Grounding Yourself is a Potent Antioxidant

[thermionic]

http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2013/06/14/barefoot-running-bad-or-beneficial.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/29/james-oschman-on-earthing.aspx

A previous study demonstrated that connecting the human body to the earth during sleep (earthing) normalizes the daily cortisol rhythm and improves sleep. A variety of other benefits were reported, including reductions in pain and inflammation. Subsequent studies have confirmed these earlier findings and documented virtually immediate physiologic and clinical effects of grounding or earthing the body."

 

[leadbreath]

whhhaaatt???
i always reckoned i am a pretty down to earth bloke...but this is news to me.
i might actually try it!

 

[zebra50]

Interesting stuff but....

Oschman was introduced to Ober via Jeff Spencer, the chiropractor for Lance Armstrong's cycling team and an expert in treating professional athletes.

.....must all be sound science if Lance's team were involved!

 

[JohnRoberts]

You will probably absorb more anti-oxidants from eating dirt than walking or running barefoot.  ;D I don't know if this is the same theory behind the psuedo-science air ionizer machines etc...  I bought one of those many years ago and it mainly made a stain on my wall where it precipitated dust particles out of the air that became charged and then clung onto my wall..

Mercola is generally discredited is a hyperbolic snake oil merchant hopping on the psuedo-medical fashion du jour. It is remarkable to me how much money we spend on vitamins and the like that do little good, and magical cures that do nothing or harm.

WRT running barefoot I ran 5 miles yesterday and think I'll keep my well cushioned shoes. (I just replaced my cheap nikes with some slightly less cheap ASIC gels, and yes shoes are different, some better and some worse).  Maybe if I weighed 89 pounds and was running on dirt roads in the desert, or at the beach I'd consider running barefoot.

There is merit to the difference between a heel strike and landing on your fore-foot while running. With the forefront landing, your running geometry is different with legs and joints bent and better positioned to absorb shock. For heel strikers more of the impact force is transmitted up through the ankle and knee. If you look at the physics involved the the total energy from the impact is similar for the same height body rise between foot plants, but spreading the shock over a little more time reduces the peak forces involved.  It's like dropping an egg on a pillow or hard surface, the same energy is involved but way different peak force.

I am a heel striker and use well cushioned shoes to reduce the peak forces involved. I tried a pair of the "free" running shoes that have a segmented last and are supposed to mimic barefoot running geometry. In a bit of bad luck the shoes were sized poorly and I lost both big toe toenails.  Other serious runners I spoke with said the "free" shoes were a joke. I still have them with the toes cut out so I can wear them but don't run in them. 

As i recall besides the bad fit, they did shift more of the stress from running down into the lower foot and away from the knee while not completely.  The goal is spread out the shock from the foot fall over more time. 

JR

 

[thermionic]

Interesting stuff but....

Oschman was introduced to Ober via Jeff Spencer, the chiropractor for Lance Armstrong's cycling team and an expert in treating professional athletes.

.....must all be sound science if Lance's team were involved!

LMAO. A qualified chiropractor, to boot  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism

It hadn't occurred to me that this article would spark the old forefoot vs heel debate - I posted it for a grin. FWIW, in my experience, when I ran on my heels I couldn't go for more than 5 miles without pain. After making the transition to FF, I could go for 12+. I'm not evangelical about it, though - it's down to the individual.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It hadn't occurred to me that this article would spark the old forefoot vs heel debate - I posted it for a grin. FWIW, in my experience, when I ran on my heels I couldn't go for more than 5 miles without pain. After making the transition to FF, I could go for 12+. I'm not evangelical about it, though - it's down to the individual.

I ran a marathon years ago as a heel striker and my recollection is my larger issues were hydration (I didn't drink enough water soon enough in the race) and general endurance. No serious joint pain IIRC. I do recall some stress fractures in my toes as is pushed up my training distance, not sure how heel vs. forefront plant wold affect my toes. But good news they are only toes.  8)

Based on my understanding of the physics I believe there is merit to a forefoot plant and may try again, but it isn't easy to teach this old dog new running tricks. Lots of years and miles under my belt as a heel striker. 

