Quote Originally Posted by christopher leigh View Post
AARRRGGGG take that glass out of my foot, AARRRGGGG quickly. Ear we go again said the earwig

'Sound scientific studies.' There is no such thing nowadays. What we have today is statistics which is mostly what you're relying on. Statistics have ruined the world we live in because it is very easy to fiddle the data to 'prove' anything one wants to, and then demand action to force people to comply with the new research I.e. global warming.

It's got to the point now where researchers can't even make simple deductions because of their almost religious belief in the figures.

Here's a simple deduction. The kids down the road jump up and down on a trampoline. I can see their little faces as they rise above the hedge. Up and down for 30 minutes at a time, bawng,bawng,bawng. Now are you telling me if I removed the trampoline when they're at the highest point they'll appreciate the lower force of the landing on the concrete floor?

Shoes should be flexible and the mid-sole/sole should be the same width all along, with cushioning that gives rebound to the runner. A bit like a trampoline.
CL, I've studied statistics, been involved in research and been a part of published papers. Yes, manipulation of statistics does occur but I can assure you to get something published in journals such as the AJSM, BJSM and Nature, your methodology including your statistical analysis of data has to be 100% valid.

The problem is with your "simple deduction" is that it is irrelevant to running as we don't run on trampolines and you're missing the point.

Read this slowly and carefully:

Research carried out by EC Frederick of the Nike Sports Research Lab (so if anything they'd want to find out the opposite) stated the following at the 1986 meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics in 1986:

"When subjects were tested with cushioned vs hard shoes, no difference in impact force was found. In fact, the second propulsive peak in the vertical ground reaction force was actually higher with soft shoes"

No complicated or manipulated stats just a simple objective comparison of two sets of data by an unbiased (or some would say potentially hostile to his findings) observer.

We don't need cushioning, let alone springs, in our shoes as;

1) With the forces produced during a running foot strike (up to 12 times body mass), unless the springy surface was ridiculously thick it's going to do absolutely nothing.

2) Evolution has provided us with a gloriously efficient set of shock absorbers and an in-built protective mechanism. The arch of the foot (compressing to absorb shock and then recoiling), a wonderfully nerve rich sole ("Ow, that's sharp best tread a bit lighter") , the achilles tendon (providing "trampoline" like recoil much more effectively than anything designed by man) and further shock absorption through the knees. All of this is controlled by the brain via a constant feedback loop. Unfortunately, all of this breaks down if you dull our contact with the ground with a massive thick chunk of rubber.

Flexible flat sole: yes
Cushioning/rebound: no

If you want real world examples then some of the most respected coaches of all time advocate barefoot/minimal footwear for running.

Stanford Track Coach Vin Lananna (Wiki his CV!):

"I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries."

"I once ordered high-end shoes for the team, and within two weeks, we had more plantar fasciitis and achilles problems than I'd ever seen. So, I sent them back and told them to send me my cheap shoes. Ever since then, I've ordered the low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy."

and Arthur Lydiard (I assume you know who he is?)

"If you told the average person of any age to take off his shoes and run down the hallway, you would almost always discover the foot action of over-pronation or supination. Those sideways flexings of the ankle begin only when people lace themselves into running shoes because the construction of many shoes immediately alters the natural movement of the feet."

"We ran in canvas shoes. We didn't get plantar fasciitis. We might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons but, generally speaking, we didn't have foot problems. Paying several hundred dollars for the latest high-tech running shoe is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another."

I've never advocated throwing away your shoes as, you're right, there are too many rocks, thorns and bits of glass for our pampered 21st century feet but minimal support, cushioning and a flexible sole allows our feet to behave in as close a way as possible to what evolution intended. Evolution did not intend us to try and put springs on our feet.

We evolved as a running species perfectly adapted, from the foot up, to cover long distances in the pursuit of prey and have over 26 anatomical markers that point to this (see Bramble and Lieberman 2004). If we did evolve to run, then why do so many runners get injured? (Don't say it's because we run on roads as baked savannah is hardly soft). It's because since Bill Bowerman started playing around with his waffle iron and, by sticking cushioning on our heel, caused us start running in a way that evolution never intended we've been sucked into trying to correct something that was entirely of our own making and never broken in the first place.