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."
Who's surprised?
Evolution didn't have Nike in mind.
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.
How do you kill that which has no life?
Thousands of years of evolution is better than a pair of shoes... Crazy talk!
people have said you can't run in ropers (cowboy boots), I've done it, almost as fast as in sneakers. Not that I'm very fast in any case, but people I could keep up with in sneakers I could still keep up with in ropers.
(it's usually easier when they're not leather soled ropers, if they are your running surface makes all the difference)
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
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".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
'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.
John
... 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).
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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
I imagine most running injuries are caused by a lack of wisdom rather than a lack of proper equipment.
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.
... when a new runner starts to experience pain, the quickest remedy to buy new shoes.
No joke
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 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...
I'm glad you pointed that out, I thought I was going mad. For those colonials out there, the Daily Mail doesn't have the best reputation for rational reporting. I'm suprised they didn't manage to blame running injuries on foriegners TBH.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Puh-leeze, try to run in Finland during the winter without shoes. And really, there's no glass, stones or shit nowhere on the ground.
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.
Barefoot running would be more accepted if there were international level athletes winning competitions barefoot. Of course it is harder to get to those comptetitions without the financial support of sportswear manufacturers, who might be, er, less than sypathetic to the idea of running without actually using their product.
Vibram makes a "shoe" that looks like it's basically a rubber wrap for your feet. Has anybody had experience using these? They seem to be a good balance between a shoe (not getting cut up by rocks) and barefoot (no padding, flexible sole), but I don't know anybody who has actually used them.
It seems to end in a sales pitch for the Nike Free as well.
Quite frankly that's okay. If they're trying to sell me something based on sound information, I'll read the pitch and consider it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I'm 5'9" and 200. I also overpronate. And I like to run. Cushioning and stability are huge for me. Shoes help me do what I enjoy.
You realize the most popular running shoes, the Asics 2100 series, helps those that overpronate. That would imply there are a lot of people out there who need some adjustments to their running form and the shoes help with it. It sure helps me.
I can't even imagine the blisters I would get running barefoot. Back in the day the races weren't on asphalt or concrete.
(Before I get any flack, I'm built like a short linebacker. I am overweight, but only 20-25 pounds. I'm not one of those waif-ish runners.)
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.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but they've found that the appendix actually DOES have pretty good use: Here is a tech-minded summary, and here is the full article.
Last night I played a blank tape at full volume. The mime next door went nuts.
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.
Probably the standard running shoes are not selling well so it's time for something new - new product, new selling, new para-scientific proofs.
Well telling that people that use more expensive shoes have more injuries comes rpobably from the fact that are running more km?
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...
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 unlearn it, but I can't seem to find any sneakers with a good heal these days, and it's considered uncivilized to run around outside without shoes in Japan.
Oh. Tapeworms is another thing I don't want to walk on without shoes, although it's not as big a problem here in Japan as it was when they used to use unpasteurized fertilizer.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments
ID is a religious argument, despite what its proponents might have you believe. The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
I'm guessing the Stanford running team has access to spongy, soft tracks for training. I know I could run barefoot rather comfortably on a track made of cork or whatever that is.
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?
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.
Long time distance runner here. While running barefoot converts more of your energy into forward motion, shoes can protect us against those oh-so-prevalent sharp things on the ground. Granted if you run barefoot enough you will develop thicker skin, but (speaking from experience) I would still check the ground first before I ran barefoot on it. The last thing I need is to step on tiny shards of glass when training for a marathon. Ouch.
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.
df -h
True, but it doesn't mean that we prove anything by roasting the argument.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
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.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
There has been some research (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 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.
Everyone has a different body, gait, etc.
It should be no surprise that what works for some might not work for you.
I think the main point here is that barefoot is an option and that folks should actually try out different footwear before assuming the most expensive is the best.
Coincidentally, I recently asked a marathon runner at work if i should buy proper shoes for jogging instead of flat soled skateboarding shoes. He told me the exact same thing stated here, different shoes are to prevent injuries. If you have no pain in your current shoes then there is no real reason to switch.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
... And your paying for it !?!?!?!!!!!
Just thought I would add the standard Daily Mail ending to your post.
I'm writing you here to tell You an interesting look at my current research in the field of clothing. Most of the evidence pointed at a lack of any need for clothes... ;-)
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
I don't jog but hike (basically walking on rough inclined surfaces), I wonder if these make you as prone to injury as running shoes.
In all honesty all you really need from them is extra grip, waterproofing depending on the season, and enough of a sole to cushion rocks and pebbles (which those thongs/flipflops/jandals the mexican is wearing might be thick enough to provide). Thick boots with a raised heel may be the wrong approach.
YEAH, RIGHT !
Only true for someone who has grown up barefoot.
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.
Apparently, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is safer for the same reasons: With a helmet you lose contact to the environment, you overestimate your safety, and take higher risks.
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
(I'm sure that verse is in there somewhere.)
You're thinking of Ecclesiastes 3:1-11. The whole chapter, though, is pretty Zen-like.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.
Correct, because (pretending for the sake of argument that He exists) God is super (i.e., above) natural.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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 for excerpts from his book, "Fix your Feet, and click on the "Picking the right shoe" entry in the TOC.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
"Despite pillowy-sounding names such as 'MegaBounce', all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference." Hmm. The padding in my bike gear is a lot less than the thinkness of my running shoe soles, yet I'm fairly certain that it is proven to significantly reduce impact forces. Its one thing to say that padding is not a good thing, but to suggest it does nothing seems a bit far fetched.
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.
Try running on pavement without shoes. When I started running I wore my converse all stars and my knees hurt. I bought a pair of good running shoes with padded insoles and my knees are fine.
There is no magic here. Heavy padding in the soles of the shoes cushions the impact. It is as simple as that. Early man ran on dirt and grass and rarely made it the age of 53. I do not think their experience is relevant.
The crux of the article seems to be that injuries have been going up since the 1970s. Alright. So has steroid use, most likely. So has overall performance. Is it possible that as runners continue to push the absolute limits of human capacity (to a greater degree than they did in the 1970s) that they've rendered themselves more susceptible to injury? Or maybe its the drugs? Or maybe it's changes in the way people train? Why must it be the shoes?
