The new wonder drug....that's been around forever!

If I told you I had found a substance that could offer the following beneficial effects....

• Could super charge your immune system
• Reduce your incidence of colds and flu by 70%
• Reduce your risk of dying from a heart attack by 31%
• Could half your risk of certain cancers including breast, skin, prostate and bowl cancer
• Could lower insulin resistance and reduce your type I and II Diabetes risk by 80%
• Reduce Multiple Sclerosis risk
• Keep your brain working efficiently into later life
• Could help you maintain a healthy body weight
• Could reduce severity and frequency of Asthma symptoms
• Could lower blood pressure
• Can alleviate the symptoms of fibromyalgia (Chronic, widespread pain and fatigue)
• Could help fight depression

I'd probably have your attention, but you may be a little sceptical. You might even expect me to offer details of some dubious new herbal supplement derived from rare Nepalese caterpillar dung, or badgers breast milk?

You'd then expect such a “wonder drug” to be branded with some catchy name, endorsed by a suitably tanned Ironman Triathlete, and sold for the bargain price of £59.99 for a months supply!

I guess then, you'd be surprised to learn that this substance, and some of it's affects on the body, were first identified around 100 years ago and, since then, all the claims mentioned above have been clinically proven.

Finally, you might also be interested to learn that this substance is naturally occurring, is found in our diets, is available as a very cheap supplement or, better still, available for free simply by laying in the sun!

So what is this incredible substance?

Well, that is what I would like to blog about today...

I'm talking about the “Sunshine Vitamin” - Vitamin D.

Nature's own unsung wonder drug!

Lets start by correcting a misnomer. Vitamin D isn't actually a vitamin at all. It is, in fact, a fat soluble “Secosteroid” or “Pro hormone” (a precursor to a Hormone). It was given the nickname “Vitamin D” when it was used to treat Rickets in kids (in the shape of cod liver oil). But hey, Nicknames tend to stick, so I'll continue to refer to it as “Vitamin-D” if that's ok.

So “what's in a name” you might ask?

Well this is a very important distinction because, like other hormones in the body, deficiency in “Vitamin” D can have dramatic effects on the body.

As a comparative example, if your thyroid hormone levels were low, you might gain 20kg in weight, your blood pressure would sky-rocket, you could go bald, become constipated, develop blood clots and be terribly fatigued. In other words, things would be far from peachy! Similarly, if thyroid hormone levels are corrected by giving you a thyroid hormone, you'd experience profound correction of these phenomena.

It's the same with “Vitamin” D. If you are deficient, then restoring this Pro hormone to normal blood levels can bring profound changes in the body.

Our bodies have around 30,000 genes and Vitamin D has been shown to influence approximately 3,000 of them. Incredibly, almost every type of cell and tissue in our bodies have receptors that respond to Vitamin D, from our brains to our bones. Researchers are continually finding additional health benefits from vitamin D – yet it continues as a largely unrecognised compound for maximising health and preventing sickness and killer disease.

So how do we get Vitamin D and how do we know if we are deficient?

Good questions..

Many of you may already know that the human body is actually able to “synthesise” Vitamin D from Sunlight. Our fishy, reptile, genetic ancestors gained this neat trick, over 350 million years ago, to maintain their calcified skeletons when they slithered out of their calcium-rich ocean environment for land. (No doubt in search of a better future because living in the sea sucked!)

And we still do it to this day. We STILL synthesise Vitamin D from Sunlight.

As I will explain though, these days, this just doesn't provide us with enough.

The process is complex, but in essence, Vitamin D is made in the skin when 7-Dehydrocholesterol reacts with ultraviolet light (UVB) at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm.

(Note that 7-Dehydrocholesterol is a CHOLESTEROL derivative, another one of the multitude of good reasons to stop picking on Cholesterol!)

I won't dwell on the science (primarily because I don't understand most of it) but what's important here are two things.

Vitamin D synthesis requires “UVB light” at “wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm”.

Unfortunately, UVB is also known as “The burning ray”. It's the type of UV that we are constantly advised to protect ourselves from, either by using sun block, covering up or simply staying out of the sun all together. The other problem, is that the optimum wavelength is only really present during the midday hours when the sun is directly overhead and at it's strongest. Again, precisely the time that health professionals tell us to stay in the shade. It should be clear then, that in the summer, obtaining Vitamin D from the sun is a tricky business. In the winter months it's even worse as UVB is almost completely unavailable from what little sun we get (Ever wondered why people get more “colds” and flu in winter – when cold viruses should, in theory, be less prevalent in cold weather?).

So it's a catch 22. UVB exposure during the midday hours can increase burning and skin cancer risk, but it also initiates beneficial responses, including stimulating the production of vitamin D.

Exposure also causes special skin cells called melanocytes to produce melanin, which is protective, so it really is a double edge sword.

Of course our ancestors – even our quite recent ones, spent a lot more time in the sun. They spent more time outdoors, they worked and played outside, they travelled around on foot and they weren't told to cover up and slap on the Ambre Solaire Factor 30!

These days we spend more time in doors, we travel in cars, we stay covered up, we use sun block. Remember that, for the magical process of Vitamin D Photosynthesis to work, it requires sunlight falling directly on exposed skin. Clothing, sun-block, shade, smog, clouds, glass windows, car windscreens, all block (or dramatically reduce) UVB and therefore the bodies ability to synthesise Vitamin D.