JR

 

[Script]

In theory, that is from a purely academic/scientific point of view, the best measure against oxidization (i.e., ageing of the body) is to avoid the sun and stop eating, breathing and moving. However, I am a bit skeptical about the long-term success rate...

But it's always a good idea to take off your shoes as often as you can to give your tinky toes a little break

 

[zebra50]

Of course oxygen itself is a dangerous di-radical and extremely carcinogenic.

I am not joking.

 

[Kingston]

Of course oxygen itself is a dangerous di-radical and extremely carcinogenic.

I am not joking.

Roughly 150,000 people realise this every single day and simply stop breathing. Problem solved!

 

[zebra50]

Good plan! The population explosion is solved!

Also, when I was a chemistry student, I used to work placement at a factory that made sunscreen ingredients. Those were also classed as carcinogenic. They also made salt-and-vinegar flavouring, and potassium cyanide.

Time for Dan and Dan again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

 

[Script]

Sunscreen, bah, there's a much more potent and fashion-conscious measure against harmful sun rays:

Meet the Face-Kini

This plus eating a handful of dirt every day for that extra dose of anti-oxidants and we should all be safe

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sunscreen, bah, there's a much more potent and fashion-conscious measure against harmful sun rays:

I suspect that face kini improves the look for many.  I bet the tan lines around their mouth and eye holes looks weird.

I use a touch of sun screen on my nose and ears and (red) neck when I run. Since I'm older than Tony Soprano and still alive I don't want to get skin cancer. That said I don't block all sun light. The body needs sunlight to make vit D which is a very good thing. As with everything moderation in all things.

=======
In response to Thermionic's comment i decided to experiment with changing my foot plant. At first I was surprised by how easy it was to alter my running geometry, a slight shift in foot angle, with either a slightly shorter stride length or slightly higher lift between plants. The second surprise came between mile one and two when I stopped completely out of breath. Apparently the slight change in foot plant geometry involved a different part of my hamstring and it wasn't ready for the mileage. I shifted back to my flat to slightly heel dragging foot plant and finished the 5 miles without more unscheduled rest stops.  I plan to continue the experiment but phase into a fore-front foot plant more gradually. Looking at the physics, the longest stride with shortest elevation  per stride is the most energy efficient.

BTW it's almost time to start wearing my baggies filled with ice cubes around my neck again... already hot and humid in MS in late June..
 
JR

 

[Kingston]

I plan to continue the experiment but phase into a fore-front foot plant more gradually.

I have been doing this since the beginning of this season. I also started gradually, but only because it's too easy to slip back to the old "heel-slap" strike. You know, land on a heel and the forefoot slaps - even the running sound is different.

I have had to chant a "mantra" of sorts to keep focus. Fore-foot-strike-(pause) fore-foot-strike-(pause) is what I have been chanting to the count of four. Not out loud, that would be weird! But over and over again, almost military style. Or zen, whatever. After some months there have been changes. Certain problematic muscles that gave grief last year now bounce back within a day. No more injuries for me!

And another one. My main target again is a marathon, but a cooper test every once in a while is a great hint at what's going on. It's early in a season, but I've managed to increase last years top distance more than 200 meters. It feels like cheating, but the physics make sense. Instead of a "stomp-stomp-stomp-stomp!"-breaking with every single step the movement is somehow rolling more like a bicycle.

Now I'm thinking of the next step, which is finding the right shoe for light forefoot strike. Not that I've had problems with the current ones, but maybe there are improvements to be had. I'm slightly adverse to the five fingers. While I haven't tried them, I think I still need some cushioning. Asphalt gets pretty damn hard after 10-20km.