I've jogged for years, primarily in mid range jogging shoes (around the $100 AUD mark).
At one point I lost my jogging shoes, and jogged for a few months barefoot. I pretty much fucked my knees in the process.
I quickly switched back to a good pair of joggers and my knees have mostly recovered.
Evolution might not have taken into account nikes, but it also doesn't really take into account anything past your reproductive stage- which, naturally, would have been early teens. I will most likely live till im at least 80, and I plan on keeping my knees working for as much of that time as possible. As such, I choose to wear good jogging shoes.
tl;dr- I've sprained my ankle once in about 6 years of jogging, while I fucked my knees to the point where I could barely walk in only a few weeks of going barefoot.
I think I'll take the jogging shoes.
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.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
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.
Unfortunately, there are other explanations for the injury rates. Many more people run today. With more people running, the number of injuries is up, proportionally. With the number of injuries way up, you have many more people looking for solutions. The more injured, the more desperate, driving up the price they will pay for a shoe to try to fix their problem. Therefore, the more you pay for a shoe, the more likely you are to be injured. And once you are injured, compensating for injury will make you even more likely to become injured again or injured worse. So the people with the most expensive shoes will have the worst and the most injuries. Older runners is another dimension. People are now regularly running into their 50s and 60s, where running after 40 used to be a rarity. And guess what age group has the most disposable income to pamper injuries, while also having the most frequent injuries?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Of course men are closer to God, he made women out of spare parts
the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury;
Or, the more expensive the running shoe, the more serious the runner, the more miles per week run, leading to the greater probability of getting an injury. Fortunately since I cut back my running from 20 miles a week to zero, I no longer have running related injuries.
Ok, granted, 10 miles is not exactly a piece of cake (and is also close to the top I have run - yes, using running shoes). However, it's not yet the exhaustion limit for most fit people - Once you get closer to that limit (i.e. the famous "30Km wall" that haunts marathonists) you are not that careful anymore with where your feet are landing. FWIW, I finished the longest bike trip I had (~90Km out of a 95Km planned route) so close to the end point because I felt I was no longer paying attention, and going on a highway does require better awareness than what I had by then. I prefered to stay on the safe side and drop out almost reaching the goal.
So, next time I go running in Brussels, the filthiest city in Europe, I'll do it barefoot. I'm sure that's perfectly healthy and safe. And warm. And doesn't wear the skin on my feet. And doesn't increase the shock my joins are subjected to.
It may be better to run barefoot, if you do it under optimal conditions. If you have to content with the urban jungle, to use a tired term, I would still recommend some footwear. I know that getting a new pair of shoes made all the difference in the world for my running. Not performance wise, mind you, but injury and pleasure. I much prefer to run in the shoes that I have now compared to the crappy ones I had before.
Regarding the correlation that shoe cost implies injury rate probably doesn't take in to account that you're more likely a serious runner if you buy expensive shoes, which implies that you run more, which in turn applies that you are exposed to risk of injury more. (This seems like a solid implication to me, but I could of course be wrong, as I'm sure many of you will point out).
Now, I haven't RTFA, but on the surface of things, it seems a bit too coincidental. I can only speak from my own experience.
Move sig!
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,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila
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.
The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments
ID is a religious argument, despite what its proponents might have you believe. The intelligent design of life cannot be grounded in observable phenomena, and thus cannot be regarded as scientific.
Just yesterday we had an article on here from a guy involved with SETI that people were taking seriously. ID is based on the same logic as all current SETI. If ID is non-scientific, so is SETI.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The probability I get an injury running is zero.
There is an overwhelming discourse pretending doing sport is important and good for health. What I see around me is people getting hurt because of sport. Either going to far their limit or because of intrinsic risk of their sport.
I think running among all sports, is one of the worst disparity between perception of doing something healthy and being dangerous in reality.
How many people died of heart break in their 40ies, because they were told to do sport and started running after a period of inactivity.
Of course I agree you need exercise. Walking, climbing stairs instead of taking elevators, should be enough.
So ... actively scanning the skies for signals, running them through algorithms, trying to show that the signals carry more meaning than could normally be expected from "background noise", then trying to find any other explanations for this apparent "design" (as I recall, SETI's biggest hits have actually been in the signal analysis of oddball stars?), and in the end only looking at it as "data from another lifeform" when nothing else fits the bill ... you're right. That very last step may seem non-scientific -- but it's actually just a hypothesis that they then intend to test, if it ever happens, by beaming back signals and attempting verifiable, testable communication. This is different from just receiving the signal, analyzing it, deciding that it's from someone, interpreting it in one way or another (with no reproducible method to prove that it's the right interpretation) and then acting on the results and trying to force others to act on it too ... that's religion.
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
Soft-sole moccasins work.
eventually with some stabilizing technology so it wouldn't wobble
And that's where the trainers fail it.
Well, it is about as well explained as by science. I've yet to hear them explain where everything started. Big Bang? Ok, what was there before that?
To me, everything just suddenly exploding into existance is just as well explained as a supreme being creating it all.
I don't see observable phenomena explaining either one of those hypotheses.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Evolution has nothing in mind. A sudden volcanic eruption or comet strike can terminate multiple species.
There's no mind in that.
yeah sure, go barefoot
but shoes serve a function beyond performance in the real world: protection from sharp stones and hot asphalt for the bottom of the feet, and for the knees, a little springy give to protect from pounding concrete
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Almost didn't respond because your points are thoughtful and I didn't want to sound like a dick, but then I read your signature and it falls into the same category of "Not quite far enough away from the picture to be an entirely valid observation."
-People are designed to be bipedal locomotives. They were not designed to slide down hills in sub-zero conditions. Biology has put a lot more R&D into solving the problem of running versus skiing, so your point, while quite cool, doesn't really apply to the question.
