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."
Or concrete.
Just sayin'.
Evolution also didn't have any use for post-reproductive individuals, so if you wore out your knee joints by the time you were 40 then there's still nothing stopping evolution selecting for you (unless your children were still too young to defend themselves and were killed off by predators).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
/. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
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.