# Of Nike Sneakers and Healthcare reform **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045 "2009-09-22T03:18:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/41 "2009-09-23T04:36:34Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Yeah now that I pointed it out, and how your example directly contradicts what you asserted earlier: that arch supports in shoes are unnecessary and actually weaken the foot. Arch supports support the arch, in your shoe and in da Vinci’s bridge. No. Da Vinci’s bridge does not use arch supports. It uses 3 arches to form a single arch, a single span. An arch support would bisect the span, flattening the arch, filling the gap created by the arch. The whole purpose of Da Vinci’s design is to get a larger unsupported arch so that a ship can pass underneath. No orthotics, no arch supports in Da Vinci’s design. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/42 "2009-09-23T04:44:12Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > That sounds like anecdotes, not analysis. The data in my cite show no increase in the percent of crashes due to mechanical failure since the 50s, despite the increasing complexity of airplanes. Not so. Your chart shows a pretty startling increasing in the 2000s. The average percentage is 22 over the life of the analysis. It jumped to 28 in the last decade, which would seem to support my thesis. Certainly the dramatic increase in safety equipment in the last 50 years has not decreased that percentage. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/43 "2009-09-23T04:50:40Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Do you have any cite that I can read without having to buy? This says so much about the sdmb. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/44 "2009-09-23T05:08:42Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. Da Vinci’s bridge does not use arch supports. It uses 3 arches to form a single arch, a single span. An arch support would bisect the span, flattening the arch, filling the gap created by the arch. The whole purpose of Da Vinci’s design is to get a larger unsupported arch so that a ship can pass underneath. > > No orthotics, no arch supports in Da Vinci’s design. Nope. You already described that the upper arch of the bridge is supported, given more strength, by other arches below it. Face it, you gave an example that directly contradicts what you were trying to prove. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/45 "2009-09-23T05:12:49Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Not so. Your chart shows a pretty startling increasing in the 2000s. > > The average percentage is 22 over the life of the analysis. It jumped to 28 in the last decade, which would seem to support my thesis. Are you saying no safety equipment was added until the 2000s?, because the percentage was remarkably stable for the 50 years before that. > [@](#): > > Certainly the dramatic increase in safety equipment in the last 50 years has not decreased that percentage. But the rate of airplane crashes is way down in the last decade, so safety equipment is helping prevent crashes not cause them. > [@](#): > > After two infamous crashes in 1996 that together killed 375 people, a White House commission told the airline industry and its regulators to reduce the domestic rate of fatal accidents 80 percent over 10 years. That clock ended Sunday. > > They have come close to reaching that goal. Barring a crash before midnight Sunday, the drop in the accident rate will be about 65 percent, to one fatal accident in about 4.5 million departures, from one in nearly 2 million in 1997… Airlines around the world, even in less-developed nations, have also benefited from equipment improvements, like cockpit instruments that help planes steer clear of mountains when visibility is poor, and jet engines that are so reliable that pilots can go through their entire careers without seeing one fail… Newer planes are also safer. All American airliners, for example, now have “enhanced ground proximity warning systems.” These systems use the Global Positioning System to compare the plane’s position against a database of mountains and buildings, and warn of impending collision. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/46 "2009-09-23T05:20:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Nope. You already described that the upper arch of the bridge is supported, given more strength, by other arches below it. Face it, you gave an example that directly contradicts what you were trying to prove. No. I said “transfers” not “supports” Support would be pushing up, the transfer is Da vinci’s design is lateral. You seem to be really wanting a “gotcha” but no. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/47 "2009-09-23T05:40:48Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Are you saying no safety equipment was added until the 2000s?, because the percentage was remarkably stable for the 50 years before that. You said the percentage of mechanical failures hadn’t gone up. I’m saying your own cite shows differently. > [@](#): > > But the rate of airplane crashes is way down in the last decade, so safety equipment is helping prevent crashes not cause them. Perrow’s point as described in **Deep Survival** is that additional safety features add complexity to an already complex machine. While a given feature may reduce the risk of the specific issue that is designed to prevent, the added complexity produces another avenue to failure, sometimes as in the specific example of the coffeepot and the toilet, a larger avenue than is being closed by the addition of the device. There is a certain minimum level of risk in hurtling a thin aluminum tube full of jet fuel across the sky at 500 mph. There is a law of diminishing returns in safety systems as you approach that minimum where the increased complexity of an additional safety system adds more risk than it reduces. He is not arguing that planes haven’t gotten safer, simply that they haven’t gotten as safe as they should be. Reducing avenues to failure, once one is past a certain point in engineering, is best accomplished by reducing complexity, not increasing it. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/48 "2009-09-23T06:05:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > He is not arguing that planes haven’t gotten safer, simply that they haven’t gotten as safe as they should be. Reducing avenues to failure, once one is past a certain point in engineering, is best accomplished by reducing complexity, not increasing it. So planes are getting more complex, and are much safer, but this clown thinks they would be even _more_ safe if they just listened to him. Sounds like a crank with an axe to grind. I think everyone knows that reducing complexity is a good thing, no big revelation there. But he is saying that adding more safety equipment had made planes less safe and there is simply no data to back up that claim. And what that has to do with shoes is beyond me. But, when I Google shoes and injuries your observations in the OP seem to be correct: more expensive shoes are associated with more injuries. One article suggests that thicker soles are the culprit as it changes the way your foot hits the ground. I don’t see any reason to take that and generalize from it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/49 "2009-09-23T06:25:28Z")
So, it appears Scylla has absolutely no evidence for any of these claims. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/50 "2009-09-23T09:25:17Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. I said “transfers” not “supports” Support would be pushing up, the transfer is Da vinci’s design is lateral. > > You seem to be really wanting a “gotcha” but no. You seem to really be wanting a “have ya”, but no. Your description of the bridge, and why it was constructed so, mirrors what an arch support in a piece of footwear is and does. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/51 "2009-09-23T10:32:47Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Anyway, stone does flex, so this is a very silly argument you’re making. The very notion that a stone arch flexes in the same way as the human foot is a ridiculous assertion. You are over-simplifying human anatomy to make a point; I get it. I just think your analogy goes too far, and ignores the vast differences between the human foot and a stone arch, while playing up minute, superficial similarities. I presume that from now on, you will be running barefoot? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/52 "2009-09-23T10:36:27Z")
> [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > These guys do the Leadville ultramarathon every year or so (or every year they have it), and they do in fact win it wearing huaraches. That’s pretty well documented. The whole population does the Leadville ultramarathon every year. I calls bullshit on this claim. ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/53 "2009-09-23T11:40:33Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The very notion that a stone arch flexes in the same way as the human foot is a ridiculous assertion. You are over-simplifying human anatomy to make a point; I get it. I just think your analogy goes too far, and ignores the vast differences between the human foot and a stone arch, while playing up minute, superficial similarities. I presume that from now on, you will be running barefoot? Running barefoot isn’t the ridiculous activity you’re snidely implying it is. While I don’t go shoeless in the streets of Seoul, I do try to keep the evolutionary design of my feet from being smothered in foam. [QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] You seem to really be wanting a “have ya”, but no. Your description of the bridge, and why it was constructed so, mirrors what an arch support in a piece of footwear is and does. [/QUOTE] Just google it, and look at some pictures. I think you’re misunderstanding. The equivalent of arch support, which is basically foam filler under your feet, in this case would be adding supportive pillars that push up from under the keystone. Can you see why that wouldn’t help? What Leo’s bridge does differently is that it strengthens the main arch with other arches that lean in from the side. While I don’t exactly agree with where Scylla’s taking I find many of the responses surprising. (Straw man: oh those indians are in shape, but they also have a high infant mortality rate, are you saying we should _kill our babies???_) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/54 "2009-09-23T11:54:11Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > Just google it, and look at some pictures. Ok, here’s [a picture of the bridge they built in Norway](http://c-engineer.net/images/Picture3.jpg). I found it by googling “Leonardo bridge”. Here’s [a picture of a typical orthotic arch support](http://www.clubphysioplus.com/Images/FootOverOrthotic_withLineBi.jpg). I found it by googling “orthotic”. > [@Mojo Pin](#): > > I think you’re misunderstanding. The equivalent of arch support, which is basically foam filler under your feet, in this case would be adding supportive pillars that push up from under the keystone. Can you see why that wouldn’t help? What Leo’s bridge does differently is that it strengthens the main arch with other arches that lean in from the side. I wasn’t misunderstanding anything. The two pictures look amazingly similar, since they both are trying to do the same thing: support an arch. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/55 "2009-09-23T12:33:37Z")
Rigid arch support is not designed to push the arch up. It is designed to prevent the arch from collapsing. The reason the medial longitudinal arch collapses is because our feet weren’t designed for the inflexible, solid surfaces we spend most of our time on coupled with the weakening of foot muscles due to footwear that greatly reduces the natural flexing of our feet and changes natural gait and posture. Medial arch support isn’t the problem; it’s a low-cost solution for people suffering the effects of bad footwear and inflexible walking surfaces. The arches in the foot (there are several) are not only intended to support weight from above, but also to absorb energy and, unlike bridge arches, to reduce energy required in locomotion. A properly functioning foot, in which the medial longitudinal arch flexes up to disperse the energy of planting the foot, but does not collapse downward after dispersal, and weight is distributed from calcaneus (heel bone) to metatarsals primarily along the \*lateral \*longitudinal arch, as opposed to the medial arch (the cause of collapse), is more efficient. It’s clear you haven’t really looked into the actual physics of the foot before coming to your simplistic conclusion that arch support is bad. I would have agreed with you, however, if you said that rigid arch support wouldn’t be necessary if we could spend our lives on natural earth most of the time and we stopped wearing shoes that reduced our mobility to start with. Good luck with that, though. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/56 "2009-09-23T13:37:00Z")
Solutions cause harm. Common sense will solve the problem. Look to the old ways, my friends. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/57 "2009-09-23T14:35:40Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The very notion that a stone arch flexes in the same way as the human foot is a ridiculous assertion. You are over-simplifying human anatomy to make a point; I get it. I just think your analogy goes too far, and ignores the vast differences between the human foot and a stone arch, while playing up minute, superficial similarities. I presume that from now on, you will be running barefoot? Do you not know that barefoot running has become extremely popular over the last several years? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/58 "2009-09-23T14:59:47Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Do you not know that barefoot running has become extremely popular over the last several years? How does that impact the liklihood that Scylla is going to take up barefoot running? ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/59 "2009-09-23T15:04:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How does that impact the liklihood that Scylla is going to take up barefoot running? I have no idea but your post seemed to have a mocking tone like you felt the very thought of running barefoot was preposterous. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045/60 "2009-09-23T15:22:38Z")
I think it is preposterous that Scylla will abandon shoes while running. What others do in their bare feet, I cannot say. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-nike-sneakers-and-healthcare-reform/511045.md?page=4)