The Stormers beat the Cheetahs 21-8 in a bruising derby in the Super 14 on the weekend, returning them to second place on the log. Stormers captain Schalk Burger had a superb game, but blemished the performance by losing his cool.

Burger played one of his best matches of the season, popping up in support all over the show and putting his body on the line in typical fashion. Totally pumped up throughout, he’s never at less than 100% and sometimes loses the plot a little.

This was the case as the Stormers started a great counterattack from their own tryline, only to have it come to an end with a knock-on. As Meyer Bosman put the hit in on Burger as the whistle went, the big flanker took exception and lashed out with a slap.

He apologised immediately to both Bosman and referee Chris Pollock, and was let off without further punishment. You can hear him saying "Sorry about that, I was just irritated" to the ref.

Burger said after the match "It was a typical derby, you know. The Cheetahs are a very proud unit so it was a tough match." There has since been no talk of a citing.

Just a few weeks ago, Burger lashed out at referee Mark Lawrence while scuffling with Jimmy Cowan of the Highlanders. And in fact last season, Burger gave Griquas player Bees Roux a similar type of flatty. Despite all his worth as a player, he still manages to do silly things at times.

The Stormers are now only one point behind the Bulls on the log after this physical battle. They have a bye ahead of their four match tour to Australasia.

"It always helps having a week off, the guys can relax and recuperate a bit. Hopefully we can nurse the injuries and hopefully we can take those players on tour," said Burger.

Do you think that a stand should have been taken against Burger by sending him off, or did the referee handle things well considering the circumstances? We’ll have the best tries from this match and the weekend in our weekly Pick of the Week compilation soon.


Time: 01:32http://www.rugbydump.com

It is a commonly held idea that in rugby teams with good discipline are more successful than those with poor discipline. On the surface this seems to be a sensible argument, teams that give away fewer penalties hand their opponents fewer scoring chances and teams that stay out of the sin bin spend less time at a numerical disadvantage.

Looking at six weeks worth of data, initially this seems to hold true with the Bulls conceding the fewest penalties per game and leading the competition, while the Lions concede the most penalties and are second from bottom. However on closer inspection, the Force are coming dead last in the competition but concede the fourth fewest penalties, while the second placed Stormers sit mid table in terms of discipline.

Team Games Penalties PPG Yellow Cards Table Lions 6 67 11.2 1 13 Hurricanes 6 66 11.0 1 8 Chiefs 5 54 10.8 2 6 Sharks 6 61 10.2 5 11 Waratahs 6 61 10.2 2 4 Stormers 6 61 10.2 0 2 Brumbies 6 61 10.2 0 5 Reds 5 50 10.0 4 7 Blues 5 48 9.6 2 9 Highlanders 6 57 9.5 1 12 Force 5 47 9.4 1 14 Crusaders 6 55 9.2 1 3 Cheetahs 5 43 8.6 0 10 Bulls 5 34 6.8 1 1

So it would seem that discipline is not as big a factor as rugby purists would have you believe. In fact so far there doesn’t even appear to be a tipping point where conceding more than a certain number of penalties per game leads to a lower spot on the table, with the difference between second and 13th being just one penalty per game.

Even with in a game conceding penalties is not a barrier to victory. In 21 games of 39 so far, the team conceding the most penalties has also gone on to win the game.

Perhaps the number of penalties conceded by winning teams has increased with the change of focus at the tackle this year, it’s hard to say as I don’t have that data, but the one thing that is clear is that there is no correlation between penalties and winning.

While the Reds tallied up a record total against the Force in the Super 14 last weekend, they were helped by an enterprising piece of play that went horribly wrong from opposition fullback Dane Haylett-Petty.

Down by twenty points and looking to create something out of nothing, Haylett-Petty caught the missed penalty, faked to dot the ball down, then took off.

While it all looked pretty flash and he took the Reds off guard for a short while, the pressure of Anthony Faainga coming in for the big tackle seemed to put him off, resulting in the gift for Reds flanker Scott Higginbotham.

Whether it was coincidence of not, youngster Haylett-Petty was pulled from the field directly after the try was scored. Perhaps in future he’ll leave those sort of tricks for the Sevens circuit, where he's already proven himself to be a talented up and coming player.

Have you registered on the forum yet? If not, please do so as we're collecting user info for the big switch-over when we launch the new and improved Rugbydump. More details about that will follow soon, as well as our development drive, but for now you can Register here to make sure your username isn't taken.


Time: 02:28http://www.rugbydump.com

The final of the Anglo-Welsh Cup, now called the LV Cup, produced a thrilling afternoon of rugby as Northampton and Gloucester gave their all in a match that saw the lead change hands five times. Eventually it was the Saints who won it 30-24 in the end.

Tries were scored by prop Soane Tonga'uiha, centre James Downey, and scrum-half Lee Dickson, with flyhalf Stephen Myler kicking everything asked of him, notching up 15 points on his own.

For Gloucester Nicky Robinson kicked 14 himself, including conversions of Akapusi Qera’s try, and the penalty try that was awarded by referee Alan Lewis.

"Cup finals are all about winning. You would take 3-0 in a final, but it is more encouraging when you can go out and play like that. There were two teams who wanted to play rugby, and I thought it was a good advert for the game," said Northampton coach Jim Mallinder.

"The Premiership has had some stick recently but there were two teams out there who wanted to play rugby. This victory shows how far we have progressed. We are going to enjoy ourselves over the next 48 hours and then it's back to business," he added.

The win books their place in the Heineken Cup for next season, as well as sets them up for the possibility of a rare treble, as they’re in this years quarter final, as well as currently sitting two points behind Guinness Premiership leaders Leicester.


Time: 07:22http://www.rugbydump.com

Tadese runs 58:23 to break Wanjiru's world record
The big running news of the weekend was that Zersenay Tadese, the Eritrean former World Cross-country champion and multiple world half-marathon champion, delivered on his promise to break the half-marathon world record in Lisbon.