It's also worth noting that the further you move away from the equator (North or South) the less available UVB becomes. This is one of the reasons our skins became lighter as we migrated North and South. This was simply to allow us to make better use of the reduced levels of UVB that were available. This is also why darker skinned people living further away from the equator have an increased likelihood of Vitamin D deficiency (because there skin is naturally more protective against UVB's harmfull effects – but unfortunately, it's beneficial effect also).

As a very approximate guide, in the summer months, 20 minutes of direct sun exposure on the arms, hands and face would produce 200 IU of Vitamin D or less than 100 IU for somebody with dark skin.

So how much Vitamin D do we need? Well, before going too much further, lets try to answer that question.

There is actually some debate about this. The recommended daily amount / allowance is in the order of 400 – 600 IU (International Units) per day. This has been shown to be sufficient to maintain bone health – but not the multitude of beneficial effects that are now being researched and identified.

Bone health is what most people think about when we talk about Vitamin D. It is important because Vitamin D plays a major role in the absorption of calcium and phosphorus from the diet, and in their proper utilization. Without it, our bodies start to “de-mineralise” bone in order to obtain the calcium it needs! Very bad! This is one of the mechanisms by which Rickets and Osteoporosis occurs.

400-600 IU of Vitamin D will help keep your bones and teeth strong, and stops calcium depositing where it shouldn't (for example in our blood vessels, heart and kidneys).

However....

Many forward thinking health professionals now argue that 400 – 600 IU per day is inadequate (by a factor or 5 - 8 times!) for optimum health, guarding against sickness and reducing risk of many killer diseases. Also bear in mind that many of us may not even be getting the RDA!!

Contemporary recommendations suggest a total daily dose (from all sources) of between 2000 – 5000 IU as being optimal.

As we should now hopefully realise, obtaining these levels from sun exposure is just not practical (or safe, due to burning, cancer and skin ageing risk). So how do we obtain this much Vitamin D?

What about food?

Well Vitamin D is available through our diet but in woefully small amounts. The one possible exception is Cod liver oil. This is a very rich source of Vitamin D, 500 IU per teaspoon in fact. But is it a food though? Mmm, not something I consume on a daily basis! To me it's a supplement.

Oily fish like salmon, tuna, herring and mackerel are also good sources, but modern farming methods have reduced the Vitamin D content considerably. Same goes for chickens, pigs, cows, that spend most of their lives indoors (another good reason to buy free range). Milk along with some other foods are fortified with Vitamin D, but again in quite small amounts (200 IU per pint)– sufficient for contributing towards bone health, but not much else. By the way – it's worth noting that, since Vitamin D is fat soluble, the small amount in skimmed milk is pretty much worthless anyway. One of the many good reasons to switch to whole milk (more on milk in an upcoming blog post!).

Another great natural source is LARD! Yes, rendered pig fat! – the stuff that is supposed to be so bad for us, turns out to be nutritionally very beneficial (and incidentally – now proven NOT to increase heart disease risk, like all other saturated fats – but regular readers of my blog already know this!).

This raises another very important point – the diet still advocated by many dietitians and health professionals (low fat, high carb, small amounts of meat etc) is simply not conducive to obtaining adequate amounts of Vitamin D. Another good reason why this way of eating is fundamentally flawed!

It is highly likely that our Paleotithic ancestors we able to gain much larger amounts of Vitamin D, than modern man, through increased sun exposure, and from thier natural "hunter, gatherer" diet that contained rich sources of vitamin D. Many of these sources are no longer frequently eaten by modern man or even available! (animal skin, blubber, internal organs etc). It's quite possible that these levels of Vitamin D went some way to protecting our ancestors from the killer diseases that are now on the increase. (They had other stuff to be worried about like getting eaten by Sabre toothed tigers!)

So, considering all of the above, it's fair to hypothesise that a very large percentage of the UK population will have sub optimal Vitamin D levels. Supplementation is therefore the only sure fire way of guaranteeing you obtain sufficient Vitamin D on a daily basis for optimum health.

Now I'm certainly in no position to advice anybody on their specific Vitamin D requirements. It's based on far too many variables to issue a “one size fits all” amount. A blood test is your only sure way of understanding your vitamin D requirements. However, use the following information as you see fit....

I take a Vitamin D3 supplement of 2500 IU per day and to, my knowledge, doses up to 5000 IU per day are totally safe. Toxicity levels are only reached after an intake in excess of 40,000 IU per day. This would be very hard to obtain unless you were overdosing on supplements or using supplements of dubious origin where actual amounts might be inaccurate (so always go with a well known brand – I use myprotein 2000 UI Vitamin D3)

Little bit more about dosing here along with loads of other useful information

Dosing Information

So what can we expect?

Vitamin D is not some new fangled wonder “drug” It's been around since we climbed out of the “primordial soup” - It's a Pro hormone and without it, we die. The same cannot be said of any herbal “health supplement”. They are all "optional" - Vitamin D is not!

To optimise health and minimise sickness and disease risk, Vitamin D is required in quantities well beyond the current RDA and in quantities that are hard to obtain through contemporary sunlight exposure and our modern diet alone.

I can't possibly detail all the potential health benefits of Vitamin D supplementation, suffice to say the claims made at the beginning of this blog have been well researched and are well founded.

If you'd like a little more detail I can recommend this pod cast by Dr Michael Holick, author of “The Vitamin D Solution”

Dr Holick Pod Cast

It's a no brainer right? So why then do so many of us (I've done it!) waste money on fancy supplements, remedies and questionable drug therapies when something so simple can have such profoundly beneficial effects? And why are these incredible benefits from such a simple source not more widely known?

