The arm is significantly weaker and the muscle has visibly atrophied after just a few weeks in a cast. Now apply that to fancy cushy running shoes that envelope your feet in a sort of cast.
The heel of the only $100+ pair of running shoes I have left is about twice as wide as my actual heel, seems to be almost an inch thick, and is completely immobile. It’s absurd.
They’re talking about issues resulting from altering your gait so the flip flops don’t fall off. Completely different subject.
I have a pair of vibrams. I like running in them, although occasionally I’ll run in my nike’s or something. I could go either way, as I do find that the longer distances make my feet sore as anything in the vibrams (also it does take a long while to get used to them).
That said, I find them absolutely invaluable in my weight training. Particularly squats and deadlifts.
[quote=“DSeid, post:15, topic:547888”]
I don’t think there is any data and plenty of it is faddish. But it’s self-evident - go out on the sidewalk barefoot and run. It will be impossible for you to heel-strike, it’s very painful without some sort of padding.
So in theory if one’s gait were fine, one would be okay in shoes that don’t have a lot of support? Cool.
I think I’ll stick with the support, though. When I’m running, I feel kind of sore if I don’t have it.
Anything that works muscle groups that don’t get a lot of use with cause soreness. It’s not a given that you should avoid the activities that cause soreness in that case.
Well, I don’t really have any shoes that don’t have support now. Plus I can’t run as fast/far when I don’t have enough support.
That much I accept. The open question is if heel-strike is as much of a something I should try to change from as I am currently being encouraged to think it is. And if it is, if all of us who are heel-strikes can, even with minimalist shoes, learn an *efficient *, and non-painful, mid-foot strike/stride.
Playing the other side -
We did evolve in concrete jungles. Running 10 plus miles on hard surfaces is not something that our feet were evolved to do. Is recreating the give of a dirt trail within your shoe all that odd of a thing to do?
Humankind did create footwear fairly early on …
The bottom line is, I think, as Cisco put it … I’ll give it a try for some short runs for a while and see if I can learn a different stride and how it feels if I do. If nothing else I can just think of it as more variety in my excercise mix, and I am a big believer in that.
That’s debatable. I’ve never been to africa, but I live in a desert, and the dirt here is as hard as concrete in a lot of places. The rocks are harder.
That is not even close to what running shoes do. You’ve asked a lot of questions that are addressed in the article I linked to, but you never answered me when I asked if you read it.
For protection (from sharp rocks, thorns, ants, etc.) Not cushioning or “support.”
Not trying to start a fight, but…
How would you have survived on the Savannah when you needed to chase down an antelope?
Yes, I read it, and saw a fair amount of opinions but little in the way of convincing data. Things like this
are not all that convincing as it is also true that before the 70’s very few average athletes in the Western world ran long distances regularly; recreational distance running really didn’t take off until the late 70s.
And that’s where RunnerPat’s point may be cogent: was it cushioned shoes that caused the injuries, or that cushioned shoes grew with the popularity of distance running and that the miles that those shoes allow people to run is what causes the injuries. One point I’ve read somewhere on line is that barefoot runners tend to run fewer miles and that it may be that fact that decreases the injury rate. But that also seemed like idle speculation, not data based.
It’s pretty clear that the author misspoke and meant “majority” and not “minority” when you don’t clip off the rest of the sentence.
No, that’s not clear at all. Don’t blame your misunderstanding the sentence on an editing mistake. Go back and read it again.
Don’t assume whatever our ancestors had endure meant the fashion in which they did so is best because they must have evolved to have bodies that were ideal for dealing with those situations. If I had to chase down an antelope on the Savannah, I’d certainly want footwear, sunscreen, eye glasses if I needed them, etc.
runner pat would have chased it down barefoot if he had to. His feet, shins, etc. may have hurt, but he’d have a better chance of survival than if he refused to run sans footwear.
:rolleyes: I didn’t blame any misunderstanding on an editing mistake. Why do you want me to read it again? I pointed out why it’s a mistake by quoting the sentence in full. It’s also clear what the author’s opinion is on barefoot running. Instead of telling me to read it again, point out the part you think is relevant that makes it evident that I’m wrong.
You wrote out that that part of the sentence jumped out at you. Why?
Dirt, sand, grass and such is far softer that concrete and asphalt. I never meant that barefoot running is not possible on natural surfaces.
Excellent points, both of you.
I didn’t say you said it’s not possible on natural surfaces. I said I would want to wear footwear if chasing an antelope on the Savannah and that you would run barefoot if you had to. Maybe you’d choose to run barefoot on the Savannah, but when chasing an animal through tall grass and brush, I’d bet you’d be better off protecting the soles and even sides of your feet from whatever you may step on.
Don’t roll your eyes at me because you’re not comprehending the passage. Just read it again. Since you want to look at it in context, let’s look at it in its entire context:
Now he’s talking about two groups:
-The former, who “have switched to barefoot or minimalist shoes with great success”
-The latter, who “tried and failed and wishes they’d never discovered barefoot running.”
He then maintains that the “latter group is in the minority.” Everything after the dash - “most people who try it out and fail” - is describing this minority.
And the only thing clear about the author’s opinion is that it isn’t cemented either way. It’s a fairly neutral analysis that concludes you should do what works best for you as an individual-- pretty damn close to what I’ve been saying.
I rolled my eyes because you claimed I was blaming someone for a bullshit reason. And I’ll roll my eyes at whomever I please.
(bolding mine)
Nice try. :rolleyes: He doesn’t say “most people who try it out and fail” and it wouldn’t make sense in the context of the sentence if he did. Hmm, I wonder why you didn’t copy and paste what he wrote and instead misquoted him? He said (bolding mine):
So no, he doesn’t say the latter group is in the minority; he’s says they’re in the majority.
Oh Jesus, you’re delusional. The sentence reads the same way without the “and.” I didn’t notice when I typed it out because it’s irrelevant, and I typed it instead of copy/pasting because it’s 8 words and it’s faster to type that than copy/paste. I can’t believe you’re seriously fighting this. I’ve never heard someone here make an argument (much less such a passionate one) that rests solely on a hypothetical typo that means exactly the opposite of what it says. This is ridiculous.