Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do We Need Running Shoes To Run?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the kenyans-have-it-right dept.

Transportation 776

prostoalex writes to tell us The Daily Mail has an interesting look at current research in the field of running and injuries related to running. Most of the evidence pointed at a lack of any need for running shoes. Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury; some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot; Stanford running team, having access to the top-notch modern shoes sent in for free by manufacturers, after a few rounds of trial and error still chose to train with no shoes at all."

cancel ×

776 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Expensive running shoes = fashion wear (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658025)

Who's surprised?

Re:Expensive running shoes = fashion wear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658045)

All the wannabes at the Olympics. ;)

Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Funny)

Davemania (580154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658035)

Evolution didn't have Nike in mind.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Funny)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658095)

some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot;

Now see, this proves there must be a Designer! ;-)

/me runs and hides!

you just think you're joking. (0, Offtopic)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658403)

:-/

The thing that bugs me about the arguments about intelligent design is all the pot-shots taken at bad religious arguments that the design must be comprehensible to (mortal) humans.

The argument for intelligent design was originally just an example of one way to argue against a bad argument against the existence of God. Bad argument is bad argument. Disproving bad argument against a hypothesis does not prove the hypothesis.

God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize. If God designs things, it would be expected that the design would appear natural.

Re:you just think you're joking. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658451)

God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize.

How do you know He can't be sloppy?

Re:you just think you're joking. (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658535)

God, if he exists, must do so in a state of perfection that would be well beyond anything that we can easily recognize.

How do you know He can't be sloppy?

That is actually a very good point. Omnipotence must include the ability to be sloppy. It also proves that men are closer to God than women...

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658499)

some of the planet's best and most intense runners run barefoot;

Now see, this proves there must be a Designer! ;-)

Show me the designer label and I'll believe you

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658111)

Or concrete.

Just sayin'.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (2, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658349)

Or concrete.

Yeah, the ground in the savannah is much softer, and doesn't even have any small rocks and stuff like that.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658371)

You've never walked barefoot on concrete?
Feels good man, especially on hot days.

In fact, walking on chipped stones is also good on the feet. (yes, even the "sharp" ones, just like walking on a bed of nails)

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (1)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658425)

even on concrete, if you haven't been spoiled by shoes.

(I say, but I tend to wear shoes these days.)

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658513)

It's a good point. Running barefoot on grass or bare soil isn't a problem. Running barefoot on tarmac or gravel can be rather painful.

I still wonder how the occasional barefoot track runner deals with the gravel. I guess they grow leathery hobbit-feet or something.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658159)

So all that watching videos, measuring my arch with the "water and paper bag" method to find out if I am a "normal pronator" http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-240-319-327-7727-0,00.html [runnersworld.com] , etc. all means exactly bupkis? Wonderful! I still think I want a shoe to run in though, but maybe I'll just go pick something comfortable and not too expensive instead of worrying about which one has the right "control" of pronation, which one has the right support, etc.

comfort is the best indicator (2, Insightful)

reiisi (1211052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658459)

If you can walk and run comfortably in your shoes, and if your knees and back don't start to feel funny, the shoes are probably pretty good for your feet and style of walking and running.

You may want different shoes (or even slippers or thongs) for when you're sitting at your desk.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Informative)

hasmael (993654) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658161)

It would seem that way These Toes Were Made for Running [wired.com]

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658389)

The importance of running to early Homo is, of course, conjectural. But it does make sense: few other animals are capable of long-distance running, and none can do so under a blazing sun. (Wolves and hyenas, for example, require cold weather or nightfall for long-distance hunting; otherwise they overheat.) Endurance running might have set early humans apart from the pack.

According to study co-author and Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman, many modern anatomical features make sense in the context of savannah marathons. Achilles tendons act as springs to store energy. Our hind limbs have extra-large joints. Our buttocks muscles are perfect for stabilization, as are regions of the brain uniquely sensitive to the physical pitching generated by the motion of running.

