My bad.
Fine. It’s a long shallow arch on top supported by two arches underneath. Big deal. It’s an arch supported by other arches. Same thing.
Nope. It’s 3 arches making one arch. The normal arch distributes weight two dimensionally. Da Vinci’s does so laterally. It’s a single 3d arch.
Or you could call it 3 arches leaning against each other, like this: /i\
There is no support from underneath. The weight is transferred laterally.
Not really. I should have been a little more forthright. Sorry, I’m trying to bring together a common theme from running to medicine to aviation and I didn’t guess this tangent would be so important.
But then, I had no idea arch supports would be such a critical subject.
I figured I’d spend most of the time talking about Indians.
Post 26.
Yes, but they all seem to derive from the same source, Lutz. Lutz studied a group that was not living traditionally. They were living off the “charity” of the Church.
You see the problem?
If you want to understand about aspects of traditional Apaches, and you go to a trailer park on a reservation and hang out with a bunch of indians kicked off their ancestral lands and living on welfare, you are probably not going to get good data on what traditional Apaches are like.
While they are plenty of Tarahumara becoming westernized, there are still quite a few that live with little or no contact whatsoever, according to the way they’ve lived for thousands of years. Those are the ones you study.
They live longer healthier lives with fewer of the diseases that are killing and incapaciting us. I’ve said this already.
Yeah. It’s a charity. He’s building a Church and raising money.
Yes. As much as you and I. I suppose you think you are better because you can read a book or use a computer. But these are things useful to your lifestyle and environment. Doubtless they would think your skillset was lacking as they watched you get eaten by a cougar. So your smugness is misplaced.
They do not dedicate their lives to fitness and running. They dedicate their lives to subsistence. Running is their pleasure, their sport. Now perhaps you look at a people for whom Cancer is practically unknown, as is Diabetes, Heart disease, obesity, joint damage, etc etc. who can still run 30-100 miles at a clip at age 95 without ever having received the benefit of modern medicine,… and say. “big deal, so what.”
But that doesn’t speak very highly of you.
We’ve already been over this and you’ve ignored the substance of my response to just repeat yourself. Your data is from welfare Indians, not traditional ones.
Well no. Not really. Nova did a special called “marathon challenge” where they had 13 people who were deemed extremely unlikely to run a marathon train and run one. They included the elderly, the obese, diabetics, the unathletic and they tested them thoroughly from a medical standpoint. As they trained, they continued the tests. What they found was once people reached a level of fitness where they could run 2-3 miles 3 times a week with a 5 mile run on the weekend they had achieved 95% of the benefits healthwise that they would get by training up to the 26 miles.
That equates to half an hour a day 3 days a week and an hour on the weekend. For that, you lose weight, lower blood pressure, cholesterol, increase bone density, lower resting pulse rate, increase max Vo2. You can buy the DVD at Amazon, or there’s info here:
I’ve addressed it. You’ve ignored it. You keep repeating yourself and ignoring the response and then complain that you didn’t get a response. Here it is again:
Lutz. Only source for this #. Welfare Tarahumara are basis. Not traditional Tarahumara which is what we are talking about. got it?
Say you heard the Apache’s were great horsemen, so you go to a trailerpark in a reservation, off the tradittional lands and talk to some 3rd generation trailer dwelling welfare Apache about horses.
Turns out they don’t know much. You conclude Apache don’t know much about horses. You’re asking the wrong Apache.
If you want to learn about the benefits of the traditional Tarahumara lifestyle you should not visit the westernized ones living off of a church mission. You should visit the ones living traditionally.
I’m not going to repeat what I just said for the 6th or 7th time.
No, the idea that you should have to pay money to debunk an argument here is not crazy. It’s fabricated. Both of those books are mass published and in most libraries and bookstores. You don’t have to pay money to flip through a book pretty much anywhere, you just have to get off your lazy ass. There’s an attitude that pervades this community that says if you can’t hand me a cite on a silver platter RIGHT NOW then you are WRONG. That’s kinda crazy. I think it says a lot that in 10 or so short years we’ve gone from not bothering with or trusting online sources to not bothering with or trusting offline sources. Scylla made a claim, and provided a source for that claim-- and by the way that’s far more than you’re going to get out of most claims you hear in life. If you want to challenge it, go to his source. Don’t bitch that it’s “not free,” which isn’t justified even if it were true, which it isn’t.
