apparently they are no good for you.
Fell shoes are how all running shoes should be apparently !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ste-money.html
apparently they are no good for you.
Fell shoes are how all running shoes should be apparently !!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...ste-money.html
If you cant change something, change the way you feel about it !
I'm not sure what surprised me more - the running shoe myth seemingly "exposed"... or that there's a story with a hint of truth in the fascist old people's moaning rag known as the Daily Mail.
I always said the ORIGINAL Walsh PB Racer (with virtually no midsole) was the best shoe ever!
although it's healthy to be skeptical of the claims made by fancy shoe makers, I'd be equally wary of some of the 'experts' in that piece...
There's a halfway house somewhere. I'm not convinced of the benefits of overly cushioned shoes, but I wouldn't want to run in Dunlop Green Flash!! The last physio I went to see pretty much dismissed modern running shoes as over-engineered rubbish. Although he also dismissed ultrasound as a treatment as there's no 'scientific evidence, only anecdotal evidence'.
I have always gone for a middle range neutral shoe
Frequent but moderate workouts on a consistent basis are the key to success
got to admit, I'm starting to think that way myself. Think cushioning might be overrated.
I have flattish feet and was getting shinsplints a lot so I went for some arch support 'stability' trainers for road running, and they have quite a bit of cushioning. They're fine and comfortable but it's like running in a pair of those big fluffy animal slippers - just a bit too much.
I think maybe back in the day, people grew up running in basic shoes and their muscles and tendons hardened and adjusted accordingly.
Most fell shoes don't have much cushioning though do they?
Worth taking a look at the difference in foot position between the two runners in the first photo in the article.
My Dad won the Surrey 20 mile road race champs c1957 in Woolies Plimsolls!!