3 ms·

Consensus isn't required. Heel striking is provably detrimental to human physiology. Big thick extended heels are designed today to lever the foot into positi

Consensus isn't required. Heel striking is provably detrimental to human physiology. Big thick extended heels are designed today to lever the foot into position and place heel & toe on the ground concurrently, reducing impact at the heel. Spending an entire lifetime walking with augmented feet means that people do not use their stride correctly or efficiently in the the manner it has been evolved to operate. There is little argument about these facts outside of the realms of marketing and sales from shoe suppliers. You can't very well advocate for your product if you admit that it mostly acts as a crutch for poor form

evandijk70 4y ago
Could you provide a source for these statements? In another comment I gave a link to a publication that summarized the literature comparing heel striking to forefoot striking, which showed no consensus on which is better.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  ! I would direct you to the studies on the natives of Copper Canyon and the various studies completed at Harvard on impulse loading in the knee and hip relative to foot orientation. Here's a crappy article about it: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/01/barefoot-running-easier-on-feet-than-running-shoes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/01/barefoot-runn... The take away here is that while you can make a big ass goofy shoe that takes all the force away from your poor form and prevents injury, the natural body mechanics are subverted. If you grow up and spend a lifetime with a prosthetic (soft shoe), everything about your movement is altered and augmented by the use of the prosthetic. Just think on that for a moment as opposed to directing me to some argument or article in a study.