Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Apr 21, 2009 06:38 AM
from the kenyans-have-it-right dept.
prostoalex writes to tell us The Daily Mail has an interesting look at current research in the field of running and injuries related to running. Most of the evidence pointed at a lack of any need for running shoes. Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury; some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot; Stanford running team, having access to the top-notch modern shoes sent in for free by manufacturers, after a few rounds of trial and error still chose to train with no shoes at all."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Davemania (580154) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:43AM (#27658035) Journal
    Evolution didn't have Nike in mind.
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:46AM (#27658059) Homepage
    Then I noticed that it's an extract from a book and some attached material which almost certainly came from the publisher too, as part of the promo. Thereby bypassing the Daily Mail's staff entirely and "ensuring quality".
  • Football is the same (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plover (150551) * on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:48AM (#27658083) Homepage Journal

    'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'

    And football supposedly had a much lower incidence of injuries before the introduction of "pads" (which quickly became an offensive weapon allowing harder hits)

    Of course, this could just be "numbers". Many of the running injuries treated today are repeat injuries. Prior to the invention of the running shoe was also pretty much prior to modern sports medicine, meaning a single injury would have prevented you from running again. Today's numbers may be higher than historical numbers due to the vast number of people who continue running after recovering from surgery to correct their problems.

    • by martinX (672498) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:03AM (#27658209)

      What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.

    • by midicase (902333) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:07AM (#27658247)

      Today's numbers may be higher than historical numbers due to the vast number of people who continue running after recovering from surgery to correct their problems.

      Sound like the "divorce" statistic that is often quoted: "50% of marriages end up in divorce". the truth is that there are just as many long term marriages as ever, but at one time divorcees did not remarry. Now it is common to remarry and (re)divorce, skewing the statistics.

      Darn repeat offenders.

      • by pisto_grih (1165105) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:42AM (#27658603)

        Sound like the "divorce" statistic that is often quoted: "50% of marriages end up in divorce".

        They're the lucky ones. The other 50% end in death.

        (Not my joke, can't remember whose though)

      • by Comboman (895500) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @08:41AM (#27659449)
        Sound like the "divorce" statistic that is often quoted: "50% of marriages end up in divorce". the truth is that there are just as many long term marriages as ever, but at one time divorcees did not remarry. Now it is common to remarry and (re)divorce, skewing the statistics.

        That's part of it, but the biggest problem is how the 50% number is generated. It compares the number of people getting divorced to the number of people getting married in a single year. Since most people don't get married and divorced in the same year, the results are skewed. Even worse, most people currently getting divorced are baby boomers; a huge statistical bulge that recently married Gen-Xers can't hope to compensate for (much like social security). According to this report [divorcereform.org] the divorce rate in the US has never been 50% even at it's peak in the 1970's and has been dropping since then.

  • by Choozy (1260872) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:52AM (#27658109)
    ... to see Olympic athletes run barefoot... better yet, bring back the original way of having the Olympics and have everyone go butt nekkid (of course we don't need to bring everything back of old where only men could compete).
  • by Qbertino (265505) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:58AM (#27658169)

    The correct running technique - which can vary from runner to runner - is much more important than the type of shoes. Some running shoe brands claim that their shoes encourage and help do the right technique, but it really boils down to doing it by yourself.

    The only point I see in running shoes is an certain amount of cushoning, since we tend to run on concrete quite a lot, allthough our type of pavements have only been around in recent history.

    It's safe to say that most of the running shoes available are mostly snakeoil.

  • by superid (46543) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:59AM (#27658177) Homepage

    I'm 46 and I'm a casual runner. For years I had intermittent knee and hip pain during and after a 4-6 mile run. I finally broke down and spent more money ($90-$110) on good quality running shoes. The pain is gone. I can run 6 miles regularly with nothing but plain old muscle pain. I can tell when it is time to buy new shoes too. After a couple of hundred miles and the shoes lose their cushion, I can feel it when I run.

    • by Aladrin (926209) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:10AM (#27658273)

      So you had bad shoes, then bought good ones, and then the good ones went bad, and somehow that means that good shoes are better than being barefoot?

      Check your data again. It doesn't lead to your conclusion.