Informative indeed.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658167)

Evolution also didn't have any use for post-reproductive individuals, so if you wore out your knee joints by the time you were 40 then there's still nothing stopping evolution selecting for you (unless your children were still too young to defend themselves and were killed off by predators).

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658253)

(unless your children were still too young to defend themselves and were killed off by predators).

Just thought of a new slogan for Nike, "Only Nike shoes can help you defend your children from wolves. You don't want your kids to be eaten by wolves, do you?"

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (4, Insightful)

Kryptikmo (1256514) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658317)

Well, evolution can skew towards all sorts of benefits in long life. This can happen quite easily if having grand parents who help look after the family mean that the youngest survive to reproduce.

To say that evolution is all about reproduction is nonsense. It's also about raising offspring to survive better than the environment and other predators can kill them off.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658429)

You're also meant to reproduce by the age you're 14 or 16. Aside from legal considerations, today you'll probably get to be on a talk show if you do.

Evolution stopped being important when civilisation set in. Or rather, it changed. It's no longer "natural" selection, we found our own selection criteria and moved on with it. Earlier the female chose her mate by his fitness. Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (5, Insightful)

zaxus (105404) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658525)

Earlier the female chose her mate by his fitness. Today, she chooses him by the size of his wallet. Evolution 2.0, if you will.

I would argue that she's still choosing her mate by fitness. A "large wallet" is indicative of societal fitness. In civilization, physical fitness has decreased in reproductive importance as it no longer has a significant bearing on our ability to survive and protect the family. The size of the wallet, however, is a very good indication of how well a mate can provide for the family.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (1)

lwriemen (763666) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658199)

Evolution probably didn't have any kind of tool use in mind, yet our brains continued to evolve.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (4, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658263)

Evolution doesn't have a mind at all.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (0, Flamebait)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658313)

Not yet, but she is working on it.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658329)

It was too busy working on wisdom teeth, the apendix, tonsils, anxiety disorders, inherited diseases and a reward system that encourages substance abuse eh?

Just because running shoes may not beneficial, don't for a second think can't build devices and techniques to mitigate biological shortcomings evolution has left in place.

Re:Of course we don't need running shoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658407)

Aeroplanes spring to mind

Appendix isn't useless... (2, Interesting)

FishAdmin (1288708) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658475)

I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but they've found that the appendix actually DOES have pretty good use: Here [seoblackhat.com] is a tech-minded summary, and here [sciencedirect.com] is the full article.

Re:Appendix isn't useless... (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658487)

Interesting read.

My idea is that it's quite prone to breaking, but that we can improve our lot as provided by our evolution through surgical intervention to prevent it killing people

Hmm, no... (3, Insightful)

rastilin (752802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658041)

Back in High School I remember seeing a girl nearly lose a toe to a sharp rock, it cut so deep it went right to the bone. Blood everywhere, shouting, etc.. As long as there are pointy things on the ground, I can risk a broken ankle. Yes, the whole "personal story proves nothing", but what should we learn from if not experience.

Re:Hmm, no... (4, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658077)

all that means is that people who walk barefoot should look where they are going a little more than others, ive herd plenty of stories about people standing on a nail and having it go through their sneakers/trainers/whatever and out the other side of their foot, does that mean i should wear iron clad boots?

Re:Hmm, no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658147)

OP makes a fairly decent point. You, on the other hand, are just making a silly slippery slope argument.

Re:Hmm, no... (1, Offtopic)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658319)

Please don't post pretending to be someone else, it makes you look stupid. Both you and the GP make perfectly good points.

Re:Hmm, no... (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658383)

Depends, are you a construction worker?

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658101)

Yes, and as a kid I once stepped on a rusty nail. Went right through the schoes sole... Wasn't pretty either...

Re:Hmm, no... (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658133)

I love running barefoot. If you keep an eye on where you're going, you won't step on anything you shouldn't. And once you get calluses built up you can take a bit more than 'normal'.

