Almost the first sentence in the article set a bad tone:
Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so
This sentence is meaningless. When does a dog do anything uncomfortable without coercion? It's not like a dog will voluntarily, say, go without food because it needs to lose weight. Similarly, humans don't spontaneously run marathons. There is a huge psychological build-up required, of which this article is a part. It's notable that most Kenyan marathon champions don't continue running once they retire. They get plenty of physical activity on the farm and don't have the Western obsession with endurance sports.
----
This article does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole barefoot running / endurance running movement that is taking over conventional sports shoes at the moment. The general premise is:
- humans evolved to run without shoes, so you should (or better, with expensive shoes with minimal heals)
- humans evolved to run long distances, so you should
I don't disagree with the statements, but I think it's oversimplified. I say this as someone who wears Vivo Barefoot shoes. In particular, persistence hunting (the form of hunting that relied on long distance running) was not widely used outside of some specific niches (really hot places, for instance) and a lot of humans have adapted away from endurance activities (which is obvious is look at a Kenyan marathon runner next to a Scandinavian strong-man competitor).
> When does a dog do anything uncomfortable without coercion?
I think it means a dog won't run a long distance for a positive reason, only for a negative one. I.e. it won't run far to get food, but it will to avoid pain.
But a human will run far to get food which no other animal will do.
That page doesn't exactly scream "reliable", and doing both a regular google search and a google scholar search of "Cursorial hunting" doesn't come up with a lot.
At best that term talks about animals that chase prey over distance rather than try for quick attacks, but that's not in the same category as endurance hunting which can last an entire day.
It's all endurance hunting; it's a question of how quickly the prey is exhausted, not how long the chase goes on. See the difference between spotted hyenas (endurance) and lions (ambush).
http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/content/animals/animals/mamm..., as well as plenty of other references.
Id say that running without shoes is only a good idea if you plan to die quite young, and therefore wont be needing your feet, ankles and knees in old age.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I've scanned the literature using what tools I have, and the impression I get is this: (sorry, I don't have all my references handy)
* Running (with shoes) is not a predictor of osteoarthritis (see http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/6/342.full). Elite athletes (running vastly more than typical recreational runners) do exhibit more signs visible in X-Rays, but do not report symptoms at a higher rate than any other group.
* Reliable predictors of acute injury are "too much, too soon", history of past injury, and, oddly, old shoes. (See http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm). Matching the type of shoe to type of gait (as running shoes stores often attempt to do) has never been shown to reduce injury rate.
* It is possible to run with shoes and without injury. (I did it for 10 years; my old coach for 30+).
* It is possible to run barefoot on concrete and asphalt without injury. (I've done it for 5 years; others have for longer).
Those last two anecdotes don't speak to long-term injury, but I'm not terribly worried for two reasons: The first is the lack of correlation between running in shoes and osteoarthritis. The second is that the foot-achilles-knee is a spring-like appendage with vastly more play than 1/2 inch of EVA foam. Anecdotally again, I feel no pounding when running barefoot on concrete.
Is it safer/healthier to run on grass than concrete? I like to run laps on a soccer field near my apartment rather than on city sidewalks so I don't have to deal with traffic. But I seem to be the exception in my neighborhood. I see tons of people running down the streets, but nobody running on grass. I assumed that a softer running surface would create less impact on my joints and prevent injury and reduce wear and tear on my body. But I could be wrong. Just curious.
Completely depends on how you run. The trend I see is that everyone thinks running on hard surfaces incurs more impact, but that isn't necessarily the case.
Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago.
Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass.
Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass.
"We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."
Probably depends on how you run. If you're a forefoot striker, running on asphalt is probably better than running on grass, because the vast majority of the impact will be absorbed by the calf/foot muscles. The danger from stepping in a hole or tripping over an object hidden in the grass probably outweighs the minimal increase in impact from running on concrete (not that either of these should actually be a significant danger).
On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.
They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.
Evolution is somewhat limited in what it can do. It must build upon things that are already there, over very long periods of time through subtle genetic mutations. Just because evolution didn't grace us with air cushioned soles and decent bridge and ankle support doesn't mean it's no good for us. Evolution had a lot less to play with and did the best it could. Humans made it better.
I do find it odd that some people like to look back at the way humans did stuff in the past and somehow arrive at the conclusion that it's better for us. They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had. We also lived in caves, but I don't see many people eager to do that these days.
And then there's stuff like the Palaeolithic diet which is absolute nonsense that ranks up there with Hal-Al and Kosher butchering.
That became a rant... I had no idea it bothered me so much.
With no evidence, you're taking it as a given that shoes are protective of joints. Shoes are protective of skin. That's what they were created for. They stop you from cutting your foot on sharp stones.
