Do We Need Running Shoes To Run? 776
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."
Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Now see, this proves there must be a Designer! ;-)
/me runs and hides!
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Now see, this proves there must be a Designer! ;-)
Show me the designer label and I'll believe you
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
100% meatbag?
There Are At Least Two Sides (offtopic, again) (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, when our first child was around the age where she started learning to walk, a nurse told us we should not make her wear shoes, at least not regularly. If a kid has shoes on while learning to walk, that can cause serious imbalances in muscle/ligature/bone buildup, leading to damage in them. This was just something the nurse had reasoned out based on other experience about things that are natural.
Add to that the fact that industrial manufacturing can hardly adjust for individual differences. Even the best shoes, if industrially manufactured, are not made to measure. Expensive is just fashionable - but sloppily designed - as often as high quality.
Our muscles were designed to work, to move - however that design came about. From a certain point of view, a law of physics can be considered a design. Randomness also. Let's just try to learn as many as we can about them without inferring things that are not necessarily even related.
Re:There Are At Least Two Sides (offtopic, again) (Score:5, Interesting)
As a long-distance runner, I like real track shoes, that is the ones that are designed to be "the less shoe, the better". All I need is a buffer between me and the ground and I'm good, although I grant that a decent running surface and some healthy callouses obviate the need. As a sidenote, track shoes with spikes add traction, but the friction generated as a result creates some impressive - not to mention, distracting - heat.
The most important consideration for me when choosing a shoe is that it's light-weight and snug. The only truly bad shoe is one that's worn out, and the true enemies, old socks, are even worse.
Re:you just think you're joking. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you just think you're joking. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes and no.
Only a woman would write the bible to be that thick.
If God was a man, the bible would be a tri fold pamphlet with pictures of boobies on at least 30% of it to keep our attention..
Re:you just think you're joking. (Score:5, Informative)
If God was a man, the bible would be a tri fold pamphlet with pictures of boobies on at least 30% of it to keep our attention..
Have you ever read it? There's just enough sex and violence to keep you interested for most of it.
Re:you just think you're joking. (Score:5, Funny)
The ID argument, as I've seen it, requires a designer that wasn't designed by another designer, but if that un-designed designer was natural, then there's no reason that we couldn't be un-designed by the same argument. Therefore, the designer must be supernatural.
You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.
Re:you just think you're joking. (Score:5, Insightful)
SETI is based on a scientific hypothesis: "Given the number of stars and planets in the universe, it is statistically likely that intelligent life has developed on planets other than Earth." SETI itself is merely attempting to gather data in support of this hypothesis. The hypothesis is provable (If aliens land on the planet tomorrow, it would be proven; if we find the functional equivalent of TV signals in our observation of interstellar waves it would be proven; if we land on Alpha Centari in 200 year and find primitive lizard men carrying crystal tipped spears it would be proven; etc), and SETI is one attempt to gather data which might prove it. No one at SETI is making an absolute declaration that "Intelligent life absolutely exists in the universe and even though we've never found any hard evidence, we've proved it." They have a theory, and they are gathering evidence in support of that theory.
In contrast, Intelligent Design advocates are taking a gap in knowledge and declaring it "proof" of some other knowledge. What they're saying is "Because we cannot figure out how 'x' happened, it must be proof that some outside force or being made it happen." First of all, this is an unprovable hypothesis. Even if a being showed up tomorrow and claimed to be God, and demonstrated phenomenal cosmic powers, there is no way to be sure that this being was or was not THE designer, as opposed to something that perhaps has enough power to have done it (I doubt there are any measurement units of Earth that could comprehend whether a being actually has "limitless power" or "apparently limitless power"). Secondly the methodology is flawed. The equivalent with SETI would be a researcher discovering an anomalous unexplained signal, and unilaterally declaring it proof of the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence without first attempting to understand the origin of the signal, whether it has any intelligent pattern or looking at other theories.
Absence of an explanation for a phenomenon does not constitute proof of the explanation you're currently trying to sell. Just because primitive man didn't understand how gravity works, doesn't mean that they would have been correct to assume that there are giant suckerfish under the ground constantly inhaling to keep us all tied to the Earth. A divine being wandering about changing reality at his or her whim might constitute evidence for a supreme creator (though not definitive proof, it could be a different divine being for all we know), but a lack of explanation for certain phenomenon does not.
Having said all of that, I believe that there are beings and forces that exist outside of what we consider "nature". Since I can't defend those beliefs via repeatable experiments or hard evidence I don't present them as "science" or try to teach them in "science class". You can HAVE religious or other superstitious beliefs without insisting that those beliefs be taught as facts. If you want to believe that the world was created, or that there is a supreme intelligence guiding its development, by all means do. Just don't try to present those beliefs as if they were provable facts.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Or concrete.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or concrete.