-In Capitalist America, the government is controlled by those who own it's debt. In Soviet Russia, the same held true. --What you do with the borrowed money, (build a communist empire or Disney Land, is a sort of flash-in-the-pan, "So what?" --When the interest finally and inevitably balloons beyond the government's ability to pay it back, (and by "government," I mean "We the People") --the system crumbles into oblivion. Communes and Magic Kingdoms just don't matter. Everybody is owned in the end. America and Russia are on the same leash.
There. That wasn't too dickey, I hope. :-)
-FL
I can assure you decent shoes are a must.
My fleet are as flat as a board now (overweight kid, bad genes AND bad shoes) and the difference between my proper nike's with the inner supports and regular 'fasionable' work shoes is like night and day.
There is no longer a pain in the front of my shin and I feel supported.
There's obviously an element of 'wank' and markup in high end shoes but bottom of the barrel is not a smart purchase by any means.
"Evolution also didn't have any use for post-reproductive individuals"
That is incorrect. Older individuals generally assist younger individuals, giving them the benefit of wisdom and experience, which helps the younger individuals to reproduce. Generally people help people who are close to them (family, relations, tribe). Hence, older people can still assist the propagation of their genes.
SETI is based on science: given the number of stars and planets in the universe, the probability of extraterrestrial life is such and such, intelligent extraterrestrial life such and such.
Whereas ID is based on speculation (to avoid the word 'belief'): although there's no evidence for it and plenty of evidence against it (evolution), there could be some kind of designer.
Prior to my military stay I trained barefoot on old, broken city sidewalks. Never had a single injury. After joining I trained in boots. Again, no injury. Until I was issued a pair too narrow. It caused a pinched nerve in my foot. The right size fixed that. Once assigned to a unit, for our daily PT/run we had to wear running shoes. The frequent high impact without adequate protection caused the pinched nerve to flair up. It had to be removed, leaving the facing halves of two toes numb. The end of the nerve formed an inoperable stump, causing a permanent condition just like the injured nerve. It is a minor but permanent part of my service connected disability. "Minor" to the tune of $100+ a month for the rest of my life. Those running shoes are proving to be very expensive to US taxpayers. I can still run in hard soles, including my $10 all plastic Chinese cowboy boot knock offs.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hmm, so it's sort of like Fox news with fewer references to Nazis and communist fascists.
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
True, but still far from entertaining. This guy did a good job with that though: The Brick Testament. I particularly enjoy this one on why to keep 'the law'
:x
http://anthropik.com/2007/06/learning-to-walk/
Our Indians reportedly ran 100+- miles in a ~24h period to deliver messages. You can't do that with your leg muscles atrophied from shoes.
"We can get some idea of the kind of distances such runners covered from the journals of early settlers. As early as 1794, James Emlen wrote that Sharp Shins, one of the Iroquois Confederacy messengers, ran
90 miles from Canandaigua to Niagara between sunrise and sunset.
In 1835, a correspondent to The Spirit of the Times newspaper told of a Native American who had run 100 miles in a day carrying a sixty-pound bar of lead. Another wrote of a member of the Osage tribe to skeptical
members of the Indian Commission. Seeking to prove his veracity, he proposed a wager. An Indian was to take a message to Fort Gibson at sunrise and return with an answer before sunset, a round-trip journey
of some 80 miles. The wager was won.
In 1876 Big Hawk Chief ran from the Pawnee Agency to the Wichitas, a distance of 120 miles, inside 24 hours. His claim to have run such a distance was not believed. The Wichita chief arranged to ride back with
him, sending a relay horse to the 60-mile point so that he could change horses there. Before the 60-mile point, the Wichita chief's horse was forced to stop and rest, but Big Hawk went on. The Wichita chief
eventually reached the Pawnee village before sunrise, less than 24 hours after their start, and found Big Hawk asleep. He had come in around midnight, covering the 120 miles across mountains, hills, and streams
in about 20 hours."
http://www.ultrarunning.com/ultra/features/world/chapter-i-in-the-beginnin.shtml
*yes, I just called them Indians. I've talked to many, and they prefer that term.
Many of us started running after Ken Coopers 1968 landmark book called aerobics. His basically said what we now call "cardio" is the healthiest exercise. Before then exercise programs mainly emulated the calisthetics of military basic training. Ken Cooper developed a "point system" to rank sports and exercise. Swimming and running came on top with about two hours of such a week reaching the top score. This ignited the running boom, because all the type-A yuppies competed the highest aerobic scores.
The one problem was that there werent really running shoes at that time. Cross-country and track teams use track/soccer shoes with spikes designed for grass or wood chip surfaces. There wasnt anything with cushioning and support until Nike and Addias came along in the early 1970s. So hobby runenrs ran in ordinary gym shoes (like basketball sneakers) then. I was so young then that I could run in just about anything. But not now.
You Walk Wrong
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As we obviously have more than a few experienced runners as well as geeks in this thread, does anyone have advice concerning shin splints?
I suffer from them terribly whenever I try to run/jog - I can do a brisk walk for 30 minutes covering 2-3 miles (I think), working up one hell of a sweat, but if I increase to a jog, I get terrible pain at the front of my calves after about 30 seconds. Similarly, I can cycle a lot with no problems.
Would be really interested in some information to avoid these, it's stopped me using running as exercise, which I'd really like to be able to do.
Actually, more Nazi references. They infamously supported the party up until war was declared. WWII commemorative reprints are rather hard to get for this reason.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
..apply to Wii Sports as well ? :)
I tried, but there were no pictures, just words words words ...
The injury statistics remind me of those that say "75% of all traffic accidents occur within a mile of the driver's home". Of course they don't include how much the driver stays within that distance, which is usually the vast majority of total driving time.
I run in cross trainers. Interestingly enough the "right" shoes for me were near the bottom of the price range. I don't run competitively so they are perfect. They were wide enough and very comfortable.
I needed something I could run in and train. Since I do it to increase fitness and be healthy support is more important than that last 5% of speed. Not twisting my ankle and running a few miles a day (on weight training off days) was my primary goal.
The "correct" way to choose shoes is to go to a store with a treadmill that has fitness trainers there to do a gait analysis, and tell them what your goals are.
