View Full Version : Hi dollar shoes bad for feet?
bobgessner57
04-21-2009, 20:06
Interesting article on running shoes and foot problems. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html
I don't have a dog in this fight, just found it interesting and possibly analagous to hiking shoes.
Transient Being
04-22-2009, 10:02
Interesting. Thanks.
Very interesting indeed. I would never hike or walk barefoot because I am afraid of cutting my foot on something that might give me aids or some other disease...
Interesting that they mentioned the old-style Converse shoe with the har, thin sole.
Very interesting indeed. I would never hike or walk barefoot because I am afraid of cutting my foot on something that might give me aids or some other disease...
Unless you are hiking in a bordello or a Bangcock strip club, that is hardly a concern...Aids doesn't exist laying around on the ground, and while hepatitis is much more resilient, you won't get from hiking barefoot domesticly either.
I don't doubt the truthiness to this article one bit. I have a pair of moccasins that I love but they took a very long time to get use too.
Mother's Finest
04-22-2009, 13:18
total hype and absolute BS. His theory falls apart in one place.
We may not have been meant to wear shoes, but we certainly were not meant to spend time on all the hard, flat surfaces we have created.
peace
mf
The vast majority of us would have less foot and knee problems if we lost weight.
That includes most recreational runners and hikers. Yeah that includes me.
infinite727
04-22-2009, 13:33
you can not follow the logic that since you have an artificial surface which is uncomfortable to walk on barefoot, an artificial "foot" will make it better.
two wrongs do not make a right.
what you really should walk away from this article with is an understanding of how we have slowly shed away the natural functions of our body, the way it was designed to work, for synthesized functions that have been adapted to fit our modern society and are quite realistically harmful to us.
you can not follow the logic that since you have an artificial surface which is uncomfortable to walk on barefoot, an artificial "foot" will make it better.
two wrongs do not make a right.
what you really should walk away from this article with is an understanding of how we have slowly shed away the natural functions of our body, the way it was designed to work, for synthesized functions that have been adapted to fit our modern society and are quite realistically harmful to us.
Very well said... In our arrogant march toward progress we seem to have lost many natural abilities, skills and insticts that keep us healthy and attached to our environment... Science surely has it's place, put in the race to sell, we often let products and technology outpace our morals, values and just plain old common sense.
When you think about it with all the different models every year, and most of them so overbuilt, its not surprising that its mostly marketing. I've noticed this year there is a better selection of light runners. I picked up a pair of Adidas 7oz per shoe in size 12, more like what we had back in the 80s. That's a good thing. Still I think I will lose some weight before I run in them. 10oz better for me. I run and hike some barefoot, but not that much.
Not to mention we have somehow forgot that our modern age is mearly a pimple on the overall history of the human species. Somehow we managed very successfully to thrive for 10,000 years without all the comforts we feel entitled to these days... And yet the more fancy comforts we create, the worse our overall situation seems to get, if that doesn't make you pause and wonder, well then your either dead, or too consumed by things to give a damn...
berninbush
04-22-2009, 13:51
I don't know, MF. Lots of places in the world are naturally hard and rocky as concrete. Tribes of humans walked on them barefoot for centuries.
People who always go barefoot develop amazing calluses on the bottoms of their feet that protect them from cuts. And they undoubtedly have sturdier ankles and knees. I'm not a runner, but when I walk barefoot I can feel my feet adjusting to the surface and distributing my weight comfortably. I wear sandals just about every day, everywhere that shoes are required, and I have strong ankles... I've never sprained or broken one.
This article makes a lot of sense to me. It reminds me of our cultural obsession with "antibacterial" products that, evidence now suggests, are breeding resistant bacteria while weakening our immune systems and causing auto-immune problems like allergies and asthma.
I believe! The only problem is our feet are weak and it can be painful to switch to a more barefoot lifestyle. I wonder if anyone has hiked the AT in a thin shoe with little or no support, or barefoot even...
I believe! The only problem is our feet are weak and it can be painful to switch to a more barefoot lifestyle. I wonder if anyone has hiked the AT in a thin shoe with little or no support, or barefoot even...
Yep, it has been done.
Not to mention we have somehow forgot that our modern age is mearly a pimple on the overall history of the human species. Somehow we managed very successfully to thrive for 10,000 years without all the comforts we feel entitled to these days... And yet the more fancy comforts we create, the worse our overall situation seems to get, if that doesn't make you pause and wonder, well then your either dead, or too consumed by things to give a damn...
decent point
Matteroo
04-22-2009, 14:40
thanks for sharing this article. a very good read. Human ability was honed over hundreds of thousands of years. at University I took a "behavior and the environment" course that tracks universal preferences and abilities found today back to life on the savanna grasslands of africa. I continue to draw from the thinking in that course. This type of article supports that line of understanding.
Many of these things have to be taken in the context of what humans have done for the vast majority of their biological history. So, humans have not generally scaled 8000m peaks, thus, our technological advances should be harnessed (and are) for this endeavor. But walking or running long distances.. oh you bet. Same as how the body operates with food - when you eat no fat-butter, thats quite a mixed signal for the body!
Interesting article on running shoes and foot problems. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html
I don't have a dog in this fight, just found it interesting and possibly analagous to hiking shoes.
It is interesting. There is lot of hype in the shoe business. The most expensive are not necessarily the best. But I don't believe the story about the Stanford track team and "all the runners" that preferred to run barefoot instead of using the free Nike shoes. Actually I would go as far as to say it is total BS. I have a good bit of experience in running and good shoes (which differ based on your physical characteristics) are essential to prevent injuries.