Yeah, the ground in the savannah is much softer, and doesn't even have any small rocks and stuff like that.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Informative)
Or concrete.
Yeah, the ground in the savannah is much softer, and doesn't even have any small rocks and stuff like that.
Really? You realize concrete is from 8 to 10 times harder than asphalt. And while I can scratch the ground on the Savannah with my fingernail (which has a Mohs' hardness of about 2.5), asphalt scratches off my fingernail which means it's at least 2.5 hardness or harder.
I've run on the desert floor. It's like running on a feather bed compared to running on concrete. Though I do have to admit I've never had a cactus thorn run clean through my toe while running on concrete.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
You've never walked barefoot on concrete? Feels good man, especially on hot days.
Though to be completely honest, the hobo vomit is somewhat less of a tactile treat.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe if we attached some kind of protective surface on the feets, and then strapped said surface around the foot to hold it in place, eventually with some stabilizing technology so it wouldn't wobble ...
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Informative)
They wear strips of leather or rubber to protect their soles from being actually cut. if you read the article, there's quite a bit of talk of "barefoot" runners wearing simple sandals of various designs to prevent cutting injuries while still being essentially "barefoot".
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Informative)
I still wonder how the occasional barefoot track runner deals with the gravel. I guess they grow leathery hobbit-feet or something.
Pretty much. If you walk around barefoot on a regular basis the skin on the soles of your feet will thicken and become leathery and you no longer need shoes, even when walking or running over gravel. The reason the skin on your feet is so soft compared to every other animal is because you've worn shoes your whole life.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Interesting)
The importance of running to early Homo is, of course, conjectural. But it does make sense: few other animals are capable of long-distance running, and none can do so under a blazing sun. (Wolves and hyenas, for example, require cold weather or nightfall for long-distance hunting; otherwise they overheat.) Endurance running might have set early humans apart from the pack.
According to study co-author and Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman, many modern anatomical features make sense in the context of savannah marathons. Achilles tendons act as springs to store energy. Our hind limbs have extra-large joints. Our buttocks muscles are perfect for stabilization, as are regions of the brain uniquely sensitive to the physical pitching generated by the motion of running.
Informative indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a lot of trouble believing this.
Humans aren't capable of long distance running 'in the wild' so to speak. In the context of Savannah marathons, we'd be dehydrated severely after a few miles. We have great cooling but it comes at a huge cost, it uses a lot of sweat up. If you run 5 miles in the blazing hot African sun without stopping to drink and there's no water at your destination, you're finished. Most mammals which don't use heavy sweating will have to stop in the shade a often to cool down when
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Interesting)
Wear moccasins for a while, with just that one thin layer of leather between you and the rocks. You'll soon learn to ALWAYS come down toes first, and NEVER come down on the heel -- because you can't recover from stepping on a sharp rock if you do so heel-first (all your weight lands on it, willy-nilly). But if you come down toe-first, you can change your balance and step off that sharp rock instead.
By now they're pretty much all gone from the world, but decades ago I knew American Indians who grew up in the era before their tribes had European-style hard-soled shoes, and from childhood habit, they always walked toe-heel rather than heel-toe.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Funny)
Just thought of a new slogan for Nike, "Only Nike shoes can help you defend your children from wolves. You don't want your kids to be eaten by wolves, do you?"
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Insightful)
To say that evolution is all about reproduction is nonsense. It's also about raising offspring to survive better than the environment and other predators can kill them off.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution is about getting your children to reproductive age. In other words, success is measured in the number of grandchildren you have.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
You're also meant to reproduce by the age you're 14 or 16. Aside from legal considerations, today you'll probably get to be on a talk show if you do.
Evolution stopped being important when civilisation set in. Or rather, it changed. It's no longer "natural" selection, we found our own selection criteria and moved on with it. Earlier the female chose her mate by his fitness. Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Earlier the female chose her mate by his fitness. Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.
I would argue that she's still choosing her mate by fitness. A "large wallet" is indicative of societal fitness. In civilization, physical fitness has decreased in reproductive importance as it no longer has a significant bearing on our ability to survive and protect the family. The size of the wallet, however, is a very good indication of how well a mate can provide for the family.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's more like the female chose her mate by who ever hit her over the head and dragged her back to his cave.
This method had failed me since the advent of pepper spray.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.
Yup. You can tell by the rounded corners.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather, it changed. It's no longer "natural" selection, we found our own selection criteria and moved on with it... Evolution 2.0, if you will.