All of his other cites suck. He needs to demonstrate that he has the ability to recognize a good cite before anyone else should do jack shit.
What cite sucked?
It is since we are online. Sorry but this is not that big a deal to me. If you expect me to go to a library to read a book I would have no other interest in reading, just to confirm that it says what someone else says it does is nuts. The internet has more than enough information readily available to substantiate almost any claim. This is an internet message board. You shouldn’t expect people to dedicate hours of their time to fully appreciate the context of an argument you’re making. You’re the one who is being unreasonable.
That’s not a cite; it’s a magazine article. Show me something that details the results of a scientific study done on these people. You say Lutz is wrong. If that is the case, prove it. Show me some scientific evidence.
Simply put, I do not believe for a second that a group of people has tons of members who are ultra-marathoners who regularly live til 95 while avoiding all major health problems. I don’t buy it. I could be wrong but I highly, highly doubt it.
You have made several claims in this thread without backing up any of them. It’s put up or shut up time now.
This from a person who uses a term paper as a cite?
I’ve explained why Lutz is wrong. He’s looking at the wrong people.
I have an article and a book detailing firsthand experience. You have a term paper that says it got it’s information from Lutz’s research but does not directly quote it.
My book references Lutz and his study. He got his information from visiting a mission and talking to a priest.
You have a fourth hand term paper account of the wrong people.
I have a first hand account of the right people, an article, and a followup book that represented years of invested time.
Your term paper is bullshit by comparison.
You give me a fourth hand term paper, and dare bitch about a firsthand cite?
Get real.
So you got nothing? Thanks, glad I won’t have to waste anymore time.
I (and most of the rest of us, I imagine) have far better things to do with our times than to go out to libraries and bookstores to search for a book just to refute some point on some internet thread. :rolleyes:
There is a difference, though, and the fact that you can’t see one is why you misunderstand the purpose of rigid arch support. Your medial longitudinal arch does not sit flat on the ground. For most people, it sits raised above the ground in varying degrees. It’s not necessary (and it’s unnatural) to push up on the arch in order to prevent the arch from collapsing during motion or under weight-bearing. The collapsing occurs due to over-pronation wherein the weight bearing is shifted to the medial longitudinal arch (the inside) from the lateral longitudinal arch (the outside). The lateral longitudinal arch should be the weight-bearing side and arch supports are used to maintain the medial arch in its correct position when gait is compromised.
Imagine, if you will, your bridge supported by an arch, which travels north-south. On the west side of the bridge the arch is tall and expansive from north to south. On the east side of the bridge the arch is short and low to the underlying surface. Which side do you think would support more weight? Now, if you built up a convex arch underneath the bridge’s west side arch would it push up on the bridge or would it simply support the bridge in the event that excessive weight should be driven over that side of the bridge?
That’s pretty much how arch support works. Now, I’m no expert but as far as I can tell, if your podiatrist is using rigid orthotics to turn your flat feet into high arch feet, he’s doing it wrong. It doesn’t work that way and that would be very painful and likely to turn a pronator into a supinator.
Think of it this way. Long before we started paving, we evolved walking barefoot on bare earth. Our feet are designed to flex, but also most of what we walked on was somewhat spongy. Sure, rocks aren’t but when we walk on hard surfaces our gait changes to accommodate the rigidity of the surface. Unless, we’re wearing running shoes which are designed to absorb shock. The dense cushy foam is acts artificially as spongy earth, so gait adjusts even though we are still walking on a rigid surface. Additionally, our feet are designed to flex in many different directions so that we can balance on uneven terrain. But all we ever usually walk on is even terrain, so the muscles and tendons that allow lateral flexing fall into disuse. As our feet lose the tactile sensation of changing surfaces, our bodies no longer accommodate those changes, our muscles and tendons weaken, inherent problems begin to develop and we become more prone to injury.
