Running shoes considered harmful?

[Hurkyl]

Try it, take off your shoes and run, you'll find that heel-striking really hurts.

So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the following claims:

• Our instincts are to run toe-to-heel
• Running toe-to-heel is better when wearing shoes

and it counts as evidence against

• Running without shoes is better than running with shoes

 

[minger]

So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the following claims:

• Our instincts are to run toe-to-heel
• Running toe-to-heel is better when wearing shoes

and it counts as evidence against

• Running without shoes is better than running with shoes

You're obviously not a golfer (ok, end Big Lebowski unnecessary quote).

You would say that 100 years of running in shoes has "overwritten" thousands of years of running barefoot? You can't argue the fact that as athletes perform at higher levels, the shoes become less of a crutch. Track spikes are minimalistic at best. Sure many people use highly cushioned shoes for distance, but the highest performing ones use very small lightweight shoes...and do not heel strike. That is fact and not opinion.

Running toe-to-heel is not contradictory to wearing shoes; they are completely separate issues. One can toe-heel run in shoes, and likewise one can heel strike barefoot. The fact is that barefoot lends itself towards midsole/toe striking.

I merely said that for me, midsole striking has cured many problems I've had running. I let logic deduce the rest.

 

[Newai]

I'd like to know where these people are running barefoot. I tried that for a while years ago and a few times landed a foot on debris (glass, sharp rock...). Which is why I wear running shoes. I also get better traction.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'd like to know where these people are running barefoot. I tried that for a while years ago and a few times landed a foot on debris (glass, sharp rock...). Which is why I wear running shoes. I also get better traction.

ethiopia. east africans are dominating the long-distance events, and they often train barefoot.

what most of the discussion here fails to account for is that we westerners do not have an instinctual gait. our gait is shaped by footwear, most of it heeled, btw. the only way to talk about what is natural gait for humans is to go analyze how people run that have never worn shoes.

 

[Hurkyl]

the only way to talk about what is natural gait for humans is to go analyze how people run that have never worn shoes.

Adapting to padded heels is just as "unnatural" as adapting to sharp rocks. It's obvious how you plan on getting rid of the first effect -- how do you plan on getting rid of the second one? After all, I suspect you'll reject the obvious way...

(Also, if we were really serious, we would need to find some way to deal with the possibility that people would learn a certain gait by watching others)

(Why do we care what's "natural"? )

 

[zomgwtf]

Adapting to padded heels is just as "unnatural" as adapting to sharp rocks. It's obvious how you plan on getting rid of the first effect -- how do you plan on getting rid of the second one? After all, I suspect you'll reject the obvious way...

(Also, if we were really serious, we would need to find some way to deal with the possibility that people would learn a certain gait by watching others)

(Why do we care what's "natural"? )

The problem is that if you didn't wear shoes you wouldn't be 'adapting' to anything. You would run with your forefoot hitting first. That is how we have evolved over all these years.

Your arguements are starting to get rediculous now it appears you're trying to claim that what occurs naturally without technological interference is really unnatural because there's the possibility that we would have to learn this behaviour? Then what DOES it mean for something to be 'natural' for humans? As well it really has nothing to do with sharp rocks. If you just want to be difficult and continue to believe that because you've grown up with shoes and walk/run a certain way then by all means believe that. When you see humans who are removed from these types of 'privleges' and you notice that they run differently than yourself maybe you'll think why? Maybe you'll also think why they can run for hours whereas you can only run for minutes? Maybe you'll do some research into the topic instead of running around with a biased opinion?

As well we care what's the natural running gait because it was brought up that a humans normal gait is heal impacting first. That's right but not what occurs in a running or sprinting gait. It relates to the OP because they are discussing how because of shoes we have the tendency to lose our natural running gait towards a more 'heal impact' gait which will result in higher potential for injury and is very inefficient. Regardless of if you are wearing shoes or not.

 

[junglebeast]

It's been known for a long time that expensive running shoes which provide a lot of ankle support increase the risk of injury because they prevent you from developing strong ankle muscles.

The lack of a sole also strengthens the muscles on the bottom of your foot, which is a good reason to run barefoot on the beach.

However if you're running around in rocky or urban terrain, it's still a good idea to wear some kind of shoe...simply to protect yourself from small rocks and things. I think this is pretty obvious. The point is that you don't need to go out and buy those expensive shoes with all kinds of "supportive technology" built into them...nor do you need to replace your shoes every few months as the shoe companies would like to suggest.

Another thing to keep in mind is that it's very unnatural to walk and run on pavement all the time. If you choose to run on pavement, don't be surprised when you develop knee and hip problems later in life. It's better to run on dirt trails or off to the side of the road because the Earth will provide a little bit of natural cushioning.

Also check out
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060199210/?tag=pfamazon01-20