      • by Dripdry (1062282) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @08:45AM (#27659505) Journal

        Running shoe padding wears out over time. In fact there is even a "best by" date on good running shoes. After a couple years on the shelf they get recycled because the padding material inside begins to break down. With regular running it also breaks down. Please try to be informed about a subjective before ridiculing someone who is actually directly involved with it.

        Some may say "how convenient" regarding the sell-by date, but I'm in the same boat. I can tell when a running shoe is beginning to wear out as I begin to have more knee and foot pain. Of course, my whole body is screwed up so I'm more sensitive than most.

  • hmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WankersRevenge (452399) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:05AM (#27658227) Homepage
    I've run at least three miles a day. I've run one marathon and I am currently training for another. I've had multiple long runs that have exceeded twenty miles. At one point, I was running at least forty miles a week. I can tell you from my experience is that shoes make a huge difference. Once my shoe starts to go, I'll start to get intense pain in my hips and knees. Changes the shoe, and the pain goes away. It's a form issue in my case which the shoe helps to correct. I'm guessing those people who run barefoot have really good form. Take away my shoes and put me on a flat area without any rocks, I figure I might be able to run a few miles before I'm forced to stop because of knee or hip pain. I'll keep my shoes, thankyouverymuch.

    No joke ... when a new runner starts to experience pain, the quickest remedy to buy new shoes.
  • The Daily Mail (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Any Web Loco (555458) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:12AM (#27658289) Homepage
    Why is this news? For a start, it's hardly "new" that running barefoot decreases injuries and is, as a rule, better for you than running with trainers on. Here's [sportsci.org] some research from 2001, for example. And getting your science news from the Daily Mail is pretty much the UK equivalent of getting your science news from US weekly. It's not known as the Daily Fail (or The Daily (hate) Mail) for nothing...
  • by fprintf (82740) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:20AM (#27658361) Journal

    From the summary:

    Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury

    Isn't it possible that the more you run, or the more you get into running, that it is more likely you are going to purchase the more expensive running shoes? So that would seem to correlate mileage and expensive shoes, and it is possible there is a relationship between increased mileage and increase injuries.

  • The right shoes (Score:5, Informative)

    by slim (1652) <john.hartnup@net> on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:34AM (#27658493) Homepage

    Something TFA doesn't mention is that most people buy running shoes off the shelf based on silly considerations like colour, brand loyalty, whatever.

    I was recommended a local sports shop where they look at your foot, watch you run on a treadmill, and ask you what kind of running you do (road, trail, track; distance; etc.). That leads to a shortlist of appropriate shoes, then you try those out on the treadmill, and eventually (in theory) leave with shoes that are right for you.

    If you over-pronate, and you buy shoes designed for under-pronators, that's likely to lead to injury.

  • Anecdote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamesh (87723) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:40AM (#27658587)

    Here's an anecdote... if we get another one then we have data :)

    About half way through my first semester at uni, I was getting out of my car and my sneakers fell apart. I took them off, chucked them in the car, and went barefoot for the next 2 years or so (mostly - they don't let you into cinemas etc without shoes on :).

    My feet got really tough, 40C days walking on hot tarmac didn't bother me (unless I stood still for too long). I never got stung by a bee, never had any major injuries. I would only notice small pieces of glass stuck in my foot by the noise they made on concrete when I stepped :)

    I did quite a bit of walking too, 5km each way too and from uni when my car wasn't going, which was often.

    Then the first joint on my big toe started hurting on one foot. A day or so later, the other big toe started hurting in the same way. It was like an ache that shot up each leg every time I took a step. I put some shoes on (workboots) and the pain went instantly. I didn't go barefoot for a few weeks, but the next time I tried both feet were aching within hours. Haven't gone barefoot since.

    Now that was about 12 years ago so I may have some of the facts muddled up, but obviously going barefoot just wasn't for me. I didn't really do any running so it's not completely relevant to the topic, but I can't imagine that running would have been any kinder to my feet than walking.

    Maybe shoes mimic the sort of ground that humans evolved around, vs the rock hard tarmac and concrete that I was doing most of my walking on?