His time, an amazing 58:23, breaks the old mark of Sammy Wanjiru, the undisputed number 1 marathon racer in the world and sets up what should be a great showdown in London in just over a month (assuming Tadese goes ahead and races it, as he has suggested).

The London Marathon will also be a chance for some redemption for Tadese - he made his debut there, to much hype as the next big thing in the marathon, but he failed badly, dropping off the lead group early and failing to finish.  There is of course no guarantee that a super-fast half-marathon predicts a great marathon, and if anything, there may be concerns that he's too fast at this stage.  With a month to go, Sammy Wanjiru last year ran a mid-61 minute half-marathon and then dominated the Chicago Marathon.  So for Tadese to maintain the form he clearly has in Lisbon will be a huge challenge, and one of the fascinating sub-plots of the 25th April race, which promises to be one of the greatest ever. 

Tadese's times - solo effort of 27:40s for 10km
To put Tadese's performance into perspective, he reached 10km in 27:53, shedding the pacemakers at the ninth kilometer.  He then sped up to run the next 5km in 13:40 (15 km time of 41:33).  The next 5km split in 13:48 gave him a world record of 55:21 at 20km (30 seconds faster than Gebrselassie's old mark).  He brought the final 1.1km home in just under 3 minutes to eclipse Wanjiru's 3-year old record.

It was an amazing performance, for its consistency of pacing, and the fact that he ran it alone for the final 12 km.  Tadese has always been a favourite of mine, and he got some air-time back in 2008 when a scientific paper published his running economy - it was reported as 150 ml/kg/min, which is the lowest ever reported.  There were some theoretical problems with that paper, but the implication was clear - he'd be a fearsome runner over the roads. 

His track pedigree wasn't poor, of course - a few silver medals over 10,000m in some magnificent races against Bekele, who he really pushed to the limit on a few occasions.  But his territory always seemed to be the roads - absolutely dominant at the half marathon world championships, his future was always likely to come in the marathon.  And now, with this performance, all eyes will be on his return to the longer distance in London, and possibly beyond.  He is without doubt a potential world record holder, perhaps the next man to break 2:04.  With the kind of front-running he delivered in Lisbon, and the known front-running capabilities of Wanjiru (think Beijing, London and Chicago), a fast time in London seems assured. 

Gebrselassie bails in New York
Other racing news of the weekend is that Haile Gebrselassie was handed a rare defeat in New York, during the NYC half-marathon.  The world record holder over the marathon had already lost one record (20km, to Tadese), and just before 15km, he pulled up while in the joint lead with Peter Kamais, holding his chest.  He started again, but then stopped for good, checked into the medical tent and returned to the hotel.  In his absence, Kamais went on to win in a respectable 59:53.

There's a lot of chat about this on the running forums of the world, which is invited by Gebrselassie's approach to his running these days.  Very selective and very focused on times, which has meant that he hasn't raced the likes of Lel, Wanjiru, Kebede at the marathon.  Frustration and desire to see this race, particularly when Gebrselassie himself talks about the value of the Olympic Gold medal having pulled out of the Beijing Marathon and then breaking the world record a month later, leaves many feeling "cheated".  As a result, when he does enter a "race" (a debatable term for the NYC half-marathon - Kamais ran well, but it was expected to be a procession for Geb), and loses, it only re-inforces the perception that Gebrselassie is now a clock-runner, and unable to compete in a race.

I think that's a little harsh, because for a decade he was the greatest runner in the world.  And part of me accepts that he's earned the right to earn big money racing the clock in races of his choice.  However, I can't help but notice that he has never raced head to head against a top-ranked marathon runner and won, with the possible exception of Duncan Kibet last year, who was just poor.  Geb's marathon wins have all been clock efforts, his failures coming in London, with the strongest field by a long way.

Also, I must confess I'm tired of excuses from Geb after every failed attempt.  In London a few years ago, he missed a water station.  Then a year later, it was because the rain had made the cobbles slippery.  Then it was too cold, or too hot.  And it's always windy.  Beijing was too polluted, and the bed was uncomfortable in Dubai earlier this year, causing him to sleep badly.  Now, in New York, the lead vehicle kicked up too much dust, making the air difficult to breathe.  Geb may well have asthma, granted, but sometimes you're just not good that day.  One excuse after the other for Gebrselassie in the last few years and it's all becoming a little tired.

In any event, let's see what unfolds over the next month - Paris kicks off the Majors on April 11th, followed by Boston and then London, and we'll be covering it all for you!

RossThe Science of Sport Dr. Ross Tucker Dr. Jonathan Dugas

- Jeremey Coney interview:

“I did get on the field in front of Bay 13 at the MCG. I can remember having an exchange with a hostile crowd down there. I did give some back – which was stupid. “Ah, look, we’ve got a young goose here, there’s only 35 shoplifting days to Christmas, Cornery,” they shouted. Then they started to throw marbles and they were pinking me on the back of my jersey. There must have been a hundred marbles around me and I thought I was going to roll an ankle. Then they started throwing pies when they ran out of marbles. And that attracted the birds. I had undulating ground underfoot and above, flying wildly around me, were birds swooping to attack these bits of meat. It was a disaster. And it was from that day on that I was solely a slip fielder.”

- Gideon Haigh’s sweet tribute to England’s Chris Tavere:

“As an ersatz opening batsman, Tavaré did not so much score runs as smuggle them out by stealth.”

- How A $500 Craigslist Car Beat $400K Rally Racers:

“I once asked Bill why he insisted on going through every spectator section crossed up and with the engine banging off the limiter. “Dude,” he said, “I don’t care if it costs me a couple of tenths. It makes the fans go nuts.”

- The top ten Roy Keane battles:

“The two had been grappling for an hour or so before McAteer responded to a Keane foul by miming writing motions, mere days after the midfielder had said he’d rather buy his son a Bob The Builder CD than Keane’s autobiography. Soon afterwards, they chased for a loose ball, Keane elbowed McAteer in the head, and off he trudged.”

