to run or not to run

[johnlvs2run]

Which would you rather be hit by, a piece of wood or a piece of rubber or eva?

Eva, and I'd hit you with the wood.

See, that's the point. You are running ON the pavement. The pavement is not running on you.

Why are rubber bullets less lethal... because they transmit the shock to the body?

Same reason.

Why does soft elastic material protect breakable things (e.g glassware but it could also be your feet)?

Do you live in a wood house or one made of foam?

Why are mattresses used in the gym made of foam and not of wood?

I don't use a gym and am not interested in why they do anything.

Feet really need protection against shocks when they are doing hard work. Well, maybe not all feet. Your feet might be able to sustain the shocks but it is not due to the physics which you propose which is really erogenous.

If you want protection then wear shoes with wood or hard rubber heels. If you want shock then wear shoes with eva heels and soles. This is why there have been and continue to be so many injuries since the advent of eva foam used in running shoes. And this is why such shoes "wear out" (but were never any good anyway) in two or three weeks, whereas they should be lasting a long time. Hard rubber or polyurethane lasts a long time. Eva foam does not, is worthless, provides no protection and is the cause of injuries.

You have not even tried what I have done.

Think for yourself, instead of repeating what you've been told by shoe advertisements.

[Tinus]

Which would you rather be hit by, a piece of wood or a piece of rubber or eva?

Eva, and I'd hit you with the wood.

See, that's the point. You are running ON the pavement. The pavement is not running on you.

Irrelevant due Einstein's relativity principle but for the limited mind I will rephrase the question:

Which would you rather hit (e.g. punch) a piece of solid wood or a piece of eva?

alternatively,

If you had to punch the pavement would you also prefer wooden boxing gloves (over regular boxing gloves) because they better protect your hands according to your theory?

[macroth]

The mechanics of barefoot/minimal shoe running are different from thick soled, cushioned shoe running. If you run like you punch, you may need cushioning. But you shouldn't run like you punch.

[johnlvs2run]

Which would you rather hit (e.g. punch) a piece of solid wood or a piece of eva?

I'd rather hit the eva, with a baseball bat.

If you had to punch the pavement would you also prefer wooden boxing gloves (over regular boxing gloves) because they better protect your hands according to your theory?

I would prefer to use a sledge hammer.

[Tinus]

If you run like you punch, you may need cushioning. But you shouldn't run like you punch.

But it is still an advancement in the way of thinking. One has to admit that soft elastic materials are better protection against shocks than solid hard materials (e.g. think of the function of soft material in a helmet and the crumple zone in a car). I am not against barefoot running. I am against the idea that it would be better protection against shocks.

The true objection against eva is not that it is a bad shock absorber but that shock absorption is not needed.

There is a danger in generalising this final statement and promoting shoeless running for all because shoes shouldn't be needed. Shock absorption is only not needed when you run correctly. Not everyone runs correctly and therefore not everyone should easily adapt to run without absorption. Another risk with running "correctly" such that no artificial absorption is needed is that the body, mainly the achilles tendon, is taking over this absorption function. If not trained well enough this would inevitably lead to injuries and it does happen with people who adapt a fore foot or mid foot strike too quickly. It can happen especially among experienced runners which you wouldn't expect. But these runners also have the power to overload structures which have been less developed. Runners with weak achilles tendon may better opt not to use too much fore foot or mid foot strike and substitute natural absorption for artificial absorption. Also, when running on hard surfaces, e.g. paved roads, the feet experience unnatural loads (because our predecessor's feet weren't designed/evolved like this). These loads are best absorbed by unnatural shoes.

[johnlvs2run]

There is a danger in generalising this final statement and promoting shoeless running for all because shoes shouldn't be needed.

Heh, what is the danger, that shoe companies would not keep gouging the public.

I am not promoting barefoot running for all, and feel that some type of protection is desirable especially when running on hard surfaces, and or rocks. I tried barefoot running/walking on sharp rocks and found it to be impossible.

Another thing about soft soled shoes is that they make the legs tired just standing on them. I can't wait to get out of such shoes after wearing them for awhile, the same that a soft seat makes one's butt tired from sitting, but a wood chair is quite comfortable and has no such tiring effects.

Tinus, you keep trying to argue about something you've not tried and you are parroting shoe company advertisments, that are false. If you are really interested in this then my suggestion is to first try it yourself. Then you'd have the basis for a better informed perspective.

[Tinus]

Tinus, you keep trying to argue about something you've not tried and you are parroting shoe company advertisments, that are false. If you are really interested in this then my suggestion is to first try it yourself. Then you'd have the basis for a better informed perspective.

