6 ms·

Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.

by pcunite 9y ago

mikestew 9y ago
Something wrong with Nikes?
- pcunite 9y ago
  There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
    - caio1982 9y ago
      Thankfully there are scientific data to prove you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
      - bostonpete 9y ago
        Your comment comes across as a little smug. Are you sure the scientific data conclusively proves the GP's comment "wrong"? You didn't link to what you had in mind, but this study seems to reinforce their comment... https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-cushioned-shoes-show-no-difference-in-injury-rates https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-c...
      - hangonhn 9y ago
        I would be very interested in seeing those data. If you're going to cite Lieberman, I would say that he is a lot more cautious and nuanced than most articles have make him sound. He doesn't make overly generalized bold claims. Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force. It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.
      - yesenadam 9y ago
        "Don't be snarky."
    - hangonhn 9y ago
      Yes. In fact, after that fad it swung the other way and the Hoka shoes started becoming very popular. I will say that, however, over time I've gradually switched to less supportive shoes as I've become more experienced as a runner. I started with "anti-pronation" shoes and now are running with fairly bare minimal shoes. I think I just like the feeling of lighter shoes.
    - imglorp 9y ago
      Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support. For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least. Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.
      - hangonhn 9y ago
        My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.
        jgladch 9y ago
        interesting, this is in line with current cycling performance concepts as well. top cyclists are aiming for ~90-105 cadence when climbing atm.
        durandal1 9y ago
        I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.
  - eitally 9y ago
    There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) that it doesn't really matter, and you should wear what feels good.
    - teamhappy 9y ago
      > There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) There's some science behind it too. Google "Benno Nigg" and "comfort filter".

Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.

mikestew 9y ago

Something wrong with Nikes?

pcunite 9y ago
There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.
  - caio1982 9y ago
    Thankfully there are scientific data to prove you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.
    - bostonpete 9y ago
      Your comment comes across as a little smug. Are you sure the scientific data conclusively proves the GP's comment "wrong"? You didn't link to what you had in mind, but this study seems to reinforce their comment... https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-cushioned-shoes-show-no-difference-in-injury-rates https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-c...
    - hangonhn 9y ago
      I would be very interested in seeing those data. If you're going to cite Lieberman, I would say that he is a lot more cautious and nuanced than most articles have make him sound. He doesn't make overly generalized bold claims. Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force. It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.
    - yesenadam 9y ago
      "Don't be snarky."
  - hangonhn 9y ago
    Yes. In fact, after that fad it swung the other way and the Hoka shoes started becoming very popular. I will say that, however, over time I've gradually switched to less supportive shoes as I've become more experienced as a runner. I started with "anti-pronation" shoes and now are running with fairly bare minimal shoes. I think I just like the feeling of lighter shoes.
  - imglorp 9y ago
    Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support. For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least. Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.
    - hangonhn 9y ago
      My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.
      - jgladch 9y ago
        interesting, this is in line with current cycling performance concepts as well. top cyclists are aiming for ~90-105 cadence when climbing atm.
      - durandal1 9y ago
        I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.
- eitally 9y ago
  There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) that it doesn't really matter, and you should wear what feels good.
  - teamhappy 9y ago
    > There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) There's some science behind it too. Google "Benno Nigg" and "comfort filter".