Well what interest would drug companies have in a product that costs less than 4 p for a daily dose when they can charge 40 TIMES that for a single pill of a cholesterol busting (Statin) drug like Lipitor?

It's not like it's got anything to do with keeping people healthy right?

Liptor made Pifzer 7.2 Billion US Dollars last year...So go figure!

Nobody is getting rich on Vitamin D...

But hopefully we can all get healthier!

Born to Run? - Part 2

Long overdue I'm afraid - but I've been a busy chap (update to follow).

So here it is, the long awaited, "Born to run" part 2...

Hope you enjoy - please share with your friends if you find it of interest!

In “Born to run” Part 1 I spoke about some of the “prime movers” involved in the action of running, but I spoke little about the  running  gait and, most importantly I think, the foot strike.

This is something I have spent a great deal of time analysing in my own running and, as a result, trying to change.

There are those who would say that you run the way that is most natural to you – it’s personal. In other words, there is no “right way to run”.

Well, I guess that’s true to a point.

However, the same could be said of swimming. There is no “right way to swim” either. If all you want to do is get from one end of the pool to the other then, by all means, jump in, thrash your arms and legs about, and with a bit of luck you’ll get there - eventually.

People my age will no doubt have memories of the inefficient frenzy of “swimming” at the end of the great kids TV show “We are the Champions”!  Trashing about, having fun, doing what came naturally, but far from efficient as a means of getting from one floating pontoon to another!

We are the Champions!

However, if you want to get to the end as quickly and efficiently as possible, then few would dispute that there is, most certainly, a particular way to swim that is far quicker than any other. It’s called the front crawl, or free style. It’s a “technique” that has been developed to optimise the speed and efficiency of a human through the water.

Crucially, it’s a technique that must be taught. It’s not something you’d ever likely stumble upon just by doing “what feels right”.

Look at kids as they learn to swim. The “natural stroke” might be something closer to the doggy paddle. But, to my knowledge, there have been no speed records set using that technique!

It’s the same with many other sports so why should running be any different?

If all you want to do is get from A to B – by all means, run how you want. But if your goal is speed and efficiency, then there must surely be a way or “technique” of running, which is superior to others for this purpose.

I think there is, and that’s what I want to discuss today.

Starting with the basics, running speed is related to two key biomechanical variables. These are: “cadence” or leg speed and “stride length” or how far you travel with each stride. So to run faster you simply move your legs more quickly, or you aim to travel further with each step (or both). Simple!

We can despatch with the first one pretty quickly. Interestingly, research and analysis of elite runners has shown that leg speed or cadence, is pretty consistent. It seems to fall within a very tight range irrespective of race distance (discounting sprint events). So for race distances from 800m right up to the marathon, an optimum cadence seems to be around 85 – 95 strides per minute. Women tend to be a little higher than men and long legged athletes tend to have slightly lower cadence than those with shorter legs – stands to reason really. But all are remarkably similar.

However, for a number of reasons, most amateur and club runners will have a much lower cadence and would no doubt find 85-95 strides per minute pretty hard work! This can be improved through certain types of session (speed work, intervals, track etc) which will bring about muscular adaptations allowing them to “fire” more quickly. Distance runners will tend to have a greater percentage of “slow twitch” muscle fibres to “fast twitch” ones. There’s little you can do about that. But certain training methods can train your natural slow twitch fibres to behave more like fast twitch ones.

However, your cadence may well be limited by the actual biomechanics of your running style or “gait”.

The key culprit here is the heel strike. Landing on the heel with a straight leg is an alarmingly common way of running. It’s how I’ve always run (until recently) – it is most akin to the action of walking and so feels quite “natural”. People walk, people start to jog, people run – it’s a logical, natural progression and few people actually get coached on correct running technique. So it’s easy to understand why there are lots of heel strikers out there.

Additionally, modern trainers with thick cushioned soles “allow” runners to heel strike without excessive discomfort, but the forces are still there and those forces are being directed in completely the wrong direction for efficient forward motion (and doing a lot of damage and causing fatigue into the bargain!)

In other words, running with a heel strike is like running with the brakes on. It will be incredibly difficult to increase your cadence into the high 80’s and beyond when you slam the brakes on with every foot strike! The photo of me below from 15 or so years ago, shows my extreme heel strike. Take a look and try to visualise where all the impact forces will go at the moment my heel hits the ground!

Heel striking - back in the day!

It’s interesting to note that before the advent of thick cushioned running shoes, runners tended not to heel strike. Running in plimsolls would have made this technique very uncomfortable. Try it for yourself. Run down the road in just your socks. I take a bet you quickly move onto the fore foot to “protect” yourself from the impact. It’s also interesting to note that before the advent of thick cushioned running shoes, runners tended not to get injured!!

So what about stride length?  Well this is where it does get a little tricky as most people, in an attempt to increase stride length, will end up reducing cadence. This is because most people confuse “stride length” with “stride reach”. These are not the same thing. Increasing stride length is not achieved by simply striding further or trying to move your feet further apart from one and other between each stride.

Think of the some of the early paintings of horses in “full flight”. Most were misguidedly depicted with legs as far apart as possible, because painters felt that for horses to travel such great distances with each stride, then this is surely what they must be doing.



Horses defying gravity!



It took a photographer called Eadweard Muybridge to settle it in 1877 with his famous series of high speed photographs which show the horse’s legs bent rather than straight at the precise moment in time when the horse was fully airborne.



Muybridge's famous highspeed photos of a horse galloping



It should be the same with running. At that glorious moment of full flight, the lead leg should bent, foot below knee, as illustrated here by the great Haile Gebrselassie.

