9
9
0
After I got out (several years), I became much involved in running. As I think back, I realize how little actual instruction was given in "running theory" as opposed to just "practical application" (just going for a run).
Each of the services runs. Although the distances don't seem far, they are not small in the sports community, and usually the "undocumented" (non-PFT) distances exceed the "documented" (PFT) by a sizable margin.
When you compare this to marching or Drill, which we have VERY formalized training in (we call our basic instructors Drill Instructors & Drill Sergeants for a reason), the concept becomes almost obvious.
That said, if you were to ask your troops simple questions like:
1) How long is a pair of running shoes good for?
2) What is pronation, and why is it important?
3) Motrin or Tylonal? Which is better if you are going to go on a run? And why?
How would they do?
To draw a parallel, we would never just hand a troop a weapon and a case of ammo, and expect them to get better. We'd provide them actual training on how to get better. THEN we'd provide practical application using discussed theory.
Failure to do so, could possibly result in injury (like ankles, knees, & back) or other safety concerns (dehydration or hyponatremia). This in turn takes someone "out of the fight" in what could have essentially been a preventable incident.
I'm not saying we aren't doing it, but my experiences with military running training were "baptism by fire" as compared to our much more rigid forms of instruction.
Your thoughts appreciated.
Each of the services runs. Although the distances don't seem far, they are not small in the sports community, and usually the "undocumented" (non-PFT) distances exceed the "documented" (PFT) by a sizable margin.
When you compare this to marching or Drill, which we have VERY formalized training in (we call our basic instructors Drill Instructors & Drill Sergeants for a reason), the concept becomes almost obvious.
That said, if you were to ask your troops simple questions like:
1) How long is a pair of running shoes good for?
2) What is pronation, and why is it important?
3) Motrin or Tylonal? Which is better if you are going to go on a run? And why?
How would they do?
To draw a parallel, we would never just hand a troop a weapon and a case of ammo, and expect them to get better. We'd provide them actual training on how to get better. THEN we'd provide practical application using discussed theory.
Failure to do so, could possibly result in injury (like ankles, knees, & back) or other safety concerns (dehydration or hyponatremia). This in turn takes someone "out of the fight" in what could have essentially been a preventable incident.
I'm not saying we aren't doing it, but my experiences with military running training were "baptism by fire" as compared to our much more rigid forms of instruction.
Your thoughts appreciated.
Distance Running
Fitness
Leadership
Education
Running
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
6
6
0
One of my junior sailors has terrible running form. She says that in boot camp, it was so bad that they sent her to a workshop for running. It did not help. I don't think the military is training their service members on the finer points of running. Most people I run into and talk to about running have no clue as to what makes a good running shoe, how to deal with shin splints, or what pronation is. It would be wise to give some training on the subject
(6)
(0)
LTC Hillary Luton
PO2 (Join to see) Good points. Shin splints was an issue I had to deal with when I would run heel to toe or have to range walk. It tore my shins up and my feet would go numb. Since I transitioned to running on the balls of my feet, (I wear Nortons or similar shoes) I don't have shin splints and my legs don't tire out as fast.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I remember them stressing at BMT that we need to run with a heel strike, which pretty much went against everything I'd ever read up in Runners World and other running resources online.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I have a feeling that running is something we are assumed to "know" how to do properly upon enlistment/commissioning.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, I have a feeling that running is something we are assumed to "know" how to do properly upon enlistment/commissioning.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
The science & opinions change so often regarding impact placement (foot strike) it's hard to keep up. However... this may shed some light.
When boxing, why do we wear gloves? There's a few reasons. First and foremost is to protect our OWN hands. If you don't protect the boxers hands, they would destroy them in the ring during the fight. You can't hit someone "full power" without gloves on. You need that padding to do it. The problem is, once you protect the hands, the "escalation of violence" of the sport goes WAY UP. Since people aren't hurting themselves, the risk of injury is transferred, and pain, the mechanism we all have built in to help reduce injury just doesn't apply. As such injuries go up. So... wearing boxing gloves increase injuries. Counter-intuitive right?
Now apply that same logic to running shoes. Where is the padding on a (running) shoe? Generally on the heel cup. If that's the area that is protected, maybe that should be the strike area? It's said that something like 90%+ of runners "instinctively" heel strike when wearing shoes, however when you take your shoes off... the natural padding on our feet is much more evenly distributed, and generally lends to a flat or front strike methodology. What they discovered though was changing a persons running style from one to there just increased injury chances. Sure one might be more efficient, better, et al... depending on the study, but sweeping change, and generalization wasn't such a great thing.
When boxing, why do we wear gloves? There's a few reasons. First and foremost is to protect our OWN hands. If you don't protect the boxers hands, they would destroy them in the ring during the fight. You can't hit someone "full power" without gloves on. You need that padding to do it. The problem is, once you protect the hands, the "escalation of violence" of the sport goes WAY UP. Since people aren't hurting themselves, the risk of injury is transferred, and pain, the mechanism we all have built in to help reduce injury just doesn't apply. As such injuries go up. So... wearing boxing gloves increase injuries. Counter-intuitive right?
Now apply that same logic to running shoes. Where is the padding on a (running) shoe? Generally on the heel cup. If that's the area that is protected, maybe that should be the strike area? It's said that something like 90%+ of runners "instinctively" heel strike when wearing shoes, however when you take your shoes off... the natural padding on our feet is much more evenly distributed, and generally lends to a flat or front strike methodology. What they discovered though was changing a persons running style from one to there just increased injury chances. Sure one might be more efficient, better, et al... depending on the study, but sweeping change, and generalization wasn't such a great thing.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
True, it seems to be assumed that what every able-bodied kid learned about running is enough to meet the standard. It may be enough to pass a test of a short distance run, but you bring up a good point about injury prevention. Psychologically speaking, it stands to reason that a service member with less pain who is seeing improvement from a good running plan would be likely to run more often and enjoy it to a greater degree.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google