This is an interesting idea for discussion, but I think the author handles it very poorly. Yes, it's entirely possible that high-end running shoes aren't helpi

This is an interesting idea for discussion, but I think the author handles it very poorly. Yes, it's entirely possible that high-end running shoes aren't helping us as much as we think they are. Yes, it's possible that there's a correlation between high priced running shoes and injuries. On the other hand, the author claims a lot of things that are simply ludicrous: "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." If my head was moving at 10mph towards brick wall, a half-inch of dense rubber would probably make a whole lot of difference. I don't see how it's "preposterous" to think that it might be a similar story for feet. "Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention" This is the sort of statement the author is especially prone to making. This is such a leaky assertion that it's difficult to address. Ignoring the obvious benefits of shoes in all-terrain situations, there are many medical conditions that are addressed by shoes that are undeniably helpful. Basically, the author is claiming that with a bit of fairy dust and some marketing skills, the running shoe industry has hoodwinked everyone for thirty years. If the author provided more actual data and less statements like "no matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same" with no source (how could it possibly be the same odds for everyone?), I'd be more willing to believe. I dislike making personal comments, but this author simply seems to be a demagogue.