Runners Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Something occured to me while out running yesterday !

I got to thinking about a lot of the posts on the forum asking about injuries .

It would appear from the information supplied that a lot of the injuries are only occuring on one side of the body .It got me thinking about what the reason is for this .

Is it perhaps that we have a naturally weaker side in a similar way that we would kick a football with our stronger side or write with our left or right hand .?

Or could it be something as simple as the camber in our roads and pavements causing us to run awkwardly.?

Could we overpronate on one foot suprinate with the other?

I honestly haven't got the foggiest .

It would be nice to have your thoughts on the subject to see if there is any general concensus amongst us
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,089 Posts
It's a combination of a number of factors I'd imagine Cheriton... minor discrepencies in our biomechanics, leg length and strength etc... the routes we run (camber of roads as you imagine). I think it's near impossible to run perfectly symmetrically, and only the slightest of variation can alter the work done by any muscle etc... once that part of the body weakens it probably becomes more susceptable to injury which just magnifies the problem.

I don't think we 'naturally' have a stronger side (i.e. born with a stronger side), but the side with which we'd kick a ball, or the hand we write with etc will be used more and therefore end up being stronger. I have a friend who plays a LOT of squash, and his right arm and shoulder are quite noticeably bigger!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I was told by my pysio that if you are right handed then your right leg will be more dominant and therefore do more than the left, which means that you will grow bigger muscles on your right side which will be prone to more pulls strains etc. Seems to make sense!
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
My mate thinks that bad road camber is responsible for his recurrent back problems. Personally, I think injuries are a combination of everything; work related posture, the wrong type of shoes, lack of stretching (especially as you're getting older), constant repetition of pounding and overuse in worn out shoes.

Ron Hill once said in a lecture that he blames modern running shoes on the greater number of injuries you hear about in our sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I would guess it's more that it's unlikely you'd be so unlucky as to damage both sides of your body simultaneously. Even if it's something that affects both legs, eg over-training or shin-splints from wearing the wrong type of shoes, we're generally bright enough to stop running and try to fix the problem after the first side goes down, rather than keep crawling til the other one breaks too :eek:

I do think a lot of injuries for runners come on very gradually, though, and we only notice them later on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Mmmm .... this is an interesting one ! Not so sure that its true about your dominant side being the stronger or bigger. I am right handed and yet my left calf is fractionally bigger than the right (I know this because I have a nightmare finding long boots that fit properly!) Also whenever I have a running injury its always in my right leg ... whether it be my ankle, knee or hip thats the problem! I don't do much road work at all so I don't think its due to the camber of the road either. I currently do have a knee injury ... infact I'm seeing a sports physio on Friday so it'll be interesting to see what she comes up with. This one baffles me to be quite honest! :embarrassed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,059 Posts
andrew_n said:
Ron Hill once said in a lecture that he blames modern running shoes on the greater number of injuries you hear about in our sport.
I'd go with that, Andrew (even though I'll freely admit that Ron Hill is probably the only hero I've ever had... read his books?). A great deal of my favourite running shoes were from 15 to 20 years ago. Gimmickry has taken over to a large extent, and runners have been led to believe the hype, and have subsequently come to rely on the "comfort" of the latest technology. And now, of course, there are no alternatives to these shoes.
If you look at the kind of shoes worn in Mr Hill's heyday, and consider the mileages and speeds involved, it makes you wonder how the runners back then got by without being almost constantly injured. :eek:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
pedestrian said:
I'd go with that, Andrew (even though I'll freely admit that Ron Hill is probably the only hero I've ever had... read his books?). A great deal of my favourite running shoes were from 15 to 20 years ago. Gimmickry has taken over to a large extent, and runners have been led to believe the hype, and have subsequently come to rely on the "comfort" of the latest technology. And now, of course, there are no alternatives to these shoes.
If you look at the kind of shoes worn in Mr Hill's heyday, and consider the mileages and speeds involved, it makes you wonder how the runners back then got by without being almost constantly injured. :eek:
It makes you wonder if this is the case why the Hilly brand doesn't produce trainers? i also wonder what kind of shoe does he run in?
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
cheriton said:
It makes you wonder if this is the case why the Hilly brand doesn't produce trainers? i also wonder what kind of shoe does he run in?
The next time I see him at a race, I'll be sure to look. If I were a betting man, I'd say New Balance as they always seem to favour hard rubber as opposed to being spongey.

A. :)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,089 Posts
I've read time and time again from elite athletes (often of years gone by) how modern running shoes are causing injuries, and I certainly think there's some truth in it! In fact the only elite athlete I can think of that praises current running shoes is Paula Radcliffe - though that's purely the Nike brand she promotes (something to do with ££££?) and I doubt very much she runs in any of their off-the-shelf offerings. I've stuck with the same brand/model of trainers since I started running but since getting my racing shoes I've definately decided I'll go and try a big variety of trainers before buying in future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I remember reading an obituary to Jim Peters some years ago who was one of the great marathon runners of the past.
All he ever ran in was cheap Woolworths plimpsols!
He only weighed about 6 stone and probably had a perfect action. (Oh err misis)
For those of us not so blessed I think that modern shoes of the right kind are essential. But I suspect that many runners just pick up a pair of shoes that look right, feel right or don't cost too much rather than select the pair for their running style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I do sometimes wonder how they manage to make 2 pieces of plastic cost £70plus. Also, why does each sub-part need to be a slightly different shade of neon, and labelled with some bizarre name? "reading" my Asics right now I see "Duomax tm", "Solyte", "IGS", "GT-2130"... Do any of these really mean anything? The irony is, a hi-tech piece of laser surgery equipment probably only has two labels; one button saying "On" and a Windows logo...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,059 Posts
cheriton said:
It makes you wonder if this is the case why the Hilly brand doesn't produce trainers? i also wonder what kind of shoe does he run in?
Before the dawn of the "Hilly" brand name, Ron Hill was a brand in its own right... And they did manufacture a few shoe models. This would've been in the early to mid 80's. There was a racing model called the "2-08 racer" (I think); a fell shoe called "Rivington Pike"; and a couple of road/trail-type shoes, the names of which escape me. I seem to remember having tried at least one pair of each model round about that time.
I think that there was even a magazine (Running Review) published round about then which may have been financed by (though I can't really remember) the Ron Hill company.
I seem to remember seeing Dr Hill wearing Asics shoes relatively recently.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
pedestrian said:
Before the dawn of the "Hilly" brand name, Ron Hill was a brand in its own right... And they did manufacture a few shoe models. This would've been in the early to mid 80's. There was a racing model called the "2-08 racer" (I think); a fell shoe called "Rivington Pike"; and a couple of road/trail-type shoes, the names of which escape me. I seem to remember having tried at least one pair of each model round about that time.
I think that there was even a magazine (Running Review) published round about then which may have been financed by (though I can't really remember) the Ron Hill company.
I seem to remember seeing Dr Hill wearing Asics shoes relatively recently.
I've e mailed him to ask him directly .if i get an answer i'll let the forum know
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top