 

[JohnRoberts]

My latest shoes are lower cost asic gels and I like them compared to previous lower cost  nikes.

I trained up to marathon distance years ago ('95) running only once a week. I only trained to finish not to be competitive for speed.

The human body can always push X% past what it did before, so every weekend I increased my distance 2.5 miles until I got up to 25 miles. Skipped one weekend to rest then did the 26.2 miles..  Slow but didn't walk...

You can not do a marathon on guts, you need to train at distance to run distance.

JR

 

[thermionic]

I only changed my foot plant because I wanted to have longer 'long runs' to improve my endurance for 5K / 10K races. To be honest, unless you have a really compelling reason to want to change foot plant, why would you do it? The impact transient plots (studies going back to the 70s mimick those made recently by Harvard btw - digital accelerometers vs hand-plotted graph paper - the curves follow each other) conclude that the initial spike transient is of lower amplitude in FF runners. However, if you're not getting injured as a heel striker, why change? Do you worry that HS-ing will cause problems further down the line?

FF striking will create demands on your calves that they've never experienced before. Let's say you run 25 mpw, 5 x 5 miles. Personally, I would start out running just 1 mile of 3 of the runs as a FF striker. I'd do this for a couple of weeks and then go to 1 mile of each run. After another couple of weeks I'd increase distance gradually, but looking for tightness in the calves. The most popular injury in the over 35s is calf strain. The jury's out on how long it takes to transition to FF strike. It takes some as little as 3 months, others can take over a year - a professor of sports medicine told me this, off the back of a study which collated tens of studies into strike pattern.

Am I conservative? You bet. Are my calves tight after running a 5K race last night? Yes. Am I spending a fortune on massage? Yes. I changed to FF strike 3 yrs ago. I've had far fewer injuries, but beware that you do swap one set of injuries for another if you do change. 

BTW - When I changed I did *not* do it conservatively. It brought back a potentially serious injury in a stabilising tendon (post tib). However, it lopped about 90 seconds off my 5K time without even increasing training... FF is more efficient. Alberto Salazar trains all his runners at the Oregon project to run FF - yet he did his marathon record on HS...

 

[JohnRoberts]

I only changed my foot plant because I wanted to have longer 'long runs' to improve my endurance for 5K / 10K races. To be honest, unless you have a really compelling reason to want to change foot plant, why would you do it? The impact transient plots (studies going back to the 70s mimick those made recently by Harvard btw - digital accelerometers vs hand-plotted graph paper - the curves follow each other) conclude that the initial spike transient is of lower amplitude in FF runners. However, if you're not getting injured as a heel striker, why change? Do you worry that HS-ing will cause problems further down the line?

After decades of running I haven't had any serious injuries (knock on wood). I had Plantar Fasciitis in both feet at different times and dealt with that. At this point I am worrying about deterioration of joints. I never planned to live this long so need to only burn my candle at one end.  I've had a couple knee injuries. One sledding accident as a very young puke, and another time as a young adult when my motorcycle backfired through the kick starter. That ruined my day (week).  I worry about a gradual deterioration of joint cartilage. I do leg extensions on my weight machine to keep the muscles around the knee strong. Proper knee alignment is supposed to be important for reducing injury. I will occasionally have what feels like a small piece of cartilage breaking loose and slowly working it's way clear of the joint, but the pain is brief and fades away soon enough.   

FF striking will create demands on your calves that they've never experienced before. Let's say you run 25 mpw, 5 x 5 miles. Personally, I would start out running just 1 mile of 3 of the runs as a FF striker. I'd do this for a couple of weeks and then go to 1 mile of each run. After another couple of weeks I'd increase distance gradually, but looking for tightness in the calves. The most popular injury in the over 35s is calf strain. The jury's out on how long it takes to transition to FF strike. It takes some as little as 3 months, others can take over a year - a professor of sports medicine told me this, off the back of a study which collated tens of studies into strike pattern.