The longest I've ever run (10 miles, 8 miles, 7 miles) were all bare foot. If you stay on the balls of your feet and don't heel strike it feels like you're gliding. Funny that this is just now being researched heavily. I did my own anecdotal research and it made sense 4 years ago.

http://runningbarefoot.org/ [runningbarefoot.org]

Re:Hmm, no... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658213)

Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in your calf muscles. Running on your heels means it's being absorbed in the cartilage of your knees, which can very quickly wear out. Most running shoes I've tried have been weighted such that it's easier to put your foot down on your heel than on the front of your feet, which is likely to cause long-term injury (the cartilage damage is cumulative). They attempt to avoid this by having a lot of padding under the heel, which ends up making the heel heavier and making it even harder to put your weight on the front...

That's not to say running shoes are intrinsically bad. If I were to design some, they would be flexible underneath, to make it easy to run on the balls of your foot. They would probably be weighted slightly forward, so that your toes would be pulled down, and would probably have a thinner sole at the back than the front. In short, they would be almost the opposite of most running shoes I've seen. If anyone wants to make shoes like this, please send me a pair...

Re:Hmm, no... (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658297)

Good running shoes that are appropriately balanced, provide plenty of space so you don't sweat, etc are pretty expensive. However, I don't have the callouses nor do I intend to develop them. So I run with Mizunos (130$) and the difference between those and el cheapo running shoes is night and day. All my foot pains from exercising went away almost immediately once I swapped to em. I would suggest you check them out, their better line would fit exactly what you want.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658331)

Jimmy's got just the thing [google.com]

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658345)

They have shoes like that, they are specifically for track/running. (google track shoes) They don't have much of a heal at all. The sole of the shoe is actually designed to run on your toes. Most of them have spikes though. I think most of the shoes you see marketed as "running shoes" are really just cross trainers and not specifically tailored to running.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658375)

Most running shoes I've tried have been weighted such that it's easier to put your foot down on your heel than on the front of your feet, which is likely to cause long-term injury.

I thought the intention was to land on your heel and absorb the impact in the roll towards your toes. That is to say that your heel is the first thing to touch the ground, but it does not take anything like your full weight.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658485)

I've always heard (from track and CC friends and classmates) that running on the balls of your feet is bad form (I'd always assumed injury inducing) --is that just a common misconception or what?

Re:Hmm, no... (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658519)

Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in your calf muscles. Running on your heels means it's being absorbed in the cartilage of your knees, which can very quickly wear out.

Not exactly. Running on the balls of your foot means that the shock is being absorbed in all your leg and back muscles. While runnin on your heels removes the calf muscles from the equation, and creates shock waves in your bones. Not very healthy.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658351)

I love running barefoot. If you keep an eye on where you're going, you won't step on anything you shouldn't. And once you get calluses built up you can take a bit more than 'normal'.

Can I assume you're talking about running on pavement? Maybe some mown grass? A sandy beach? A running track!

I can imagine all of these being OK -- I spent a couple of weeks in my youth nurturing the affectation of wandering around the city centre barefoot, and it was fine -- but I can think of plenty of running routes I wouldn't fancy barefoot. Canal towpaths, gravel, rocky beaches, mountain paths etc.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658179)

I agree. I always run in calf-high work boots. I could go tumbling down the side of a mountain and my feet would be A-OK! And they're waterproof.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

Kashgarinn (1036758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658355)

Why is this news? Shoes are like condoms, there for protection.. not efficiency. Experienced people who know the risks might do better without them, but that doesn't mean you won't have an accident which could have been prevented if you had had them on.

So be safe when you race, don't let it hurt when you spurt.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658455)

That's why we have eyes. And a brain connected to them. (At least most of us.)

Sure, you can hurt yourself if you do not pay attention. Run on the street without looking, and you can die. Does that stop you? ^^

Shoes, like gloves, are utilities, made to handle things that are beyond our design specifications. They were not intended for 24/7. And why would they? We humans are made for running. We don't need special stuff for that.
Did you know that humans were once the most enduring runners on the planet? Much of our hunting abilities came from being able to follow them until they drop dead or are unable to keep the distance. ^^

So that girl just made an error, by not looking where she walked. Perhaps she never learned to pay attention to the ground because she never had to.