Héhé, you only assume I haven't tried or are not practising barefoot running or using low cushioning shoes. I am also not parroting shoes companies but I base my arguments on common knowledge about physics which lacks in your statements.

If you'd claim that a product A is bad based on a wrong principle B and you become criticised for a wrong understanding of B, than don't blame the criticisers they are parroting the producers of product A. It's your understanding of B which is wrong. Argumentum ad hominem.

[johnlvs2run]

you only assume I haven't tried or are not practising barefoot running or using low cushioning shoes

It's not only a matter of getting rid of the cushioning, but also of having protection from hard surfaces.

Hard rubber soles provide much greater protection from hard surfaces, and don't tire the legs as does the soft eva foam.

Additionally, the soft eva foam used in running shoes is ethylene vinyl acetate, a highly toxic substance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zbmkyoB_jQ

[rlholtz]

Concerning running barefoot on hard surfaces (not my words but words I agree with)>Running Barefoot on Hard Surfaces: Unnatural?
English


posted by: webmaster
2009 March 23 (18:02)
categories: Evolution, Roads



Isn’t it true that humankind was never designed to run on concrete or asphalt? If you take a look at the African runners, they run barefoot, but on dirt.

If I had a nickel for everytime someone said, “we weren’t designed to run barefoot on hard surfaces”.

Humans are not designed to run on ANY surface, without the invaluable feedback from bare soles. When runners erroneously believe their shoes (or dirt surfaces) are protecting them from impact, they actually land with greater impact, than if they were barefoot, and had the instantaneous feedback from their soles telling them to land more gently. If someone is running with so much impact, that they “need” external cushioning (whether shoes, or soft surfaces), then they aren’t running, naturally, the way humans are designed to run.
Yes, there is one real problem with roads. But, it isn’t hardness that is unnatural – I’ve run on many mountain trails that are harder than asphalt or concrete - It’s the flatness of roads and sidewalks that fails to work our ankles naturally in more directions (though I once drove across a few miles of smooth flat rock – which I thought was a road – in remote Canada). The solution, that works fine for me, is to walk, or run, on uneven surfaces to get some side-to-side flexing of my ankles, occasionally – about 100 meters on uneven surface, for every few hundred miles on sidewalks and roads, seems to be enough – just pay attention, and if your ankle joints start hurting, walk, carefully on some uneven terrain, for a short distance, and see if that solves the problem).
Africans don’t just run barefoot on nicely groomed dirt tracks, beaches, and golf courses. They grow up running on hard granite mountain trails, covered with sharp bits of volcanic rocks and other debris.
Studies have proven, that by taking off their shoes, runners benefit from feedback from the bare soles, and change the way they run, resulting in 30-50% LESS impact on landings, than with cushioned shoes, or on a cushioned surface!
The inside of a shoe might just be the most unnatural place for a human foot!

[rlholtz]

hi there. The initiator of this thread back with an update after a long absence. And guess what? I've been running for over a year now....barefoot. Up to about 3 hours a week and intending to increase from that with the long northern minnesota abating.

[russtanton]

After 35+ years running and racing in shoes ( starting with Phil Knight's original Nike, Blue Ribbon) I developed knee pain and switched to Vibram Five Fingers. The knee pain is gone and I am a believer in the minimalist shoe.

Russ

[Carl Watts]

Having just taken up running as I have to pass a 2.4Km run test quite soon all I can say is it's just about getting the RIGHT running shoes for you.

There are two problems associatede with this, the major one being you really don't know how they are going to perform until you have actually done a run a decent distance in them and second when you finally find a pair that are great, they have stopped making them and moved onto a "New" version by the time you need a new pair so your back to the first problem again.

Currently running in some New Balance 760 shoes, which is a brand I have never tried before and I can say is they are amazing. The poor surface that I have to run on makes not having shoes impossible.

[rlholtz]

What is your definition of a poor surface?

[Carl Watts]

What is your definition of a poor surface?

One with pot holes, gravel and large stones scattered all over the place !

Some of the "Stones" are so big I'm kicking them out of the running path becasue you would probably twist you ankle if you came down on one !

I have no choice, this is the "Track" I have to use to "Harden up on". The final test is done on a nice 400M running track with a rubber surface. Bare foot would most certainly be an option for anyone who wanted to go that way as their prefered option.

[rlholtz]

Yeah. That would be tough. I run barefoot sometimes on both a rubber and a cinder track, but mostly on fairly decent pavement by my house. Through the winter I had to run on a treadmill in Vibram KSO's. I was surprised to find out how easy it was/is to transition from that to barefoot outside this spring.