Does your idiocy know no bounds? Why would anyone bother asking for a cite for something if all they are gonna get is a book title? Do you honestly think that’s what people expect when they ask for proof of something on a messageboard?
First, it’s not a metaphor. Let’s go over this point by point (from the OP)
False. Was proved false through several citations. Even his corrected assertion:
None of those claims have been cited. More importantly, they don’t really prove his underlying claim that increasing complexity has caused more problems.
Again, another uncited, and likely, incomplete factoid used to bolster his shaky conclusion.
Really? They all run 100s of miles into their 60s, 70s, and 80s, and they all drink and/or smoke, yet manage to avoid most major health problems? I call bullshit. You can deride my cite, or Lutz’s research all you want. However, someone should provide a study detailing these claims, because it does not pass the smell test.
This again, does not appear to be true. First, the record is held Matt Carpenter, an American runner, who broke the previous record by almost 2 hours. It should be noted that a Tarahumara runner did hold the old record.
Second, I cannot find any evidence that they finished 1-5 in any year, or that they beat everyone by a wide margin. This article detailing the 1994 Leadville marathon says the following:
The article later details that Ann Trason finished second that year (1994). So again, no 1-5 finish for the Tarahumara. They still placed remarkably well, but they did not do what the OP said they did. This again, would not be a huge deal if it were not for the OP’s other glaring factual errors.
Again, something that is demonstrably false, and a gross oversimplification. All of our medical issue are not due to overeating, etc.
That last sentence is bullshit. The first sentence seems to assert that we would be better off without doctors. Again, another unsupported claim that flies in the face of conventional wisdom. And I left out all the other dubious physics arguments.
First, I don’t think that is news to anyone. However, that simplification comes at a high cost for society. Second, if the whole preamble about airplanes, arches, and Indians was supposed to be a metaphor, it is a poor, unnecessary, and inaccurate one.
First, you are assuming Scylla’s point is accurate, which given his track record here, is far from clear. Second, even if it is, it undercuts his point. He seems to be making the implicit assumption that anyone can adopt that sort of lifestyle and reap the health rewards. If large swaths of the Tarahumara have decided to not live a traditional life, maybe we should ask why this is the case. Maybe they aren’t all capable of running 100s of miles without pain and injury. Maybe they weren’t “much healthier and liv[ing] longer lives with greater quality of life than we do”. If these supposedly supermen cannot get all of those in the relatively small ranks to adopt a lifestyle that has seemingly been proven to increase health, happiness, and longevity, what chance do we have? Superficially speaking, it seems they have many of the same problems that we have in that they can’t convince everyone to care a great deal about being healthy.
Ss I assume Scylla favors universal gym memberships (or at least a public option), govewrnement subsidies for bicycles, highly susbidized fruits and vegetables (or heavy taxes on soda and fast food).
The theme is there, its just smuggled in under cover of dorkness. If people simply took more responsibility for their health, none of this socialist nanny-state nonsense would even be happening!
Perhaps, if you want to take it that way. Knowing a little about Scylla’s politics, it’s not hard to imagine that this could be his intention, but I don’t feel that way at all, and I agree with him. I believe public healthcare and greater personal responsibility for your health go hand in hand. I have absolutely no problem with my tax money going to treat people with cancer and bronchitis and broken legs (in fact I want it to! I wish it did!), but it does kind of annoy me that a huge portion of it will be going to people who do nothing with their lives but sit on the couch and eat junk food.
You simply cannot craft a public policy that will only help the deserving. Affirmative action will be used by assholes to gain preference they don’t deserve, bums will mooch on food stamps and welfare, and people will ignore good sense when it comes to their own well-being. Human, all too human.
The alternative would be to set up panels to judge the worthiness of applicants, to decide if someone is deserving of our help. I really, really don’t like that idea.
And what do you mean by a “huge portion”? Do you mean most all of it, or just some of it? And from whence your certainty?
So? Who said anything about crafting public policy? You’re letting your fear of where a discussion could go prevent you from having a discussion. I know people abuse welfare, and I’m still in favor of welfare because I believe it serves a greater good, and thems the ropes.
I mean a large portion of unknown quantitative value. My certainly comes from having my eyes open when I walk down the street. If you want to be pedantic about it, I could say it comes from the well-documented obesity epidemic in the United States, which is widely attributed to watching Everybody Loves Raymond while eating various incarnations of corn syrup.
First, thanks for this thread, I find it very interesting and informative. I have a question about running barefoot. Two actually. One, do you think that barefoot running would alleviate back pain as you’re running? Two, how about running barefoot on sand—does that allow your arch to behave the way you describe on a flat surface, or does the sand act as an upward force, eliminating the benefit?