Often the best shoes for most people are some of the cheapest. Price is not how you should choose your shoes ;) At such a specialty store they are more interested in picking the right shoe for you so you'll come back and hopefully tell your friends about them.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
using that same logic, one would assume that most of the people in Congress were women
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.
ID says look at the signal, analyze it, try to find other explanations for apparent "design", if there isn't one, label it "designer unknown". Those scientists who proposed ID have never been given enough of a hearing to develop any type of tests for the hypothesis that some element was designed or not. Just look at the reply just after yours for someone who doesn't even consider that some characteristics of life may fit the same category of information as SETI is based on.
The fact that some of the people who have adopted the idea of ID have gone on to extend it in religious ways does not invalidate the idea itself any more than the fact that many atheists have gone on to say that the Theory of Evolution proves there is no God invalidates Evolution.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You, (and it seems a lot of people on this article) are somehow thinking the article is saying shoes are bad. If you actually read it, you'll see that's not what they claim at all.
The article only says that expensive running shoes don't do anything for your speed or injury probability. Of course some kind of shoe will help protect against harsh surfaces, even the example ultrarunners were wearing basic sandals. The point is that spending $200 on running shoes is a stupid waste of money, because proper technique is the only way to avoid injuries, and the more padding you have, the more you can run badly without being forced to change.
Lintilla: You see? These different strata in the rock face of the shaft represent the successive pages of this planet's history.
Arthur: Oh yes. Isn't that interesting.
Lintilla: Interesting? It's frightening!
Arthur: Is it? Well, actually it just looks like a slice of layer cake to me.
Lintilla: Well why did you say it looked interesting?
Arthur: Oh, well, I'm quite interested in layer cake.
Lintilla: Look at it. Doesn't anything strike you?
Arthur: Well it's... it's rock isn't it?
Lintilla: Down here we have layer after layer: the remains of early settlements, one on top of another. Then more layers, thicker ones - the remains of cities, each built on the ruins of the previous one. We're talking about thousands of years you see! And then suddenly above this level, what?
Arthur: Er... more rock?
Lintilla: What's special about it?
Arthur: Uhhh. Well it's all smooth with no layers.
Lintilla: Yes. No further building, no one actually living on the planet, or at least on its surface. So this previous layer is the significant one. And do you know what it consists of?
Arthur: Rock?
Lintilla: No.
Arthur: Er, stone?
Lintilla: No.
Arthur: Umm, some different sort of rock the name of which temporarily escapes me?
Lintilla: No! Feel it. Scratch it.
Arthur: Oh yes... It's slightly sort of soft and crumbly.
Lintilla: What's it like?
Arthur: Errr... I know! It's um -
Lintilla: Yes?!
Arthur: What's the name of that soft, crumbly sort of rock?
Lintilla: But it isn't rock.
Arthur: Well what is it then?
Lintilla: Shoes.
Arthur: What?!
Lintilla: Shoes. Billions of them! An entire archaeological layer of compressed shoes.
Arthur: Shoes?! How can you tell?
Lintilla: We knew all along, we just needed confirmation.
Arthur: Why shoes?
[Laser shot]
Hig Hurtenflirst: Because fella, shoes are the economic future of this Galaxy.
Arthur: What?
Hig Hurtenflirst: Stand up, both of ya.
Arthur: Who are you?!
Hig Hurtenflirst: I only happen to be Hig Hurtenflirst. I only happen to be the risingest young executive in the Dolmansaxlil Shoe Corporation. I only happen to have masterminded the entire rationalisation of this planet to total shoe orientation. I only happen to be sitting on top of the biggest development deal in the entire history of footwear and I only happen to be very deeply disturbed at finding my planet riddled with subversives bent on undermining the whole structure of the Dolmansaxlil operation - and thus the very economic future of the galaxy itself. And I only happen to think that I would be very well advised to have both of you weirdos and the other two chicks revoked on the spot. Does that answer your question?
Arthur: Er, I can't remember what I asked you now.
The Shoe Event Horizon is now a firmly established and rather sad economic phenomenon, which in future times will be taught as part of the basic middle school "Life, the Universe, and Everything" syllabus. Here is a typical computer class from the Bratisvogan Megalycee Unidate 911VCK168:
Compu-Teach: Good morning life-form.
Pupil: Hi teach.
Compu-Teach: Are you sitting comfortably?
Pupil: Yes.
Compu-Teach: Then stand up! Harsh Economic Truths, Class Seventeen. You are standing up?
Pupil: Yes.
Compu-Teach: Good. Posit: you are living in an exciting, go-ahead civilization. Where are you looking?
Pupil: Up.
Compu-Teach: What do you see?
Pupil: The open sky. The stars. An infinite horizon.
Compu-Teach: Correct! You may press the button.
Pupil: Thank you.
[Button is pressed. A surge of energy]
Pupil: Wow! That feels nice.
Comp
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The Vibram Five Fingers and several other "interesting" footwear choices are mentioned in this article from New York Magazine called "You Walk Wrong": http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/. It covers much of the same ground as TFA, but with better artwork (various bare feet made up to look like they're wearing shoes) and more about regular walking (as opposed to competitive running).
Haven't tried them myself, though. My $90 Mizunos, chosen after a running store employee filmed my gait, are in their third year of having completely eliminated chronic knee pain. But I'm tempted to try the Vibrams just for looking nerdy and starting conversations.
You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
Maybe it's where I live, but nature has plenty of sharp things on the ground, like goat heads and thistles. I went barefoot most of the time as a kid, and I was always more careful walking in the undeveloped areas than the sidewalk, because it had more sharp things. And considering that flat tires on the bicycle were nearly a weekly occurrence, I don't think that callouses would have ever grown thick enough to completely protect me.
I've got a pair that I had a friend bring back from a trip to the US. I love them, but if you're one of the genetic freaks like me who has a longer second toe, they can be a little uncomfortable. Mine have stretched to fit, but it took a while.
If you can, I strongly recommend you do a test fitting in a store before buying, as the sizes are not quite the same as standard shoe sizes. The guide on their website is pretty good and worked for me, although this guy thinks it's a bit off.
Also, one of the other toes is coming apart due to some dodgy stitching, but it's past the 90 days return and in the wrong country, so I'm out of luck with that.