Yes, historically there are many examples of runners from Indian Tribes and some African countries (Ethiopia comes to mind) that ran/run barefoot. But normally not on hard surfaces.
I have a good bit of experience in running and good shoes (which differ based on your physical characteristics) are essential to prevent injuries.
Well, bad shoes are more likely to give you injuries than "good" shoes. That's for sure!
But the article makes a pretty convincing case that no shoes are better than "good" shoes.
That said, probably none of us are going to go hiking barefoot now, our feet are soft and our ankles weak from many years of wearing cushy-soft shoes.
berninbush
04-22-2009, 16:41
Actually, I find it more comfortable to walk barefoot on concrete than on "natural" surfaces like unmown grass, pebbles, or even packed dirt. Hardness of the surface seems to have less to do with it than smoothness and lack of sharp objects.
I think more people could get used to walking barefoot if they'd start slowly and build up tolerance... building ankle strength and calluses to keep them comfortable. Walking on hot pavement in summer really toughens your feet.
gravityman
04-22-2009, 18:08
Yeah, and we also have an average life span of 35 years, and no one would marry us if we couldn't hunt food or gather well. Somehow I think the 'we were bred this way' argument is conceptually appealing, but bad science. I like to call these kind of thoughts "Modern Jackass" theories (from an NPR This American Life episode).
But the article makes a pretty convincing case that no shoes are better than "good" shoes.
Yeah, if you believe BS it does.
Yeah, and we also have an average life span of 35 years, and no one would marry us if we couldn't hunt food or gather well. Somehow I think the 'we were bred this way' argument is conceptually appealing, but bad science. I like to call these kind of thoughts "Modern Jackass" theories (from an NPR This American Life episode).
That's funny cause to me a "Modern Jackass" theory would be one that argues that there is only one correct way to live, ours. In a word, Neoliberalism. A theory so errogant to believe the earth, the provider of everything necassary for our existance, can sustain the kind of growth necassary to perpetuate the American Dream for a very small portion of the population, let alone the entire population. All the while spending billions in advertising to sell us this way of life while simultaniously spending additional billions to hide the consiquences of this lifestyle.
Governments so corrupted they will only support probusiness interests for a very small group of wealthy individuals, to the deteriment of the very people they claim to represent.
Pushing the notion that sure, there are weaknesses like polution, increased occurances and stronger viruses and disease, increased rates of mental illness, declining communities and society as a whole, larger social issues, higher crime rates, but have no fear, science and technology will save us, despite all historical and current evidance suggesting otherwise. Cures and developments that create entirely new problems justifing more science and technology. Each progressive round creating new products or magic pills to sell, and again new problems..
Miss using our brave young men and women in uniform to protect and push the agenda of a small elite, and then have the nerve to tag those who question their agenda or motives as unpatriotic.
Justifing our "right" to stomp all over the globe forcing every corner of the earth to get in line with "our" plan, even at the barrel of a gun if need be. No need to say thank you or please.
Claiming profit making is the essence of democracy, any government that pursues antimarket policies is being antidemocratic, no matter how much informed popular support they might enjoy. Therefore it is best to restrict governmentst to the job of protecting private property and enforcingcontracts, and to limit political debate to minor issues.
Democracy is only allowed so far as control of business is off-limits to popular discussion or query form ordinary citizens, in other words, as long as it isn't democracy.
That to me roughly sums up a "modern jackass theory"... But hey, this is a shoe thread, so "Just do it"..
Yeah, for me that about sums up the "modern jackass theory"..
That's funny cause to me a "Modern Jackass" theory would be one that argues that there is only one correct way to live, ours. In a word, Neoliberalism. A theory so errogant to believe the earth, the provider of everything necassary for our existance, can sustain the kind of growth necassary to perpetuate the American Dream for a very small portion of the population, let alone the entire population. All the while spending billions in advertising to sell us this way of life while simultaniously spending additional billions to hide the consiquences of this lifestyle.
Governments so corrupted they will only support probusiness interests for a very small group of wealthy individuals, to the deteriment of the very people they claim to represent.
Pushing the notion that sure, there are weaknesses like polution, increased occurances and stronger viruses and disease, increased rates of mental illness, declining communities and society as a whole, larger social issues, higher crime rates, but have no fear, science and technology will save us, despite all historical and current evidance suggesting otherwise. Cures and developments that create entirely new problems justifing more science and technology. Each progressive round creating new products or magic pills to sell, and again new problems..
Miss using our brave young men and women in uniform to protect and push the agenda of a small elite, and then have the nerve to tag those who question their agenda or motives as unpatriotic.
Justifing our "right" to stomp all over the globe forcing every corner of the earth to get in line with "our" plan, even at the barrel of a gun if need be. No need to say thank you or please.
Claiming profit making is the essence of democracy, any government that pursues antimarket policies is being antidemocratic, no matter how much informed popular support they might enjoy. Therefore it is best to restrict governmentst to the job of protecting private property and enforcingcontracts, and to limit political debate to minor issues.
Democracy is only allowed so far as control of business is off-limits to popular discussion or query form ordinary citizens, in other words, as long as it isn't democracy.
That to me roughly sums up a "modern jackass theory"... But hey, this is a shoe thread, so "Just do it"..
Yeah, for me that about sums up the "modern jackass theory"..
And this is not a political rant? I won't report you but I bet this doesn't last long. It is sad to see someone post when they are off their meds. Maybe its not your fault. I see you are from Canada. You probably were unable to get an appointment.
No meds required, I've worked hard to get off the kool aid... I'm not there yet, but i'm far ahead of the curve... And i'll leave your Canada comment alone, simply because I can distiquish the difference between ignorant individuals and blanketing an entire country with generalizations..
