[参考] 真是因为跑鞋吗？

http://running.competitor.com/2010/09/features/is-it-really-the-shoes_12779 Is It Really The Shoes? 真是因为跑鞋吗？ There’s no disputing the fact that the injury rate in running is very high. But is footwear really to blame? 无可争议的事实是跑步的受伤几率非常高，但是真的要问责跑鞋吗？ Written by: Matt Fitzgerald 跑步者受伤的比例很高，没人知道具体数字是多少，反正我们发现，事实上，跑步比任何其他形式的锻炼受伤的比例都要高。1998年，一项针对铁三选手的研究中，可以显示这种不太妙的差异。英国Straffordshire大学的研究人员发现：在五年的时间里，高水平的铁三选手有62.1%的伤病来自跑步，34.5%的伤病来自自行车，只有3.4%的伤病是因为游泳；在中等水平铁三选手中这个比例分别是64.3%，25.0%，10.7%；在玩票水平的选手中游泳致伤的比率小幅上升，这导致了跑步受伤比例下降到58.7%，自行车是15.9%，而游泳是15.4%。 为神马跑步受伤的比例比骑车和游泳高那么多涅？传统理论认为：跑步导致更多伤病是因为高强度的冲击，而游泳和骑车则不是这类运动。但是呢，记者Christopher McDougall在他写的书《天生就会跑》中抛出了一个由Steven Robbins在1980年代提出的另类观点。他认为：现代的跑鞋促使跑者采用不自然的跑步方式，这导致跑者的下肢组织过度紧张，从而使得跑步受伤的比例增高。 虽然有证据支持这一观点，但它并没有在根本上被证实是对的。一个简单的理由是：只有当你正式的研究了穿鞋和不穿鞋跑者的受伤比例，而且穿鞋者的受伤比例明显高得多，才能彻底说明问题，但是现在并没有这样的研究。基于已掌握的证据，我觉得跑鞋工艺从80年代开始就过分复杂了，这个趋势延续至今。一般来说，跑步者穿复杂工艺跑鞋会比穿简单工艺的跑鞋更易受伤。当然，不多的历史数据显示，今天的受伤比例也没有比跑鞋工艺行将复杂化的年代增加太多。我觉得只把原因归罪为跑鞋是荒唐的，甚至它不是导致跑步高致伤率的最主要原因。 如果你全都怪鞋子，你肯定是忽视了一些更有可能导致跑步受伤的因素，它们是：体重，久坐，硬地以及普遍程度。让我们详细说说这些因素。 体重 最近一个由美国跑步组织（USA Track & Field）主持的研究引起了多方关注，因为他们发现拉伸并不能降低很多跑步者的受伤几率。但是，另一个有趣的发现却几乎被忽视了，那就是在为数不多确定会与受伤风险相关联的因素中，体重正是其中之一。简言之，越胖就越容易受伤。 大家都知道，最近这30年，人们的体重普遍增加了不少，当然也包括跑步的人。毫无疑问，现在这是一个重要的导致跑步受伤的因素。 久坐 墨西哥的塔拉胡马拉印第安人被理想化成了就像史前美好时代的人类那样，生而为跑，永不受伤。Chris McDougall认为塔拉胡马拉印第安人跑步明显的低受伤比例是因为他们的鞋无比简陋。我不是很赞同，我认为塔拉胡马拉人和美国跑马拉松的人更重要的区别是：前者每天都更活跃地在户外进行许多种方式的跑步，而美国跑马的人通常就每天跑上45分钟，然后就在其它的23小时15分中里坐着或倒着。 积极参加多种方式的户外跑步确实能让你跑得更健康。更多的户外运动能够帮助你避免大多数跑步时肌肉与姿势的不协调动作，这些错误动作是一个非常普遍的致伤因素，因为它会降低你关节的稳定性。超级马拉松跑者Dean Karnazes在一次采访中告诉我说，他最近打了次网球，结果让他第二天差点下不了床。因为很多在网球场上的动作令他那些平时在跑步时用不着的肌肉十分疲劳。如果我们能像塔拉胡马拉人那样，给予那些位于踝关节，小腿，腹股沟和臀部毫不起眼的小肌肉足够的锻炼，它们就可以帮助我们在跑步时起到保护关节的作用。 硬地 另一个我们和塔拉胡马拉人的主要的区别是，他们是在泥土上跑，而我们通常是在路面上跑。我想他们是因为跑在足够软的地方，才使得他们可以穿着无比简陋的鞋还能跑得很爽，而不是因为穿的简陋才不会受伤。换句话说，我认为路面是个比跑鞋更大的问题，也许我们穿凉鞋和跑鞋跑在路面上的受伤几率是相同的。 当然这只是推测，因为没有针对在不同路面跑步受伤率的权威比较。但是，最近在letsrun.com有个帖子是关于比较跑步者在公路跑和土路跑时，哪个时段更容易受伤。回复几乎是一边倒的。事实上，每个在两种路面都跑过的回帖人时都会说，他还是觉得不路跑的时候会更健康。 普遍程度 还有一个我们和塔拉胡马拉人的主要的区别是，他们是唯一以跑为生的种族，而我们不是。没有证据显示塔拉胡马拉人是最后还在保持着原始人类普遍生活方式的种族。相反，他们对跑步的热情就像古希伯来人曾经对男性割礼的热情一样独一无二。像塔拉胡马拉人那样的全民长跑也许从来没在早期人类活动中出现过。于是，从古到今的人类文明中，长跑的遗传基因并没有广泛流传。 比起一个世纪前，当今社会中，长跑练习已经十分普及。去年有超过1.5%的美国人参加过马拉松。如我们所知，在过去的30年里，增多的马拉松参与者多半都是那些跑得慢的非竞赛性跑者。我从上世纪80年代就去现场看跑步，我可以告诉你我见证了多么巨大的变化。在我爸爸参加公路比赛的年代，那些比赛时由真正的跑者参加的，他们相对要跑得比一般人快，而他们参赛的原因是他们擅长跑步。他们是跑步的行家。现在的跑步比赛，起点前基本都是或许该被称作“非跑者”的人，他们其实并不擅长。 这也挺好。但是，有善于长跑基因的人通常也有不易受伤的天资。有天赋的选手就是比没天赋的选手少受伤。所以，现在很高的跑步受伤率的部分原因其实是，总的来看，现在的跑步人群没有原来的跑步者天赋好。 回归传统 如果上述因素都可能导致跑步受伤，跑鞋的因素大概还占多少？ 让我们面对现实：跑步的高冲击性确实是一个导致跑步高受伤率的原因。跑鞋的构造确实能够影响身体吸震的多少以及吸震的方式。但是跑鞋不能改变跑步是个高冲击性运动的本质。因此，如果你把责任全推给跑鞋，并以为通过不穿鞋的方式就能让你跑起来永不受伤，你是必然要失望的。 如果你确实想尽可能降低受伤的风险，当然要很注意你的跑鞋是否合适，但是也要减肥（如果必要），并转移到柔软的路面去跑，还要锻炼能够增加你稳定性的肌肉。 The injury rate in running is very high. No one knows exactly how high, but whatever the exact number is, it’s a greater number than is seen in virtually any other form of exercise. This unfortunate discrepancy was pointed out in a 1998 study involving triathletes, who, of course, do a lot of swimming, cycling and running. Researchers from Straffordshire University, England, found that among elite triathletes, 62.1 percent of injuries suffered during a five-year period were caused by running, 34.5 percent by cycling, and only 3.4 percent by swimming. Among mid-level triathletes the numbers were 64.3 percent, 25.0 percent and 10.7 percent. And among recreational triathletes there was a bit of a shift toward swimming with a breakdown of 58.7 percent running injuries, 15.9 percent cycling injuries and 15.4 percent swimming injuries. Why is the injury rate so much higher in running than in swimming and cycling? The traditional explanation is that running causes more injuries because it is a high-impact activity, whereas swimming and cycling are non-impact activities. But in Born to Run, journalist Christopher