(I seem to have had a run of bad luck with Vibram - the Vibram soles of my expensive hiking shoes have recently cracked across the middle).
|>
Here be Dragons
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...
I'd rather be closer to women!
...I just came for the free beer.
Why is this flamebait and not every other comment in this thread?
That's my very same objection to the anti-ID arguments that dismiss it out of hand as stupid "just because". When the best argument you have for the ultimate lack of a designer is a great big "well, just because, that's why", then there are problems with your argument.
Evolution and the Big-Bang do a good job of explaining how we got here - I'm actually a heck of a lot more impressed with the Big Bang than I have with Evolution - but they both still have a few big holes that have not been addressed. For Evolution, the biggest problem is the jump from non-life to life and the fact that you have a system going from less complex to more complex which, as far as I know, still defies the law of entropy. For those about to point me to genetic mutations that improve survival of a particular species, those mutations still remove information rather than add it; I've yet to hear of the opposite, though I'd love to be enlightened. That's not to say entropy is infallable, but it has a much longer history and is much more solidly proven than Evolution, and I don't think anything so far has managed to get around it yet.
The Big Bang has the problem the Parent pointed out and was modded flamebate for, and that is nobody knows why the Big Bang got Big and Banged. Sure there are theories about why that would happen, but just having a theory isn't science. In fact the only way I see scientists showing what happened pre-Big Bang is if they can observe evidence that shows the Universe is in a cycle and is heading back toward this. There is some interesting evidence for this, assuming other theories are correct - I believe Dark Matter is integral to this theory, but there are some theories about gravity that could prove Dark Matter false if they are more correct (which may or may not help the cyclical big bang idea).
Science is an ongoing process, even Newton's laws are still being updated and made more accurate. The idea that something you can't prove one way or the other yet is false just because you don't want it to be true, or you find it silly, is just as bad as when they branded Copernicus a heretic because he had the audacity to say the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth. It's also just as grounded in Faith and Belief as the earth-centrist proponents. In fact, they had the lions share of popular evidence on their side, you could WATCH the sun go around the earth on a daily basis. How could they be wrong?
All that said, I've seen a few ID proponents, and they do tend to seem like complete crackpots. The only way I see ID being accepted is if mainstream scientists beat their heads against the few fundamental problems that remain with modern Cosmic theory until they give up. Even then, it seems to be a "no other alternative" kind of idea, which pretty much can't be proven.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
are more likely to be persuaded to shell out $100 for a pair of shoes.
The difference isn't in having a complete explanation, it is in the amount of evidence that directly supports the conclusion. Notice that scientists aren't making definitive statements about what caused the big bang, because there isn't enough evidence supporting any particular theory. ID, on the other hand, (which I would like to point out is not incompatible with the big bang theory), is trying to make conclusions which we do not have enough evidence to support, scientifically. The fact that the universe seems fine-tuned to support life isn't much evidence, as any universe we found ourselves in would probably seem fine-tuned for life (considering that we have to be alive in order to examine said universe) regardless of how it was actually created. This concept is sometime call the anthropic principle (although other, more bizarre, ideas go by the same name).
Arguments for and against these lines of reasoning are all perfectly valid, but they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Philosophical questions and reasoning are very important, and I think that philosophy should have a much bigger role in schools, especially logic. But trying to group philosophy with science isn't valid. You can talk about the philosophy of science, or the science of philosophy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
The origins of the universe is a tough question, but what you need to understand is that the big bang theory is only talking about the "how" of things. Scientists are simply describing how it looks like things happened to them, physically. Scientists are not able to explain the "why" of the big bang, and even if they do, there will just be another "why" behind that. No matter how much scientists explain, we will always be able to ask, "Why anything? Why not nothing?". This why can be filled with any theory you feel like (some are more valid than others though) and is a philosophical question, so please people stop making a false dichotomy between ID and the big bang. If you believe that the chain of cause and effect must lead back to a prime mover, so be it. If you believe in an infinite multiverse and that makes sense to you, alright. But this is philosophy, not science. I'm not trying to say that science is above philosophy, but simply that they describe two different things -- most of the time.
Sometimes science and philosophy conflict. This is because science is based on a philosophy called the philosophy of science. There are different formulations of the philosophy of science, but most of them rest on the philosophical concept of logic with a pragmatic leap thrown in. For an example of a common conflict between science and philosophy we can look at the "philosophy" of new-earth creationists. You see, to believe in new-earth creationism you have to have a certain philosophy of science which boils down to not being able to trust your pragmatic observations of the universe. This is a different philosophy of science than actual scientists base their concepts of science on, so there is a fundamental philosophical dispute between the two groups. Personally, I believe that the lack of a pragmatic philosophy of science that is inherent in new-earth creationism is fundamentally flawed (assuming of course that such a thing as flaw exists). To make a long story short, new-earth and science contradict philosophically, but ID and science do not. Any scientist saying otherwise is mistaken.
What I'm trying to get across is that there is a certain philosophy of science. I think that it is a good one. It isn't completely logical, but it is pragmatic. Anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of science, I believe, is making a pretty bold, possibly illogical statement. Illogical is OK, maybe you don't believe in logic, it is just pretty far out there. The philosophy of science isn't an all encompassing philosophy. There are still many, many other things to talk about that the POS cannot ever answer. Like the question of a prime mover, or the question of virtue and morality. Most religious beliefs are n
What, what was before the big bang? The universe is like a tape in your VCR. What was before the beginning of the tape?
Humans tend to anthropomorphize everything we can't understand. A supreme being does not have to act like a human and does not need to be supernatural. I think God isthe same thing as the laws of physics. I find them the laws of physics and the Universe itself to be an awe-inspiring, humbling, powerful, consistent thing. Other people seem to have a hard time with this concept. Don't athropomorphize everything, and you may begin to comprehend some higher truths...
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Lots of research on this. Obviously, until we get the time machine all debugged (Apple, I'm looking at you ...) it's speculative, but very interesting and very amenable to experiment. See, for example, the RNA to Human lectures. Apologies in advance for the link to Quicktime stuff (Apple, I'm still looking at you ....).