No meds required, I've worked hard to get off the kool aid... I'm not there yet, but i'm far ahead of the curve... And i'll leave your Canada comment alone, simply because I can distiquish the difference between ignorant individuals and blanketing an entire country with generalizations..
I can agree that you must have taken a double dose of the cool aid. You haven't worked hard enough to get off of it. Get in line for an appointment quick. You may get an emergency appointment with a shrink in a few months if you are lucky.
(Where is Alligator now? No offense intended gator)
berninbush
04-22-2009, 21:29
Yeah, and we also have an average life span of 35 years, and no one would marry us if we couldn't hunt food or gather well. Somehow I think the 'we were bred this way' argument is conceptually appealing, but bad science.I think you're making a "straw man" fallacy there. Setting up a straw man is putting forth a highly exaggerated view of someone else's position as if it was their real position, and then using obvious evidence to knock it flat.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because our life has dramatically improved in some ways through modern science (antibiotics, improvements in agriculture) doesn't mean that every "advance" we've made is actually good for us.
Any doctor will tell you that properly used antibiotics are a boon to the human race, but that misused antibiotics represent a great threat to the human race. Sometimes we can "mess with nature" successfully to make a genuine improvement, and sometimes it creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Good science is not making any assumptions one way or the other, but evaluating empirical evidence to determine whether or not something's working. Good science requires the humility to recognize that there are millions of things in the universe we still don't understand, even about our own bodies. It sounds to me like that's what this article is trying to do.
I think you're making a "straw man" fallacy there. Setting up a straw man is putting forth a highly exaggerated view of someone else's position as if it was their real position, and then using obvious evidence to knock it flat.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because our life has dramatically improved in some ways through modern science (antibiotics, improvements in agriculture) doesn't mean that every "advance" we've made is actually good for us.
Any doctor will tell you that properly used antibiotics are a boon to the human race, but that misused antibiotics represent a great threat to the human race. Sometimes we can "mess with nature" successfully to make a genuine improvement, and sometimes it creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Good science is not making any assumptions one way or the other, but evaluating empirical evidence to determine whether or not something's working. Good science requires the humility to recognize that there are millions of things in the universe we still don't understand, even about our own bodies. It sounds to me like that's what this article is trying to do.
Lets get back to the original post. The article was about how running shoes cause injuries. And running barefoot was better than modern shoes. The article was based on BS.
Lets get back to the original post. The article was about how running shoes cause injuries. And running barefoot was better than modern shoes. The article was based on BS.
If that is the case, please provide evidence.
If that is the case, please provide evidence.
Read my original post. And please provide evidence to back up your rant(s). They would be funny if not so sad.
Sometimes we can "mess with nature" successfully to make a genuine improvement, and sometimes it creates all sorts of unintended consequences. Good science is not making any assumptions one way or the other, but evaluating empirical evidence to determine whether or not something's working. Good science requires the humility to recognize that there are millions of things in the universe we still don't understand,
I guess it is open season now. You make a great case against man made global warming zealots.
berninbush
04-22-2009, 22:26
Nufsaid, you are hijacking the thread with trolling comments and ad hominem attacks (another logical fallacy).
DAJA's request is quite reasonable. What empirical evidence can you cite to prove that modern shoes substantially reduce foot/ ankle/ knee injuries?
Nufsaid, you are hijacking the thread with trolling comments and ad hominem attacks (another logical fallacy).
DAJA's request is quite reasonable. What empirical evidence can you cite to prove that modern shoes substantially reduce foot/ ankle/ knee injuries?
You already hijacked the thread. And if you think that DAJA is reasonable I can't help you.
berninbush
04-22-2009, 22:50
I did not say that everything Daja said was reasonable. As a matter of fact I disagree emphatically with his/her political philosophy, and Daja's rant had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, the request to present empirical evidence that modern shoes reduce foot injury was very reasonable and right on topic with the original post of this thread.
I did not say that everything Daja said was reasonable. As a matter of fact I disagree emphatically with his/her political philosophy, and Daja's rant had nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, the request to present empirical evidence that modern shoes reduce foot injury was very reasonable and right on topic with the original post of this thread.
The original post offered an article that proposed that runners were better off not wearing shoes. In fact that running shoes caused injuries. Included in the article was:
"At Stanford University, California, two sales representatives from Nike were watching the athletics team practise. Part of their job was to gather feedback from the company's sponsored runners about which shoes they preferred. Unfortunately, it was proving difficult that day as the runners all seemed to prefer... nothing.
'Didn't we send you enough shoes?' they asked head coach Vin Lananna. They had, he was just refusing to use them.
'I can't prove this,' the well-respected coach told them.
'But I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries.'"
This is nothing more that BS. This is how the thread began. Look at my posts and decide who "hijacked" the thread.
berninbush
04-22-2009, 23:13
You can choose not to believe the story, but some of us happen to think it's reasonable. In the meantime, are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies on the benefits of running shoes? If not, it's anecdotal evidence on both sides.
You can choose not to believe the story, but some of us happen to think it's reasonable. In the meantime, are there any peer-reviewed scientific studies on the benefits of running shoes? If not, it's anecdotal evidence on both sides.
Go run 15 miles on the roads and let me know.
berninbush
04-22-2009, 23:30
I'm not a runner. But I walk barefoot outside all the time, and wear sandals when I must wear shoes for social reasons.
