- Email: [email protected]
Biomechanics of running shoes
1. Biomechanics Vol. 21. No Printed in Great Britain
IO. pp. 887-892,
OOZI-9290188 53.00 + .OO Pergamon Press plc
1988
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BIOMECHANICS
OF RUNNING
SHOES
BENNO M. NIGG University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N lN4, Canada
The Journal ofBiomechanics, Vol. 19, No. 9, p. 787, printed a review of the book Biomechanics of Running Shoes. I would like to make comments about two aspects of this review: (a) the general form and (b)some incorrect and/or inappropriate statements. (a) The general form of the review A review should evaluate both the weak and strong points of a publication. The reviewer missed only very few of the weak aspects of this book, and I have to acknowledge that some criticisms are well taken. However, the reviewer did not present many parts or ideas of this book which, in his view, are important, stimulating, useful and/or challenging. This may be because there are, in fact, no stimulating or challenging ideas and useful or important contributions, or it may be that such ideas or contributions are in the book but were not presented in the review. The authors think that this book includes such ideas and contributions which may be important and useful for shoe manufacturers and runners and/or challenging and stimulating for scientists involved in biomechanical research of running shoes. (b) Some incorrect and/or inappropriate statements One may expect that any review, in particular a negative one, be accurate and appropriate. However, some criticisms made by the reviewer are inappropriate or incorrect. I would like to comment on those with which I disagree. (1) The reviewer writes: ‘As the editor notes, there are two principal reasons for conducting such research: to improve performance and to reduce the frequency of injuries’. The reviewer continues by stating that it is a major disappointment, that ‘little of the book substantively addresses these two critical issues’ (first part of second paragraph). I could not lind a statement which I (as editor of the book) wrote identifying these ‘two principal reasons’. I therefore phoned the reviewer asking him to indicate to me where I could find this statement. However, he was unable to help me to find it! The goal of the book was outlined clearly. I explained in the preface that we had worked for about 13 years on the analysis of running shoes, and added that ‘it seems appropriate to present our group’s most important findings of the research with running shoes. This book, therefore, will summarize and synthesize the work of these two research groups’ (page x). One may argue about the feasibility of writing a book with such a goal. However, it is not acceptable that a reviewer changes the purpose and then criticizes the book for failing to full% the purpose that he himself projected into the book. The reviewer may have missed the statements describing the main goal of this book or, if he did not miss them, he may have replaced them by goals which seemed appropriate to him. In either case the reviewer has fallen short of the standards required for a serious review of a book.
(2) In the second paragraph the reviewer criticizes the fact that ‘the reader is not presented with a comprehensive strategy by which one might determine whether a particular sort of shoe accomplished either goal’ (improve performance and/or prevent injuries). This comment suggests that the reviewer has overestimated the body of knowledge available in running shoe research. The present state of affairs is that the etiology of pain and injuries in running is not well understood, and scientilic support for existing assumptions on the etiology of running injuries and improvement of performance is lacking in most cases. (3) In the same paragraph the reviewer writes: ‘The problem is perhaps reflected in the imprecision with which the goal of the book was formulated: “Thirteen years have passed since the beginning of this project, and so it seems appropriate to present our group’s most appropriate findings . . .“’ (emphasis by myself). Firstly, this sentence is imprecisely quoted. The italic word ‘appropriate’ is not in the text and must be replaced by ‘important’. Secondly, the goal was precisely delined It is ‘to present. . . . our most important lindings’and to compare important findings of our two groups with findings reported by other groups as stated on page x. (4) In paragraph 5 the reviewer writes: ‘ there is no mention of methods to study foot-shoe contact pressures, .‘. This statement is not correct. The method to measure pressure distribution between foot and shoe developed by the Penn State Biomechanics Laboratory is mentioned on page 38. (5) The reviewer criticizes (third paragraph) ‘that the book heavily emphasizes the “mechanics” at the expense of the “biology”’ and describes this as a ‘second major disappointment’. The title Biomechanics of Running Shoes was intended to mean ‘some biomechanical aspects of running shoes’. If I had wanted to give a comprehensive description of all biomechanical aspects of running shoes, as the reviewer suggests in his critique, I would have chosen the title ‘The Biomechanics of Running Shoes’. However, this was not the case. As stated in the preface, the authors wanted to present what they considered to be their most important findings. These findings are mainly mechanical and the reviewer acknowledges that they are ‘sometimes excellently presented’. The book was intended to present our contribution to the body of knowledge in research with running shoes. We think that we have advanced it and I don’t understand why a reviewer should be disappointed that one part of a complex problem was studied extensively and that findings from this part are presented. In summary, the review failed to be objective in not mentioning the important and positive aspects in the book, additionally several statements made by the reviewer were incorrect or not appropriate and most importantly, the reviewer changed the clearly stated purpose of the book which falls short of the standards required for a serious review of a book.