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Q. How do confuse a Daily Mail reader?
A. Tell them that immigrants kill paedophiles.
No. Evolution is an explanation for apparent "design", yet IDists and Creationists reject it out of hand.
It isn't the job of the scientific establishment to hear anyone who has a crackpot idea. It is up to those challenging the scientific establishment to show that their explanation is better than the current one. They've had twenty-two years since Edwards v. Aguillard to propose a testable theory of Intelligent Design, and they haven't done anything.
SETI is looking for signals that are artificial, that cannot be explained by natural processes. The effort is huge, because the number of natural signals is overwhelming. ID, on the other hand, rejects well-known natural processes that account for the appearance of design, that are supported by many different independent lines of evidence.
Except that the earlies Intelligent Design writing, Of Pandas and People, is a search-and-replace edit of Creationist materials. s/Creator/Intelligent Designer/, and a few other terms. There was no "idea of ID" independent of Creationism.
I worked on the 'Old Skyhook Ranch' near Round Up, Montana. They said to bring boots, so I got cowboy boots. My job was hauling irrigation pipe by hand. The mud held the boots and I stepped right out of them. So I went barefoot. After a couple of weeks, I didn't mind stepping on Canada thistle. As Kinnell notes, your feet become leathery. I also ran cross country barefoot. My only problem occurred the week the acorns fell.
Think global, act loco
Yes, but this surely presupposes that there are no observable phenomena with unobservable causes?
I confess I'm not remotely an expert in the field, but my interested observer perception is of a bootstrap problem in pretty much all scenarios. If we believe all matter was formed in a Big Bang of which we detect traces that match current hypothesese, what was the cause of the Big Bang event? I love and value science, but am deeply uncomfortable with the quasi-religious assertions from some that if it can't be measured then it isn't real. We've learnt to measure a great many things which we previously couldn't.
In all honesty though, if you wish to oppose intelligent design, let it be taught. The underground, opposed, rebel argument that They don't want you to hear will always have power - if you honestly believe it's rubbish, teach its tenets and then teach why you believe they don't match the data. If you're a good teacher with good information and the students are intellectually up to the argument, they'll likely agree and the rest weren't likely to have their minds changed either way in any case.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Running shoes ARE the leading cause of injuries to runners! I tossed out my running shoes 5 years ago and have been running exclusively barefoot ever since. My reason was to eliminate plantar faciitis. I know of others who started running barefoot to eliminate foot, ankle, knee, hip, and back problems. I am now 55 years old and run about 25-30 miles per week, injury free. If you are afraid of stepping on little sharpies (they are not as prevalent as you fear), you would be better off wearing something like aquasocks or flip flops to run in. As the article says - the least shoe is the best. I taught a 65 year old man about barefoot running. He had stopped running because his knees were giving out. He switched to barefoot running (well, almost - he wears aquasocks) and is now able to run 3 miles a day without any knee pains at all! Is barefoot running for everyone? Unless you are grossly disformed, I suggest that, yes, you could successfully run barefoot. Ryan Vancouver, WA
the shoes with separate toes are found at http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/ This is as close as you can get to running barefoot without running barefoot.
Think global, act loco
Classic journalistic sleight-of-hand: the author interchanges the two entirely different issues of speed and likelihood of injury throughout. I can believe running shoes don't make you less likely to get injured - I've never actually seen any shoe advertising that claim they *do*, though - but they certainly do make you faster.
Yes, lots of top Mexican and Kenyan runners grow up running barefoot. A few have even run and competed well in Grands Prix barefoot. But I'm not aware of any of them who didn't then go on to run *faster* while wearing running shoes.
Yes, Bannister ran the four minute mile wearing thin leather pumps. Now we have running shoes, what times are we running for the mile again?
(Of course there's lots of factors there, but I'd bet a large amount of money the mark wouldn't magically get lowered if the current holder started running barefoot).
So, yes, running shoes probably don't make you any less likely to get injured, but they do make you go faster. Of course, running's a bloody stupid way to exercise anyway. Doesn't do anything for half of your body and beats the crap out of your feet and knees. Go swimming instead. It's a better workout and far less likely to cause injury. I remember the (probably apocryphal) story of a patient asking his doctor if he'd recommend jogging as a form of exercise. "The only time I jog," says the doctor, "is when I'm late for the funeral of a patient who jogged"...
So college students all across california owe royalties to these guys or what?
The other day I tried to read slashdot bare eyed. I was reading very slowly and started to get a headache. I'll never try that again. Soon I'm going to trade up my expensive five-year-old pair of glasses for a cheap pair, then report back to slashdot that the cheap new pair outperforms the old expensive pair. Miracle! Hence I should be reading bare eyed after all.
The other claim here that's kind of stupid is that most professional runnings are wearing shoes therefor some vaguely alluded halo of benefits. Au contraire. The average NHL lineman can barely walk up a flight of stairs upon retirement at the age of thirty (the few who make it that far). These people are trading momentary glory against pain and disability for the rest of their lives. (Guy with Nike gym bag: This drug with make you stronger and shrink your testicles. Athlete: I'll take two!) What athletes do is a testament to what protects the athlete's performance career. It's a terrible argument for the effects on the athlete's post-performance health.
I think the research is worth looking into, but this is exactly the wrong kind of post for Slashdot. It's the "everything you know is wrong" epiphany that geeks just love to latch onto (unless it's something about Linux being overrated or religion being good, in which case no one will buy it). Now we've got people with no clue at all, who have never run in their lives, vehemently putting down people who disagree with the article. Come on folks, no need to get all high on a quick snort of anti-establishmen views.
To some extent, the author is spinning the article in a certain direction. Of course people who are dedicated runners and buy expensive running shoes are going to have more injuries. They'd have more injuries if they ran barefoot, too.
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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Maybe the running shoes of the future will look more like sprinting shoes. http://www.industryplayer.com/images/licrespic/Sprinting.jpg I always thought modern running shoes and trainers with the big chunky sole looked a little ridiculous.