Think about how we use our hands. They don't normally bear all our weight, but we use them to carry heavy things, bring them in contact with rough/ sharp/ uncomfortable surfaces, and twist them into all sorts of shapes in the course of a day. In our culture it is normal to wear work gloves and/or wrist braces only for specialized functions that put unusual demand on the hands. But what if a culture wore gloves as a regular daily item, the way we wear shoes? Wouldn't the skin on their hands become tender and sensitive to contact with rough surfaces? And if they habitually wore "wrist stability braces" that restricted movement, wouldn't their wrist joints become weaker and less able to protect themselves from injury?
I'm not a runner. But I walk barefoot outside all the time, and wear sandals when I must wear shoes for social reasons.
Think about how we use our hands. They don't normally bear all our weight, but we use them to carry heavy things, bring them in contact with rough/ sharp/ uncomfortable surfaces, and twist them into all sorts of shapes in the course of a day. In our culture it is normal to wear work gloves and/or wrist braces only for specialized functions that put unusual demand on the hands. But what if a culture wore gloves as a regular daily item, the way we wear shoes? Wouldn't the skin on their hands become tender and sensitive to contact with rough surfaces? And if they habitually wore "wrist stability braces" that restricted movement, wouldn't their wrist joints become weaker and less able to protect themselves from injury?
You just lost any credibility you may have had. Go run 15 miles on the roads barefoot. I doubt you can. Not that you could with shoes either. But would you rather run 15 miles on the roads with shoes or without? Focus now. I'm waiting on your answer.
I like going barefoot in the summer if I am not doing anything physical. I avoid shoes whenever I can in the summer. But that does not have anything to do with the original post.
bobgessner57
04-23-2009, 00:36
Glad to see some people found the link interesting. I am not ready to start barefoot hiking but the concepts about how the foot works interested me.
I know from my own experience that I move differently over rough trail based on the footwear I have on. I use a leather boot in winter and Merrell chamelions from mid April until Thanksgiving. I will soon be buying a new pair of runners and am considering a lighter simple shoe but have been concerned about the really thin soles in terms of comfort, particularly on rocky trail. This article has given me food for thought. I find with running style shoes I pivot over obstructions and swing my body forward more freely than I do with boots. I feel like I am putting less stress on my knees when I am in the low cut shoes and that I am moving more naturally. I want to continue in the direction of natural movement but also protect my feet from cuts and abrasions.
Two other anecdotes:
One, I wear good properly fitted steel toed ankle high boots for work but slip out of them into Merrel mocs for the ride home or wear the mocs all day if I am not required to wear the boots, then barefoot in the house, mocs around the farm. I experience some lumbar pain particularly when I have been wearing the boots a lot, little to none when wearing the mocs even when doing heavy work around the home/farm. The connection with work boots and pain has been consistent with three different brands and different fitters. My intuition is that it has something to do with the confinement and stiffness of the work boots. (my work does not involve standing on concrete all day)
Two: A Navy physical therapist told me that she had dealt with an extraordinary number of knee problems with the personnel in one particular unit. Upon investigation she found that those guys were playing basketball on concrete, the other units in her care had asphalt courts. Although asphalt seems plenty hard to me it is more resilient than concrete and apparently easier on the joints. The point here not being that they would be better off playing barefoot but that seemingly insignificant differences in our playing/hiking style/equipment could make big differences in our comfort and health.
Perhaps we can apply for a grant to pay a bunch of whiteblazers to hike all summer in various types of footwear so we can have a peer reviewed study of our collective maladies to determine if there is any correlation between same....then do it again next year to confirm the validity of the results.
Jayboflavin04
04-23-2009, 00:40
I'm not a runner. But I walk barefoot outside all the time, and wear sandals when I must wear shoes for social reasons.
But what if a culture wore gloves as a regular daily item, the way we wear shoes?
Then our hands would stink like our feet. :D This would be a great way to stop people from picking their noses!
I thought the article was thought provoking. I tend to think that are bodies are becoming soft because of many modern inventions.
berninbush
04-23-2009, 00:45
So, nufsaid, my credibility is tied to my physical fitness? I readily admit that I couldn't run 15 miles with or without shoes. And no, I don't get to go barefoot often enough so the bottoms of my feet are not as tough as they could be. Part of my point is that we have made ourselves soft and weak by having to wear shoes. But if I were going to train as a runner, I'd love to be able to train barefoot.
Anyway, I doubt the Stanford team trains on roads. They probably have a nice track.
Bobgessner, sounds like a plan!
So, nufsaid, my credibility is tied to my physical fitness? I readily admit that I couldn't run 15 miles with or without shoes. And no, I don't get to go barefoot often enough so the bottoms of my feet are not as tough as they could be. Part of my point is that we have made ourselves soft and weak by having to wear shoes. But if I were going to train as a runner, I'd love to be able to train barefoot.
Anyway, I doubt the Stanford team trains on roads. They probably have a nice track.
Bobgessner, sounds like a plan!
No, your lack of credibility is tied to your posts.
And this is not a political rant? I won't report you but I bet this doesn't last long. It is sad to see someone post when they are off their meds. Maybe its not your fault. I see you are from Canada. You probably were unable to get an appointment.
What he said clearly flew right over your head and didn't bother to stop and say hello... The next time you call someone nuts for a post you might want to explain why instead of diving headfirst into immature nationalism and unfounded claims of mental illness.
No, your lack of credibility is tied to your posts.
You aren't credible enough to comment on the credibility of others unless this is a "takes one to know one" kind of deal:cool:
What he said clearly flew right over your head and didn't bother to stop and say hello... The next time you call someone nuts for a post you might want to explain why instead of diving headfirst into immature nationalism and unfounded claims of mental illness.
Welcome to the doper sympathizer.
You aren't credible enough to comment on the credibility of others unless this is a "takes one to know one" kind of deal:cool:
Look at his posts on this thread.