Haile in "full flight"

Attempting to “stride further” is often accomplished by straightening the lead leg, heel striking and landing with the leg out in front of the body. Running becomes more of a “lollop”. Cadence drops and so does efficiency. It’s viscous circle.

So how do we increase stride length without simply trying to take bigger steps?

Well, simply put, you need to become more “dynamic”. Strangely, to start working on increasing stride length or “air time” you need to start by reducing how far you “reach” with your lead leg. In other words, to consciously shorten your “stride reach”. Do this and straight away you will detect an increase in cadence.

Let’s break it down.

You’ll remember from my previous blog that hip flexors are crucial. They drive the lead leg forward. But stop! Don’t now straighten the leg and let it swing forward like a pendulum! Instead, keep the knee soft and the foot high. This reduces the effective length of the “lever” from hip to foot and allows the hip flexor to move the limb quickly forward (remember cadence!). Now, maintaining a slightly bent knee, bring the foot down so it lands vertically below or slightly behind the knee – but NEVER in front. The knee should still be bent.

Land on the fore foot, maintaining a bent knee. In this position, the ground reaction force is driving you forward, not backward as with a heel strike. Don’t try to deliberately point the foot in an attempt to land on the toes. The “ball” of the foot is really where you want to land, most likely to the outside edge.

As previously mentioned, the best way to experience this, is to simply remove your shoes and run (grass is probably best – to avoid cutting your feet). You should find that you naturally move to the balls of you feet.

Running barefoot is not something I personally plan to do full time (although plenty do!). I do however try to do one “barefoot” session per week throughout the summer. This will often be tacked onto the end of a grass speed session and may include some strides and technique work. I find that the sensation or “proprioception” of my feet / limbs remains once I return to running in trainers. It’s also a great way of building foot strength (more on that later).

So, back to the running cycle. Having landed on the forefoot, as your centre of mass moves over your foot, your heel drops to the ground and your knee bends a little more. Don’t for one minute imagine that fore foot running is about bouncing along on your toes! It isn’t and that would be a very quick route to Achilles or calf strain. Few people run on their toes only (sprinters mainly). The heel should drop to the ground after the initial fore foot landing. At this point, amongst others the Gastrocnemious and Soleus muscles (calves), Achilles tendons and soft tissues all begin to stretch. Imagine this is like pulling back the strings of a bow. This not only gradually decelerates the ground reaction force, it also “stores” the energy. As the cycle continues this energy is “released” like a spring and, combined with force from the muscles, propels the body forward.

This “elastic energy” is a critical yet, so often, overlooked part of the running action.

This is a very important point...Running is as much about elastic energy as it is about muscular force.

At this point I want to deviate briefly and talk about stretching. It has been a long held belief that stretching is beneficial to athletes as it can increase range of motion (ROM) and reduce injury risk. In actual fact, there is little evidence to support any reduced injury risk and while stretching does certainly increase ROM, one does have to question whether this is to the athlete’s advantage. Referring to my previous statement about elastic energy, it should be clear to see that an athlete able to hyper “dorsiflex” their foot (pull their toes up) for example, will be less able to build elastic energy in the calf and Achilles. It seems that the best advice is to stretch up to and only slightly beyond the range of motion required of your sport – but don’t take things to the extreme. There is for example, little point in a runner being able to do the box splits, but this would be essential for somebody practicing martial arts which involves high kicking etc. Excessive flexibility can lead to instability and loss of dynamic “elastic” energy. More than simply “stretched” it is far better for the muscles and soft tissues to be well warmed up prior to exercise, for this reason, dynamic stretches (involving movement) are preferable.

Loads on the internet – but here are some that I use..

Dynamic stretches for runners

So, back on track...as we’ve hopefully realised, landing with a heel strike makes it almost impossible to build high amounts of elastic energy into the lower leg.

Another killer of elastic energy are trainers with thick heels. Let’s say you’ve landed nicely on your forefoot.  The heel drops but actually, because the heel of the shoe is so thick, it contacts the ground before any elastic energy has been stored in the lower leg. This is like pulling back the string of our imaginary bow in a broom cupboard!  We can’t pull the bow back very far, so there is now less energy stored in the bow and the arrow won’t fly as far.

So this brings me onto what I think are the most important aspects of trainer design.

Thick soles are bad because, they not only prevent correct foot (heel) motion but, more often than not, they lead to instability. Shoe manufactures compensate for this instability by adding all sorts of complicated motion control features. These features improve stability but provide too much mechanical support for the foot.

The foot doesn’t need motion control – it’s already a highly evolved piece of structural engineering design! Over a quarter of the bones in the human body are in your feet!

Think of expensive trainers as “plaster casts” for your feet and you are not far off the mark. Yes they provide support and control but, by doing so, over time, the foot becomes weaker. In the same way that muscles in a leg will atrophy (waste away) when a plaster cast is worn for a few months.

Using shoes that provide minimal support and control means the bones, muscles and ligaments of the foot all have to work hard (as intended). In the long term you will gain strong, stable, injury proof feet! Not cosseted, weakened, injury prone ones!! It’s interesting to note that the prevalence of foot injuries such as plantar fasciitis seems to positively track the increasing complexity of running shoes when by rights they should be reducing!

As an interesting aside here, most runners preserve their “racing flats” for, well, racing! Stands to reason I suppose. But these same runners probably do the bulk of their running in over supportive training shoes. Their feet become “accustomed” to this level of support, chronically weakened and when they move into racing flats for competition, expose themselves to injury risk.