So you are saying that you are all knowing and you can say that there is not a God? The only way to know whether there is or is not an powerful being that created everything is for you to be all knowing yourself or know someone who is. Both evolution and Intelligent Design require faith. Both are theology, just opposite sides.
From TFA:
"Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention."
And here is the keyword: Injury, as opposed to: Pain. I have been injured multiple times running in running shoes, but I have only run barefoot (7 miles on wet sand) once. So no meaningful statistics on injury can be drawn from my personal experience. I can, however, say with absolute certainty that running with shoes helps prevent pain.
I do believe that with perfect form one can run barefoot with less chance of injury than with shoes. But:
1. Your average consumer does not have perfect form. It's hard to develop perfect form.
2. About building up those callouses? Your average consumer in a 1st world country does not have the will to build up the callouses. And no one should blame them, given that they wear shoes to work and to school all their lives.
The shoe manufacturers are merely giving their consumers what they want. The consumer wants a pair of shoes to prevent the pain, and he/she is all too willing to accept the cover story that those fancy shoes prevent injury. People are much more open to say they shun injury, than to say they are too pampered to endure pain.
It's great you were able to learn to walk with them. Sometimes we do need specially designed products or even radical surgery.
I personally have had every single one of my ossicles replaced with ceramic (right ear) and titanium (left). My eardrums have both been replaced twice - with shavings from my own cartilage. I would be deaf without surgeries and need glasses of different strength for each of my eyes for reading as well as seeing further out. I do know about special needs.
I don't want to sound obstinate, but I thought we were talking about basically healthy people here. Runners are seldom people with major problems in their lower limbs, and the ones who do have them usually need tailored solutions, not the new Nikes with this season's hot colors. AFAIK, anyway.
Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
I slept but my heart was awake.
Listen! My lover is knocking:
"Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew,
my hair with the dampness of the night."
I have taken off my robe--
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet--
must I soil them again?
My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.
Song of Solomon 5:2-4 (NIV)
I'm sure it loses something in translation.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Nike creates a shoe that is less like a shoe and more like not wearing shoes. It's creating a non-shoe. And they're charging $100 for it...
I think I'll hire their marketing team to sell some new clothes to the emperor.
You're conflating "supernatural" with "religious." Why? The existence of a supernatural designer doesn't imply anything about its nature, or whether it should be worshipped. Merely being outside of our current scientific understanding of nature is not sufficient to make a thing religious.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Evolutionary speaking, humans are long distance runners. We walk upright on two legs, so that our endurance is maximized. A fit human can catch just about anything just by following its tracks until it is too exhausted to keep going.
A good running shoe (for "normal" feet) is something that tries to interfere as little as possible with normal human running ability.
This is one thing that many people do not understand about evolution. Evolution is totally unconnected with how life came to be. The jump you mention is Abiogenesis, not evolution. You have valid questions about the increase of complexity which a sibling poster comments on, but the jump from inanimate to living is not in the domain of evolution.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
What was there before the Big Bang? Researchers don't know, and right now no one has figured out how to make experiments to test any theories on the idea.
But there are hypothesis about the Big Bang itself and experimental evidence to suggest they are true. The universe is expanding, all of the galaxies are moving away from one central starting point. That has data to back it up. There are certainly gaps in the knowledge, and a lot more to learn. But it fits all of the information we have at present.
Intelligent Design cannot be verified by experiments. There's no way you can prove or disprove it. And why did the Intelligence give men nipples? Why did the Intelligence give men and women Appendixes? Why did the Intelligent Designer design mosquitoes, malaria, smallpox, scarlet fever, autism, spina biffida, mumps, and leprosy? You can explain all of those things with current evolution theory. You can't explain them with Intelligent Design, unless maybe God likes LSD.
And of course, many reasonable Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so forth take the logical view that God created evolution and the Big Bang, or whatever the real beginning of the universe was.
Science doesn't say that if can't be measured it isn't real, it says that if it can't be measured it isn't science. This is an important distinction. I believe many things I cannot prove scientifically. That's OK with science as long as I don't claim that I've proven them scientifically. I could believe that explosive space-termite flatulence caused the big bang, but I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I taught that to a 7th grade science class as fact.
Science doesn't say that ID is wrong, it says that ID is not science. Many scientists are probably even believers in some sort of external force that designed and/or created the Universe, that's not the point. It can;t be measured or proved, so it doesn't belong in science class, it belongs in philosophy or religion class.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
I humbly submit that shoes are man's greatest invention. Just ask Tom Hanks' character in Castaway. If you were isolated and could only have one "invention", what else would it be? A house you can never leave? A fire you can not bring food to? Shoes allowed us to gather more food and all our other great ideas came from the leisure time that afforded us. I could get by without a car, or without fire, but I would be utterly miserable without shoes. I wouldn't last one day in the winter. Sure, I enjoy a good barefoot walk on the beach, but without shoes you can't even go into a store to buy groceries.
Sorry this is offtopic, but I love this stuff...
The argument you so elegantly summarise is similar what Dawkins (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX5lc80YzKk) calls a "Skyhook".
As you said, there is no point trying to explain something complex (us) by creating something more complex (god) and then calling it a day. You need to understand by leaving god unexplained you leave us unexplained too.
He then compares this to Darwin's theory of evolution, where every entity is explained by a simpler entity (its genetic parent) until you get to an entity so simple everyone can agree that it doesn't need explaining.
He's not saying that he is all knowing. (Or she is not saying she is all knowing, whatever.)
Evolution does not require faith. Evolution fits the best experimental evidence we have to date. It doesn't take faith to believe in that, any more than it takes faith to believe that your television will work or that gravity is 32 feet per second squared on the earth's surface.
Intelligent Design requires faith because there is no evidence. Your can't use data to support or disprove the idea, you have to start with religious belief. And as I said above, if there is Intelligent Design then why are their birth defects, nipples on men, malaria, Ebola, an appendix organ we don't use, hair on places that don't need it, and parasites? Does it seem logical for a Designer to do all of those weird things?