But I always prefer some poke in my foot for 1-2 days, to being a hobbling cripple when I'm old. :)

Re:Hmm, no... (2, Informative)

zeldorf (1448633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658471)

I used to walk around barefoot a lot when I was younger, just around the house and garden. The skin on the bottom of my feet got so tough that I accidentally walked on broken glass a few times and it just felt like a stone. It didn't go anywhere near causing pain, let alone puncturing the skin.

I'd imagine if you regularly run barefoot then you'd have pretty tough skin after a while.

Re:Hmm, no... (1)

joshv (13017) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658497)

You can protect your feet without slapping an inch thick slab of foam rubber under them.

I run in thin soled canvas shoes and have never had an injury from stepping on something. In fact I've had fewer ankle turn injuries as I can actually feel the surface and react if I've stepped on something that might cause my foot to slip or roll.

Who would have thought? (3, Insightful)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658049)

Thousands of years of evolution is better than a pair of shoes... Crazy talk!

Re:Who would have thought? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658423)

thousands?

Re:Who would have thought? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658469)

Make that millions of years of evolution vs. millions of dollars spent on marketing.

I've run relatively fast in ropers (1, Redundant)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658057)

people have said you can't run in ropers (cowboy boots), I've done it, almost as fast as in sneakers. Not that I'm very fast in any case, but people I could keep up with in sneakers I could still keep up with in ropers.

(it's usually easier when they're not leather soled ropers, if they are your running surface makes all the difference)

Re:I've run relatively fast in ropers (3, Funny)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658079)

people have said you can't run in ropers (cowboy boots), I've done it, almost as fast as in sneakers.

Hey! It doesn't count if you're rolling. ;-)

Re:I've run relatively fast in ropers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658181)

Why was parent was modded flamebait? Are cowboy boots the new Microsoft or something?

Suspiciously well-written science article in DM? (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658059)

Then I noticed that it's an extract from a book and some attached material which almost certainly came from the publisher too, as part of the promo. Thereby bypassing the Daily Mail's staff entirely and "ensuring quality".

Re:Suspiciously well-written science article in DM (5, Informative)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658309)

I'm glad you pointed that out, I thought I was going mad. For those colonials out there, the Daily Mail doesn't have the best reputation for rational reporting. I'm suprised they didn't manage to blame running injuries on foriegners TBH.

Re:Suspiciously well-written science article in DM (1)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658421)

It seems to end in a sales pitch for the Nike Free as well.

Quite frankly that's okay. If they're trying to sell me something based on sound information, I'll read the pitch and consider it.

Indeed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658075)

All you need is love.

Football is the same (5, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658083)

'Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.'

And football supposedly had a much lower incidence of injuries before the introduction of "pads" (which quickly became an offensive weapon allowing harder hits)

Of course, this could just be "numbers". Many of the running injuries treated today are repeat injuries. Prior to the invention of the running shoe was also pretty much prior to modern sports medicine, meaning a single injury would have prevented you from running again. Today's numbers may be higher than historical numbers due to the vast number of people who continue running after recovering from surgery to correct their problems.

Re:Football is the same (5, Funny)

martinX (672498) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658209)

What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.

Re:Football is the same (5, Interesting)

midicase (902333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658247)

Today's numbers may be higher than historical numbers due to the vast number of people who continue running after recovering from surgery to correct their problems.

Sound like the "divorce" statistic that is often quoted: "50% of marriages end up in divorce". the truth is that there are just as many long term marriages as ever, but at one time divorcees did not remarry. Now it is common to remarry and (re)divorce, skewing the statistics.

Darn repeat offenders.

Re:Football is the same (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658343)

You're an idiot, do the most basic research before posting. Hypothesis: you did not graduate from a university with a degree in anything that could be considered scientific. True or False?

