Slashdot Mirror
Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?
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."
Evolution didn't have Nike in mind.
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. ;-)
I am the lawn!
... 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).
What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
I imagine most running injuries are caused by accidents, rather than lack of wisdom.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Yep - adding the padding actually made the game more dangerous. Only the Americans could make a game that was both more pussified than rugby and had a higher injury rate. ;)
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I imagine most running injuries are caused by running in the first place.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize.
How do you know He can't be sloppy?
That is actually a very good point. Omnipotence must include the ability to be sloppy. It also proves that men are closer to God than women...
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)
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.
... And your paying for it !?!?!?!!!!!
Just thought I would add the standard Daily Mail ending to your post.
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.
His conclusion was: "good running shoes work for me" not "running in shoes > running barefoot", you moron.
Come visit Minnesota in January. You will change your mind pretty quickly or you will need to have the frozen bits amputated.
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..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Of course men are closer to God, he made women out of spare parts
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.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Two guys were hiking through the jungle when they spotted a tiger who looked both hungry and fast. One of the guys reached into his pack and pulled out a pair of tennis shoes. His friend looked at him "Do you really think those shoes are going to make you run faster than that tiger?" I don't have to run faster than that tiger, his friend replied. "I just have to run faster than you".
Bark less. Wag more.
Wow, when she said she was going to tell you that she was "out running", I really didn't think you would believe it.
I think you missed the point. The parent poster was arguing that the grandparent's post has nothing to do with the article.
Article: barefoot is better than shoes
Grandparent: article wrong, new/good shoes are better than old/bad shoes
Parent: article not wrong, your argument is irrelevant
You: Parent wrong; Grandparent right
Me: What are you talking about?