ditch the running shoes

if you run on your heel, then I'd think running shoes could make a different. but if you touch down on your midfoot, then I don't think it would make much of a difference.

The article states that those with more expencive running shoes have more injuries, but people who spend a lot of money on running shoes are probably more serious about their running than those who buy cheap ones..

it's interesting though, and I think a lot of people could benifit from running barefoot or with minimalistic footware.
 
when i started running in the 70s (boxing roadwork) running shoes hadn't been designed,i just used ordinary trainers for years without a problem,it was only when i started using specific running shoes that i started getting problems.
im not saying runn barefoot,but maybe thinner heal/soles would be better,some of the soles on the running shoes out now seem to big IMO,to much play in them.
 
"Strong evidence shows that thickly cushioned running shoes have done nothing to prevent injury in the 30-odd years since Nike founder Bill Bowerman invented them, researchers say. Some smaller, earlier studies suggest that running in shoes may increase the risk of ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis and other injuries. Runners who wear cheap running shoes have fewer injuries than those wearing expensive trainers."

I find this part hard to believe, especially the bolded section. Runners who wear cheap shoes also probably don't run nearly as often as those who wear expensive running shoes. Naturally, a marathoner is more prone to injury.

And on the point of the midfoot vs. heel landing point, the only upside they advocate is a shorter stride. A good runner knows that a shorter stride is necessary anyway, and will consciously do that. I'm not really buying this, but I would be very interested to hear from someone with experience using them and/or an avid runner.
 
Ride_On said:
"Strong evidence shows that thickly cushioned running shoes have done nothing to prevent injury in the 30-odd years since Nike founder Bill Bowerman invented them, researchers say. Some smaller, earlier studies suggest that running in shoes may increase the risk of ankle sprains, plantar fasciitis and other injuries. Runners who wear cheap running shoes have fewer injuries than those wearing expensive trainers."

I find this part hard to believe, especially the bolded section. Runners who wear cheap shoes also probably don't run nearly as often as those who wear expensive running shoes. Naturally, a marathoner is more prone to injury.

And on the point of the midfoot vs. heel landing point, the only upside they advocate is a shorter stride. A good runner knows that a shorter stride is necessary anyway, and will consciously do that. I'm not really buying this, but I would be very interested to hear from someone with experience using them and/or an avid runner.
Click to expand...

Solid observations. Of course, a marathoner is more prone to injury, since the marathoner is training/running more.
 
On of the PTs I work with wears Vibrums, but he really isn't a staunch supporter in distance running in them. For distance activities, he typically recommends something with a little more sole protection like the Nike Free line, unless you're just running on a treadmill.
 
I actually read an article a little while ago on this - theres a book out there as well by someone with a pretty good rep.
Personally, I think the way to go is with minimal support;
I've seen a lot of peoples running styles, and typically (By this I mean - what I've seen) when you strike with your heel, your leg is straight - Next time your out running, try and strike the ground with your heel and a slight bend in your leg!
Striking the ground with a fully straigtened leg cant be good for the knee joint - it means all the shock absorbtion of the strike is being done in joints, rather than striking with a slightly bent leg where the shock absorbtion can be done by the muscle.

Thats just how I read into it anyway; this is one of those issues I dont think we'll ever see resolved - but for me when I'm running I just wear thin soled shoes
 
Runners who prefer going barefoot are less likely to experience serious injury than their shod peers, according to new Harvard research. Researchers found that barefoot runners land on the balls or middle of their feet first, which causes virtually no impact collision. Runners wearing shoes hold their feet differently, and their heels tend to hit the ground first. “Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts, but actually you can run barefoot on the world’s hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain. All you need is a few calluses to avoid roughing up the skin of the foot,” said Daniel Lieberman, one of the researchers. He and his colleagues studied runners who always wore running shoes and runners without shoes. They found that the barefoot runners had a springier step and used their calf and foot muscles more efficiently. But don’t abandon your running shoes just yet. The transition has to be gradual in order to strengthen the calf and foot muscles. Evolution is in the barefoot runner’s favor though, since humans have been running long-distance for millions of years.

thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey wats up people I'm new to this thing but I got a good start. I'm tryin to lose weight my upper body is nice but I have gotta spare tire around my waist I'm tryin to loss 40-50 lbs before july. Can enumerated one help me?
 
I-70-i (s boxing has Ning forretninger) og uden et begyndte undervisere For løbesko Another problem, the design shall burn ikke arbejdet ice, I have a bridge between Han sekunder løbesko sensitive særlige begyndt problem started.
in, blend the IMO Office synlige Været spill på han ville ikke engang DM online and hard runnig barfodet tynd / base is BLIVE Nogle SKO Flers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top