Union to League convert Gareth Thomas had a rather forgettable debut for the Crusaders against the Catalans Dragons on the weekend as took a knock within a few seconds of kick and never quite recovered.

Thomas, playing in his first professional Rugby League match since making the surprise switch earlier in the month, left the field battered and bruised after just 30 minutes.

The 35 year old former British & Irish Lions captain later revealed that he spent the majority of that time with blurred vision following another big knock he received early on.

"I don't know what happened but in the first tackle I took a clout on the top of the head. Then 20 minutes later my head's gone into someone's knee. As much as I didn't want to go off, I had to," said Thomas.

"But I feel fine now, I feel good. Towards the latter stages of the game I wanted to go back on but it was to the benefit of the team because I wasn't one hundred percent.

"This could have been my first game or my 100th, and what happened would have happened. It is a contact sport and it could have happened at any time.

"Now it has gone behind me I can carry on enjoying what is, I think, really and truly a great game. It is a fantastic sport to play, that is why I wanted to play a full 80 minutes," he added.

Crusaders coach Brian Noble said Thomas still has a lot to learn, but he'll get there.

"We are going to have to teach him a few of the nuances of how to protect the ball in the tackle. He wants to carry the ball a lot but he needs to learn how to do that and when to do that.

"But for his first 30-35 minutes he’s done fabulously well given he’s never played any rugby league," he said.

While Rugby League isn't a regular feature here on RD, many will have be interested in how Thomas is getting on. And if rumours are to be believed, there could be one or two other well known Welsh players making the switch very soon too.

League fans, you can now also check out Engage Super League highlights on the Omnisport Player on the sidebar, top right. Just mouse over the video and scroll through the options to find what you're after.


Time: 01:55http://www.rugbydump.com

The Blues beat the Brumbies 39-34 in Round 6 of the Super 14 on Friday, with makeshift centre Rene Ranger standing out as one of the best players on the park on the night.

Injury troubles throughout the first six weeks of the competition have meant that the Blues have been without the backline options of Anthony Tuitavake, Isaia Toeava, George Pisi, and Luke McAlister.

This forced coach Pat Lam to take a chance on the powerful 23 year old, who’s normally a winger and showed a lot of promise with his pace and physicality last season. The gamble paid off as Ranger was involved in most of the Blues’ attacks and made his presence felt on defence.

"Rene was there initially because he was our last option to use," Lam admitted. "He certainly has the skill-set. All he is lacking is the experience. But he has that thing I like in rugby players - no fear. He likes to have a go."

He’s now proving to be a real success in the heart of the action, and showed his power as he smashed Brumbies centre Christian Lealiifano into sometime next week. To his credit though, Lealiifano jumped straight back up and showed no ill effects from the impact.

Ranger is in the headlines today though for a different reason, and that is that his name has been revealed as the player who was involved in the assault case from last October. He allegedly assaulted a man, leaving him unconscious, outside the Mangawhai Tavern in Auckland in August.

Initially he was granted interim name suppression, but the judge later lifted the suppression order. Ranger’s lawyer appealed, only to be rejected and have the order lifted, and his name made public, earlier today.

Ranger is expected to go on trial later this year or early next year.

"I’m disappointed that I was involved in something and that it has got to this stage. It’s not good for me or my family and it’s not good on the team," said Ranger.

"It’s now in the court’s hands. I have just got to get on with my job and do what is best for this team," he added.

Head coach Lam said that the Blues will not take any further action against Ranger.


Time: 0:49http://www.rugbydump.com

NEWSDESK: In an unexpected move, New Zealand have bought the wind into the squad for Hamilton’s second test against Australia. “You have to take advantage of the home conditions – well we’re going to have the conditions in our playing XI,” captain Dan Vettori told a stunned press conference, slowly tapping his temple. “The wind’s form in Wellington impressed us, we’re certain it can do a job for us in Hamilton, being bowled into, blowing people’s hats off, getting in the Australian’s heads… we don’t see the wind carrying the drinks, put it that way.”

By ICC rules, countries are free to pick any weather patterns they choose; “Wind is an important factor in any international dressing room, and particularly in the county scene – this selection reminds me of when Inzamam Ul-Haq tried to select a breakfast buffet for Pakistan, but passport problems put the kibosh on it, what,” said ICC spokesman Harvey Spill-Blazer.

“We see the wind as a specialist fielder,” said coach Mark Greatbach, “I haven’t seen it bowl yet, but I reckon it’ll have a ding-dong batttle with Chris Martin for the number 11 batting slot.”

France won the Grand Slam after beating England in Paris with a workmanlike 12-10 performance that left the visitors wondering what could have been after they missed a few chances that might have changed the result on the night.

England scored early through Ben Foden and looked dangerous with the back three of Foden, Chris Ashton, and Mark Cueto. Ashton in particular had an opportunity in the second half that, perhaps with a bit more composure, should have resulted in a try.

Jonny Wilkinson, who came on as replacement for Riki Flutey, kicked a late penalty from the touchline that brought England close, but France closed out the game by controlling possession for the last few minutes.

Despite not firing on the night, France held off the England challenge and the honours ultimately went to them on a memorable night for French rugby. They have now won nine Grand Slams, and won the Championship title more than any other country.

Questions will be brought up over the ref Bryce Lawrences’ performance, with Martin Johnson visually upset as he discussed one or two issues with him after the match.

Lewis Moody, captain on the night, said afterwards that there were one or two decisions that went the other way, but added "Never blame the referee. It’s our game to win, not his."

Performances by Danny Care, Mike Tindall, and Ben Foden will be positives for England to take away from the match. Tindall however was surprisingly pulled from the pitch in the second half.

It’s France’s night though, as they’ll be celebrating their first Six Nations Grand Slam in six years. Coach Marc Lievremont said it was "A moment of great pride for me and the squad."

"I thought for a while we were afraid of winning the match. The English largely dominated but we had the nerve in the end to hold on," he added. Captain Thierry Dusautoir echoed the sentiments.