Me? All my running is now done in minimal shoes (Saucony Type A4). They provide my feet with minimal support and allow them to move naturally and become strong. I am now comfortably running marathons is minimal shoes – (the heel of the type A4 is only 13mm thick and, crucially, the fore foot 9mm giving a minimal difference between the two)

My new best friend - The Saucony Grid Type A4 - All I ever run in

Orthotics are another very contentious subject. Podiatrists are often quick to prescribe supportive foot wear or orthotics to athletes with disorders of the foot and lower leg. However, these disorders can often (but not always) be the result of chronic weakening of the foot through years of inactivity in over supportive footwear. Orthotics provide yet more support and the cycle continues. Now please, those of you who wear orthotics, don’t throw them away quoting “but Duncan said so!!” I am no expert and there are many athletes with genuine biomechanical problems which orthotics “may” be able to correct. However, if you currently don’t use orthotics – but are thinking about it, why not try a few bare foot grass sessions first in an effort to build some strength back into your feet.  Those using orthotics might like to do the same once a week, but any changes should be implemented slowly  and assessed regularly.

My feeling with regard to footwear is to keep it simple, and build strong feet.

But thick soles are great because they absorb shock right?

Well let’s get one thing clear...

You can’t destroy (or create) “energy”. You can merely turn it from one state to another. This is the law of conservation of energy. 

Light bulbs for example turn electrical energy into light and heat energy.

So the notion of a running shoe “absorbing” energy is just not correct.

All that energy has gotta go somewhere, and even if a shoe could “absorb” energy why would you want it to? Isn’t that a bit of a waste? You want to take that energy, store it, and release it in a way that propels you forward.

Think of a car suspension system. The tyres can be thought of as your trainers and the shock absorbers as your legs, (bones, muscles and connective tissue).

The car tyres provide a degree of comfort and protect you, the occupant, from the harshness of the road. However, they do little dissipate road shock. That’s the job of the suspension system.

A car with big squashy tires, but no suspension would be almost un-drivable (this is like heel striking in thick trainers). Conversely, a car with a good suspension and very minimal tyres handles like a dream! (this is like forefoot striking with minimal trainers).

So when we run we have to deal with large impact forces as we land with our full bodyweight on one leg. If we land on our heel with a straight leg the only way of slowing this impact force is with the compression of the shoe’s foam / rubber sole (and the cartilage in our joints!!). Now even the most space age materials are just not able to deal with the magnitude of forces involved here.  Those forces simply travel up the straight leg, through the ankle, knee and into the hip (and neither of these joints are particularly well known for their shock absorbing properties!)

Now let’s imagine landing on the ball of the foot with a slightly bent leg. The forces are the same, but this time they can be decelerated by the bending of the knee / ankle and the resistance and stretching of long muscles and tendons of the entire leg.

The bottom line is... damaging forces on the body (hips and knees particularly) are greatly reduced when landing on the forefoot.  And a forefoot gait is promoted and optimised by running in minimal training shoes or bare feet.

Ground reaction forces are most damaging when landing on the heel with a straight leg and this is the gait promoted or at least facilitated by thick soled (heeled) running shoes.

So yes, contentious as this may sound. Forces on the body are more damaging in thicker soled shoes than those with thin soles (providing you run with a fore foot strike).

Equally - I would question the universally accepted view that we must bin our trainers after a few 100 miles, because they "loose their shock absorbing properties"!

Really?

Humans have been running in bare feet, leather sandles, canvas plimsoles, even bits of old car tyre without injury for 100's of years, so how can a 200 mile old pair of trainers be damaging?? - They are if you continue to heel strike!  

As a final point – I would suggest anybody can benefit from looking at their running gait, but don’t imagine this is something you can change overnight (and nor should you aim to). Not only do you have to build specific strength in muscles and soft tissues that you might not currently be using, but you also have to overcome the deep routed “hard wiring” in your brain that is telling you “how to run”.

Anybody that has been running for some time doesn’t need to “think” about it, as Nike would say you “just do it”. But in making the change to forefoot running, you will have to go through that learning process again. You will literally have to think about every step you take. You will also find yourself slipping back into your “old ways” particularly as you get tired, but this is where you really need to concentrate and persevere!

You will need to reduce your run mileage dramatically. Start with a few miles – your feet, calves and Achilles will ache! Allow them to adapt and grow stronger. Build up the length of your runs slowly and only progress once you feel no pain in the new muscles and tissues that you will be recruiting.

I think it took me 6 months to build the sufficient, specific strength required for fore foot running in minimal shoes and about a similar length of time again to break the hard wiring in my brain!

I now class myself as a “natural fore foot runner”.

It’s been hard work – but worth it.

At the age of 39 I think I’m running faster than ever!!

Finally a natural Fore foot striker!

Born to Run? - Part 1

Hello folks!

Racing has been keeping me busy for the last few months. 

Notable sessions have included….

The last event in the Dark and White Trail Quest series, where I achieved my highest placing to date, finishing 7th in the senior male category in some very cold and challenging conditions. 

I returned to the Peak for a 5 hour running epic, with my good mate Dan Shrimpton - himself an awesome Ultra runner. The main purpose was to reccy the route for an up-coming fell race (the Edale Skyline). We endured 25 of the toughest running miles the Dark Peak had to offer, including wind, rain, hail, snow, dense fog and knee deep peat bogs. It became one of those character building sessions that train mental as well as physical toughness! We loved every minute of it!

Dan in the Peaks as the blizzard hits

It obviously served Dan well as I heard today that he has just won the “Hardmoors”. Part of the Vasque Ultra series, the Hardmoors is a 55 mile race over some of Yorkshires toughest fells. Amazing effort Dan!