Evolution, on the other hand, has no problems with those things. Evolution is often called 'survival of the fittest' but is really 'survival of the fit enough'. As long as an evolutionary change in a species does not specifically reduce their ability to survive, it can occur. We have hair in useless places and nipples on men and the unused Appendix organ because those things do not interfere with our ability to survive. Birth defects are a side effect of the way our genetics are mingled with our partners in sexual reproduction. Dangerous parasites and diseases evolved just like we did.
Belief in evolution is a faith the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. You can't compare it with a religion at all. They are different. You can believe - but not prove - that God created evolution. But that's as close as the two mix.
Sure you can run 100m in 10 seconds without shoes. Even baby soft shoe-bred soles can stand up to that. I never quite hit 10, but I got pretty close. You want to make sure the track is nice and clean, of course.
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
... Black Doom?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
How sharp is the gravel?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Oh sure, you go ahead and pick Shir Hashirim (Song of Songs), the one book that really is a porn novel.
I have flat feet and must wear prescription orthotics. Given that it is impossible to wear the foot orthotics without shoes on, I do not have the option to run barefoot. For those with flat feet or other foot abnormalities, running regularly without the aid of foot orthotics can not only mean pain in the feet, knees, and back, but also permanent damage in the feet, knees, and back.
lmao, wish I had mod points for that one.
Have you ever read any Greek mythology?
You're very clever, young man, but it's no use -- it's turtles all the way down.
Down to what?
I am anarch of all I survey.
Around 1980, I thought I'd try running. I bought a pair of good running shoes and was doing a couple of miles a day when the shoes wore out. I didn't have money to replace them, but since I knew some runners didn't wear shoes at all, I kept running anyway on the worn-out shoes. The result: wear-and-tear arthritis in the balls of my feet. To this day, I can walk at most 1/2 mile, and can only run about 20 yds. FWIW.
.. comfort is NOT IT. Instead, footwear protects us from worms, parasites, and infectious diseases. Oh, and people like this:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/30/91945/8971 ... and then his follow up three years later:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2009/3/16/3408/66053 ... which doesn't mention the fact that he's now SELLING these worms to people.
That's the thing...I don't think MOST people think evolution doesn't happen and isn't still happening, but, the question of where things start are what is often thought of when the two ideals are debated....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Made me think about an article I read recently in Running Times about a 'natural gait', and using shoes designed for midfoot running. http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=15751&PageNum=1 Ultimately, it seems there is no single shoe/no-shoe option which works for everyone. I believe you just have to find what works best for you and listen to your body.
If I understand correctly, the translation is fine. It's the culture that's different.
I heard: she is in the bedroom, after an argument; he is knocking; she is making excuses for not answering the door; he puts his hand through the door to reach out to her in an emotional level; she accepts his gesture.
testing out my trending skills
Supernatural does not mean outside of our understanding of nature, but means outside of nature itself.
The fact that we do not know all the ins and outs of quantum mechanics does not make it supernatural.
Right now I have a sprained ankle from running. I was wearing Nike Air Max 180's which are towards the top of the line but not quite the most expensive. These shoes have very thick soles which are wider at the base than where they meet the bottom of the foot. I think that the thickness and angle of the soles applied some extra leverage when my ankle turned and made the sprain much worse than it would otherwise have been.
So you are saying that you are all knowing and you can say that there is not a God? The only way to know whether there is or is not an powerful being that created everything is for you to be all knowing yourself or know someone who is. Both evolution and Intelligent Design require faith. Both are theology, just opposite sides.
You can't argue with something when you don't understand the difference between science and theology.
I suggest you study papers on Evolution that are less than 100 years old, and have not been written by the Discover Institute.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Let me start off by saying I'm not a track athlete, nor do I run much at all. But common sense abounds for this topic. When I don't wear shoes, my feet stop aching. Don't let any of the salesmen fool you. Natural is always better. It always looks better, feels better, is better. Except when it causes an unwanted pregnancy.
The funny thing, or not so funny, is that it isn't running that causes the common problems plaguing most runners today. But, then, if you read the article you would already know that. It is running poorly, or running with feet weakened from lack of use. What most people forget, before they even consider running barefoot, is that you will not pound your feet into the ground, or skuff them along, like we hear so many shod runners doing, because we have a whole lot of nerves in the soles of our feet, not put there to torture us, but to teach us how to run gently, gracefully, and efficiently. Once you start running gently barefoot, all those other problems, rough gravel, debris, impact, etc., become nonsense. Even broken glass. Most of it just lays there, not jumping up and attacking, or slicing our soles, at least not as long as you're running very gently, and not slamming your foot into, or sliding your foot across, the ground like a senseless fool. But, when we run with shoes, blocking this invaluable feedback, we truely do become "sensless" runners. And our feet still want to feel the ground, so we, instinctively push our feet harder into the ground, in hopes of feeling some sensation. Instead, the impact just travels straight up the leg, because we have forgot how to bend our knees for cushioning, because we the cushioning in shoes is just enough to block the sensation of impact, but not enough to protect us from the impact we do not feel. Running with shoes is a lot like being blindfolded. I don't run barefoot because I have excellent biomechanics. I have excellent biomechanics BECAUSE I run barefoot! Running Barefoot teaches us to run... better! Have fun, Barefoot Ken Bob barefoot since conception barefoot runner of countless miles shod finsiher of 1 marathon (it hurt too much to do again) barefoot finisher of 69 marathons (and still going, hope to complete 4 more this May) barefoot finsher of hundreds of other "foot" races, shorter, and longer, on trails and/or roads 53 years young, no knee injuries, no broken ankles, no gashes on my feet. webmaster for http://runningbarefoot.org/
The flip-side is that, on some issues, it is quite common to refuse to accept any explanation that _isn't_ grounded in science - a religions explanation isn't scientific, ergo it's wrong. I (largely) agree with what you seem to be saying, but the follow-on reasoning from that of many is decidedly suspect IMO.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Sorry for the ambiguity. By "outside our current understanding of nature," I mean outside of what we currently understand to be nature. I was just trying to clarify that we almost certainly don't have a true understanding of nature or its boundaries, and that what appears "supernatural" today, could quite possibly be understood as natural in the future. (Please don't take this as support for ID, I'm just saying that supernatural != religious)
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!