"I feel huge pride in what has happened tonight. It was really tough tonight but we hung in there and for us this evening is hard to put in to words but it is a massive achievement."


Time: 07:46
http://www.rugbydump.com

Scotland saved the best for last as they produced a great performance to ruin the party for Ireland at their final ever match at Croke Park. Dan Parks kicked the winning kick with a minute or so left on the clock, resulting in a 23-20 win for Scotland.

Scotland avoided the wooden spoon by competing for eighty minutes in what was one of their best performances in recent times.

Dan Parks was handed the Man of the Match award after his kicking feats that included a vital drop goal just before half time, and then the winning kick at the end, resulting in a tally of 18 points.

Johnnie Beattie scored a great try for the Scots as he powered down the wing following another strong Graeme Morrison carry. Brian O’Driscoll and Tommy Bowe both scored for the Irish, but it was the Scots who held their nerve to close out the game.

Dan Parks was delighted after the match, having been booed by the crowd a few minutes earlier for time wasting as he ran down the clock while preparing for his kick.

He lapped that pressure up though, and struck the ball beautifully as it flew through the posts, taking his side into the lead with time almost up. He said after the match he could understand the crowds reaction, but that it was all part of the game.

Ireland have now missed out on achieving their fifth Triple Crown in seven years, but the win by Scotland also meant that it effectively handed France the Six Nations title. They will kick off against England in a little under half an hour with the sole goal of a Grand Slam title on the line in front of their home crowd in Paris.


Time: 07:00
http://www.rugbydump.com

Wales ended their Six Nations campaign on a high as they comfortably beat Italy 33-10 at the Millennium Stadium earlier today, with flyhalf Stephen Jones taking the Man of the Match award after scoring eighteen points.

James Hook scored two tries while Shane Williams added a third as Wales picked up their game in the second half against an injury ravaged Italian side that fought bravely early on.

Wales finish fourth on the table for the second year running, despite the good win today. Italy though, have taken the wooden spoon, finishing sixth.

"It was a very good performance, the most complete performance of the Six Nations, though it came in the last game which is disappointing," said Stephen Jones.

Coach Warren Gatland was happy with the win, but felt the tournament on a whole was a frustrating one for them.

"I thought we played some outstanding rugby today. We showed potentially what we are capable of. In other games we've let ourselves down and been behind and having to chase games,” he said.

"There were 23 minutes of ball in play in the first half, if you put a team under pressure for that amount of time, often the opportunities will come in the second half.

"We still have a few things to work on but we think when we get everything right we can trouble any team in the world," he added.

Italy coach Nick Mallet was proud of his sides performance, considering the injury toll leading up to the match, and having lost their scrumhalf early on.

"I think they did absolutely fantastically in defence, we could have taken five or six more tries. We had lots of guys falling like flies on the field from after two minutes, we had three injuries on Thursday, we've just taken 45 points from France so, far from being disappointed, I'm very proud of the guys," he said.


Time: 03:00
Please Note: Better quality highlights will replace these soon.http://www.rugbydump.com

Round six of the Super 14 got underway earlier today, so it's time to take a look back at Round 5 with our weekly Super 14 Pick of the Week feature.

In Round 5 the Bulls continued their dominance of the tournament with yet another powerful win at home. They've now scored an incredible 50 points in three out of their four matches. The only game they didn't score 50 in was against the Waratahs, where they scored 48.

Against the Highlanders they scored a few great tries, but none was better than the individual effort from right wing Gerhard van den Heever scored from a run that started way back in his 22.

Other stand out tries came from scrumhalf Kahn Fotuali'i for the Crusaders, who scored two from some excellent offloading in the tackle and perfect support play. The Reds notched up 50 points themselves as they brushed aside the struggling Force, with Quade Cooper once again on fire. Great tries by Digby Ioane and Luke Morahan are featured here.

In Cape Town, the Stormers ran riot against the Hurricanes with big Fijian Sireli Naqelevuki and fullback Joe Pietersen combining twice for respective tries. The Waratahs also brushed aside a struggling unit, as they hammered the touring Lions in Sydney. Josh Holmes and Drew Mitchell scored great breakaway tries, with Mitchell actually getting four on the night.

Enjoy the tries, and check out the Fixtures list to see which games you can watch this weekend.


:: Related Posts ::
Super 14 Pick of the Week - Round 4
Super 14 Pick of the Week - Round 3
Super 14 Pick of the Week - Rounds 1 & 2
Time: 04:38
Music: Breathe by the Prodigy
http://www.rugbydump.com

The week has flown by and another weekend of top class rugby action awaits us, including the big decider in the Six Nations as France look to take the Grand Slam. Today we'll catch up on the French league, the Top 14, with the best tries from round twenty one.

This round took place a couple of weeks ago so the bearing on the table isn't really that significant right now. There were some nice tries scored though, so it's worth the share as once again the Top 14 impresses.

Bourgoin beat Montauban, scoring a nice try through replacement number eight Wessell Jooste, made by a great offload in the tackle. Meanwhile, centre Lionel Mazars scored twice as Bayonne hammered Albi 46-13.

For Perpignan, Romanian hooker Marius Tincu finished off nicely as the Clermont defence held off. Toulon beat Biarritz 21-20 in a tight match that saw Gabiriele Lovobalavu dive over in the corner following good awareness and a nice long pass by Sonny Bill Williams.

Castres beat Brive 35-10 at the Stade Pierre Antoine, scoring four tries. An individual effort by Joe Tekori, where he threw two dummies and spun out the tackles, is featured at number four on this list. The other, finished off by Pierre-Emmanuel Garcia in the end, must be one of the team tries of the season.

Gregory Lamboley also had a bit of spin-action as he scored for Toulouse against Stade Francais,
but at number one is the flying Fijian Sireli Bobo, who flew up the centre for Racing Metro and showed that even at the age of 34, he's still got the gas.