McDougall popularized a provocative alternative explanation first proposed by Steven Robbins in the 1980s: that modern running shoes inflate the injury rate in running by promoting unnatural stride mechanics that place undue strain on the tissues of the lower extremities. For all the evidence adduced in support of this argument, it remains fundamentally unproven, for one simple reason: only a formal, prospective study comparing the injury rates in shod and unshod runners showing a significantly higher injury rate in shod runners could prove it, and that study has not been done. For my part, based on the evidence currently available, I do believe that running shoes became generally overbuilt in the 1980s and remain so today. Runners are generally more likely to get injured in overbuilt running shoes than in more minimal shoes, although the limited historical data on injury rates suggests that the injury rate in running did not increase between immediately before the era of overbuilt footwear and today. However, I believe it’s absurd to suggest that running shoes are entirely to blame—or even mostly to blame—for the high injury rate in running. To blame it all on shoes, you must overlook other factors that are more than plausible contributors to running’s high injury rate, namely (in shorthand): body weight, sedentariness, hard surfaces, and popularity. Let’s take a closer look at each of these factors. Body Weight A recent study conducted under the auspices of USA Track & Field garnered a lot of attention because it found that stretching had no effect on the injury rate in a large population of runners. But another very interesting finding in that study was almost completely overlooked. One of the very few factors that did correlate with injury risk in this study was body weight. Simply put, the heavier a runner was, the more likely it was that he or she would get hurt. As everyone knows, we’ve gotten a lot fatter over the past 30 years—runners included. Undoubtedly, this is one contributing factor in the high rate of injury observed in running today. Sedentariness The Tarahumara Indians of Mexico have been idealized as a kind of prelapsarian perfect people who run the way humans were meant to run, who run like all humans supposedly used to run, and who never get injured. Chris McDougall believes that the reason for the apparent low running injury rate among the Tarahumara is their minimalist footwear. I’m not so sure. I think a much more important difference between the Tarahumara and Joe American Marathoner is that the former are highly active outside of running in diverse ways, whereas Joe American Marathoner runs 45 minutes a day and sits on his bum or lies prostrate the other 23 hours and 15 minutes. Being active in diverse ways outside of running actually encourages healthier running. An active lifestyle outside of running helps prevent most of the muscular and postural imbalances that are so common in our society and that contribute to injuries because of reduced joint stability. Ultramarathon man Dean Karnazes told me in an interview that a recent game of tennis left him so sore the next day he could hardly get out of bed. All of that unaccustomed lateral motion on the court challenged muscles that Dean never uses in 100 miles a week of running. Those unassuming little muscles in the ankles, lower legs, groin and hips could help us run healthier if, like the Tarahumara, we did use them sufficiently in other activities to render them strong enough to play a role in stabilizing our joints during running. Hard Surfaces Another key difference between the Tarahumara and us is that the former run on dirt, whereas we run mostly on pavement. I believe the fact that the Tarahumara run on surfaces soft enough to permit comfortable running in minimalist footwear is