Isn’t it crazy how often we hear or read contradictory advice? This is true in both nutrition and running, but lately as I recover from an inflamed tendon I’m getting a lot of it and I thought I’d share a few:
Buy orthotics vs. run in zero drop shoes: Because we’ve determined it’s my tight calves stressing my tendon, my PT wants me to get fitted for orthotics to run in going forward. Meanwhile, other online advice recommends the opposite- a zero drop shoe to encourage the full extension of each step. How do I decide which to try?
Run through the injury vs. stop running: Several articles claim that it’s fine to run through this injury (which I did for over a year) while others say you must stop. Ultimately, I decided for me I’d rather stop and let it fully heal then play the on-again, off-again came with my shin.
Run less vs run more to improve: I’ve experimented with both of these approaches. While I feel like I improve with more miles (and higher mileage is especially key for marathoners), if it’s going to lead to injury than I’m better off at a lower mileage with cross training. I’m still debating how to train for the Richmond marathon.
Running improves the joints and is good for the body vs. running leads to degenerative wear and tear: Obviously, rehabbing from a running injury leads to much of the latter… my physical therapist and a trainer at the gym are firm believers that running will tear down your body and you only have so much time before you feel the effects of it (unless you are bio-mechanically perfect). Meanwhile, Runner’s World put out an article on the benefits of running for life.
I confess, every time I battle a running injury I wonder (again) if running distance is the best choice for me. It’s certainly not for everyone, and I am feeling much more fit and balanced lately with the greater variety of training.
I know there are so many more…
What running contradictions have you heard?
How do you advocate for yourself and determine what the best fit is for you?