Welcome to the doper sympathizer.
Ad hominem
Look at his posts on this thread.
Look at yours! Regionalism, nationalism and a failure to take off the blinders seems to be a pattern with you.
What he said clearly flew right over your head and didn't bother to stop and say hello... The next time you call someone nuts for a post you might want to explain why instead of diving headfirst into immature nationalism and unfounded claims of mental illness.
Did you read his posts? And you agree with him? Did you understand my posts or did they fly over your head.
Did you read his posts? And you agree with him? Did you understand my posts or did they fly over your head.
What did YOU disagree with? Other than him being Canadian... because that's the only thing you supplied with your child like reply.
Look at yours! Regionalism, nationalism and a failure to take off the blinders seems to be a pattern with you.
You seem to be a hateful person. Maybe you should go smoke a joint. That does mellow you out right?
What did YOU disagree with? Other than him being Canadian... because that's the only thing you supplied with your child like reply.
Did you read his posts? Or did you just see my screen name and just couldn't wait to pounce without thinking?
You seem to be a hateful person. Maybe you should go smoke a joint. That does mellow you out right?
Maybe you could show some creativity and willingness to debate actual points if you did. I don't need pot to do that.
Maybe you could show some creativity and willingness to debate actual points if you did. I don't need pot to do that.
Read the thread from the beginning and then get back to me.
Did you read his posts? Or did you just see my screen name and just couldn't wait to pounce without thinking?
He was explaining the Modern Jackass Theory and he was spot on. Apparently, you've never heard of it and LOL took it as a personal attack. Oh, the irony.
He was explaining the Modern Jackass Theory and he was spot on. Apparently, you've never heard of it and LOL took it as a personal attack. Oh, the irony.
I didn't take it as an attack on me. Just observing an idiot mouthing off. Now I see another.
I didn't take it as an attack on me. Just observing an idiot mouthing off. Now I see another.
Keep going, this is priceless! And don't you dare specifically point out what you disagree with and why! You'll ruin it.:banana
Keep going, this is priceless! And don't you dare specifically point out what you disagree with and why! You'll ruin it.:banana
You obviously haven't read the whole thread. The actual point of the thread. Of course you have to wade through lots of hijack attempts and trolling. And those that don't specifically point out what they disagree with and why. Of course you would fit into that category. You aren't nearly as intelligent as you like to put on. But you can insert a dancing banana. Aren't you cool.
You obviously haven't read the whole thread. The actual point of the thread. Of course you have to wade through lots of hijack attempts and trolling. And those that don't specifically point out what they disagree with and why. Of course you would fit into that category. You aren't nearly as intelligent as you like to put on. But you can insert a dancing banana. Aren't you cool.
:banana:banana:banana:banana:bananaI give that a 5 out of 5 dancing bananas!!!
How do I "put on" my intelligence? You're a very sensitive person, aren't you?
I was commenting on YOUR trolling, by the way. I happen to agree that shoes are better if for no other reason than- we don't pick up as many parasites.
Matteroo
04-23-2009, 01:42
maybe you two wanna just do PM's for hashing out your differences and leave the thread to talking about this study, if it is BS, if people like it or can agree, or thoughts of modern society/technology causing us to lose capacity in certain areas/ways..even though we obviously owe very very much to scientific/technological development..
:banana:banana:banana:banana:bananaI give that a 5 out of 5 dancing bananas!!!
How do I "put on" my intelligence? You're a very sensitive person, aren't you?
I should have known better than try to reason with an idiot. Have a good time with your bananas.
maybe you two wanna just do PM's for hashing out your differences and leave the thread to talking about this study, if it is BS, if people like it or can agree, or thoughts of modern society/technology causing us to lose capacity in certain areas/ways..even though we obviously owe very very much to scientific/technological development..
I'm trolling the troller. It's the best method of dealing with trolls when people keep feeding them.
I should have known better than try to reason with an idiot. Have a good time with your bananas.
And there it is again! YOU ARE ON FIRE TONIGHT!
berninbush
04-23-2009, 01:50
In honor of nufsaid, I might just have to go take a barefoot hike.
People have been barefoot for thousands of years, but people have also been wearing footwear for thousands of years. Perhaps a major difference in modern times is that people make fewer of their own clothing, footwear, tools, and gear. Perhaps that is what has made us weaker. We now depend too much on the skills of others, which are now most often marketing skills, and not enough on our own personal hands on trial and error, and the unique and profundly deep experience, knowledge, skill, and ingenuity that comes from that. Maybe the modern man oughts walk a mile in his own moccassins rather than keep wearing someone elses.
Many Africans still don't wear shoes. They can't afford them. They walk almost everywhere. They run barefoot, too.
Nufsaid, are you going to tell them that they are wrong for going barefoot? Because that's what you are telling us. You keep repeating that anyone who knows anything about running knows that a good pair of running shoes is a necessity to prevent injuries.
Africans don't worry very much about twisting their ankles. The heel-to-toe transition while running is usually when sprains occur, but when you run barefoot, you don't land on your heel.
It is an unfair comparison for me to blindly say that running in shoes is the only way to run, because I did not grow up barefoot. My feet are tender, the muscles and ligaments weak, and my arches are flat as a pancake. But going barefoot seems to work pretty well for most Africans.
Did you grow up barefoot, never wearing shoes, and walking most everywhere you needed to go? If not, then you can't discount the experience of most of the Africans.
Please try to come up with a better response than "it's all bs."
Sorry for the previous rant, i've been consumed lately working with a team studying the effects of the economy on social control. I'm beginning to believe that ignorance truely is bliss.
As a result, I don't have a hard time believing that high end footwear has more to do with marketing and profits than actual benifits to the person wearing them.