There is mounting evidence that typical running shoes are bad for joints, because they encourage heel striking. Evolution is indeed limited, but it did a pretty good job of producing a structure that absorbs the impact from running. Modern running shoes short-circuit that structure by making it possible to heel strike, putting that impact through the knees and ankles instead of letting muscle and connective tissue absorb it. The think heels of typical running shoes make heel striking almost a necessity, because it's so awkward to forefoot strike while wearing them.
They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.
Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or a belief based on intuition? I have seen studies that support "barefoot" running (where the feet may not actually be barefoot, but have hard, protective coverings) based on less accumulated injuries, and based on bio-mechanical arguments on force dissipation.
This at least has some evidence. The guy pushing barefoot running has done some a study showing you put less stress on your joints when running barefoot then with shoes. I believe it had something to do with running with a better stride then when in padded shoes because your feet now have more feedback information. Just found his website here: http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/
My understanding of the mechanics are simple: when you heel-strike, your heel hits the pavement hard, and the shock is absorbed by your knee. When you toe-strike, your ankle can act as a spring and absorb the impact over a greater period of time, meaning your joints experience less force. I think it's the toe-strike versus heel-strike is what's important. Running shoes just encourage heel-striking.
You're taking a lot of correlation and trying to prove causation, much like the people you criticize.
"They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had."
Of course their lives were short. They had no healthcare, medicine, or sanitation. A band-aid and some antibiotic could have been the difference between life and death for some people. A daily, clean shower, clean water, and living quarters (mostly) free from predators. We take simple things like these for granted.
The major point from all of these books and articles is that humans do have superb shock-absorbers for legs and don't need air-cushioned soles. Modern shoes have taught people from a very young age to run a certain, un-natural way and this has been proven with more than just speculation.
This may be purely anecdotal, but as a runner I was injured for 5 months (Sep - Feb) with illiotibial band syndrome. I was running in traditional running shoes. I'd had no problems in the few years up until that point.
I've been re-habilitating myself by stretching & foam rollering, but also by adopting barefoot running, paying strict attention to my running form. I use Vibram five fingers for the most part, but I've also some of my runs totally barefoot. Aside from one little incident with a small bit of glass, running on asphalt felt fine, almost as nice as sand.
I'm not saying that barefoot running alone cured my ITBS, I'm sure it has something to do with the stretching and rolling, but it is contibuting to injury free running.
Actually, there have been studies that show that the more expensive your running shoe, the more likely you are to get injured.
People think they need running shoes because they run incorrectly. You are not supposed to land on your heel. This is something you can only do with super padded running shoes.
(Note that I am agreeing with the notion that our bodies wear out, as do all machines. I am not endorsing the parent post's claims about shoes being better for running.)
Parts of our bodies have excellent self-repairing facilities. Parts. Your liver won't repair itself if you damage it enough. You have one set of lungs, so if you smoke enough they most likely aren't growing back. And most critically for this discussion, ligaments and cartilage will not heal once damaged. They are optimized to be as tough as possible, at the expense of not healing at all once damaged.
As the recipient of 2 knee surgeries, and possibly an upcoming 3rd, believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to have my knees "self-repair". But it just isn't going to happen naturally. You get one set of cartilage and ligaments, and once they are gone, they're gone.
Thank you... This seems like one of those basic things we should learn in elementary school -- the healing rates of various parts of our body. We should know what needs the most protection/care. I still do not know that information, and it seems that somebody has to be damaged in order for others to learn about it. Mentally putting "ligaments and knee cartilage" on my list of things to be careful about. I didn't know there was no regeneration there. :(
The main problem with your argument is that it applies just as much to old ways of making shoes with lots of heel support as it does to running without any shoes at all.
Even nature’s best animal distance runners — such as horses and dogs — will run similar distances only if forced to do so
This sentence is meaningless. When does a dog do anything uncomfortable without coercion? It's not like a dog will voluntarily, say, go without food because it needs to lose weight. Similarly, humans don't spontaneously run marathons. There is a huge psychological build-up required, of which this article is a part. It's notable that most Kenyan marathon champions don't continue running once they retire. They get plenty of physical activity on the farm and don't have the Western obsession with endurance sports.
----
This article does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole barefoot running / endurance running movement that is taking over conventional sports shoes at the moment. The general premise is:
- humans evolved to run without shoes, so you should (or better, with expensive shoes with minimal heals)
- humans evolved to run long distances, so you should
I don't disagree with the statements, but I think it's oversimplified. I say this as someone who wears Vivo Barefoot shoes. In particular, persistence hunting (the form of hunting that relied on long distance running) was not widely used outside of some specific niches (really hot places, for instance) and a lot of humans have adapted away from endurance activities (which is obvious is look at a Kenyan marathon runner next to a Scandinavian strong-man competitor).