Re:Football is the same (3, Insightful)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658249)

I also have to wonder about the motivated couch potato effect. You know where someone who is fairly non athletic and all decides or is "motivated" by someone or something to get in shape. Goes out buys the most expensive trainers they can find(so they can run faster) and goes for a run. Pushes themselves to hard because "no pain no gain" and pulls a muscle or rolls an ankle.

Re:Football is the same (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658269)

Many of the running injuries treated today are repeat injuries. Prior to the invention of the running shoe was also pretty much prior to modern sports medicine, meaning a single injury would have prevented you from running again.

Entirely possible, but I from what I'm told, it's generally held to be true that in Ye Olden Days when basketball players wore canvas shoes, the kind of injuries common today simply didn't happen.

On a side note, I liked this summation:

So, if running shoes don't make you go faster and don't stop you from getting hurt, then what, exactly, are you paying for? What are the benefits of all those microchips, thrust enhancers, air cushions, torsion devices and roll bars?

The answer is obviously "Probably none, but the commercials have convinced us we can run faster, jump higher, and make obscene amounts of money if we wear them." What I find particularly ironic is that a mass-produced, machine-made item (consisting almost entirely of petroleum-based components) could actually rise to the status of being both desirable and fashionable.

Hey, look at me! I'm wearing cheap-assed polyester and rubber shoes!

Re:Football is the same (2, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658415)

And football supposedly had a much lower incidence of injuries before the introduction of "pads" (which quickly became an offensive weapon allowing harder hits)

Yep - adding the padding actually made the game more dangerous. Only the Americans could make a game that was both more pussified than rugby and had a higher injury rate. ;)

Well... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658107)

...the Greeks invented the Olympic games. Can prudish Americans allow people to do sports like Zeus intended them to?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658219)

Apparently they can't.

It would be cool... (5, Funny)

Choozy (1260872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658109)

... to see Olympic athletes run barefoot... better yet, bring back the original way of having the Olympics and have everyone go butt nekkid (of course we don't need to bring everything back of old where only men could compete).

Re:It would be cool... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658173)

Keep the Olympics as they are. I could go without shaved men rubbing olive oil on themselves and fucking each other up the ass as it went in Greece.

Re:It would be cool... (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658461)

Keep the Olympics as they are. I could go without shaved men rubbing olive oil on themselves and fucking each other up the ass as it went in Greece.

What has changed since then?

Re:It would be cool... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658491)

Some of the athletes did run barefooted, actually, until a few decades ago. It was quite common to see athletes from "poorer" nations to compete without any shoes and actually even outperform their footed competitors from time to time.

Correct technique is more important than shoes (5, Informative)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658169)

The correct running technique - which can vary from runner to runner - is much more important than the type of shoes. Some running shoe brands claim that their shoes encourage and help do the right technique, but it really boils down to doing it by yourself.

The only point I see in running shoes is an certain amount of cushoning, since we tend to run on concrete quite a lot, allthough our type of pavements have only been around in recent history.

It's safe to say that most of the running shoes available are mostly snakeoil.

My Knees and Hips Disagree (5, Interesting)

superid (46543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658177)

I'm 46 and I'm a casual runner. For years I had intermittent knee and hip pain during and after a 4-6 mile run. I finally broke down and spent more money ($90-$110) on good quality running shoes. The pain is gone. I can run 6 miles regularly with nothing but plain old muscle pain. I can tell when it is time to buy new shoes too. After a couple of hundred miles and the shoes lose their cushion, I can feel it when I run.

Re:My Knees and Hips Disagree (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658273)

So you had bad shoes, then bought good ones, and then the good ones went bad, and somehow that means that good shoes are better than being barefoot?

Check your data again. It doesn't lead to your conclusion.

Re:My Knees and Hips Disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658303)

I finally broke down and spent more money ($90-$110) on good quality running shoes. The pain is gone

As another forty-something guy interested in preserving his knees and hips for as long as is possible, what shoes are those? Make/model? There are just too many on the market and I wouldn't know where to begin. If it works for you, it should work for me too. Thanks!