Years ago I switched from high end winter boots to a pair of homemade sheep skin moc's, best decision I ever made. You have ultimate dry and warmth, mixed with full articulation of the foot combined with having a very real feel of the ground beneath you... I love those things... I've made attempts at making a simpler lighter pair for summer with mixed results. I prefer the freedom, blister free mobility they provide, but they literally cook your feet. Come summer I roam freely barefoot, I even have found a great little bar in the next town over that allows me to enter barefoot... By fall I can comfortably walk over nearly any terrain with little discomfort... But boy toughening up your feet from a winter of footwear can be painful..
what you really should walk away from this article with is an understanding of how we have slowly shed away the natural functions of our body, the way it was designed to work, for synthesized functions that have been adapted to fit our modern society and are quite realistically harmful to us.
Absolutely. We should outlaw all synthesized medicines and let the increased death rate restore order and balance to the planet. :rolleyes:
Welcome to the doper sympathizer.
here we go again :p
infinite727
04-23-2009, 10:43
Absolutely. We should outlaw all synthesized medicines and let the increased death rate restore order and balance to the planet. :rolleyes:
way to go ahead and assume an extremist view. you know what they say happens when you assume...
way to go ahead and assume an extremist view. you know what they say happens when you assume...
I assumed nothing. I simply used your words and made a couple of substitutions to make a point.
Not all is terrible about the ways of the modern world. Not all was terrible about traditional ways either. In fact, much was and is good about both. Life is about accepting good with bad and making the best of it.
I think most foot problems go hand in hand with being overweight. I have trouble with both my feet, mostly the left, that is partly due to a car injury when I was 17, and partly due to being prone to turning ankles since I was young (perhaps due to shoes), but I think it is worse now mostly because I am heavier, not so much because I am older. I am hoping to mitigate the problems with my ankles and knees by dropping my weight down to something like a runners weight, like 160-165 pounds for my 6' frame. Once I am down to that weight I will try lighter running shoes, like 7oz per shoe, and perhaps more running and hiking barefoot. I think moccassins would be better though. Barefoot sometimes sure, but mostly moccassins and mukluks makes more sense to me.
No sense going from one extreme to the other. I understand the argument of letting your feet feel the ground, but humans have been wearing mocs for over 10,000 years, perhaps 100,000 years. Not sure.
I don't think moccassins and mukluks are all that hard to make yourself either. That's a plus.
No sense going from one extreme to the other. I understand the argument of letting your feet feel the ground, but humans have been wearing mocs for over 10,000 years, perhaps 100,000 years. Not sure.
Probably longer than that, if we assume that mocs predated the clovis point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothing
Holy crap. Clothing is like 650,000 years old.
Here is an interesting wikipedia reference to how old shoes are,
which indicates that we may have become somewhat physiologically dependant on them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoes#History
"Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus believes he has found evidence that the use of shoes began in the period between about 40,000 and 26,000 years ago, based on the fact that the thickness of the bones of the toes (other than the big toe) decreased during this period, on the premise that going barefoot results in greater bone growth before this period."
Not sure if that means we would have bigger toes if we went barefoot all our lives,
or if we have evolved and adaptapted as a species into having genetically smaller toes.
Thought this was interesting also:
"The earliest designs were simple affairs, often mere "foot bags" of leather to protect the feet from rocks, debris, and cold. Since a shoe uses more leather than a sandal, their use was more common amongst people in cold climates. By the Middle Ages, turn-shoes had been developed with toggled flaps or drawstrings to tighten the leather around the foot for a better fit. As Europe gained in wealth and power, fancy shoes became status symbols. Toes became long and pointed, often to ridiculous proportions. Artisans created unique footwear for rich patrons, and new styles developed. Eventually the modern shoe, with a sewn-on sole, was devised. Since the 17th century, most leather shoes have used a sewn-on sole. This remains the standard for finer-quality dress shoes today."
Also this article on moccasins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moccasin
"Moccasins protect the foot whilst allowing the wearer to feel the ground. The Plains Indians wore hard-sole moccasins, given that their territorial geography featured rock and cacti. The eastern Indian tribes wore soft-sole moccasins, for walking in leaf-covered forest ground."
Interesting article, sorry I can't say the same for most of the "discussion". I know that in my experience, I've had best results with middle of the road or cheap footwear. Fit is much more important than technology.
The article convinced me not to replace my comfortable, well broken in shoes just yet. Will keep them until they let me know definitively that they are tired, instead of replacing them now because I think they might be ready.
Fit is much more important than technology.
Very true.
Granted, the level of support needed varies from one person to another, but I've known a number of hikers with multiple thousands of miles on their feet who wear inexpensive cross-trainers like those one might find for $30 a pair at Target. But they fit well, and the hikers carried on mile after mile.
berninbush
04-23-2009, 15:39
"Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus believes he has found evidence that the use of shoes began in the period between about 40,000 and 26,000 years ago, based on the fact that the thickness of the bones of the toes (other than the big toe) decreased during this period, on the premise that going barefoot results in greater bone growth before this period."Very interesting theory. But I would think there's a fairly simple way to test it. As recently as 50 to 100 years ago, children routinely went barefoot all the time for much of the year in the rural Southern U.S. Did they develop thicker toe bones? If so, it would support this theory... if not, it seems much less likely.
Yes, so maybe he meant we adapted thinner toes over time. Not sure. For it to make the most sense it would have to be an advantage, or at least stop being a disadvantage, for people to have smaller toes. I think there may be something to that.
gravityman
04-23-2009, 18:10
That's funny cause to me a "Modern Jackass" theory would be one that argues that there is only one correct way to live, ours.