Bakewell next for the "Open 5" adventure race. A 5 hour MTB / Fell Running navigation event. I felt super strong on the 3 hour bike section and managed to clear all the controls points (first time I've achieved 100%). Some navigational errors cost me dearly on the run but I still managed to clear all but one control. This was my best performance in an adventure race to date. As a self confessed "amateur" with map and compass, I was dead chuffed to be mixing it with some of the region's best adventure racers, including athletes from team Accelerate and Berghaus. 

I ran the Ashby 20 with my good buddy Hasseb who I am "guiding" for the London Marathon. We used the race to trial our pacing and feeding strategy for the marathon. Things went pretty well and we held our target 3hr marathon pace for the duration. Haseeb had to dig deep and navigate a treacherous last mile, but he really showed his mettle. 2hr 17mins was a pb for Hasseb so job done.



Haseeb and I finishing at the Ashby 20



I was also very proud to gain a County vest following a reasonable performance in the Leicestershire County Cross-Country Championships. My call-up to represent Team Leicestershire in the Inter-County Cross Country Champs came slightly out of the blue. The event was also a World Cross qualifier event so lets just say the quality of the field was a little higher than I am used to!  

Myself looking a little pensive before the start of the Inter-Counties

Needless to say, the event was a real eye opener. 

Watching "real runners" float effortlessly over the ground got me to thinking. Why do triathletes make it look so hard! 

Ok, fair enough - the top guys look pretty impressive, but the vast majority of age-groupers (myself included) tend to lack that effortless grace that we see in elite runners.    

I have been aware of this in my own running for some time now and it’s been something I've been actively trying to correct - and, I'm glad to say, with some success.  

And this brings me neatly onto the subject of my latest blog post...

Running form - can we make changes to the way we run to increase speed and efficiency without requiring extra effort or energy?
 

Read on to find out.....
 

So why do we run the way we do? It's an interesting question. 

Few of us are actually taught how to run - it's the most natural thing in the world. Nobody really feels they need to be told how to do it correctly.  

But the reality is few of us do run as well as we could and some very simple changes to our running form could see us all running more efficiently and, ultimately, faster. 

As kids we spend a great deal of our time running around - just for fun. In fact, if you want to see an example of great running form - look no further than kids running around a park in bare feet! 
 

Now there's a term you've all probably heard a great deal in relation to running - "bare feet". Right now, it seems to be the new running revolution. People around the world are ditching the super squishy trainers in favour of a bizarre array of "bare foot" running shoes.

I’m actually going to devote more time to the mechanics of the running gait and foot strike in Part 2, so watch this space!

But what about muscles? - Ever stop to think about the muscles responsible for running? 

Ask anybody which are the muscles responsible for powering you down the road most would focus on the leg that's in contact with the ground. Quads? Hamstrings? Glutes maybe? These are all big muscle groups and you could be forgiven for thinking that these are the muscles largely responsible for forward motion.

The reality is somewhat different.

For sure, the previously mentioned muscles are certainly essential for the action of running but they are largely useless unless we are able to provide a stable working platform (a strong core) and a "force" to counteract the driving action from the prime movers.

Think about pushing a car. You lean against the rear window and push with your muscles including your quads, calves, glutes and lumbar muscles. The mass of the car offers a resistive force that allows these muscles to fire. Slowly but surely the car inches forward…

Now imagine the car disappears….pooof! It’s gone!

What happens to all those muscles that were flexed and generating huge amounts of power? These muscles no longer have a force to work against – they relax and you fall over.

It would be the same when we run, if we were not able to provide a counteracting force.

However, when we run, we don’t have a car to push against (although it can feel like it sometimes!), so where does this opposing force come from?

Well this is where our “swing phase leg” and gravity comes in..

The swing phase leg, or the non weight bearing leg, as it moves dynamically through the air generates a pull on your body’s centre of gravity. This advancing centre of gravity, and the fact that the weight bearing leg is anchored to the ground, allows a rearward thrust to be generated, et voila, forward velocity!

Also don't neglect your arms. Don't just let them dangle around by your side. Try it in fact. Have a go at running fast with your arms in your pockets. Note how your body twists and your shoulders roll? This is your body trying desparately to balance out the forces from your legs.

So now try again, but this time with elbows flexed at right angles (or there abouts) swinging forward from the shoulder in line with your direction of travel (not side to side, across your chest or round in circles!). Imagine punching a cushion with each alternating fist. The arm swing should be forcefull and yet controlled and actively "stopped" ahead of the body. This stopping action should be timed to coincide with the end of the opposing leg's swing phase. These two actions then combine to provide an effective opposing force to the powerful weight bearing leg. 

So, back to the legs. The important question is… Which muscles control your swing phase? Well, as a group they are referred to as your hip flexors.

The “Hip Flexor” is not a single muscle as some might believe, but a generic term referring to a group of muscles who’s job it is to flex the femur (pull the knee up).

The Psoas Major, Psoas Minor, Iliacus, Rectus Femoris (one of your quads), Sartorius, Tensor Fasciae Latae (or “ TFL”, which is a glute muscle), Pectineus, Adductor Longus, Adductor Brevis and Gracilis are all hip flexors. So next time somebody complains about their hip flexors – you can ask “which one of the 10!”. Then go on to really impress them, by naming them all!

However, of these, the Psoas (Major and Minor) the Iliacus and the muscles of the inner thigh are the most important of your hip flexors for generating an explosive, powerful swing phase leg motion.  Unless specifically trained, they can fatigue quickly, your quads and claves, while still full of beans, have nothing to work against and your dynamic, effortless stride becomes an inefficient shuffle.