It’s partially the footwear to blame and partially the artificial surfaces we are on for the majority of our lives. Technology and industry has surpassed our body’s ability to evolve to the relatively new (on the scale of biological evolutionary progress) environment we’ve created.
Well, I assume you had your orthotics custom made for your feet in conjunction with visiting a podiatrist. That can be expensive. You can get rigid orthotics for over-pronation for less than $50, though, and for some people, that’s all they need to relieve pain from plantar fasciitis, among other disorders.
With all due respect, you say podiatrists don’t know what they’re talking about and yet you seem to think you do, despite the fact that you readily admit to not having studied the biomechanics of the human foot. Further, you don’t yet have a clear understanding of how orthotics work. I’m no expert, I will admit, but I am fascinated in the subject and I am reading a lot about the physical structure of feet in order to better understand the relationship between athletic pursuits, footwear and feet. I work with people of all shapes, sizes, and fitness levels and I see a lot of different foot “issues” in my work. If I’ve learned anything, it’s that there is no one right answer that works for everyone.
As far as my own athletic pursuits, I’m a hiker and when I’m feeling motivated I interval train, but not a lot and I’m not nearly as athletic as you appear to be. I have suffered foot injuries and continue to evaluate different types of footwear and orthotics, as an academic exercise, mostly. I pay way more attention to my feet and footwear than most people do because it’s what I do for a living.
I completely agree with you with the first part. The fact that people wear running shoes designed for short term high impact activity for damn near everything they do is a big reason why so many people have leg and back pain. Not to mention the fact that they keep wearing them long after they’ve completely compressed the EVA so that it’s no longer even absorbing shock. Road runners have no support in them whatsoever and they eliminate tactile sensation and prevent the foot from flexing naturally in accordance with the ground surface.
However, I disagree with you to an extent about adding support. Many people require that external support because their feet are essentially a bag of bones in which the muscles and tendons aren’t doing they are supposed to be doing in internally supporting the feet. I’ve seen some pretty bad ones like this. The longer people wear bad shoes, carry around extra weight, spend too much time on their feet on hard surfaces, and avoid exercise, the worse their feet generally look.
You yourself described the difference you experienced when you tossed out your running shoes and orthotics, and began training barefoot. Your shoe size shrank by one because your arch was better supported internally by your muscles and tendons which you strengthened through use. You solved the problem on a more long-term basis than the temporary correction of external orthotic support.
Sadly, not everyone can or is willing to do this. Some people have defects in the structure of their feet that can’t be easily corrected by strength training. Further, it’s impractical to expect everyone to go barefoot everywhere and for the morbidly obese, to expect that kind of training is ridiculous. As long as they are supporting tha much additional weight, external orthotic support is the only workable solution to foot, leg and back pain related to improper gait. No one quick fix for everyone, as I mentioned earlier.
Well, I was referring to walking, as I’m not a runner. But, yes, I understand that midfoot (shortened stride) running is less prone to cause injury and is easier on the joints.
Also, you should understand that not only is running gait different than walking gait, but natural gait varies widely among people as it is subject to height, weight, balance, overall strength, center of gravity, among other things. It is not unnatural to plant the foot at the heel when walking. On the contrary, it’s so natural that runners often have to be trained to plant their foot differently (midsole) when they run.
But, again, we’re talking of two different things.
I don’t know much about Nike, but I share your opinion on raised heels. Raising the heel above the apex of the medial arch is, IMHO, damaging to natural gait and biomechanical performance of the foot.
Thank you for admitting that. As I noted I’m not an expert, nor do I have any medical training. I’m a boot fitter in a retail outdoor outlet with an interest in informing myself and doing my job well, so people don’t hurt themselves.
I would also like to add that I’ve tried and personally highly recommend Five Fingers. The strength and improvement you achieved is exactly why that footwear was developed. I wish we sold them in our store because you really have to get the fit exactly right (which means they don’t work for everyone). But it sounds like you’ve done great with them maximizing your body’s potential. Congrats.
Disclaimer: Although I am employed by REI, my views and opinions as presented here are my own and not necessarily those of my employer.