(snip rant)
Yeah, for me that about sums up the "modern jackass theory"..
Ah, this is a PERFECT example of 'Modern Jackass' as I mentioned it..
Look it up...
modern jackass:
a person that talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about
(Defined by the NPR show This American Life)
Usually occurs in a conversation when you know a little about a subject and when asked to expand upon it, you extrapolate completely unrelated nonsense.
"What are trans fatty acids?"
"Fats that have an extra hydrogen atom on it"
"What is that bad for you?"
Ah, this is a PERFECT example of 'Modern Jackass' as I mentioned it..
Look it up...
modern jackass:
a person that talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about
(Defined by the NPR show This American Life)
Usually occurs in a conversation when you know a little about a subject and when asked to expand upon it, you extrapolate completely unrelated nonsense.
"What are trans fatty acids?"
"Fats that have an extra hydrogen atom on it"
"What is that bad for you?"
He was explaining the Modern Jackass Theory and he was spot on. Apparently, you've never heard of it and LOL took it as a personal attack. Oh, the irony.
gravityman You just managed to tick off 2 blowhards in one post.
Mother's Finest
04-23-2009, 18:33
all I will say is this.
I will take my high end Brooks Running shoes and custom orthotics (calibrated for weight)
over going barefoot or wearing a PayLess type shoe any day of the year.
Hype sells both ways.
peace
mf
Why would I be ticked off? Because you disagree with me? Sorry friend, but we're all in this together, so there is no benifit to gain from working against one another..You'll either teach me something new, or strengthen my resolve to move forward with a purpose. Either way, my energy will be spent improving my family, community, country and world, not getting angery because someone has a different opinion than me..
gravityman
04-23-2009, 18:40
gravityman You just managed to tick off 2 blowhards in one post.
Seems that about 99% of the posts on whiteblaze could be tagged as 'Moden Jackass' posts. Probably even a few of my own :)
G
Why would I be ticked off? Because you disagree with me? Sorry friend, but we're all in this together, so there is no benifit to gain from working against one another..You'll either teach me something new, or strengthen my resolve to move forward with a purpose. Either way, my energy will be spent improving my family, community, country and world, not getting angery because someone has a different opinion than me..
Good for you. I am not an angry person either. But the other one seems to be.
Why would I be ticked off? Because you disagree with me? Sorry friend, but we're all in this together, so there is no benifit to gain from working against one another..You'll either teach me something new, or strengthen my resolve to move forward with a purpose. Either way, my energy will be spent improving my family, community, country and world, not getting angery because someone has a different opinion than me..
Just to make it clear. The only issue that I had with you was the rant. You had the decency to apologize for that. I don't have any issue with you.
If any of you read or study U.S. Civil War history, you're probably aware that the Confederate troops were poorly equipped to survive, little on wage a war. Many of them didn't have shoes and that didn't slow them down. They just kept coming. I believe that is because most of them grew up barefooted and their feet and legs were tough enough to take it.
I just finished reading "For Cause and For Country" about the battles of Spring Hill and Franklin, TN. The time of year was late November, 1864 and the southern army had marched from the Atlanta area west
across Alabama and north into Tennessee. Some of them had shoes but they were worn out. The rest was bare footed.
They were real men in those days. Today there are very few real men. Most are nothing but over privilaged whinners with lots of excusses. This is especially true for most born after 1960, which includes my 3 kids.
They were real men in those days. Today there are very few real men. Most are nothing but over privilaged whinners with lots of excusses. This is especially true for most born after 1960, which includes my 3 kids.
And who is responsible for raising them this way?
They were real men in those days. Today there are very few real men. Most are nothing but over privilaged whinners with lots of excusses. This is especially true for most born after 1960, which includes my 3 kids.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they allow disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children now are tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.” -- attributed to Socrates by Plato
I do know that I suffer from weak ankles thanks to 16yrs of playing hockey. Hockey skates are like wearing casts on your feet. I played right up to semi pro, which means from the time I was 12 to age 20 I had skates on my feet nearly 3-5hrs a day year around...
I go bearfoot often, or sandles when some form of footwear is required, and i've been able to toughen up my feet, but still have to be very careful with foot placement to protect my ankles... Not sure i'll ever develop strong ankles.. When carrying a pack I have no choice to wear a full boot, i've gradually worked down from heavy full leather boots, but still need to be careful...
And who is responsible for raising them this way?
There is no clear cut answer to your question because no one will take responsibility and a large book would not hold all of societies ills today. In our case, I take partial responsibility for trying to provide the things for our children that I didn't have growing up. In my early childhood years, we had no electricity, bathroom, trips to the movies or anything like that. We had running water though because if Mama had to tell you more than once to go and draw a bucket of water from the well, I can guarantee you would be running with it.
We went to town, (Henderson, TN) on Sat. afternoons for "resupply" of things like coffee, sugar, flour, salt, etc. Everything else we grew ourselves, and we lived good. We were barefooted and wirey. I didn't realize until recent years just how well off and privilaged we were. We walked a path about 3 miles thru the woods to school and when we got home we took off our good clothes and "shoes". In the summer we bathed in a #2 wash tub in the back yard in water drawn from a well and heated by the sun. I guess you could say we had a solar powered water heater. LOL.
When my kids came along in the 70's my wife and I wanted them to have everything we grew up without. That was one of my lifes mistakes. We spoiled them to some degree, but lately they've turned into pretty darn nice guys and have recently blessed us with 2 very fine Grandsons. Our kids are all polite, respectful and hard workers. We're proud of them. Not bragging.....Yes, bragging.
