The painful truth about trainers: Are running shoes a waste of money?

The Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 4/19/2009 | CHRISTOPHER McDOUGALL

[Liberty1970]

At Stanford University, California, two sales representatives from Nike were watching the athletics team practise. Part of their job was to gather feedback from the company's sponsored runners about which shoes they preferred.

Unfortunately, it was proving difficult that day as the runners all seemed to prefer... nothing.

'Didn't we send you enough shoes?' they asked head coach Vin Lananna. They had, he was just refusing to use them. 'I can't prove this,' the well-respected coach told them.

'But I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.'

Nike sponsored the Stanford team as they were the best of the very best. Needless to say, the reps were a little disturbed to hear that Lananna felt the best shoes they had to offer them were not as good as no shoes at all.

When I was told this anecdote it came as no surprise. I'd spent years struggling with a variety of running-related injuries, each time trading up to more expensive shoes, which seemed to make no difference. I'd lost count of the amount of money I'd handed over at shops and sports-injury clinics - eventually ending with advice from my doctor to give it up and 'buy a bike'. And I wasn't on my own. Every year, anywhere from 65 to 80 per cent of all runners suffer an injury. No matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same. It doesn't matter if you're male or female, fast or slow, pudgy or taut as a racehorse, your feet are still in the danger zone.

But why? How come Roger Bannister could charge out of his Oxford lab every day, pound around a hard

[Tax-chick]

That’s a deal!

[cornelis]

: )

[oh8eleven]

What about thin-soled vs. thick-soled shoes? Have you experimented with that?
I prefer a sole that's flexible (not necessarily "thin"), so much so that when soles became fairly stiff years ago, I took a hacksaw and cut through the outer sole at the flex groove.
I also replace my running shoes every 3-4 months. Expensive? Yes. But in 28 years, I've never had an injury that I couldn't run through.

[oh8eleven]

there’s no difference between the original Nikes and the Walmart knockoffs.
Maybe not, but when your knees start aching at mile nine of a 20 miler, you might think twice about the few bucks you saved putting those Walmart specials on your feet.
Like I said though, finding whatever works for you is the key.

[Jubal Madison]

Thank-you. They have a place in Tulsa - and an added bonus is my 2 grown daughters live in metro Tulsa. (Not that my wife and I need an excuse - we go a couple times a month!) Because my foot is now somewhat deformed, it would probably be best to try it on. The orthopedic surgeon said I may have to go with custom made shoes at some point. I looked into it - trust me $250 really isn’t that expensive if I have to go that route. Anyway, again - Thank you.—JM

[Liberty1970]

That's pretty much the idea. Those with poor foot design couldn't outrun the carnivores, didn't survive, didn't pass on their genes. Only those with the best foot design survived and passed on their genes, resulting in our current design after millions of years. The current design could use some improvement though. The ankle is too fragile and the soles are too susceptible to punctures and cuts.

The problem I described is well known within theoretical evolutionary literature. The basic idea is that if mutations find a method for some task, natural selection will then refine the method to whatever is optimal, but only in gradualistic steps because the odds of multiple coordinated mutations occuring in a single organism is too low. So if a poor initial design is chosen you end up with an optimized poor design, even if much better designs are available via different evolutionary pathways. We should expect sub-optimal designs to greatly outweigh the best solutions in nature if they were chosen by chance factors due to the variety of potential solutions to any given task.

The current design could use some improvement though. The ankle is too fragile and the soles are too susceptible to punctures and cuts.

If you read the article, you'll note that toughening the soles would be contradictory to some of the advantages to running barefoot in the first place. Soles are already pretty tough, such that hardening them further would not make a huge difference (i.e., shards of glass have not been a hazard for most of human experience, for example), and the extra weight would be a constant drag. Better to let us tool users design hardened boots for those occasions when we need them.

As far as the ankle, it's a similar problem of balancing strength with flexibility and mass. Let's put it this way: people who believe in evolution are forever claiming that various body parts are badly designed - and then failing to specify an improved design. Where are the Evolutionary Science clinics with crowds of people entering them to get improved ankles, improved knees, improved eyes, and so on? There aren't any, beause the claims of poor design are poorly conceived (as repetively demonstrated in critical reviews on the subject).

[Liberty1970]

Those of us born without arches need supportive shoes or we get crippled up pretty fast.

Ouch. My condolences. Yes, we all bear a lot of evidence of degeneration in our body, and not just from the aging process.

[Mr Rogers]

oh8eleven, sounds like your experience mirrors mine. I jog about 15-20 miles/week on trails in the desert. I’ve gone 3 months without running right now from an injury, but I got that from a horse so it doesn’t count! Apart from needing protection from thorns and rocks, I find cheap shoes hurt my legs.

The Nike Pegasus worked OK for me, and the Air Pegasus has been my mainstay for as long as they’ve existed. I’ve tried Walmart knock-offs...even cheaper versions of Nike. I’ve also tried more expensive shoes. The wrong shoe, at any price level, gives me knee pain within a few weeks. With Air Pegasus, I can jog for years without injury.

About 3 years ago, I decided it was silly to experiment with different brands/types just because they worked for someone else. But going without shoes? In southern Arizona? I’d need callouses 2 inches thick...

[Nuhna di Abuv]

4 miles in 30 minutes on a treadmill 2 days on, 1 day off in my Nikes. It is the author’s position that 1/2 an inch of rubber isn’t going to make any difference whether the shoes cost $120+ or $40-

[oh8eleven]

I find cheap shoes hurt my legs.
If you ran in the original Pegasus, you've been on the road a looooong time.
Good shoes and synthetic socks (Orlon is the best) are the keys to success.