Enjoy the tries. The Super 14 Pick of the week for Round 5 is on the way.


:: Related Posts ::
Best tries of the Top 14 - Round 20
Best tries of the Top 14 - Round 19
Best tries of the Top 14 so far
Time: 04:39http://www.rugbydump.com

Barefoot running and shoes - the Q & A Part 5
This is the final installment of the Q & A on barefoot running vs shoes.  I'm sure next week will bring further discussion and probably a post or two on unanswered questions, but the interview done earlier this year with Run2Day is at an end.  A short post today, and some practical applications, which are my suggestion for how barefoot running would be introduced into running to avoid the very likely overload on the calves and Achilles tendons early on.

What's struck me most in this discussion, apart from that it's so passionately debated (which we knew before the series began) is how large the range of approaches to the subject is.  There are biomechanical angles, historical angles (the Roman army features as protagonists), anthropological angles, economic perspectives, evolutionary arguments, and so on.  Many of which support running barefoot, many which do not.  So thank you for educating me on those topics.

I think it's safe to say that there is no obvious answer, as is the case for many questions.  But it's an intriguing debate, and it will be interesting to track how the 'movement' progresses in the next few years.  What would be really cool, for example, would be to track the sale of Vibrams across the US to see how the consumer responds to all this information, because the surest test  of whether it works will be resale of Vibrams - if people buy the third and fourth pair, then they've converted.

Anyway, here goes with the final few questions.

14. Do you have any news on innovations or research related to this subject which you’d like to share with us?

Not so much an innovation, but a concept that I think is also important for understanding why running barefoot might reduce injury risk. We have heard so often in this series, and elsewhere, that people who switch to barefoot running find that they can run injury free. We look at biomechanics as the explanation for this, when in fact the more simple answer is right in front of us.

That is, if you run barefoot, your training volume is limited by what your feet allow you to do. For example, if you take two runners, equally untrained and with equal risk of injury, and you give one of them a pair of shoes and the other runs barefoot, I guarantee you that the barefoot runner will do LESS training in the first month than the runner in shoes. Why? Because his feet will hurt, his calves will be much stiffer, his ankles will hurt, and his distances, which he can select for himself, will be cut down substantially.

The runner in shoes, on the other hand, has only a stiffness barrier to overcome. He is stiff for a day or two after this first run, but that soon disappears, and then he can increase the distance without restraint. Pretty soon, he’s doing 4 or 5 runs a week, total of 50 km a week, which may be too much, too soon. His barefoot companion, however, has been forced to increase much more gradually. He also gravitates towards softer surfaces, offering more variety in landing type.

The guy likely to get injured in the above scenario is the shod runner. And so when you read testimonies from people who have thrown away their shoes and run barefoot and they proclaim that being barefoot has cured all their injury concerns, you need to ask very seriously – was it being barefoot that sorted out their injury, or did being barefoot alter their training, which sorted out their injuries?

This is why the only “perfect” study that will prove (to me, anyway), the benefit of running barefoot, is a study that forms three groups. All runners must have identical histories, demographics, injury risks (there goes the study right away, of course. But within reason, this is doable). Group 1 gets shoes and chooses their own training volumes. Group 2 runs barefoot and chooses their own training based on feedback and their perceptions around pain and recovery. Group 3 is in shoes, but they run according to a very conservative programme, which increases their distance by about the same amount as the barefoot group would select by themselves. This controls for self-selected increases in workrate.

In the short term, the rates will not be different. Yes, there is a long-term consideration and that is why this study would have to continue for at least a year, probably more. I honestly don’t know what would be found if this is done. But to address the common perception that being barefoot is a ‘cure’ for injuries, you have to question whether it’s a consequence of the impact on training volume.

I cannot stress enough that the reason for injury is training, which brings us full circle and back to the study of van Gent. Shoes, running technique and so forth are factors, yes, but the only factor that is KNOWN to cause injury is training too long, too hard, too soon (or combinations of the three). And so when you approach this debate on shoes vs barefoot and injuries, it’s vital to bear this in mind – training is key and any runner who trains at the right level for their history and circumstances (this is where strength, flexibility, stability come into it), will not get injured.

15. With all research in mind, what would you opt for: choosing either barefoot or padded running (for maximum adaptation to one style) or choosing a mixed training (to keep the body alert to changes and train different groups of muscles)?

Mixed training, without a doubt. Again, hypothetically speaking, if you took a group of runners and you attempted to put them all on a barefoot programme, I would put forward that a third of them will pick up a limiting injury within 3 weeks. A calf or Achilles injury, most probably. They’ve probably overdone the limit and trained too much, of course, but their failure is a training one, and it’s for this reason that Daniel Lieberman, and others are trying so hard to advocate a prudent approach to training.

The irony is that even podiatrists are not against the idea of barefoot running. At least, not the ones I know of. But they’re just adopting a cautious approach, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and they recognize that one approach does not fit all.

However, if the return to barefoot is managed very carefully, with short distances, and infrequent runs, then it would be possible to see positive outcomes. And I’d even say this is desirable. Barefoot running does affect running mechanics, and I believe it affects them positively. It’s also a lot of fun – I’ve got two pairs of Vibrams and I run in them once a week and it’s really very enjoyable, a different feeling and a stimulating way to train. Having started out with slow, and very short running, I’ve been able to build the distance to the point where I can finish normal sessions. But it’s been 6 months and my soleus muscle still hurts the day or two afterwards, and I can’t imagine being more conservative with how I’ve increased the volume of training. Therefore, I view barefoot running as a training tool, with mechanical and muscular benefits, but I can’t, at this stage, see the feasibility of going all the way to half marathons in Vibrams. Lightweight shoes, yes, but not all the way. And that’s fine, just as it is for a few other runners who I’ve advised on the same thing.

In terms of applying this to training, conservative is key. My advice would be that if you’re keen on barefoot running, you limit it to once a week at first, and you limit the length of each run to 50% of your normal distance, and you break it up into intervals of about 5% with walking between.