One really annoying thing about Evo 2.0 is that people that should be having more kids (kind, intelligent, financially responsible) are not but those that should not (lazy, stupid people, with anachronistic religious views) are pumping them out like it's their job to overpopulate the world.
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:4, Insightful)
One really annoying thing about Evo 2.0 is that people that should be having more kids (kind, intelligent, financially responsible) are not but those that should not (lazy, stupid people, with anachronistic religious views) are pumping them out like it's their job to overpopulate the world.
IMHO this is still bad old natural selection. We have created a society for the lazy and the stupid, so in this environment the intelligent ones are not the fittest ones. Evolution doesn't have a goal, even though it would be great for some people if it did have one of intelligence.
In other words, build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution also didn't have any use for post-reproductive individuals
This isn't true at all. Children with surviving grandparents tend to survive at a higher rate than children without grandparents, so evolution does select for longer lifetimes. In fact, menopause seems to be a human-specific trait that evolved to keep older women from dying in childbirth.
This article sums it up nicely [inklingmagazine.com].
Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution doesn't have a mind at all.
comfort is the best indicator (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can walk and run comfortably in your shoes, and if your knees and back don't start to feel funny, the shoes are probably pretty good for your feet and style of walking and running.
You may want different shoes (or even slippers or thongs) for when you're sitting at your desk.
Hmm, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in High School I remember seeing a girl nearly lose a toe to a sharp rock, it cut so deep it went right to the bone. Blood everywhere, shouting, etc.. As long as there are pointy things on the ground, I can risk a broken ankle. Yes, the whole "personal story proves nothing", but what should we learn from if not experience.
Re:Hmm, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
slippery slopes (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds like the ceramic paved sidewalk out front of this apartment building.
Except for the slope part.
Cannot walk on that when it's wet, in any sort of shoes I can buy in Japan, without slipping. It's a lot like trying to walk on slippery ice.
Ice is one thing I don't care to walk barefoot on. A bed of nails is another.
To tell the truth, my knees and back would probably be in better shape if I hadn't gotten used to the partial buffering sneakers give. I've developed a really bad gait. I've tried to unle
Re:Hmm, no... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good running shoes that are appropriately balanced, provide plenty of space so you don't sweat, etc are pretty expensive. However, I don't have the callouses nor do I intend to develop them. So I run with Mizunos (130$) and the difference between those and el cheapo running shoes is night and day. All my foot pains from exercising went away almost immediately once I swapped to em. I would suggest you check them out, their better line would fit exactly what you want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Not exactly. Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in all your leg and back muscles. While runnin on your heels removes the calf muscles from the equation, and creates shock waves in your bones. Not very healthy.
Benefits... and glass shards (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those things look brilliant. I'm trying some on next time I'm in North America, or when they get some British stockists. Whichever comes first.
Re:Benefits... and glass shards (Score:5, Informative)
I've been wearing them nearly every day for 6 months, including on runs. Very comfortable, sole is holding up well. You do have to adjust your running style, but my feet feel fine when I wear them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They make running shoes like that (but probably not as padded as you have in mind). They're called track spikes (just take the spikes out).
Thanks,
Lea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to run cross country with sprinter spikes(first link on the goog) [firsttothefinish.com], which are basically slippers with metal spikes near the toes...They effectively have no heel.
There are plenty of shoes out there that offer some protection without being heavy clod hoppers.
Re:Hmm, no... (Score:4, Informative)
Back when I was in school, I ran on the track team for a few years. The way we were taught was that when you land, your foot should be directly beneath your torso (posture almost vertical). This is very difficult to do when you heel strike.
The way we were taught went something like this:
(1) Land on the ball of your foot
(2) As you continue forward, your heel comes down, striking the ground and immediately lifting off again (almost a spring effect).
(3) Never, ever, ever land your foot ahead of your body.
When you heel strike, you are essentially putting on the brakes for a brief moment. This is a very inefficient way to run. Landing with your foot ahead of your body (a heel strike) also changes the force dynamics. The calf takes less of the strain, and the flexure of your foot is less efficient.
When I got into trail running, I heard the same advice, only for different reasons. Landing on the balls of your feet reduces the amount of potential twisting if you land poorly (uneven ground, on a root, etc), making it easier to avoid a sprain.
From personal experience, I find my knees hurt more when I heel strike, though this is partly a result of damaging my left knee playing soccer as a kid.
Who would have thought? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suspiciously well-written science article in DM? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Suspiciously well-written science article in DM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Suspiciously well-written science article in DM (Score:5, Funny)
You're missing the next page where Daily Mail service returns to normal; an analysis of how running barefoot may affect your property value, how sponging benefit cheats are given your money to spend on fancy sport shoes, and a reconstruction of how lovely and dainty Diana's feet would have looked, had she not been forced to wear shoes by evil Charles.