Running injuries... (2, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658201)

I imagine most running injuries are caused by a lack of wisdom rather than a lack of proper equipment.

Re:Running injuries... (2, Funny)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658337)

I imagine most running injuries are caused by accidents, rather than lack of wisdom.

Re:Running injuries... (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658523)

I imagine most running injuries are caused by running in the first place.

Ask someone who runs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658217)

I run. I also suffer various osteo problems. If I didn't wear modern shoes on tarmac/concrete I'd be unable to get out of bed. Sand/Turf is OK

A/C due to employer health check watchers

hmm .... (5, Interesting)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658227)

I've run at least three miles a day. I've run one marathon and I am currently training for another. I've had multiple long runs that have exceeded twenty miles. At one point, I was running at least forty miles a week. I can tell you from my experience is that shoes make a huge difference. Once my shoe starts to go, I'll start to get intense pain in my hips and knees. Changes the shoe, and the pain goes away. It's a form issue in my case which the shoe helps to correct. I'm guessing those people who run barefoot have really good form. Take away my shoes and put me on a flat area without any rocks, I figure I might be able to run a few miles before I'm forced to stop because of knee or hip pain. I'll keep my shoes, thankyouverymuch.

No joke ... when a new runner starts to experience pain, the quickest remedy to buy new shoes.

Re:hmm .... (2, Insightful)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658365)

No offense, but that only seems to show that bad shoes are really, really bad for you. How do you know barefoot might not be better than even good, new shoes?

Re:hmm .... (1)

kRutOn (28796) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658405)

Once my shoe starts to go, I'll start to get intense pain in my hips and knees. Changes the shoe, and the pain goes away. It's a form issue in my case which the shoe helps to correct. I'm guessing those people who run barefoot have really good form.

I don't know how old you are, but it might be a matter of age for some people. My father-in-law, a 62 year-old former police officer, has been running every day since he joined the police academy and still runs several miles a day up and down the mountainous roads near his flat.

I mentioned Nike Free to him when those first came out and he laughed and said he would be in agony if he ran without the support that his shoes offer him. Maybe it would have worked when he was younger, but it definitely won't now. For now he says just stick with $10 running shoes from Michaels that he has to replace every month!

Re:hmm .... (2, Insightful)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658467)

It's a form issue in my case which the shoe helps to correct. I'm guessing those people who run barefoot have really good form. Take away my shoes and put me on a flat area without any rocks, I figure I might be able to run a few miles before I'm forced to stop because of knee or hip pain. I'll keep my shoes, thankyouverymuch. No joke ... when a new runner starts to experience pain, the quickest remedy to buy new shoes.

Oh, I certainly agree, but I think the article brings up an interesting thought that while it's not necessarily the quickest, running with good form barefoot is better and healthier than wearing most any shoes you can buy. If you move to landing on the ball of your foot, rather than the heel, and depend on your calf for shock absorption, you handle the shock very easily and naturally (I noticed this during my short stint as a cross-country runner, but didn't really make it a habit for some reason.) and also ostensibly strengthen the relevant muscles, reducing pain in the long run (no pun intended).

So, basically:
Shoes = easy, temporary fix.
Using good form barefoot = long-term fix which addresses the cause of the problem.

Re:hmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658477)

So lets apply the same logic to a broken leg. I find that when I had my broken leg I was able to walk better with crutches. Therefore everyone should always use crutches to walk regardless of the conditions of their legs.

I am sorry but you having a hip problem (or form problem) that is caused by bad shoes (or necessitates good shoes), far from disproves the fact that running barefoot is not only good for you, but doesn't cause hip problems to the many of us who do it.

(I run a modest 10km / day and used to have problems with my right knee before changing to barefoot running which took a few weeks to get used to)

Re:hmm .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658479)

i agree. i am not a big runner. but i was able to start again running after i had bought some new and better shoes.

this article makes me think of those anti-scientific stories like man never been on moon, micro-wave can hurt,

the fear of technology...

i am sure we can explain that those who run with expansive shoes are the one that run more and it's logical they hurt themselves more.