We’ve all no doubt experienced this toward the end of races – particularly triathlons where hip flexors are also put through the mill on the bike. The resultant shuffle is a direct result of your hip flexors packing up and leaving the party!

Unfortunately, the hip flexors are one of the harder muscles to train and one of the first to loose condition when you de-train.

They can be strengthened most simply by practicing running fast. Simple really - to run fast, you gotta train fast! Hours of long, slow distance training will improve your aerobic condition but it will not provide the sufficient stress or force required to recruit these "fast running" muscles. You may feel fit as the proverbial butcher’s dog off a winter of Long Steady Distance, but come race day, your hip flexors won’t know what’s hit them!

So lesson one, if you want to run fast in the spring, don’t neglect fast training sessions during the winter!

Tempo runs, intervals and fartlek training can (and should) all be included in the off season.

Other terrific ways to train your hip flexors include running in snow, mud or thick scrub (so you have to lift your feet higher off the ground), hill repeats, climbing stairs and "Roman Chair" exercises in the gym.

There is a great way to conveniently combine many of these training methods and its called  "Cross-country racing"!  The gains in strength and speed can be huge and it should come as no surprise that most dedicated track and road runners, looking for strength and speed in the spring, run cross-country in the winter! They know the importance of strong, fatigue resistant, hip flexors!

So lets all get our hip flexors in shape, start using our arms and we’ll be ready for Part 2 where I will be looking at cadence, stride length and foot plant.

This weekend I’ll be returning to take on the Peaks again in the Edale Skyline fell race.  I just hope my hip flexors are ready to party!

Fats and the Cholesterol myth!

Ok, first a great big "thanks" to all those who have read my last blog post and left kind comments - I hope you all found it interesting and eye opening!

It's great to hear that I am reaching people - that was always my hope and my intention.

I can think of a number of people that, as a direct result of my last post (and some of the videos) are now in the process of changing the way they eat and shouting about it to their friends. Fantastic! Keep spreading the word.

If you haven't read it yet - no worries, you are here now, so maybe just read my last post before dipping into this one. Also, if you haven't watched "The Big Fat Fiasco" vids (linked in the post) then please do - they are essential viewing!

So, I spoke about food groups, in general, during my last post - but I think it might be worth delving a little deeper and talking about one specific food group in our diets and one that continues to get grossly misrepresented.

Namely fats...

More specifically, saturated fats and more specifically still, cholesterol...

So here goes...

In my last post, I spoke about the different types of food we consume to fuel our bodies during work, rest, day to day activities and sports type activity.

I also called into question the validity and health benefits of the "Low fat / High Carb" diet that we have been brainwashed into believing for several decades!

We have a number of people to thank for this myth but a certain biochemist called Ancel Keys probably sits at the top of the tree.

It was his studies in the 1950's along with a great big dollop of bad science that lead to the so called "Lipid Hypothesis" which in essence was... if you eat fats, you get fat and the associated levels of fat and cholesterol in the blood will increase your risk of Atherosclerosis (ASVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD). So don't eat fats (particularly saturated fats), eat grains and vegetable oils instead.

Tom Naughton provides a great analogy in his film "Fat Head" - a brilliant and funny movie well worth a watch.

He asks that we imagine the whole of human history (over 1 million years!) compressed into 1 year. He states that, proportionally, we have only been farming and eating grains since yesterday (when we started becoming shorter and fatter) and we started consuming processed vegetable oils about 10 minutes ago (when heart disease became our number one killer).  So after examining all this human history the "experts" (Ancel Keys among them) suggested that we all start eating what?

Yup - more grains and processed vegetable oils!!

That's right, in order to protect our heath, it was suggested that we should all eat more of the foods that we hadn't eaten for 99% of all human existence!!

Brilliant!!

Sorry.. did I miss something??

Thankfully the whistle has been blown on this hypocrisy, it's bad science exposed and the general population gradually coming round to the idea that they may have been sold a pup.

But elements of this myth still remain and a biggy is Cholesterol.

We've all heard of Cholesterol and how bad for us it is. We all know how increased Cholesterol levels can increase Atherosclerosis (ASVD), Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and heart attack risk and we know that these increased levels are, by and large, due to consuming cholesterol rich foods like saturated fats and dairy right? Right?

Sorry.....wrong!

Again we have our friend Ancel to thank for this one following his now famous study (that got him the cover of Time magazine) were he showed a "link" between high blood cholesterol levels in different countries and increased incidence of CHD.

What he actually showed was an "association" or "correlation" and, as any good scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation. In fact, as we will see later, Ancel didn't even see an association, but he "manipulated" the data to show one. 

A great example that illustrates the inherent weakness of "observational" studies is shown in the Fat Fiasco video. It sites one such study which showed that women who were taking oestrogen (HRT) were "seen" to have a lower than average incidence of CHD, leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. However, further "clinical" trials actually showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. How could this be?

Re-analysis of the data from the observational studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups, with better than average diet and exercise regimes and generally more likely to look after themselves. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socio-economic status), rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.

So back to Ancel and his bad science. Another crafty trick he pulled was to disregard any findings that didn't suit his own hypothesis, so Aboriginal Australians were dropped from the study because they had very low levels of cholesterol but some of the highest incidence of CHD in the world. Conversely the Swiss, very high cholesterol, very low incidence of CHD. So the Swiss result was not included! These are just two examples of many nations that did not follow the link Ancel was trying to prove.

