There is an intriguing perception of money and its relationship to health in our community. For many, spending more money on some item or service equates to the perception of a higher quality of service. There are some very interesting cost dynamics and perceptions that take place in health care as well.
There is a commonly-held perception that if a personal trainer or coach is more expensive, then they MUST be good. We see the same in the world of health care – the greater the cost (or the longer the waiting list), the better the provider must be. But where are the outcomes? Accountability? Results?
In most businesses, good quality work and/or service is rewarded with economic prosperity. You provide a good outcome, and you do well economically. You provide a lousy outcome (on a regular enough basis), and you are looking for a new career. But for some reason, these basic rules of capitalism (and quality) seem to change when there is any mention of “health”.
This is the 13th in a series of RunSmart videos. The series is on-going, with a new video released on a biweekly basis. These videos complement the material presented in the book “RunSmart: A Comprehensive Approach To Injury-Free Running”. The full series of videos can be found here. A compilation of the first 10 videos will be available on Vimeo as well.
For those of you that are interested in a more interactive learning environment, consider attending a Level One (half day), Level Two (one day), or Level Three (two day) RunSmart program. The Level One program is 4 hours and focuses on basic training principles and running mechanics. The Level Two program is 8.5 hours and focuses on injury prevention and performance optimization. The Level Three program is a two day, 15 hour program that includes a comprehensive approach to running injuries. The next Level One program will be offered in Austin on June 3, 2012. The next Level Three program will be offered in Reno, Nevada on May 5 – 6, 2012 at the University of Nevada.
In this video, I discuss the issue of training principles and how they are consistent regardless of the race distance. Many coaches and athletes continue to focus on the variation of energy systems with race distance. However, the training principles that are underlying the plan should remain consistent across all race distances.
The recovery run is a pretty common training session in a runner’s arsenal. It will almost certainly be found in the majority of training programs and approaches to training.
The concept underlying the recovery run – active recovery – starts out with some good sport science to support it. The theory underlying active recovery is simple - recovery post-workout can be facilitated if the athlete continues to perform lower intensity activity during their cool-down process.
This assumes that the active recovery is done immediately after the completion of the main training session.
What it has become in today’s training regimes is far from the original intent of the activity.
In 1981, Robin McKenzie proposed a diagnostic classification system – MDT, or Mechanical Diagnosis And Therapy - in which patients would be classified according to the mechanical and symptomatic responses to mechanical loading strategies. Diagnostic classification would then establish the appropriate criteria for treatment.
McKenzie proposed three mechanical syndromes: postural, dysfunction, and derangement. Postural syndrome is characterized by end-range stress of normal structures, thereby producing pain with sustained end-range loading. Dysfunction is characterized by end-range stress of shortened structures (secondary to scarring, fibrosis, and/or nerve root adherence), thereby producing pain with repeated movements to end-range. These two syndromes fit neatly into a traditional pathoanatomical, tissue-based model.
It is the third syndrome – the derangement syndrome – which is perhaps the most intriguing and which garners the greatest debate amongst clinicians. The derangement syndrome is characterized by “anatomical disruption or displacement within the motion segment”. But does the derangement syndrome fit into a traditional pathoanatomical model? And if not, does it matter anyways?
This is the 12th in a series of RunSmart videos. The series is on-going, with a new video released on a biweekly basis. These videos complement the material presented in the book “RunSmart: A Comprehensive Approach To Injury-Free Running”. The full series of videos can be found here. A compilation of the first 10 videos will be available on Vimeo as well.
For those of you that are interested in a more interactive learning environment, consider attending a Level One (half day), Level Two (one day), or Level Three (two day) RunSmart program. The Level One program is 4 hours and focuses on basic training principles and running mechanics. The Level Two program is 8.5 hours and focuses on injury prevention and performance optimization. The Level Three program is a two day, 15 hour program that includes a comprehensive approach to running injuries. The next Level One program will be offered in Austin on March 24, 2012. The next Level Three program will be offered in Reno, Nevada on May 5 – 6, 2012 at the University of Nevada.
In this video, I discuss the issue of training load and how it is measured. Training load should be quantified relative to the primary limiter of performance – the neuromuscular system – instead of the cardiovascular system.
It is a sport adage that is frequently uttered by many a pundit at this time of year: “The best offense is a good defense”. Follow that up with “defense wins championships”, and you would probably have two of the most oft-used phrases in sport. With the NCAA men’s basketball tournament upon us, I am sure we’ll be hearing these a lot in the next few weeks.
The same thinking also exists in health care these days. We hear the phrase “defensive medicine” far too frequently anymore. Defense may win championships in football and basketball, but it doesn’t appear to be winning any health care championships.
So is defensive medicine really “the best offense”?
What started out as good research has morphed into a great way to sell gym memberships. Or something along those lines.
It all started when researchers established that there are varied percentages of fuels (carbohydrate and fat) that participate in energy metabolism during exercise. With increasing intensity of exercise, there is a proportionally greater share of energy derived from carbohydrate. The reverse is also true – as the intensity level decreases, a greater percentage of energy is derived from fat.
The fat-burning workout was born. Go longer, go slower, “burn more fat”, and lose more weight.
This was followed shortly thereafter by “get a gym membership”. You can come in and do more longer, slower workouts on our cardio equipment. Oh, make sure you get a heart rate monitor so we can establish that you are in that “fat burning zone”.
Allan Besselink, PT, DPT, Ph.D., Dip.MDT has a unique voice in the world of sports, education, and health care. Read more about Allan here.