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658251)

...I'm flat-footed, you insensitive clod!

IMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658279)

Running barefoot on a clay/grass circuit feels good on my soles.

However, avoid asphalt or concrete. Can injure your joints big time.

- Ramanujam

The Daily Mail (4, Insightful)

Any Web Loco (555458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658289)

Why is this news? For a start, it's hardly "new" that running barefoot decreases injuries and is, as a rule, better for you than running with trainers on. Here's [sportsci.org] some research from 2001, for example. And getting your science news from the Daily Mail is pretty much the UK equivalent of getting your science news from US weekly. It's not known as the Daily Fail (or The Daily (hate) Mail) for nothing...

Re:The Daily Mail (1)

bencollier (1156337) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658531)

Indeed. To put this in further context, the Daily Mail ran an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in the 1930s.

Yeah, right (1)

emakinen (875208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658347)

Puh-leeze, try to run in Finland during the winter without shoes. And really, there's no glass, stones or shit nowhere on the ground.

Not to trot out the correlation-causation thing (5, Insightful)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658361)

From the summary:

Some of the more interesting points: the more expensive the running shoes, the greater the probability of getting an injury

Isn't it possible that the more you run, or the more you get into running, that it is more likely you are going to purchase the more expensive running shoes? So that would seem to correlate mileage and expensive shoes, and it is possible there is a relationship between increased mileage and increase injuries.

Re:Not to trot out the correlation-causation thing (1)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658387)

I wish I had mod points.

Sponsorship Needs a Product (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658381)

Barefoot running would be more accepted if there were international level athletes winning competitions barefoot. Of course it is harder to get to those comptetitions without the financial support of sportswear manufacturers, who might be, er, less than sypathetic to the idea of running without actually using their product.

Fivefingers? (1)

yamfry (1533879) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658417)

Vibram makes a "shoe" [vibramfivefingers.com] that looks like it's basically a rubber wrap for your feet. Has anybody had experience using these? They seem to be a good balance between a shoe (not getting cut up by rocks) and barefoot (no padding, flexible sole), but I don't know anybody who has actually used them.

Karhu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27658443)

Karhu designs their shoes in such a way that they're just a natural extension to your feet. They make the best running shoes on the planet. They were the first to use air cushions in shoes and they were the first to give them up. Adidas' 3 stripes was originally Karhu's logo. They traded it with Adi for a bottle of whiskey and a 1000 dollars or something like that.

http://karhu.com/

Seriously? (1)

Texodore (56174) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658453)

I'm 5'9" and 200. I also overpronate. And I like to run. Cushioning and stability are huge for me. Shoes help me do what I enjoy.

You realize the most popular running shoes, the Asics 2100 series, helps those that overpronate. That would imply there are a lot of people out there who need some adjustments to their running form and the shoes help with it. It sure helps me.

I can't even imagine the blisters I would get running barefoot. Back in the day the races weren't on asphalt or concrete.

(Before I get any flack, I'm built like a short linebacker. I am overweight, but only 20-25 pounds. I'm not one of those waif-ish runners.)

The right shoes (5, Informative)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658493)

Something TFA doesn't mention is that most people buy running shoes off the shelf based on silly considerations like colour, brand loyalty, whatever.

I was recommended a local sports shop where they look at your foot, watch you run on a treadmill, and ask you what kind of running you do (road, trail, track; distance; etc.). That leads to a shortlist of appropriate shoes, then you try those out on the treadmill, and eventually (in theory) leave with shoes that are right for you.

If you over-pronate, and you buy shoes designed for under-pronators, that's likely to lead to injury.

Probably... (1)

zoso (105166) | more than 5 years ago | (#27658509)

Probably the standard running shoes are not selling well so it's time for something new - new product, new selling, new para-scientific proofs.

Well telling that people that use more expensive shoes have more injuries comes rpobably from the fact that are running more km?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>