For example, if your average run is 60 minutes, then my advice is that you head out for 30 minutes, but that you run for 2 minutes, walk for 1 minute, 10 times. At least for the first few week or two, and then gradually increase the running from there, if you feel your feet, ankle and calves are up to it.

16. Conclusion: Barefoot running/Natural Running: Religion or Ratio?   

Ratio, given those two options. The neutral view is likely the best and most accurate one in this particular debate. The shoe industry made the error of positioning itself as the “solve-all” for runners when it said that it would reduce injury risk. I wasn’t around at the time, but I’d be willing to be that in the 1990s, if you didn’t have the latest gadget or gizmo on your shoe, along with rather large cushioning, your running was doomed to failure…We’ve looked at evidence to the contrary in the last few posts. So I think it’s important not make the same error now and dismiss out of hand what many runners have succeeded with.

It’s very easy to point to high injury risks of runners (60 to 70%) and say that shoes don’t help these runners. But there’s no control group, and one might equally argue that it’s incredible that the injury rate is not higher than 70%. As I said yesterday, we are a desk-bound society, which is inactive as children and which takes to a 60 minute a day run on unforgiving surfaces as though we expect our bodies to handle it. We carry with us years of “neglect” and weakness is stabilizing muscle groups, and we pay little attention to training strength. We also recklessly increase training volume, and yet are surprised when we pick up injuries (I myself am just as guilty of this!). And then we find the culprit – the shoe!

Balance is key. There are people who may not be able to run barefoot, however slowly they increase their volumes. There are people who find that they can. Perhaps some day everyone will be running barefoot or in lightweight shoes, who knows? But right now, with the sum of the available evidence, I’m happy to say that barefoot running is a great way to train, it’s different and stimulating and offers many mechanical benefits, but like most things, generalizing will wrongly influence too many people for it to be dogma.

Looking ahead
As I said, next week will probably see some more discussion on the topic.  I'm in Hong Kong for the next Sevens tournament, maybe it's time to do a little bit of rugby science posting to pass the last week of the tour.  And the marathon season is slowly approaching, which promises to provide a lot of discussion and interesting analysis, so that's something to look forward to!

Ross

The Science of Sport Dr. Ross Tucker Dr. Jonathan Dugas

We're well into March so it's time to take a look back at the best of the previous month's action in the Super 14 with another great compilation from the guys at the Aussie show, The Rugby Club. Tries, hits, and pom-poms are the order of the day.

The tournament started off with some high scoring madness that had the people up north questioning if they were watching rugby or basketball, but things soon regained respectability as it became clear that he interpretations of the law led to a far more open form of the game.

As always in the Super 14, there’s plenty to talk about. If it’s not power failures and dancing girls, it’s the action on field with some cracking hits and incredible tries.

A few of the bigger hits have already been featured on here, but the hit of the month was handed to Blues number eight Peter Saili, who rocked Reds winger Digby Ioane.

Try of the month was given to the on form Quade Cooper for his finish against the Crusaders after a brilliant build up. There’s already talk about him pushing Matt Giteau for a place in the Wallabies line up. Time, and court hearings, will tell.

The celebrations featured will have the old school traditionalists pulling their hair out, condemning this great game as having gone to the dogs. In reality, it’s just a bit of fun and can only help towards growing the profile of the sport. Rugby needs characters after all.

Enjoy this alternative look at the most entertaining bits of action from the Super 14 in February.

- Take a look at what's coming up this weekend, starting tonight, in our Fixtures section.
- We've got interviews coming up with both Sebastien Chabal and Ryan Kankowski!
Read more and post your questions here.


Time: 02:31http://www.rugbydump.com

Montauban prop Bogdan Balan picked up an ankle injury during their impressive 45-31 win over Racing Metro on the weekend. Unfortunately for him though, his journey off the pitch wasn't quite smooth sailing.

Last week the Midweek Madness clip that was featured was about a player being penalised for shouting on the field. Opinions were mixed about whether or not the penalty was necessary, but I think we’ll all agree that in today’s clip, the player involved would have been forgiven for making a bit of noise about it.

When you’ve been badly injured and realise your game is over, you basically just want to get off the park in the trusted hands of the medical team and support staff. If you’re stretchered off, you’re generally feeling pretty sore to start with.

Montauban’s Romanian front rower Balan unfortunately injured his ankle quite badly as a scrum went down midway through the match. The medical support he received looked to be excellent, right up until the point where they dropped him.

As you watch them walking off, you can see something isn’t right as there’s two tiny girls at the back who clearly don’t look comfortable with what has been asked of them.

Eventually he goes down to the turf in a heap as they struggle to hold him up. It’s pretty shocking to see, but luckily it didn’t seem to cause any further damage so we can have a chuckle about it and hope it never happens again. Someone please buy them a golf cart.


:: Related Posts ::
Lou Reed penalised for shouting
Time: 01:20
Note: Thanks to Lerugbynistere
http://www.rugbydump.com

Barefoot running and shoes - the Q & A Part 4

Thanks to everyone for the discussion around the previous post.  I've really enjoyed the debate.  I must make the point that any views here are obviously opinion.  Why?  Because there's no conclusive evidence that putting a runner who has run in shoes for 20 years into either lightweight shoes, Vibrams, or barefoot, will reduce their risk of injury.  Until someone produces that prospective, well-controlled study over a long period, anyone's "answer" in this debate is going to be opinion.  Yes, there is a lot of evidence against shoes, but that's because science seeks to disprove the current hypothesis, and little has been done to show up problems with barefoot running - it's too soon. 

And what we've seen so far is the running shoe equivalent of the "shark attack" phenomenon, where the occurrence of an event is greatly inflated by a reporting bias (shark attacks are exceedingly rare, yet we are all terrified of them, because the media coverage given to them is disproportionately high).  Similarly, I really do believe that there is bias in barefoot running reporting, because the people who come forth with their stories are those who have succeeded.  No one has yet documented the failure rate - people who have abandoned the barefoot campaign.  And yes, these people are likely to have failed because they made an error in increasing their volume or intensity too rapidly, but equally, those who get injured in shoes can be accused of the same thing (van Gent, 2007).