887
IO. pp. 887-892,
OOZI-9290188 53.00 + .OO Pergamon Press plc
1988
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BIOMECHANICS
OF RUNNING
SHOES
BENNO M. NIGG University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, T2N lN4, Canada
The Journal ofBiomechanics, Vol. 19, No. 9, p. 787, printed a review of the book Biomechanics of Running Shoes. I would like to make comments about two aspects of this review: (a) the general form and (b)some incorrect and/or inappropriate statements. (a) The general form of the review A review should evaluate both the weak and strong points of a publication. The reviewer missed only very few of the weak aspects of this book, and I have to acknowledge that some criticisms are well taken. However, the reviewer did not present many parts or ideas of this book which, in his view, are important, stimulating, useful and/or challenging. This may be because there are, in fact, no stimulating or challenging ideas and useful or important contributions, or it may be that such ideas or contributions are in the book but were not presented in the review. The authors think that this book includes such ideas and contributions which may be important and useful for shoe manufacturers and runners and/or challenging and stimulating for scientists involved in biomechanical research of running shoes. (b) Some incorrect and/or inappropriate statements One may expect that any review, in particular a negative one, be accurate and appropriate. However, some criticisms made by the reviewer are inappropriate or incorrect. I would like to comment on those with which I disagree. (1) The reviewer writes: ‘As the editor notes, there are two principal reasons for conducting such research: to improve performance and to reduce the frequency of injuries’. The reviewer continues by stating that it is a major disappointment, that ‘little of the book substantively addresses these two critical issues’ (first part of second paragraph). I could not lind a statement which I (as editor of the book) wrote identifying these ‘two principal reasons’. I therefore phoned the reviewer asking him to indicate to me where I could find this statement. However, he was unable to help me to find it! The goal of the book was outlined clearly. I explained in the preface that we had worked for about 13 years on the analysis of running shoes, and added that ‘it seems appropriate to present our group’s most important findings of the research with running shoes. This book, therefore, will summarize and synthesize the work of these two research groups’ (page x). One may argue about the feasibility of writing a book with such a goal. However, it is not acceptable that a reviewer changes the purpose and then criticizes the book for failing to full% the purpose that he himself projected into the book. The reviewer may have missed the statements describing the main goal of this book or, if he did not miss them, he may have replaced them by goals which seemed appropriate to him. In either case the reviewer has fallen short of the standards required for a serious review of a book.
(2) In the second paragraph the reviewer criticizes the fact that ‘the reader is not presented with a comprehensive strategy by which one might determine whether a particular sort of shoe accomplished either goal’ (improve performance and/or prevent injuries). This comment suggests that the reviewer has overestimated the body of knowledge available in running shoe research. The present state of affairs is that the etiology of pain and injuries in running is not well understood, and scientilic support for existing assumptions on the etiology of running injuries and improvement of performance is lacking in most cases. (3) In the same paragraph the reviewer writes: ‘The problem is perhaps reflected in the imprecision with which the goal of the book was formulated: “Thirteen years have passed since the beginning of this project, and so it seems appropriate to present our group’s most appropriate findings . . .“’ (emphasis by myself). Firstly, this sentence is imprecisely quoted. The italic word ‘appropriate’ is not in the text and must be replaced by ‘important’. Secondly, the goal was precisely delined It is ‘to present. . . . our most important lindings’and to compare important findings of our two groups with findings reported by other groups as stated on page x. (4) In paragraph 5 the reviewer writes: ‘ there is no mention of methods to study foot-shoe contact pressures, .‘. This statement is not correct. The method to measure pressure distribution between foot and shoe developed by the Penn State Biomechanics Laboratory is mentioned on page 38. (5) The reviewer criticizes (third paragraph) ‘that the book heavily emphasizes the “mechanics” at the expense of the “biology”’ and describes this as a ‘second major disappointment’. The title Biomechanics of Running Shoes was intended to mean ‘some biomechanical aspects of running shoes’. If I had wanted to give a comprehensive description of all biomechanical aspects of running shoes, as the reviewer suggests in his critique, I would have chosen the title ‘The Biomechanics of Running Shoes’. However, this was not the case. As stated in the preface, the authors wanted to present what they considered to be their most important findings. These findings are mainly mechanical and the reviewer acknowledges that they are ‘sometimes excellently presented’. The book was intended to present our contribution to the body of knowledge in research with running shoes. We think that we have advanced it and I don’t understand why a reviewer should be disappointed that one part of a complex problem was studied extensively and that findings from this part are presented. In summary, the review failed to be objective in not mentioning the important and positive aspects in the book, additionally several statements made by the reviewer were incorrect or not appropriate and most importantly, the reviewer changed the clearly stated purpose of the book which falls short of the standards required for a serious review of a book.
887