So you assume his cite is wrong, because you shouldn’t have to check it. Or something about jack shit. Fighting Ignorance™. Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.
I doubt the part about you having better things to do, but if I were to assume it to be true, the correct response on your part would be to go on about those better things. Not assume his source is wrong without checking and then bitch that it’s not at the click of your fingertips.
This whole post is just ridiculous. Book cites suck. Everything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion sucks. Nothing that might prove you wrong or sway your opinion is a big deal. If you win you’re the king of the world but if you lose this game sucks anyway and you’re going home. Blah blah blah. It’s pointless to provide cites to you because if it doesn’t say exactly what you want to read, you’re just going to dismiss it anyway. Scylla provided a perfectly valid reason why Lutz’s research was faulty (or at the least non-applicable to this discussion), and you refuse to accept it because it would mean looking wrong in front of the whole intarnets. You’re more interested in winning an argument than you are in finding out what the truth is. Get over yourself.
You’re arguing for the exception here. Few people have genuinely faulty biomechanical structures, and the morbidly obese have far more immediate problems to solve before they need to worry about foot and knee pain while running. I think it’s a given that nothing in this thread applies to them.
This has turned into a war on cites, because apparently nobody here reads books, and they are not immediately available online. You’ll have to leave your basement to find them. Therefore they can’t be refuted, so they’re no good.
Whatever happened to the debate here?
FWIW I checked Born to Run out of the library and found it very interesting. I think Scylla may have done so also, as he refers to the Tarahumara’s below-sea-level environment and Leadville’s 6000 ft altitude. I think (no cite, though) the Copper Canyon in Chihuahua is well above sea level, at any rate Chihuahua City is 4000 feet (according to online sources)*, and Leadville is certainly higher than 6000 feet, more like 11,000 feet.
I thought the point of the OP was that, like running shoes, health care has become overly complicated and when looking to fix it, we’re looking at the wrong things. Insurance doesn’t keep people healthy, and HMOs don’t. Even the idea that seeing a doctor more frequently will make you healthier is flawed.
*obviously the canyon itself, being a canyon, is lower
It may also well be that if we ate more yoghurt we’d live longer, like those Cossacks who live to be 145 but don’t look a day over 120. That’s a true fact, you could look it up, there’s been books.
Be that as it may, the current debate has to do with delivering health care. Promoting healthy living is a good idea, but that’s not really central. Its more like delivering pizza, maybe. Bike or car, not pepperoni over tofu.
Nobody assumes he must be wrong, we just don’t rule out the possibility. We assume he can back up a statement with citations readily available to people. Sorry, I don’t think it’s fair or reasonable to expect people to search far and wide to verify factual claims made in a thread. Either way, it’s clear that we disagree. I think it’s important to note that in all likelihood the vast majority of people would vehemently disagree with you. The forum is supposed to be about learning things and having fun. Requiring people to acquire and read entire books to verify specific claims doesn’t effectively serve either function.
No Scylla provided his opinion. That’s fine, but it’s not proof. He made some extraordinary claims. Many or which have had several gaping holes punched in them. Why should I trust him that Lutz’s study is incomplete or inaccurate? This has nothing to do with me, or saving face. I could very well be wrong. In order to prove that I am, I would like to see some actual proof. I care about the truth; that’s why I am asking him for a cite for what he is saying.
But the OP is just a mishmash of half-truths, strawmen, and lies. I don’t know any serious person that thinks our healthcare system is perfect, or that thinks that a lot of the damage isn’t self-inflicted. The question is how do we realistically deal with those issues. I guarantee the way to do that is not to suggest we all become ultra-marathoners and/or live like the Tarahumara. It’s also not to entertain this fantasy that most people will ever run “2-3 miles 3 times a week with a 5 mile run on the weekend”. It’s just not realistic. Why not just suggest we all become vegetarians, and bike everywhere.