It doesn’t for me. My back doesn’t get sore running. It’ll start out that way if I overdid something the day before, but I’ve noticed no difference in my back.
When I run on the beach I’m always trying to find that perfect zone between hard as concrete sand, and sink in to your ankles with each stride sand. I think running on sand is a good deal.
Beggin’ yer pardon, but I was unaware of your apparently unique definition of “public healthcare” that doesn’t involve public policy. Sounds like anhydrous water to me.
I’m unaware of that definition too, because you’re making it up.
I said we should have public healthcare and people should take personal responsibility for their health. How did you read into that that I want to somehow (how ) legislate personal responsibility? When I came right out and told you that’s not what I meant, why did you decide that the most non-sensical interpretation conceivable is what I meant? Seriously, why? You can’t possibly think I meant what you’re trying to say I meant, so what’s your angle here?
I appreciate the explanation. I’ve thought about it, and I think I understand what you are saying. But, I think you’re wrong. From the standpoint of the bridge, there is no difference whether weight from above is pushing it down into the convex arch, or if force from below is pushing up. In both cases you still have pressure at the same point underneath the arch where it makes contact with the bridge, where from a physics standpoint it is not strong. If you go back to Leonardo’s bridge, you need the force to come laterally, from the West, in full contact with the arch, to get the effect you desire. Because this would be an impractical orthotic that could not fit in a shoe, they place it underneath, in the wrong spot.
I don’t thin so. Unless you are talking about sand. Go out in the woods, or anywhere in nature and take off your shoes. Sure, there are some spongy areas, but the vast majority of nature has rocks, branches, and whatnot. It is not particularly spongy. The whole idea of cushioning is a bad idea. According to “Born to Run” the author cites a biomechanical study. Whether or not you put cushions in a shoe, the ankle and the knee are still subject to the same amount of force. Your foot is very nerve dense, the same type and density of nerves as you have in your genitalia. The purpose of all that is to place the foot properly, depending on the surface. The cushioning causes the feet to send the wrong data to your brain. On top of landing wrong, because of badly designed footwear, you also underestimate the impact for your ankles and knees. The author describes a study where there were fewer injuries in older shoes than in new shoes. Once the cushioning degraded, the feet were less impeded in their sensory abilities.
Yes. So, why would we want to correct this with shoes and orthotics that offered more cushioning, less variety, less flexing? Wouldn’t we want to go in the other direction and rehab the foot by strengthening it?
It doesn’t solve the problem. It makes it worse. The feet are damaged due too much cushioning and inflexibility. Cushioning them and immobilizing them further may yield temporary relief, until the additional measures cause the feet to get weaker. Then the problem is bigger.
The author quotes a podiatric journal with a noted podiatrist saying “The human foot was not designed for running.” That doesn’t inspire confidence. Further, podiatrists study foot problems, deformities, injuries and such.
Of more interest would be extraordinarily strong and healthy feet that are used hard. Those would be the ones we should be trying to emulate. Ultrarunners with healthy feet, who push them to extremes would seem to have a lot to teach us about what it means to have healthy feet. The evidence suggests minimialist, or no shoes.
Excellent, and while we disagree, I value your input.
If cushioning is part of the problem, than that part begins to go away as the shoes lose their resilience. I am lending my book out now, but I should have it back this weekend. I will find and cite the study by name that suggests old, unchushioned shoes are better.
Then, don’t cushion it, rehab it. It’s taken me a long time to build up foot strength and I still won’t go more than 10 miles barefoot. It’s a slow rehab, but it’s worth it for pain free feet.
Yes. Clearly there is a right way and a wrong to do it. The wrong way is a quick fix that perpetuates the problem and makes it worse. The right way fixes and makes it better. The right way takes longer, at first, but is ultimately more efficient as it solves the problem.
This would not apply to those folks. Someone who has a club foot, or stepped into a lawn mower has a different set of problems than I am addressing.
Probably, it is impractical. Fortunately they don’t have to. Probably very minimalist uncushioned shoes that allow for a natural gait, and foot flexing would help to strenghen the foot. If the problem is feet weakened by atrophy, the solution is not to further confine and weaken them, but to strengthen them.
Fucking A!