As this series progresses, I'll move towards stating what I would recommend as as a practical approach to barefoot running, based on the evidence like that discussed yesterday, and which will be described more today, as well my own experience and work with runners.  But the best part of being able to discuss this topic is to share in those opinions - as is typical though, when people disagree with them, they tend to take out the "you're losing objectivity" club.

Today's post delves a little more into the shoe evidence, looking particularly at the "intelligence" of the body with and without shoes.  Then I end off with some discussion around the whole argument that our ancestors and the Tarahumara Indians run barefoot, and therefore so should we.

Again, in isolation, this post will be strong theoretical evidence for barefoot running, which I hope most have gathered is a recurring theme.  I'm actually very positive about barefoot running and the role it can play in every runner's training and development.  I'm just trying to maintain some balance, lest the movement become, in the words of a respected colleague, "a stimulus plan for physical therapists and podiatrists"!  And believe me, they've made a good few new patients as a result of over-zealous implementation!  Here goes, with questions 10 to 13.

10. There is research (Robbins and Gouw 1991) that says that running with cushioned shoes leads to the fact that the perceived impact on the body is lower than the actual impact (or: our body is fooled by the cushioning). How do you interpret this research?

This body of research is extremely interesting. It’s been borne out by a number of studies which have looked at impact, soft tissue vibration and muscle activation. Benno Nigg has proposed “muscle-tuning” where the degree of muscle activation, especially pre-activation (which is the muscle activity immediately before the foot strikes the ground) is adjusted depending on the impact conditions in order to defend the soft tissue vibration (Boyer & Nigg, 2007). In other words, the body is “smart” enough to anticipate the impact conditions, and whether the cushioning exists and then it regulates impact and vibration by adjusting muscle activation. The simple analogy is that if you stand up on your office chair and jump off it, you can land extremely hard if you just let gravity work on your ‘dead weight’, or you can cushion your landing through anticipation of the impact and the correct muscle activity. That’s what the body is doing in mid-flight, which is quite remarkable.

Whether the perception of impact is important or not, I’m not convinced either way. Let’s say that you run in a highly cushioned shoe, and you perceive the impact to be much lower than it actually is. So what?  Some would say this is a favourable outcome, because any time you can perceive less impact, it’s good. What Nigg is proposing with muscle-tuning concept is that the forces and the vibration of the soft tissue are being regulated. So perception is not reality, in this case. And the impact forces may not be higher – studies seem to disagree on this particular aspect. So I certainly believe that the perception is altered, but I don’t necessarily agree that the body is being “fooled” by this – the perception is being fooled, yes, but the brain and the muscles may be managing it quite appropriately!

What is significant, and this is a strong argument for why bulky shoes do have a negative effect, is that the ability to “feel or sense” the ground may be altered by shoes. Sensory information from the foot, which tells the brain of underfoot conditions, surface hardness, slopes, objects, is certainly altered by shoes, and this may affect the timing of muscle activity, as well as the degree, particularly towards the end of races, when fatigue is a factor.

Incidentally, the same scientists did a really interesting study a few years later, in 1997, where they made people step onto a material that was the same as is used in the midsole of running shoes (Robbins & Waked, 1997). They did this a number of times, but the difference was that they were either told that the material was a state-of-the-art cushion, with all the latest technology to minimize injury (they even drew graphs and made up fake endorsements from athletes), or they were warned that it was the same as the material used in cheap shoes, responsible for many injuries. This is the WARNING trial shown in the graph below. Effectively, they were evaluating how belief about cushioning affected impact.



It turned out that when subjects thought they were landing on the soft, high-tech material (Deceptive trial), the impact forces were actually HIGHER than in the Warning trial when they expected the cheap and ineffective material. And barefoot had the lowest impact forces of all. The other amazing finding, as is shown in the graph above, is that in the barefoot and cheap material trials, the impact forces get lower and lower as the subjects repeat the step, which shows a learning effect that is not present in the ‘Deceptive’ trial where subjects thought they were landing on a soft material. So this is remarkable – it shows how an expectation of impact can actually alter impact, and again, it supports what Benno Nigg and others are saying about anticipation of impact, with the ability to adjust muscle activity to defend some other variable.

This is why it’s possible to run barefoot – the body is a remarkable machine, able to make in-flight adjustments to provide the optimal landing, and this is a strong argument for why being barefoot might give some advantages. At the very least, when people stare in wide-eyed horror at those who run in either light-weight shoes, or Vibrams, or bare-foot, because “you’re running without essential cushioning”, they’re reacting to a misperception – the body can provide cushioning.  And there is evidence for this - from Daniel Lieberman's latest study, from Nature.  We looked at this in a little more detail recently, but the graph below shows one of many interesting findings.


Here, the impact forces are shown for three groups:  First, on the far left, are runners who normally wear shoes, running barefoot. In the middle, runners who are wearing shoes, and on the far right in the shaded box, habitually barefoot runners, who strike forefoot.  Clearly, the impact force is reduced in the forefoot strikers when barefoot. 

However, there's a catch to this whole argument.  The danger is that in order to provide this cushioning, muscles are working harder.  In my answers to an earlier question (Q 4, in Part 2 of the series), we looked at some of the changes in running patterns when barefoot.  The knee is more flexed, the ankle more plantar-flexed, and the landing point more at the forefoot.  These changes are responsible for helping with the cushioning, but mean greater load on the calves (particularly the soleus muscle) and Achilles tendon, which rises substantially, and now you can see why this is happening – it cushions the landing very effectively. When this cushioning response is used, those muscles and tendons are taking enormous strain, and if they are not adapted or eased in, they break down. So again, we have a situation where theoretically, there’s a lot to be said for barefoot/minimal cushioning, because it allows the body to do what it does best. But there’s a real danger there too, which has to be acknowledged, and then managed very carefully.

