucrative (billions of dollars), but very cluttered market. The result of this search for a "point of differentiation" has thrown up a dizzying number of gimmicks and gadgets - every company has their solution, their distinctive features, often with the same function as competitors', yet it's still called "cutting edge technology".

A great article on running shoes

For a great article on the shoe industry, right the way from the Pharoahs of Egypt, through the Middle Ages and then onto the modern shoe industry, here is a great article on running shoes:

Athletic Footwear and Running Injuries

The article is pretty long, but worth the read. For the latest information and some real thought-provoking writing, I'd recommend Part II, about a quarter of the way down the page, which focuses on running injuries and how the shoes have failed to alter the injury rates.

Another site that may well develop into something in the future has been set up by a research in Australia, Dr Craig Richards - it's called "Barefoot versus the shoe"

He actually contacted us recently, in connection with some other articles here (fatigue, Pose), and we discovered the blog then. The posting frequency is relatively low, but it's worth reading simply to see what the shoe companies say in response to Dr Richards when he challenges them for their research. Hopefully in the future, he'll post more regularly and keep exposing the industry where it needs to be exposed.

Is barefoot running the way to go?

On the note of Dr Richards' blog title (Barefoot versus the shoe), the argument is growing that running barefoot is the natural and hence the "correct" way to run. And I know of many podiatrists who are gradually shifting their thinking in this direction - if any of you out there are podiatrists, please feel free to weigh in on the discussion. In fact, even the shoe industry has cottoned onto this idea - think Nike Free, and the other shoes that are now being made to mimic barefoot running.

But, a word of caution here. If you're a runner who has been pounding the pavement for 20 years in a pair of shoes, suddenly switching to barefoot (assuming you can run barefoot - I would never consider it on the tarred roads of Cape Town) may be a risky move for you. Because the change in biomechanics and loading of joints, muscles and tendons threatens injury if you're not careful. So in the article, you'll see advice to run barefoot - what you may miss is the proviso that you start with "small doses", which is really important - be careful about over-compensating and injuring yourself on the other side!

Any shoe experts out there?

I suspect that everyone has an opinion on this one - I have no doubt that many of you reading this will be able to share your experience that a persistent, nagging injury suddenly cleared up when you switched shoes, and perhaps you've never looked back? Those stories are very common, and lend support to the idea that a certain shoe will help with injury risk.

Personally, I'm of the belief that an injured athlete should look at their training as the first port of call after injury. The second port of call is probably training as well, followed by things like muscle strength or flexibility imbalances, and then in fifth, have a look at your training! Seriously though, I think that one consequence of a pre-occupation with shoes and injury prevention is that it takes away the attention that should be given to training - an injury can almost always be traced to a change in training intensity or volume, and that's where I'd begin the detective work, not with shoes.

But, let's hear from anyone who has experience or knowledge. I know we have many readers who are involved in the industry, and have a great deal of technical knowledge, so do fire away!

A look into the future

So that's it as far as "standing on the shoulders of giants" goes - in the next few days, I'll hopefully get that long-awaited post on fatigue up, so join us then!

Ross