Looking at all the data - it's impossible to make any connection between blood cholesterol and CHD....

Supported by equally flawed observational analysis like the Framingham Study, the myth refuses to die....

Lets try and put this one to bed...

Firstly, some stuff you maybe didn't know about cholesterol...

Cholesterol is a very important chemical in the human body.

Cholesterol is actually a "Steroid Metabolite" and is an essential structural component of every cell of our bodies - without it our cells would literally fall apart and we'd be a pretty unpleasant blob on the floor.

Cholesterol is a potent antioxidant and a "metabolic nutrient" able to heal the body from infection and repair damaged tissue.

It helps synthesise vitamin A, D and K and without it our bodies can't produce bile or bile acids needed to digest protein.

So cholesterol is a good guy ok!

Ahhh but what about "bad" cholesterol I hear you say!

Well lets get this straight....there is no such thing as "bad" cholesterol or "good" cholesterol for that matter. Just cholesterol.

So maybe some of you have heard of HDL and LDL cholesterol. I'm not surprised, we hear these terms banded about all the time on the TV by the likes of Gloria Hunniford intent on selling some magical margarine designed to stop us all from dropping dead from heart failure.

What Gloria doesn't know is that HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol aren't even cholesterol! They are proteins (High density lipoproteins and Low density lipoproteins).

Cholesterol is a waxy chemical that is not soluble in the watery environment of blood so it needs to be transported within certain protein molecules around the body. That's where HDL and LDL come in.

So why is HDL (wrongly) touted as "Good" and LDL considered "Bad"

Beats me??

LDL is simply transporting cholesterol FROM the liver TO the body tissues. If you believe (incorrectly) that cholesterol is bad, then I suppose anything that transports it TO the body tissues must also be considered "bad".

This is completely and utterly wrong! Wrong wrong-idy wrong...

LDL is simply transporting cholesterol to where it needs to be in the body. LDL is just trying to help by carrying cholesterol it to where it can mop up cellular damage, repair cells and make new ones. So stop picking on it ok!

HDL on the other hand gets all the brownie points for transporting this "poison" away from the tissues. (If I were HDL, I'd spend all my time blowing raspberries at LDL - but that's just me) So where does HDL take this cholesterol? You'd assume, because cholesterol is so "bad" and HDL is so "good", it would transport it out of the body ASAP wouldn't you.

But it doesn't

It actually takes it to the liver - where it is recycled and re-used. Our bodies know how important cholesterol is. It a complex chemical compound that the body wants to hang on to. It's far easier to recycle than it is to re-manufacture.

A great quote from Natasha Campbell McBride, MD goes something like this...

Calling HDL "good cholesterol" and LDL "bad cholesterol" is like calling an ambulance en route to an patient a "bad ambulance" and an ambulance en route to the hospital a "good ambulance".

If we are to listen to the experts, we are expected to believe that the liver is actually manufacturing, using, recycling and re-using a compound, within the body, who's sole purpose is to give us a heart attack! Seems unlikely to me...

In relation to cholesterol, there are however a few parameters that do matter.

There is good evidence to suggest that the ratio of LDL to HDL is important. Not the actual numbers that you hear quoted by some doctors and dietitians, but the ratio.

With this fact in mind, lets look at something like butter. Yup, good old tasty, natural, saturated fat, butter. Yes it raises LDL cholesterol, but it raises HDL cholesterol as well. So the effect on our bodies is, at worst completely neutral (except for all the positive nutritional effect of course). One might even be so bold as to suggest butter could reduce coronary heart disease risk. But increase?  Nope, sorry, it just doesn't. The same for all natural fats that man has chosen to leave well enough alone!

The other factor that is extremely important is molecular size.

"Small, dense, LDL" are the real bad guys. These proteins can pass more easily into the arterial wall, where they can build up to form fatty plaque deposits. Normal LDL then joins the party in an effort to mop up the rancid, oxidised proteins and a type of scar tissue forms causing an obstruction of the blood vessel and all of  the consequences thereafter. This is most probably where LDL gets its bad rep - but it's just trying to do it's job.

Conversely, large fluffy LDL (as it should be) - causes no such problems. Their particle size means everything keeps flowing as nature intended and cholesterol can go about it's business of keeping us alive!

Ok, so small, dense LDL are the bad guys - but what causes it??

Well, as with most things, you can blame your parents as there is a genetic pre-disposition to have small dense LDL. An active lifestyle will reduce the risk - good news for us athletes!

But diet has a BIG effect and hopefully you can all predict where this is going.....

It's not a diet high in saturated fats that causes small, dense LDL but......

You guessed it....

A diet which is high in refined (high GI) carbohydrates and high in Trans Fats (fats that man has meddled with)!

Is that the sound of a penny dropping?

I hope so!

So what can we learn?

Cholesterol is good - our bodies need it to function, repair and survive.

There is nothing wrong with "Natural" saturated fats. Butter, cheese, eggs, whole milk and yoghurt is all good!

A great "Universal" fat is coconut oil - I may do a mini blog post about this incredible food later - but, suffice it to say, it's now the only fat (along with butter) that I have in my house. I use it for everything from frying, baking, bread making to spreading on toast.

If you must use a vegetable oil - make it virgin olive oil.

The real bad guys are not natural saturated fats but refined, high GI carbs, hydrogenated vegetable oils and trans fats. These can cause an increase in small, dense LDL - which are the REAL precursor to Atherosclerosis and CHD - avoid them and ANY foods containing them!

So there we have it.

Myth busted...pass the butter!