Quote Originally Posted by christopher leigh View Post
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.
CL... you're clutching at straws now. I think people are seeing through your arguments as being flawed and flimsy.

About cushioning you're missing the vital point that, in order for a running shoe to have enough cushioning to even make a tiny dent on the amount of impact force coming up through the body, it'd have to be ludicrously thick. That's why we have inbuilt shock absorption systems that only function correctly if the foot is uninhibited. We don't need it in running shoes as it does sod all good and prevents our bodies functioning optimally.

Evolution is a blind process with no end goal, objective or intention. One of the few things that Gould and Dawkins agree on.

.... and another one of your ridiculous analogies to finish with.

I think the general view is you've lost this one, bow out gracefully.