Second, even if we grant that his notion about running shoes is correct, that doesn’t mean much for a number of reasons. First, people wear running shoes for all sorts of things besides running. I’d bet most people do far more other activities (aside from running) in running shoes. Second, even if the are bad for your arches, they prevent people from stepping in all sorts of nasty shit, and from cutting or roughing up their feet. Third, they are worn because they are stylish and comfortable. Even if they are poorly designed from a biological perspective, the vast majority of people still find the sneakers more comfortable and practical than bare feet. Besides, high heels and steel-toe boots may be bad for you too, but that doesn’t mean they are a good analogy for our system of healthcare.
Next insurance certainly does keep people healthy; or at least keeps them from dying in many cases. Forty-five thousand people die every year because they lack insurance. Insurance companies also provide economic incentives for people to adopt healthier habits in many cases. Companies can often get better rates if their employees lose weight, or stop smoking (etc.). The problem is that you cannot adopt too many things like this without people feeling like their freedoms are being abridged.
Once again, let’s assume he’s right about these Indians (although he is probably not). What exactly should we learn from them? He claims their diets aren’t especially unique or healthful. Are we supposed to assume their commitment to running and overall physical fitness is something that we can adopt? Should we just ditch, the doctors and medications? He makes it seems like the average person doesn’t know what makes people healthy and fit. We all know what those things are. They problem is getting people to do it. Are we supposed to read about this group of Indians running 50 miles everyday, and hearing about what great “athletes” they are, and go, " wow, I didn’t know being active, and not eating processed shit all day makes you fit!". What’s the point of all this? Again, do you really think there is anyone out there that doesn’t know this?
Plus, we don’t even need to look to other groups of people to find clear examples of people embracing physical fitness. Collectively, we have the best athletes in the world in the US. We have famous people, like Jack LaLane, who have been models of physical health for decades. Why bother mentioning this mythic group of super athletes?
Lastly, contrary to the OP, we do have a healthcare crisis; and if we don’t do anything about it, it may bankrupt us. Even if people were healthier, it’s not clear that that would fix some of the structural problems.
LOL. And you’re accusing other people of pulling things out of their asses?
Look, I think it’s pretty clear that you don’t really understand what Scylla is saying. You and a couple other people are frantically trying to prove him factually wrong, and he’s speaking in metaphor. I would look pretty dumb if I tried to factually prove that Ted Kennedy wasn’t actually a lion, wouldn’t I?
*BEHOLD! Exhibit A: He had no claws!
audience gasps
And furthermore, ladies, and gentlemen, HE. HAD. NO. MAAAAAAANE!
all the old women faint
*
Yeah, dumb.
The point here is that we could all benefit from simplifying our lives a little bit and getting back to fundamentals. That’s a generally sound message, no matter who the fuck built what bridge or where they put support #374.
And brickbacon, you really should show a little more integrity in your posts if you’re going to go around accusing people of lies, half-truths, and strawmen. Pretending like you don’t know the difference between Indians who live traditionally and welfare Indians is way past Disingenuoustown and all the way to Lalaland. As in you have your fingers in your ears shouting LALALALALA. I trust you don’t want me to point out the many other lies, half-truths, and strawmen in your posts.
The problem is the idea that everything we know is wrong and every time we try and make something better we make it worse. But the facts are that airplanes are more safe than ever, people are living longer than ever, and one could argue are healthier than ever. Doctors actually do support the idea that eating well and getting exercise is good for you. Engineers do worry about complexity and the law of unintended consequences.
When you get older you have heard these same types of arguments over and over, and again and again they turn out to be wrong or at least exaggerations. In my life I’ve seen friends go through any number of medical fads: Candida is killing me so I can’t eat bread because it has yeast in it, I’m hypoglycemic and need to avoid all carbohydrates, pesticides are killing me so I need to pay three times as much for my food, I suffer from multiple chemical sensitivity so I need to avoid all “chemicals” and live in a cement house, cell phone radiation is bad so I need to line my walls with tin foil, vaccinations cause autism, and on and on. So when we hear yet one more breathless claim of a quick cure-all it is annoying.
Is it time for us all to run around barefoot? Well maybe, and maybe we will see an increase in hookworm, foot lacerations, and crushed toes. Unintended consequences cut both ways you know.
A better discussion would be whether the design of shoes is causing injuries that could be prevented by redesigning them with thinner soles or so that the toe hits the ground first.