Cool! do they have an option for mid foot strikers?Originally Posted by Inov-8 Insider
Ok for those who advocate heel striking and cushioning.
Maybe these are the answer HERE
Even got good TESTIMONIALS
Cool! do they have an option for mid foot strikers?Ok for those who advocate heel striking and cushioning.
Maybe these are the answer HERE
Even got good TESTIMONIALS
I think you can attach an extra spring at the front if your a midfoot/forefoot striker
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.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.
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.
Agree with your first comment. I assumed CL was just being a wind up merchant as his arguments are just too flawed to be taken seriously.
You love reading my posts Pilgrim, it helps to get "your mind right."
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.
Show me the research and I'll reconsider my position. Until then watch that glass.
Well stop calling it cushioning then. If the stuff they put in shoes doesn't reduce impact then it isn't cushioning. The point is you keep on insisting it is and arguing it isn't.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.
I like bouncy balls. I like the way such a small amount of rubber bounces so high and a concrete ball doesn't bounce at all. I also like trampolines. How such a small amount of material can cause the kids up the road to land so gently and propel them so high. Last but not least I like parachutes. I like the way such a light pack can open in to a wonderful dome and prevent a human being from smashing into the ground.
I like all these things and I like goats. They see things statisticians don't.
Does anyone else think that the best threads are the ones with Cristopher "Controversy" Leigh on them? Pure entertaiment, keep it up!
As for barefooting, forget trying to convince people with all the [good] evidence that is out there. I've got no time to convince doubters, it works for me, if you don't want to do it stick with what works for you.
Personally I'm stronger as a result of building up to 10 miles of consistant barefoot or VFF training per week for the last 5 months. If you don't want to do it stick to running in shoes - totally up to the individual. I want to run all of my life and I see barefooting as a way for my body to deal with the stress of regular trainning so that when i'm in my 70's I'm still going to be able to get out and enjoy the hills
So I'll see for myself if I remain injury free, or if I'm just totally deluded, that's my desicision and one that I'm going to stick with.
Round and round and round he goes... where he stops (he won't!!) nobody knows.
I've stated my case, my evidence and now, as Twister so wisely says, it's up to people to make up their own minds.
Until the next one CL
30,000 plus runners ,compete in the London marathon and indeed big marathons around the world.
All or nearly all wear modern running shoes.
How many do you think would manage it barefoot ?
Wake up,we are not designed to run on hard tarmac roads without a little help from air eva gel etc etc .
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
