3 ms·
The materials in running shoes cost under $10, and many people seem to do just fine without them. E.g. I have run two marathons barefoot with fewer problems tha
by hilux 2y ago
The materials in running shoes cost under $10, and many people seem to do just fine without them. E.g. I have run two marathons barefoot with fewer problems than when I ran shod. And I'm not genetically blessed.
It's impossible to reconcile my experience, and the experience of so many other barefoot (and minimalist - although I don't recommend it) runners, with the advertising from Hoka and from podiatrists.
- lukan 2y agoIt shouldn't be necessary to disclaim, but I do barefeet running even in snow. But since I did not train barefeet running while my feet were developing, I could not run a marathon without shoes, I would damage my bones, my barefeet range has a limit. So I certainly would not think of telling others they must be minimalistic, too. And if I would run in the cities on concrete, I would get myself good running shoes, too.
- hilux 2y agoThe first time I ran barefoot, I was older than you probably are now. (Since this is HN.) I understand your skepticism, since I used to be the same way. What I've learned is this: good running form isn't "pogo stick," it's "unicycle." But if what you're doing is working for you, no reason to change. That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes. For public shoe companies, just take a look at their financials, how much money goes to "R&D" versus "sales and marketing."
- lukan 2y ago"That STILL doesn't excuse the cost of running shoes." I don't know much about running shoes, but about trekking shoes. And there I can attest, that higher quality exists and indeed costs more and is worth it. I assume the same to be true for running shoes, no matter that they have a big marketing budget, that should rather be R&D. (All marketing should be.)
- hilux 2y agoThe same is not true for running shoes.