Well, yes and no. Walk, or run barefoot across sharp pebbles, or in the woods where sticks and rocks stick up. There is only one way to do it without hopping around and grabbing your foot and going “OW! OW! OW!” the first time your heel hits a sharp object. Walking or running you place your foot outside of the midsole, roll ltowards the inside, and then roll down to the heel. Not much weight goes on the heel. It is a big ball. That big ball has a purpose. It increases the moment arm between the ball of the foot, the calf and achilles tendon across the ankle joint. It’s evolved to absorb impact by flexing downwards, not by contact with the ground. Jump up and down on the balls of your feet a few times to see what I mean. The heel moves towards the ground, absorbing impact without touching the ground. It protects the ankles and knees from the impact. Now jump up and down a few times on your heels. Feel that? The full impact is transmitted directly to your ankles and knees.
You have this whole wonderful mechanism evolved for absorbing impact while protecting the knees and ankles, but we wear shoes that completely bypass it and transmit the shock to our ankles and knees, damaging them. After we damage them so that our feet hurt from atrophy, we buy orthotics and more cushioned shoes so that we can continue damaging our feet and joints, making it worse. Why?
But I am a guy that puts a lot of miles on his feet. I have a lot of practical experience.
Thank you. I will say that the one really interesting thing about the Vibram five fingers is that they really demonstrated to me how much the toes are involved in walking and running. It takes a while of wearing them before it starts to happen, but you find that the natural gait has you landing splay footed, midfoot. As your weight comes over your feet the toes clench slightly, gripping the ground and pulling you forward. They come into play as you launch off the foot. They propel you forward.
That’s why it’s been taking me so long to build up miles barefoot. The calves and the toes get fatigued, because they are coming into play a lot more than they were. Overdo it, and it hurts like hell, so I’ve been building up slowly.
I agree that that’s a hokey, and bullshit idea. I don’t mean to imply it. However, some of the things that we think we know are wrong, and sometimes we make things worse by trying to make them better. Usually it means we are focussing on the wrong issue.
I would have thought that airplanes were safer too. That cite seems to suggest that mechanical failures as a percentage of all accidents took a dramatic climb in the last decade. A move from 22%-28% is dramatic and significant, a near 30% increase.
And, you are missing my point. Trying to make airplanes safer is a good thing. Surely you will concede that at times we have added safety equipment to that has in fact made airplanes less safe?
The book I linked to cites several examples. A notable one, not airplanes, is that Chernobyl resulted in large part from the attempt to add a safety system to the reactor in response to the 3 mile island disaster. He gives many examples. Typically. right after a major disaster gets everybody’s attention in say, an airplane, everybody is focussed on the problem that caused that problem. They make heroic efforts and changes to solve that problem. Those efforts and changes interract with everything else, not always well. It’s a closing the barn door after the horse escapes approach, and not the best way to increase overrall safety. One of the main points is that accidents always happen. When you are working with extraordinarily large forces, like a thin aluminum tube filled with jet fuel hurtling over the landscape at 500 miles an hour, the results of an accident can and will release those forces. As long as we are hurtling thin aluminum tubes filled with jet fuel at 500 miles an hour we face that inherent risk and there is nothing we can do to eliminate it, only minimize it. In that sense, an airplane crash is a “normal accident” inherent in the forces being used. Eliminating versus minimizing is an important distinction. Attempts to eliminate are prone to backfire, since they can’t succeed.
A great example is Mount Hood. It’s apparently not an awfully difficult or seemingly dangerous mountain to climb from a technical standpoint. Yet, they have terrible disasters on it from time to time. One recurring disaster directly results from an attempt to eliminate risk. Climbers often rope themselves together. Let’s say for purposes of example that they use 10 feet of rope between climbers and there is usually two feet of slack. The idea is that if a climber falls he slides two feet before he pulls on the climber above him. That climber can probably absorb that much momentum and stop the fall. If not, he may absorb some of it while giving the climber above him time to brace and take the rest of it. In this way, roping everybody together increases the net safety of the group, right?
Wrong.
If the top climber falls, he slides 18 feet picking up momentum before the climber below him takes has the chance to retard the fall. With that much momentum and speed built up there is virtually no chance of being able to stop the fall. Virtually no chance. If that climber fails to stop the fall, he adds him momentum to the fall. Now we have 36 feet of momentum for the first climber and 18 feet for the second climber hitting the third climber all at once. He has no chance. The entire group is going to fall.
This safety system does not good. Unroped, each person falling results in one person falling. Roped, four out five falls are prevented but the fifth takes out all five people. The net gain is zero.
Actually, the net gain is negative. Several groups climb Mount Hood simultaneously. One falling climber represents a danger to the climbers below him. Five people, roped together sliding down the mountain in a broad mass takes out everybody else on the mountain.