Football is the same (Score:5, Interesting)
'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.
Re:Football is the same (Score:5, Funny)
What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.
My dad (in his early 60s) has an anecdote about his older brother during the jogging craze of the 1970s. My uncle asked what this 'jogging' was. When told, he replied, confused, "that just sounds like going for a run".
Re:Football is the same (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Football is the same (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:Football is the same (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Football is the same (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As an example, I became a fan of college hockey right when they started introducing face shields. One of the college rinks I went to had chicken wire above the boards and sawdust in the visitor's bench, where players stood the whole game - no benches. Extra credit if you know where this rink is, yes, they still play there.
Well, before face masks, a high-stick was cause for dropping gloves and pounding the offender. Getting chopped in the chops was no small thing, and so stick-checking was carefully done
It would be cool... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It would be cool... (Score:5, Informative)
Correct technique is more important than shoes (Score:5, Informative)
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.
My Knees and Hips Disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:My Knees and Hips Disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:My Knees and Hips Disagree (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hmm .... (Score:5, Interesting)
No joke
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Oh, I certainly agree, but I think the article brings up an interesting thought that while it's not necessarily the quickest, running with good form barefoot is better and healthier than wearing most any shoes you can buy. If you move to landing on the ball of your foot, rather than the heel, and depend on your calf for shock absorption, you handle the shock very easily and naturally (I noticed this during my short stint as a cross-country runner, but didn't really make it a habit for some reason.) and also
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason you are experiencing pain is that one side of the thick wedges of foam in your shoe has lost it's spring, turning your shoe into a crappy little ramp that actually accentuates whatever that wedge was meant to correct.
The proper corrective for poor form is not a running shoe. It's either running barefoot, or running in a shoe with a thin rubber sole that serves as protection only. Try if for a month, but build your miles slowly. All the muscles, tendons and ligaments that your current shoes hav
The Daily Mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to trot out the correlation-causation thing (Score:5, Insightful)
From the summary:
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, they checked that too. From TFA:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The right shoes (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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?
Re:Anecdote (Score:5, Insightful)
Sample Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's another good example of "correlation vs. causation." Extremely good runners have a very mechanically efficient stride and smooth foot action. Some of this is training, and some of it is related to how the feet and knees are aligned. Most people do not have perfect alignment. We will probably never become Olympic competitors or join the Stanford running team, but we can run for fun; I do the occasional road race, and I'm doing a triathlon next weekend.
Those of us who run for fun and who are not gifted with perfect alignment may overpronate or supinate our feet when we run. This action is less efficient, so we're less likely to be fast enough to join a college team. A small majority of people overpronate, somewhat less have a good neutral position, and a few people supinate. To look for overpronation, check out your old tennis shoes: if your shoes wear out first near the ball of the foot, chances are you're an overpronator. (If you have flat feet, you're also probably an overpronator. Try the "wet foot test": when you get out of the shower, step on a piece of paper and look at the prints you make.)
I'm a moderate overpronator, and shoes with a little extra cushion that compensate for my less-than-perfect foot position have kept my feet injury-free for five years.
Yes, they are needed in today's environment (Score:4, Interesting)
The article also spends little time discussing one big factor in the increase of running injuries: the surface on which most people run these days. Soft earth is infinitely more forgiving than asphalt, but due to its convenience asphalt/pavement is probably used the most. This leads to more running injuries as more and more runners are literally out in the streets, pounding their poor feet on a surface that doesn't give.
Protection (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been a runner, someone who runs/jogs for the majority of my exercise, since I was a kid. I've always viewed shoes as a means of protection 1st and foremost.
Over the years I've had many different shoes that I've run in. And have always preferred running shoes that are light and broken in. The worst shoes that I ever run in are always the new ones that try to make my feet contort into ways that they aren't naturally.
Once a shoe gets to the point where they are more like my feet than like the way the shoe started as they work best.
You gotta be able to hold it (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Not sure I believe this (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
They make my feet hurt less (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Summary is Misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I think the relationship between running injuries and shoes might be reversed. There's a group of people called overpronates who are prone to injuries and need "control" or "stability" shoes. Those shoes are among the most expensive. I have a mild case of it; my arches look flat from a distance but leave normal looking prints behind. My shoes have more padding than normal to help that. I also have orthodics to help more. The combination of both have basically stopped me from getting shin splints. I have had that problem in nearly two years, despite upping my mileage more than 100% over that period of time.