Most everyone in the country lived similar lives in those days. This was true for people in the south, north, east and west. This was the 1940's, 50's and 60's. It was not a southern thing.
We, like most familes raised and butchered two hogs each year. They would be about 400 pounds each by Thanksgiving and that's when we processed them. No part went to waste. Death came quick and humane because Dad would shoot them between the eyes with a .22 cal. rifle then slit their throat to allow them to bleed. They were then hoisted into a 55 gal barrel which had been positioned at about a 45 degree angle, filled half full of water. A fire had been built under the barrel and the water heated to almost a boil. This was called scalding them, after which the hair was scraped off with butcher knives. The kids got to help with this but our work was closed inspected by the adults. Dad would always raise white hogs because the hair roots would not show in the skin which stayed on the meat. We also raise female hogs from piglets in the spring so the meat would be tender and tasty by November. When acorns started falling in October, we let the hogs run out to fatten up on the acorns. All the fat was rendered into lard which was used for cooking. Vegatable cooking oil was unheard of in those days. For cooking off the lard, the fat was cut into small pices about 1" by 3". After cooking the lard out, which was done in large black kettles over an open fire, the meat would draw up to about half size and these were called cracklings. Mom would cut these into smaller pieces and cook them in cornbread. This of course was called......crackling cornbread. And folks, if we could cook this on the trail we would have something delicious, filling and high in calories and protein. This would probably be the ultimate hiking food. I may try to make some this year in Maine.
Anyway, that's part of how we and millions of others lived back then. It was a hard life but a good life. We very rarely went to the doctor, but were rarely sick. When we did get sick there was always a home remedy to get us well.
I wish I could return to that life but everyone, my family included, would think I was crazy.
Most everyone in the country lived similar lives in those days. This was true for people in the south, north, east and west. This was the 1940's, 50's and 60's. It was not a southern thing.
We, like most familes raised and butchered two hogs each year. They would be about 400 pounds each by Thanksgiving and that's when we processed them. No part went to waste. Death came quick and humane because Dad would shoot them between the eyes with a .22 cal. rifle then slit their throat to allow them to bleed. They were then hoisted into a 55 gal barrel which had been positioned at about a 45 degree angle, filled half full of water. A fire had been built under the barrel and the water heated to almost a boil. This was called scalding them, after which the hair was scraped off with butcher knives. The kids got to help with this but our work was closed inspected by the adults. Dad would always raise white hogs because the hair roots would not show in the skin which stayed on the meat. We also raise female hogs from piglets in the spring so the meat would be tender and tasty by November. When acorns started falling in October, we let the hogs run out to fatten up on the acorns. All the fat was rendered into lard which was used for cooking. Vegatable cooking oil was unheard of in those days. For cooking off the lard, the fat was cut into small pices about 1" by 3". After cooking the lard out, which was done in large black kettles over an open fire, the meat would draw up to about half size and these were called cracklings. Mom would cut these into smaller pieces and cook them in cornbread. This of course was called......crackling cornbread. And folks, if we could cook this on the trail we would have something delicious, filling and high in calories and protein. This would probably be the ultimate hiking food. I may try to make some this year in Maine.
Anyway, that's part of how we and millions of others lived back then. It was a hard life but a good life. We very rarely went to the doctor, but were rarely sick. When we did get sick there was always a home remedy to get us well.
I wish I could return to that life but everyone, my family included, would think I was crazy.
You are making me hungry.
Good for you. I am not an angry person either. But the other one seems to be.
The other one seems to be? Dood! I let this go earlier today and you're still butthurt about it? I was right, you ARE a very sensitive person. :banana
gravityman You just managed to tick off 2 blowhards in one post.
I said that he gave an explanation, not a definition and his examples certainly fit. ;)
LMAO... I'm pretty sure that I clearly said I was trolling you and I'm still doing it!
He certainly had you pegged and you knew it! Trolling you didn't really take much effort. Hook, line, sinker.:banana
Okay I'm an Anthropology student and I'm running a half marathon in a week so I think I'm somewhat qualified to post in this thread.
While the results of the development of agriculture are undisputed, whether it was positive or negative for the human race is up for debate. On one hand our life span has increased dramatically, on the other, our diet sucks compared to our hunter gatherer ancestors.
Long story short, we might have run barefoot for thousands of years, but like a poster ahead of me said, us whiteys have thinner foot bones from birth! I'm sure you can learn to run without shoes effectively but I'm fairly confident I would die if I tried to do the half-marathon barefoot.
Jayboflavin04
04-24-2009, 00:26
Very interesting theory. But I would think there's a fairly simple way to test it. As recently as 50 to 100 years ago, children routinely went barefoot all the time for much of the year in the rural Southern U.S. Did they develop thicker toe bones? If so, it would support this theory... if not, it seems much less likely.
It would be interesting to compare the anatomy or the average U.S adult and that of an indigenous tribe in 2009. Say around the age of 35-45 to compare lean muscle mass, bone density, overall organ health. I bet we would be suprised.
Ah, this is a PERFECT example of 'Modern Jackass' as I mentioned it..
Look it up...
modern jackass:
a person that talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about
(Defined by the NPR show This American Life)
Usually occurs in a conversation when you know a little about a subject and when asked to expand upon it, you extrapolate completely unrelated nonsense.
"What are trans fatty acids?"
"Fats that have an extra hydrogen atom on it"
"What is that bad for you?"Another excellent example of the modern jackass theory.
One who even quotes a definition and still doesn't get it!
gravityman
04-24-2009, 10:59
I acknowledge that you are the more experienced MJA, that's for sure ;)
Listen to the This American Life episode. It changes how one pontificates on topics, that's for sure!
G