This is a real life example where a safety system (roping together in a line) increases risk. You’ve added more force and complexity to the system than you have with unroped climbers.
Fortunately this example presents potential solutions to increase the safety:
The risk is inherent in climbing the mountain. Roping together increases the kinetic energy of a potential fall. Don’t rope together.
The person in front needs a shorter rope, or better yet, you need two people abreast in from roped to the third, to decrease the kinetic energy in a falling leader.
Instead of putting the most capable climber first, he should be second, in order to maximize the slight chance of arresting a fall from the lead climber.
The lead climber’s rope should be shortened to an arrestable distance by the second climber.
The lead climber should be able to quick release should he fall to avoid dooming the group.
Some of those are mutually exclusive, but you get the point. Apparently they know this on Mount Hood. But, the disaster still happens just as I’ve described it because roping together in a line feels right. People still do it most of the time.
Not all safety mechanisms are like this, but some are. They are nothing more than psychological decorations.
The issue is that people seek safety solutions that make them feel good. People rope together on Mount Hood because it increases the apparent safety.
The airplane coffemaker is another example. It’s a special FAA approved coffeemaker. The element does not reach the combustion point, so it “can’t” start a fire. It is sealed to avoid tampering by a hijacker, suicide, or curious idiot.
Unfortunately, coffee spills, and metal degrades, and the sealed unit can leak over time. Because it is sealed it is not serviceable and the damage is not apparent. Than it electrocutes people and starts fires in airplanes. I forget the exact numbers but it caused several while in place, and several more while the FAA was aware of the problem. It stayed in place because it took a long long time to design and get FAA approval for the replacement. The weird thing was, virtually any coffemaker bought at Walmart would have been safer. The technology had improved in coffeemakers. Almost any other coffee maker on the market would have been safer. But, airlines were forced to use the long out of date, dangerous coffeemaker because these others were not approved. The manufacturers did not care to seek approval from the FAA because airlines are a small market for coffeemakers, relatively speaking. So, the entire safety system of sealed heating elements and long approvals virtually guarranteed that dangerous and outdated coffeemakers would be on airplanes and safe modern ones wouldn’t be.
There are lots of examples like this.
I agree. Yet people don’t eat well and exercise, and bad coffee makers cause air disasters. The Doctors supporting and the engineers worrying doesn’t change this. It just makes them feel good. It increases the apparent safety.
Dismissing something because you’ve heard stuff like it before and that was a crock is a mark of crotchedyness, not of a flexible and inquiring mind.
Well yes, if you approach it as a fad, and insist on going barefoot at construction sites and barnyards and doing other foolish things. On the other side of the coin, if you say, hmmm strengthening the foot might be a good idea, and select minimalist shoes with less padding where appropriate, and if you’re feeling funky maybe buying some fivefinger shoes to exercise in, you’re probably being intelligent.
Maybe, but I’m not really talking about feet, or Indians, or airplanes. I’m talking about a mindset.
In the search to increase security, safety, and wellbeing, be it in healthcare, airplanes, or what have you we often seek and select solutions that give us a quick apparent gain rather than an actual gain.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in our ideas towards health and healthcare. This kind of thinking has gotten us a prohibitively expensive healthcare system. We have designed incredibly heroic and expensive measures to solve medical problems. Since no one here gets out alive, some of these aren’t actually solvable.
The feel good apparent solution to this problem is to provide healthcare insurance to everybody, so that everybody is covered for an infinite amount of incredibly expensive healthcare.
As stated, this is clearly a bad solution to the problem. Technology increases. More and more heroic measures are possible. Costs and bureacracy in healthcare increase. Scarcity becomes an issue. You can’t provide an infinite amount of anything to everybody.
But, it would feel good, and be an apparent improvement to say everybody is covered. It would feel like an accomplishment. I think it’s like Mount Hood. It would actually lower the level of protection rather than increasing it.
So, rationally, what is to be done to provide the best health and best healthcare in the most inclusive way?
I think about Veterinary care. Our pets generally get pretty good care at a reasonable price. “yeah, but we put them to sleep when they get too old and sick. You can’t put people to sleep.”
I agree. But, we put our pets to sleep when the situation becomes hopeless and quality life has been compromised usually as a humane gesture. We decide for our pets because they don’t have the capacity to decide for themselves. Humans have the capacity to decide for themselves.
Putting this together, I think good healthcare reform looks like this:
) legislate personal responsibility? When I came right out and told you that’s not what I meant, why did you decide that the most non-sensical interpretation conceivable is what I meant? Seriously, why? You can’t possibly think I meant what you’re trying to say I meant, so what’s your angle here?