Running shoes are a failed experiment

very true. if the modern running shoe is an experiment, then it failed miserably. too bad the running companies don't see it as an experiment and don't realize it has failed, which is why despite all the mounting scientific evidence against thick-soled shoes running stores are still filled with these modern trainers.

I spent a lot of money on mu injury but I did not get better

Very interesting links about persistance hunting, how humans developed to sweat vs panting, basically hairless to get rid of heat easily, and running on two legs which is better for running long distances.

I think with some practice that most distance runners could run down a deer or gazelle, not that I have any interest in doing so, but it shows what can be accomplished.

A few years ago I would run with my lab/ridgeback mix a few times a week. As he would have a hard time keeping up with me over distance, these were kept to short runs. Before he was better trained, he would tug at the leash the first mile, run beside me the second, then the third and fourth I would tug him along (to get some of my own back). ;) One day I let him go full blast the first mile, which he covered in about 6 minutes flat, then 7 minutes the second, 9 minutes the third, 11 minutes the 4th and he was done. I realize some dogs can probably handle that easily, but I would bet that most distance runners could run down the great majority of dogs over 3 or 4 hours.

It is an interesting subject, and shows more of our capabilities than otherwise we might realize that we have.

As an added note, my dog had thick hair and had a much harder time in the sun and the heat. Once he was done, he was done, plopped down in the shade and wouldn't move for a couple of hours. The hunters in Africa often run down their prey in the heat of the day, when the temps are over 100 degrees F.

Here is a slightly more in-depth article on the same subject

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html

Really? You're supposed to run on the balls of your feet as physiologically you were meant to do? Putting your point of impact under your hips instead of in front of you? Do tell. Running shoes aren't the problem it's a lack of knowledge in the buyer base. I've always run on the balls of my feet and wear light running shoes to protect the bottoms of the balls of my feet from rocks and hot pavement. Running shoes aren't a failed experiment. The majority of runners don't know how to use them right and as a result the big heeled, heavy support shoes have gained widespread support. If the buyer base responded to more mid and forefoot cushioning then maybe new runners could begin running the correct way from the start and not have the same problems their idiotic forebearers did. Running correctly however has nothing to do with the shoes. You can run in the brooks beast for all it matters and still have a beautiful forefoot strike. If you run right the shoes do their job every time.

the best part of the article was the comment section:

"Years ago I use to run @ the YMCA in Quincy. I also played tennis. However, I am firmly convinced that running is bad for the human body in so many ways. When you consider that each time you come down hard on your feet you are sending a blow to all the joints & muscles that are attached. Also, my podiatrist recommends the use of New Balance sneakers, the running model. He also says that I wear mine too long, & that is not good for ones feet."

I am firmly convinced that the commenter is an idiot fatass.

I was up in Boston Sunday and read this. The problem with this and many other articles on the subject, is that they are still relying more on theory than hard science. There are so many variables at work here it is ridiculous.

For example, the author cites 1972 as a pivotal year in the evolution of the evil running shoe. Well, before 1972 - in the decades before - very few average Joes ran for fitness and almost none of them competed in marathons. People who did compete into their 20s were generally superior athletes/runners with excellent biomechanics. Once the running boom took off, millions of people with naturally mediocre or poor biomechanics started running regularly. You could make the case that the injury rate went up because many more people with more injury-prone biomechanics started running.

I think the 'Show Guy' in Running Times just made the opposite argument. He claims that without the modern running shoe millions of Americans would not have been able to participate in the sport. To try and project the success at distance running of a single, remote, rather genetically insulated tribe in Mexico or Africa onto the vast and varied American population is questionable, in my opinion.

luddites

I disagree. I can't run in a shoe with a large heel like brooks beast the same way I run in something like a NB 826. For me this is because the heel inhibits my ankle and foot from landing on the the ground at the right angle. I wish I could draw you a picture but basically, my lower leg and foot can't be at full flexion if I'm in a shoe with a large heel-to-toe differential because when the foot contacts my foot will be slightly sloped forward, which keeps my foot and ankle from fully flexing.

It's the same reason people can't run in heels. That's a much more exaggerated problem since my shoes don't have 2 inch heels but after an hour of running a 11mm difference adds up.

quote]Roflcopter wrote:

Really? You're supposed to run on the balls of your feet as physiologically you were meant to do? Putting your point of impact under your hips instead of in front of you? Do tell. Running shoes aren't the problem it's a lack of knowledge in the buyer base. I've always run on the balls of my feet and wear light running shoes to protect the bottoms of the balls of my feet from rocks and hot pavement. Running shoes aren't a failed experiment. The majority of runners don't know how to use them right and as a result the big heeled, heavy support shoes have gained widespread support. If the buyer base responded to more mid and forefoot cushioning then maybe new runners could begin running the correct way from the start and not have the same problems their idiotic forebearers did. Running correctly however has nothing to do with the shoes. You can run in the brooks beast for all it matters and still have a beautiful forefoot strike. If you run right the shoes do their job every time.[/quote]

The Brooks Beast are extremely clunky. There is no way a small framed, toe runner could run in those without creating havoc in their plantar fascia and achilles tendons. They are way too stiff and inflexible for anyone who runs on their toes. I train in lightweight racing flats, and bought a pair of Shox to walk around during the day. Within a couple of days, my achilles was already killing me. Flexibility is a huge issue for a lot of runners. I'd love to see you do a month long Brooks Beast experiment and tell me how it works out for you. Heck, if the shoe doesn't matter, try running in some Doc Martens or combat boots.

I've run a marathon in Adizero PR's (4oz) and I run to work in my Doc Martens (17oz). I'm a toe runner. Thanks for the warning, but I'm fine, thanks. You're partially right, though - the heavy shoe needs to be broken in - if not it can wreak havoc, which is probably why your new Shox killed your achilles.

I think the point is that the running shoes of today allow you to NOT run right, to develop bad habits, particularly when you run in them from a young age. No shoes (or minimal ones) FORCE you to run right.

I still don't buy it. Everything on a shoe has plays a role on how it will affect your biomechanics. A shoe that is very light, low to the ground and flexible will mimic barefoot running. Shoes that are clunky, do not. The only evidence you need is to get a clunky-shoed runner to run around the grass for several miles, or even race on the track in some spikes. Their lower legs become very sore the next day because they are working muscles they typically don't work. If they in ligther shoes all the time, their muscles, tendons and ligaments will adapt to the added stress, similar to the principle of working muscles in the weightroom. If you take a minmalist and throw them in some clunky shoes for six months, some muscles that constantly would get worked in minimal shoes will atrophy, which will play an effect on that individual. That right there shows shoes greatly affect you.

The problem with your post is the running shoes are interfering with how we or our feet/brain are hardwired over the last billion years. Not that we have to learn how to use the shoes that are made by a fashion designer.