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:47AM (#27658665)

    I'm no runner, I'm more into downhill skiing. Equipment does play a huge role, from shoes to skis to how you set it up. Yet you would not put the same equipment on an inexperienced person just learning that an expert uses. First, the size of your skis. You couldn't turn my skis if you're new to the sport, they're just too long and too clumsy for you. An accident is almost inevitable. My shoes, you wouldn't want them, they kill you and take away any kind of feeling or movement you might still have. The way I set my binding would certainly mean a torn lingament to you when you hit the ground because it would not open.

    I can only assume it is the same with running equipment. I guess, when I use the equipment of someone who has the muscles and sinews of an experienced runner, I'd sooner or later twist my ankle (because frankly, my ankle stability is close to nonexistant compared to the rest of my foot), and I'd probably end up with really bad knees because I wouldn't know how to run in those things sensibly to handle the shock, something that, again I assume, an experienced runner can easily handle.

    There is ski equipment, good equipment actually, available to people who are new to the sport. They don't give you top speed or handling, but they are quite forgiving and they do "cushion" you a lot and keep you from being injured. I can only assume it could be the same for other sports, including running.

    So my guess would be that, as someone new to running, you'd probably need equipment that helps you avoid injury rather than equipment that "makes you good". At least, well, that's what I'd want when I start with a sport. I certainly don't want a Formula 1 car to learn driving, the chances to kill myself are just a wee bit too high.

  • by mccalli (323026) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:54AM (#27658737) Homepage
    From the article:
    "Then there's the secretive Tarahumara tribe, the best long-distance runners in the world. These are a people who live in basic conditions in Mexico, often in caves without running water, and run with only strips of old tyre or leather thongs strapped to the bottom of their feet. They are virtually barefoot."

    Virtually barefoot. Which is to say not barefoot at all. These 'best runners in the world' have decided that they need footwear.

    Cheers,
    Ian
  • by PinchDuck (199974) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @08:01AM (#27658847)

    Good for Stanford, run barefoot all you want. A good pair of shoes allows me to run with less pain in my Achilles tendon. Since no one else needs, them, I feel kind of special: A multi-billion dollar industry is targeted directly at me.

    • Re:Hmm, no... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wjh31 (1372867) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:48AM (#27658077) Homepage
      all that means is that people who walk barefoot should look where they are going a little more than others, ive herd plenty of stories about people standing on a nail and having it go through their sneakers/trainers/whatever and out the other side of their foot, does that mean i should wear iron clad boots?
    • Re:Hmm, no... (Score:5, Informative)

      by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @06:54AM (#27658133)

      I love running barefoot. If you keep an eye on where you're going, you won't step on anything you shouldn't. And once you get calluses built up you can take a bit more than 'normal'.

      The longest I've ever run (10 miles, 8 miles, 7 miles) were all bare foot. If you stay on the balls of your feet and don't heel strike it feels like you're gliding. Funny that this is just now being researched heavily. I did my own anecdotal research and it made sense 4 years ago.

      http://runningbarefoot.org/ [runningbarefoot.org]

      • Re:Hmm, no... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:03AM (#27658213) Homepage Journal

        Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in your calf muscles. Running on your heels means it's being absorbed in the cartilage of your knees, which can very quickly wear out. Most running shoes I've tried have been weighted such that it's easier to put your foot down on your heel than on the front of your feet, which is likely to cause long-term injury (the cartilage damage is cumulative). They attempt to avoid this by having a lot of padding under the heel, which ends up making the heel heavier and making it even harder to put your weight on the front...

        That's not to say running shoes are intrinsically bad. If I were to design some, they would be flexible underneath, to make it easy to run on the balls of your foot. They would probably be weighted slightly forward, so that your toes would be pulled down, and would probably have a thinner sole at the back than the front. In short, they would be almost the opposite of most running shoes I've seen. If anyone wants to make shoes like this, please send me a pair...

        • by wdebruij (239038) on Tuesday April 21 2009, @07:47AM (#27658661) Homepage
          There has been some research [nytimes.com] (reg.req.) on the benefits of barefoot running. BUt, the article also mentions having to pull glass from your foot... I've tried running barefoot once, on the beach, but wouldn't dare doing it on my standard run through the city. Does anyone here have any experience with the ultra thin Five Fingers [vibramfivefingers.com] running shoes (basically protective gloves around your feet)? Sure, you look like a dick -- almost as bad as Crocs -- but they appear a great alternative.