Modern Athlete Magazine Issue 122, September 2019 | Page 63

those will be interested in running, and around 10% of
the runners will be interested in more formal running.
This means that in a community of 1 million people,
we can expect 100,000 to be interested in fitness, of
which 10,000 will be into running/jogging, and 1000
of those will be interested in formal running. Clearly, if
you can sell a single model of shoe that is used by the
100,000 interested in fitness, you are targeting a much
bigger market, reducing manufacture and marketing
costs, and will gain larger profits than a “running
specific” shoe which targets the needs of only 1000
people. A few brands design running specific shoes,
but for obvious reasons these are then limited models,
or smaller companies.
The simpler style of 1970’s shoe technology
the heel out in front of the body’s centre of gravity. If
that is the action to slow down, why would one want
to adopt a similar style when trying to run forward?
Yet this is often (mistakenly) advised for recreational
runners, even in marathons.
Jogging is not Running
For centuries prior to the late 1970’s, most runners
used very basic shoes to address the issues of
protection and cushioning. For example: over 10,000
runners in South Africa completed the Comrades
Marathon between 1921 and 1980 using nothing more
than old gym plimsoles. Then the Running Boom of
the 1970’s saw many people make a move towards
running after years on the couch, but their weight and
sedentary lifestyle meant that they adopted a modified
running style called “jogging,” which tried to reduce
the impact of the landing by getting people to land on
a cushioned heel and roll to a toe off.
This required the jogger to land on the outside of the
heel (as one does when walking) then roll to the inside
(pronation) as the remainder of the shoe landed on
the ground, and roll off to the outside (supinate) at the
end of the foot strike. This resulted in an excessive
‘torque’ of the foot, which in turn added to the risk of
injury, but did reduce the peak impact and loading on
knees.
This style should have existed as a transition style,
but soon became entrenched, partly because shoe
design was changed to raise the heel to midfoot drop,
which forced people to land heel-first. After that, the
next evolution was to use
a block or plastic wedge
under the midfoot
(medial arch) to try
to prevent over-
pronation or
supination (excessive rolling in or out). Had there
been a need for higher heel pads, or rigidity under the
medial arch, humans would have evolved with those
‘features’ added to our body at time of birth... but we
didn’t!
By the late 80’s, shoe companies were recruiting more
and more clients through the introduction of the ‘latest
technologies,’ supposedly evolved to assist sedentary
people adopt a more active life, but ironically, many of
these modifications may have actually caused a drop-
in performance, because many of these technological
advances were of no real benefit, or worse, actually
worked against a natural style.
Commercial Impacts
Globally, there are numerous manufacturers producing
around 180 million pairs of running shoes each year,
and this is expected to grow around 5% each year.
Clearly this is a potentially profitable market, but it
has seemingly become confused with technology that
increases the cost and revenue of running shoe sales.
This confusion certainly works in the manufacturers’
favour, but not always in the runners’ favour.
Of course, there are some beneficial advances,
such as the introduction of outer soles that provide
protection from thorns, stones or glass, and the
introduction of a limited amount of cushioning
can cater for hard surfaces such as tar, concrete,
paving and tiles – as opposed to the veldt that we
were designed to run on. Midsole material has also
advanced with greater levels of energy return, which
not only has potentially improved performance and
protection, but also should have extended the life
of the running shoe. Surprisingly, however, this is
an aspect that I have not heard any running shoe
manufacturer promote!
However, if we know that walking and sprinting are
two completely different movements at opposite
extremes of human motion, why are manufacturers
and retailers selling the one style of “running shoe”
for the mall walker, the jogger, the hiker, and
(unfortunately) the recreational runner? Quite simply,
it is commercially more viable to sell to a bigger
market.
In most communities, around 10% of the
population is interested in fitness, and 10% of
Natural Principles
There can be no question that running in a natural
fashion will be more efficient and reduce the risk of
injury. That said, if a person has spent significant
distance or time running in a different fashion, then
changing to a more natural style cannot be done
overnight. One of the biggest challenges is that after
years of incorrect style, the muscles, joints and soft
tissue associated with that style are well trained, while
those associated with another style are weak, and
untrained. Additionally, the neural system of firing is
configured in the brain, and it takes significant ‘rote’
learning to modify that well registered brain pattern.
The only way to make that change is to spend regular
short training sessions over short running distances
when focus is on the specific change of movement.
Also, core strength is a major contribution to how long
a person can run with good style: As with the Segway
machine, it is the forward lean (based from ankles,
not hips) that is key to increasing speed. A weak core
means that the forces are absorbed, and not directed
into the backward drive.
Therefore, core training is essential. Typically, 30
minutes of many repeats of 20-30 metres of focusing
on one aspect of good style will assist in the change,
but not overly load the soft tissue. As this is repeated,
the muscles will strengthen and become accustomed
to the new style. Doing this barefoot or in socks,
or even some light aqua shoes or booties, will help
strengthen the feet, which is something that works
in compliment with natural running style. The key
aspects here are:
• Landing below centre of gravity
63