|
well it makes you think...
Clearly, impact-absorbing shoes make it possible for us to heel-strike. Without them, as in the old days, we'd be running on the balls of our feet. Running in that style, I think pronation is greatly reduced, which obviously avoids a lot of problems.
But I can't help thinking that the injury incidence was lower in those days because the only runners were naturally talented athletes, and thus generally tougher.
As always, the Daily Mail article is highly biased; I suspect it's based on highly selective data, and contains obviously completely untrue statements (e.g. "Despite pillowy-sounding names such as 'MegaBounce', all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference." Complete bullshit.) And this David Smyntek chap who actually wore his shoes on the wrong feet and didn't get injured? Huh?
I think there is probably quite a lot to be gained from trying flats, and I have been tempted in the past. There are some good comments on the Daily Mail article about how long it takes to get used to the new style.
We're all an experiment of one. The only thing I can say from experience is that the one time I took a pair of shoes out to 700 miles, I got backache every time I ran. New shoes, problem went away.
|