I'm down to 2x 5 miles a week. I found just 1 1/2 miles of FF plant on level road kicked my butt, but it was more that I was out of breath, which I attribute to hitting different parts of my leg muscles. Afterward my calves felt unaffected. The heat might have had something to do with it, but it was only in the '90s.

Since I am a flat plant to slight heel dragger, i notice that I already shift slightly FF on uphill sections and heel strike on downhills.  I'll just exaggerate the FF strike on uphills, then consider extending that onto the flat sections. The flat plant seems more efficient for energy usage but i do not exercise to conserve energy,  ;D and I am not training for speed or anything else. I just like the endurance capability (for when I play basketball against people half my age and less who can't keep up with me), and to keep my body involved in some physical activity. As I get older it becomes possible to do almost nothing physical for days at a time. That just isn't healthy. If you don't use it you lose it. 

Am I conservative? You bet. Are my calves tight after running a 5K race last night? Yes. Am I spending a fortune on massage? Yes. I changed to FF strike 3 yrs ago. I've had far fewer injuries, but beware that you do swap one set of injuries for another if you do change. 

BTW - When I changed I did *not* do it conservatively. It brought back a potentially serious injury in a stabilising tendon (post tib). However, it lopped about 90 seconds off my 5K time without even increasing training... FF is more efficient. Alberto Salazar trains all his runners at the Oregon project to run FF - yet he did his marathon record on HS...

With the summer heat back, I need to be careful about increasing work effort (higher lift between foot plants). Yes I plan to take it slow. I can do slow. Thanks for the info

JR

 

[bobtheninja]

The advice I've been given regarding transitioning to FF running is to increase the frequency. The ideal is supposed to lie somewhere around 180 foot strikes a minute, which is quite a bit faster than how I run when I use heel plant, so for a while I was running with a metronome going on my phone, and I could run nowhere as long as I could with heel plant. I use the Nike Free 4.5 shoes, I find that the lower heel helps quite a bit in pushing your strikes further forward on your foot blade. So yeah, that's my experiences in the field.

 

[tv]

I usually do 5km daily, depending on weather, FF

10yr ago I could do 18km once a week and 8-10km every day (no pause), but then had an accident, f-ked my left foot some so had to change to fully ff.

It's good, cleans up your lungs nicely.

The whole point is imo doing it daily.

Lesser distances also means you won't have problems if you just absolutely -have- to pee in urban suroundings... which can happen if you do a hour-long or longer runs.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The advice I've been given regarding transitioning to FF running is to increase the frequency. The ideal is supposed to lie somewhere around 180 foot strikes a minute, which is quite a bit faster than how I run when I use heel plant, so for a while I was running with a metronome going on my phone, and I could run nowhere as long as I could with heel plant. I use the Nike Free 4.5 shoes, I find that the lower heel helps quite a bit in pushing your strikes further forward on your foot blade. So yeah, that's my experiences in the field.

While I expect I encountered an isolated QC problem, I purchased one of the "free" variants over a year ago, and the fit was so bad I lost both big toenails from only two runs with them.  I cut open the toes to release the pressure on my toes and tried to use them as every day walking around shoes, but they have the annoying behavior of picking up gravel and small rocks in the bottom waffle pattern and then tracking them into my house. They were comfortable but I never was able to give them a proper running trial, and they are inconvenient for other use. 

JR

 

[bobtheninja]

It's definitely not worth it if your losing your toe-nails! I find them really good for both walking and running. I tried to change my technique with my previous shoes, which were Gel Kayanos, but I couldn't do it. Which probably isn't so strange given that they are very cushioned and have a high heel. Anyway, when I got the Nikes it felt like a relief to run in them, I started paying a lot more attention to the sensation of my foot hitting the ground, and changing the technique felt much easier than before.

The shoes that you got sounds like a QC issue, yeah, which shouldn't occur on such expensive shoes. Nike should be embarrassed.