Second, from what I've read the Stanford track team, who inspired the Nike Free shoes, run bare foot but only once a week. They don't practice all the time that way. They also run it on grass.
The argument for running barefoot is compelling though and it's something I want to try some day, perhaps starting with something like Nike Free. Also, I'm not sure how well that carries over to distance running that I do. One of the benefits of barefoot running is that you tend to land the ball of your feet. However, long distance running tend to involve more heel striking with short, low strides. I might do what the Stanford track team does, which is to mix it in but for shorter distances.
No! and more... (Score:4, Interesting)
I say no, especially for me. I constantly had problems from walking and running until I read the book, "The Maffetone Method" by Phillip Maffetone. (Maffetone trains bicycle racers and super-long-distance runners. Stuart Mittleman, the holder of the record for the 1000-mile run, was one of his clients.) The two things I changed as a result of reading his book were:
1. I changed to low-cut Converse All Stars, and
2. I went on a low-carb diet. (I gained 40 lbs in four years on a low-fat diet. Maffetone hypothesized that some people were carbohydrate sensitive and suggested that trying a low-carb diet might work better for those people.)
The end result was that I lost 20 lbs in two years, and my legs and hips quit hurting almost immediately.
Check this link http://books.google.com/books?id=1ehUeFPfch0C&dq=Philip+Maffetone&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=PMPtSa-HJKb0MvqC0AI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA62,M1 [google.com] for excerpts from his book, "Fix your Feet, and click on the "Picking the right shoe" entry in the TOC.
Running shoes needed when the body does not help (Score:3, Interesting)
I took up first fast-walking and then running after many (MANY) years of near-zero activity, grossly overweight (almost 140Kg). Of course, my body was quite over what evolution anticipated - I have a weak ankle which bended from time to time (now, 40Kg slimmer, much less often and much less painfully). Of course, I didn't buy top-of-the-line running shoes, only a pair of decently resistant, well-formed jogging shoes. I would not have done it without them.
On the other extreme, we have high-performance runners - Be it my marathonist/ultramarathonists friends, be it the speed runners. Once again, evolution provided us with strong skin soles, but not strong enough to endure a 100m race in ~10 seconds (I still cannot believe a human can do that). It provided us with strong skin, but not strong enough to endure 40Km. And there are humans doing it - Take away their shoes, and they will really suffer.
Hell, same goes for regular shoes for moving in a city at a calm pace... I like wearing sandals, but I really don't like somebody stepping over me barefooted. And as I often go into people-crammed places (think of, say, the subway), I prefer wearing regular shoes. Odds are I will suffer less, even if I don't really really need them for my day-to-day activities.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
people have said you can't run in ropers (cowboy boots), I've done it, almost as fast as in sneakers.
Hey! It doesn't count if you're rolling. ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I imagine most running injuries are caused by accidents, rather than lack of wisdom.
Re:Running injuries... (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine most running injuries are caused by running in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine most running injuries are caused by accidents, rather than lack of wisdom.
Mostly, I suspect we're not talking of accidents (e.g. falling over, twisting an ankle, etc.) but of repetitive strain, etc.
exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, possibly for people with normal/good feet.
But, those with flat feet, in need of arch support, could still benefit from good shoes...
Exactly, if you are an athlete runner you have to learn the proper biomechanical motions or you will rip yourself apart. Once you do, well, it's what your body was built for. But for those of us who run seldomly or who have previoulsy injured ankles or knees it's painfully obvious how a running shoe is a lot easier to run in. I don't need a study to tell me that I've done my own definitve study on myself.
Re:Expensive running shoes = fashion wear (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only did we find shoos necessary, we had to pick them according to the terrain.
Thick soft soles for running on Roads. Long spikes for running on grass, Shorter spikes for running on the rubber based surface at the Stadium.
Once you got to boys who ran at close to the same speed, wearing the wrong shoos or running barefoot would virtually guarantee defeat.
The reason is skidding. Basically: The soles of our feet were relatively smooth, so at each stride we would slide a little. The direction and scope of the slide varied with each stride and you expend so much effort just trying to remain upright your speed over the 100M drops by as much as a second.
With Long distance and running shoos and cross trainers (I am less of an expert here). Where the problems come in is probably a lack of understanding of what each shoe is designed for. While this is bad with running shoos it was most glaringly obvious with Basketball shoos. The high end (and price) shoos were made for use on a cushioned wooden surface, polished to a mirror finish. Guess what happens when you wear that onto a Rough asfoult court?
I'm just betting that expensive cross trainers "fail" for the same reason. I.e. People buy $200 shoos that are only good on a treadmill and try to go cross country.