Wrong…Well, wrong, according to what seems to be a growing trend among runners and running experts, who are coming up with “running techniques” designed to make you:
- Less injury prone
- More efficient when you run
Runners – a natural audience for these claims?
Or a victim of marketing hype?
At first glance, and through your first few reads, it’s quite an appealing concept. Why? Because runners seem to be eternally fighting against the spectre of injury. And what runner is not interested in improving their running times without adding on 20 miles a week onto their training. So the prospect of simply ‘learning’ a new running technique which makes you FASTER and LESS INJURY PRONE is too good to be true.
Speaking from my marketing training now, the core concept behind marketing is identifying a need, and then meeting it at profit. The need is clearly there.
Running injuries – more common than you think
Do you know, for example, that the average yearly prevalence of injury in runners is somewhere between 40 and 70%? In otherwords, between 4 and 7 out of every 10 runners will be injured per year! For example, a study by van Middelkoop et al found that 55% of runners had been injured in the year leading up to a city marathon. Other studies have produced even more alarming results – 90% of runners injured per year in training for a marathon!
Perhaps you are one of them – as you read this, you are struggling with shin splints, knee pain, ITB problems, stress fractures, muscle strains…you name it, we runners have it! What this means, then, is there is a massive need for SOMETHING that reduces injuries. Normally, we would think of shoes as doing this – after all, every running shoe comes with a promise:
“Anti-pronation devices limit movement of the foot, reducing the risk of injury in overpronators”
“Forefoot and rearfoot cushioning devices reduce impact and the risk of injury”
and so on.
Problem is, the shoe industry has done little to impact on the injury statistics. So in 1970, the number of injuries in runners was the same as it is today! All the technological advances – air cushions, gel pads, torsion devices, straight lasts, medium lasts, roll bars – have done little to those injury numbers. Of course, one might argue quite strongly that more people are running these days, and so it’s a different population compared to the 1970′s, where only the genetically blessed runners were taking part in marathons. That would be another debate entirely, and perhaps in the future, it would be good to look at just how effective shoes have been in combatting and reducing injury risk.
Evaluating the scientific evidence for running techniques
Point is, injuries are happening to runners all the time, and now we have these two running techniques that make claims about solving ALL the problems we face. The point I want to make from this post is that what these websites (for Pose and Chi Running) are doing is exactly the same as what the running shoes have done for many years. That’s the marketing angle – find the need, promise to meet it and you don’t have to sell ever again – your product/needs sells for you!
“You can run faster, with greater efficiency, and have fewer injuries!”
Sounds too good to be true. But where do I sign up?!!!
A debate of the evidence is needed – your thoughts are welcome!
What we need to do now is find the scientific angle. And so what we’ll do over the next few days is look at these running techniques in a bit more detail, and evaluate the claims they make. Where are they going wrong…or right?
We’ll split this over a few posts, otherwise it will become a very heavy and very long post! But do join us as we examine running technique. I’m sure that many of you have tried Pose or Chi, or perhaps another technique we haven’t mentioned. If that’s the case, we’d welcome your feedback and input.
For my (Ross’) part, I must state from the outset that I believe there is always part truth when it comes to this kind of claim. In fact, I was the 7th person in the world to ‘qualify’ as a Pose Running method instructor. The background behind that was that Nicholas Romanov, who developed the technique, came to Cape Town where I was studying in 2002 to perform a scientific study on the technique. I was involved in that study, both as a subject and then later to help instruct the runners. I’ve never really made use of my knowledge, for a number of reasons, some of which will be covered in the posts on this topic. But what I will say is that I believe there is some truth and validity in the claims, but they have been compromised by the efforts to get the method out as widely as possible. For more information, join us next time when we’ll look at this in more scientific detail!
Bye for now!