more important than the fact that they wear such footwear. In other words, I believe that pavement is a bigger problem than our shoes, and that we would get injured just as often in huarache sandals on pavement as we do in our running shoes. This is all speculation, because injury rates on different surfaces have never been formally compared. But recently there was a message board thread on letsrun.com concerning personal experiences in injury rates during periods of running mostly on dirt compared to periods of running mostly on the roads. It was completely one-sided. Virtually every runner who had a basis for comparison and who volunteered his experience said he ran much healthier when running mostly off road. Popularity Yet another key difference between the Tarahumara and ourselves is that they are a unique population of running specialists, whereas we are not. There is no evidence to support this dewy notion that today’s Tarahumara are the last vestiges of a lifestyle that was once universal to humanity. To the contrary, all of the evidence indicates that their zeal for running is as unique as the ancient Hebrews’ zeal for male circumcision once was. Long-distance running was probably never a population-wide practice in early human societies as it is among the Tarahumara. Rather, it was the province of a select few specialists. Consequently, the genetic underpinnings of the gift for long-distance running were never terribly widespread in most human cultures from our very beginnings until today. The practice of long-distance running is more widespread in our culture today than it has been for centuries, with more than 1.5 percent of all Americans participating in marathons last year. As we know, participation in running has increased tremendously over the past three decades. Most of that growth has come from the bottom, as it were, with millions of slower, non-competitive types flooding into the sport. I’ve been a part of the running scene since the early 1980s, and I can tell you this transformation has been striking to witness. When my dad was running road races back in the day, those events were filled with runners—relatively fast men and women (mostly men) who ran primarily because they were good at it. They were running specialists. Today the starting corrals are dominated by what we might call non-runners who run. They are not running specialists. Which is great. However, the same genetic package that gives a person the ability to run relatively fast over long distances also gives a person the capacity to run a lot without breaking down. Naturally gifted runners get hurt much less often on a per-mile basis than less gifted runners. Therefore, the high injury rate seen in running today is certainly due in part to the fact that, as whole, today’s running population is less “born to run” than yesteryear’s. Back to Tradition If weight, sedentariness, hard surfaces, and popularity all contribute to running injuries in our society today, how much blame is left for overbuilt running shoes? Let’s be real: running’s high-impact nature is indeed the true reason the injury rate in running is so high. Footwear characteristics do affect the amount of impact the body absorbs during running and how that impact is absorbed, but it does not change the fundamental high-impact nature of the activity. Thus, if you fall for the seductive idea that running shoes are entirely to blame for all running injuries and that getting rid of your shoes will enable you to run infinite distances without injuries forevermore, you’re bound to be disappointed. If you really want to reduce your injury risk as much as possible, by all means, consider your footwear, but also lose weight (if necessary), switch to soft surfaces, and do stuff besides run to strengthen those stabilizing muscles.