11. One of the claims of barefoot runners is that most of the modern shoes (which have serious heel cushioning) take away essential sensory information while the barefoot runners' body uses the rich sensory information the foot provides. Nike Free’s, Vibram Five Fingers also work in the sense that they do not ‘disconnect’ the sensory input of the foot. Is that a valid argument? If so, what are the benefits?

Yes, and I think this is a strong argument for barefoot running. Whether the sensory “barrier” still exists in minimalist shoes, I’m not sure. The advocates for barefoot running say that the shoes, no matter how similar to barefoot running, do affect sensory feedback. My experience is also that they do, but not nearly as much as a normal cushioned or stability shoe. The Vibrams in particular feel remarkably similar to barefoot running – studies suggest that the mechanics are the same, and the sensory feedback is as near to barefoot as is possible – it’ll never be the same, because there’s a 4 mm barrier between the foot and the ground. But it’s close, and this may have beneficial effects. Again, that’s never been proven – it is a theoretical position only, but it does offer a potential upside to barefoot/minimal shoe running.

12. Another claim is that modern shoes are considered to act like corsets: they give support but also make the muscles lazy and therefore weaker. Is there any proof that this statement is correct?

The study we looked at yesterday, by D'Aout, showed how chronic shoe use changes the morphology and biomechanical function of the foot.  So it's certainly true that way.  Also, if you go out and run barefoot, even for a short time, you’ll discover muscles in the foot and calf that you had long ago forgotten you had! The stiffness and some of the muscle sensations you feel when you run barefoot is completely unexpected – this suggests that running in shoes involves very little work from those muscles. So from that point of view, it’s easy to say that, yes, running in shoes does reduce the work done by certain muscles of the foot.

However, to extend that position and say that this increases the risk of injury while in shoes is a stretch for which I don’t believe there is proof yet.  What this evidence does is explain why it's so difficult to run barefoot when you've been in shoes for a long time, but I don't think it translates the other way.  Similarly, if one runs barefoot and these muscles are developed, will it reduce the risk of injury when you then run in shoes? It sounds reasonable, certainly, but it could equally be true that when you wear shoes, those muscles do not need to work and therefore can be weaker.

The analogy is that you can become wastefully strong, and we tend to balk at the idea that we can “afford to be weak”, but it all comes back to what is required in order to do a specific task – a marathon runner, for example, may not have a strong upper body, but training the arms and improving their strength by 50% doesn’t produce a faster runner. So is it possible that shoes have created a situation where the work required of the foot is reduced, and this is acceptable, provided the runner continues to be in shoes? Again, no one has really provided proof to answer these questions.

However, I believe that barefoot running offers the potential to help improve foot strength, which may reduce injury risk, if it is managed correctly. A number of coaches, for example, will have athletes to a small amount of running barefoot, and I think that is reasonable, even recommendable, because it helps with the strength of these muscles. Overdo the barefoot running early and you’re headed for disaster, however, as I said previously.

13. Then there is the antropological view: we ran for millions of years on our bare feet; our bodies are not made for walking on running on shoes which have a heightened heel (ranging from high heels to air in sneakers). Do you agree?

I’ve heard this position, and while I can see the merit to the thinking, I think it’s probably the weakest argument for why we should run barefoot, for a couple of reasons:

First, the conditions under which we run today could not be more different than they were millions of years ago. The hardness of running surfaces has changed, the terrain is completely different, and even the way we run is different – a structured 60 minute training is vastly different to a 8 hour migration or hunt that may involve walking, climbing, crawling and resting.

Second, we are different. I’m no anthropologist, but I’d like to see a profile of what the individuals looked like in these “endurance runner” communities. Were some of them 100kg or heavier?  Did they all have a natural inclination for running? In a village of say 100 people, did 100 of them run successfully in order to hunt? Or was the hunting and locomotion done by 20 out of the 100, with the others doing other things that perhaps did not involve such a great deal of endurance work – perhaps some were fishermen, while others hunted? Just as today, if you took 100 people at your running club, you might find 5 great runners, 25 good runners, 50 average runners and 20 non-runners, there’s no guarantee that our ancestors all run well (please note that I'm illustrating a principle here, so please don't attack the numbers...). Unless I’m missing something? So perhaps it’s possible we are comparing those hunters, the “elite runners” of those communities, to our struggling runners, when we should be saying that guys like Ryan Hall or Dathan Ritzenheim – they run just as well as any ancestor did?

And then perhaps most crucially of all, and this is the biggest flaw in this particular argument, there is very little in our lifestyle that is similar to what it was or is in these communities! For example, 2010 man is sitting at a desk for 8 or 9 hours a day, driving a car 80% of the time of locomotion, and spending maybe one hour a day doing exercise. Even as children, we are less active, playing less outside and more on computer games. Many years ago, hunter-gatherer humans were playing, physically active for 12 hours a day and thus developing the strength that perhaps allowed them to run for enormous distances without the same injuries. And yes, they happened to be barefoot! But there are about a hundred things they also did differently. Yet for some reason, we’ve looked at this picture and said “The big difference between us and them is that they were barefoot”. We’ve spotted the wrong difference – the reason they did what they did is because they were stronger in the supporting muscles as a result of their lifestyle. We are weak, unprepared for hours of impact while running, and shoes just happen to be a new addition while this has happened.

Bottom line, don’t blame the shoes for the injuries, look at the training and degree of physical readiness for running, because 9 hours of desk work and years of inactivity produce weakness and inflexibility that is found out by 60 to 70 km a week of training.

Part 5 next
So that's Part 4 done. Apologies for a long post today, but hopefully it stimulates the same kind of discussion!  Tomorrow may be the last post, certainly it will be the last of the interview, and then I may manage to squeeze in a post at the end to wrap up.  So join us tomorrow! 

RossThe Science of Sport Dr. Ross Tucker Dr. Jonathan Dugas