But going without shoes? In southern Arizona? I’d need callouses 2 inches thick...
LOL ... even the Tarahumara wear sandals.

[oh8eleven]

4 miles in 30 minutes on a treadmill 2 days on, 1 day off in my Nikes.
If you're running on a treadmill, why not go barefoot (socks only)?

[antiRepublicrat]

but only in gradualistic steps because the odds of multiple coordinated mutations occuring in a single organism is too low

Behe's "irreducible complexity" has already been well refuted.

Let's put it this way: people who believe in evolution are forever claiming that various body parts are badly designed - and then failing to specify an improved design.

Do they have to (aside from the faulty "believe" word you used)? We can recognize faults in the design. God is supposed to be the perfect creator, so let him figure it out.

Take the plantaris muscle in the foot, pretty much useless and even completely missing in many people. Its tendons are routinely harvested for the repair of others in the body because the patient won't notice it's missing. You can tear it, causing great pain and an inability to walk, where its total absence wouldn't hurt your walking ability.

It HAD a function for primates grasping with their feet, but it doesn't for us. Evolution explains it perfectly. Why would God put it there? I know the answer, "He has a purpose we cannot understand." It's a complete cop-out when discussing science.

[Nuhna di Abuv]

It’s not my treadmill. I run at a gym. I really would like to go barefoot, but I don’t what the gym nazis to hassle me. They’re the freaks who have no compunctions about spraying down the equipment as somebody on a treadmill, elliptical trainer, stairclimber next to them breathes in the fumes. They probably fancy themselves environmentalists, too.

[Liberty1970]

Behe's "irreducible complexity" has already been well refuted. Which do you mean - that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, or that any particular example of irreducible complexity is in error? The first statement would be irrational, for the second we need to debate the merits of each case. As an engineer I would point out that your blanket denial is emotional and not reasonable.

Take the plantaris muscle in the foot, pretty much useless and even completely missing in many people

You overstate things to manufacture "evidence" for evolution. The fact that the foot is overdesigned and that you can eliminate one part of it does not negate the overall design of the foot. As anatomist Dr. David Menton put it, "The remarkably short and slender plantaris muscle with its long slender tendon serves a proprioceptive function that provides a kinesthetic sense of limb position and muscle contraction." It is not vital, but it is helpful. (cf. The plantaris and the question of vestigial muscles in man).

What is a cop-out is assuming evolutionary relationships without giving a reasonable demonstration that nature alone could even generate the changes in question. Why both with a historical model that involve faith in naturalistic magic over and against the principles of science?

[antiRepublicrat]

Which do you mean - that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity

That one. The statement against it isn't irrational because the idea itself was irrational.

The fact that the foot is overdesigned and that you can eliminate one part of it does not negate the overall design of the foot.

It is not overdesigned. Most of us (and not all of us) simply retain the vestiges a feature that our ancestors needed. It was perfectly "designed" for them, irrelevant for us, which is why it is on the way out in our line. It is at a point where it has much more potential disadvantage (injuring something you don't need at all) than any advantage.

The remarkably short and slender plantaris muscle with its long slender tendon serves

Interesting you have to go to a creation site to find such "research." I like to read from those neck-deep in the subject and not on a site dedicated to one side of the debate. In fact, here's a short discussion on a podiatry board with one great paragraph in response to a creationist with an agenda:

I have noted no change in biomechanical function or proprioceptive ability of the numerous patients that I have seen over the past two decades who have had either plantaris rupture or plantaris tendon excision for tendon repair. Your suggestion that the plantaris is the "brain of the triceps surae" is not supported by any clinical evidence or research that I know of, your suggestion does not make good physiological sense and your suggestion will probably be met with resistance from any intelligent biomechanist, physiologist, orthopedic surgeon or podiatrist.

The guy is a podiatrist and adjunct associate professor of applied biomechanics

[Liberty1970]

That one. The statement against it isn't irrational because the idea itself was irrational.

All complex systems have a minimum number of vital components, without which they will fail to provide functionality. What is so troubling about that fact to an evolutionist besides the fact that it forces them to provide a naturalistic account for the development of such systems in a detailed manner?

While I believe vestigial organs do exist, I find it surprising the evolutionists continue to exaggerate them despite a century of embarassments. The continual pattern has been to assert that a given organ is "vestigial" in a state of ignorance. Then as more information is obtained from the progress of science, it becomes clear the organ does have a function after all and the evolutionary claim is refuted.

There are a few cases of degeneration that seem safe enough (such as blind troglodytes and degenerate wings on non-flying island insect and bird populations), but the overall track record has been miserable. Evolutionists often falsely claim that creationists do not make predictions, so let me make one here: the sensory function of the plantaris will turn out to be vindicated in the end.

[Nuhna di Abuv]

oh8, I just tried the barefoot run. My feet started to get bothered at about 8 mts., but I soldiered on. At 16 mts., I decided that running barefoot is not for me. I’m afraid to take off my shoes and behold my callouses.

[RikaStrom]

You have got to see this picture.

[philled]

Interesting article. I tried running barefoot for about a week back chen Bikkela [sp] won the Boston Marathon in the late 70s. It didn't work for me but I had unfriendly terrain. However, if I'm on vacation there is nothing better than running barefoot on a beach!

My thought on the prioe/injury correlation- more serious runners and people who have already experienced trouble will spend more. Runners that pound up the miles will eventually get injured no matter what they wear. Good shoes minimize the pain and probably increase the damage because you aren't quitting because it doesn't necessarily hurt-yet. If you are running around the block once a week, you aren't likely going to drop $150 on a pair of shoes. However, if you are like me and just trying to keep running, the comfort of Mizuno Creations are worth the price.

[oh8eleven]

It’s not for me either.