Quote Originally Posted by nikalas View Post
My quotes from Lydiard were from the 1980's so he obviously changed his mind.

Your gymnast comment is irrelevant as I was citing a specific study not speaking about gymnastics in general.

I repeat IT HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN THAT CUSHIONING AND SUPPORT PREVENT INJURY DESPITE A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO DO SO BEING ISSUED TO RUNNING SHOE MANUFACTURERS. Therefore we haven't made things better, by overly cushioning and supporting our shoes for the last 40 years we've thoroughly screwed things up.

Also, on a slightly different note, evolution never intended us, or any other species, to do anything as it's a blind process.

I think I've put enough scientific/informed evidence into this discussion now to win the day and, if there's anyone left reading it, I'm happy for them to make up their own minds now.
Lydiard was talking about the rolling of the foot in your example, not cushioning. In the late 80s he assisted Converse in the design of a running shoe. That shoe bore his name and it had cushioning.

Cushioning by definition is something that reduces impact. So when you ask manufacturers to prove that 'cushioning' reduces injuries, they don't have to because such information is implied in the concept 'cushioning.'

Now evolution is a process of development. To say it never intended us to do anything is a contradiction in terms.

Nicklas you're part of a clan that cannot see things that are obvious to a goat. If a modern researcher saw a beautiful woman walking down the street he'd have to rush home and work out statistically whether he fancied her. That's if he made it home without his shoes.