I wonder why Rupp, Farah, all the Kenyans and all the others don't train in Vibrams or something similar with their sponsor's name on it.
You would think it would be a no brainer for all the elites, whose careers depend upon staying healthy, would train in Vibrams. But they don't.
How do you explain that, OP???
The running community is waiting for your response.
...........................
Vibrams 4 Life wrote:
The idea of supportive/cushioned footwear is serious snake oil. Seriously try Vibrams if you haven't already!
I can't believe it - this was a pretty weak troll attempt but you managed to get to the critical 2nd page. Good work.
lolololololoI wrote:
Why can't we go back to the days where humanoids were perfectly evolved to suit their environment and thus lived 100+ years in great health and satisfaction?
But if you go back a hundred years life expectancy was only 30-40 years.... oh I see what you did there.
Vibrams 4 Life wrote:
drunk runner. wrote:My point is that modern running shoes were designed to accommodate common man-made surfaces like concrete and asphalt, therefore wearing Vibrams is not a "cure all" like the OP is suggesting.
Bullshit. The premise behind modern running shoes is that the human foot is somehow inherently defective and requires lifelong coddling in the form of all kinds of artificial support. It's a 100% pure steaming pile of bullshit.
All sorts of human body parts are inherently defective. Such as your brain.
no one you know wrote:
lolololololoI wrote:Why can't we go back to the days where humanoids were perfectly evolved to suit their environment and thus lived 100+ years in great health and satisfaction?
But if you go back a hundred years life expectancy was only 30-40 years.... oh I see what you did there.
Was life expectancy ever that low for Homo Sapiens?
The Bible mentions people routinely living for almost 200 years and banging out kids until the end.
no one you know wrote:
lolololololoI wrote:Why can't we go back to the days where humanoids were perfectly evolved to suit their environment and thus lived 100+ years in great health and satisfaction?
But if you go back a hundred years life expectancy was only 30-40 years.... oh I see what you did there.
A hundred years ago people lived as ragged peasants enslaved to cruel overlords who forced them to stack mud in rat-infested villages where they lived in moldy straw huts and drank typhoid infested water polluted by their own urine.
A hundred thousand years ago people lived as stout hunter gatherers, easily traversing the vast terrain in search of mammoths and cave bears to vanquish in single combat and feast heartily upon. Meanwhile the women, tanned, young and fertile, collected roots and berries and other grainless vegetables to add to the feast. Masters of their domain, these ancients lived long under the care of a wise shaman who knew all.
I thought most vegetables were grainless.
tow. wrote:
Welcome to 2005.
This.
What's wrong with you people??? This is obvious trolling (circa 2006, even)
Bad Wigins wrote:
A hundred years ago people lived as ragged peasants enslaved to cruel overlords who forced them to stack mud in rat-infested villages where they lived in moldy straw huts and drank typhoid infested water polluted by their own urine.
In healthy people urine is clean and harmless to drink (unlike feces).
well,. wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:A hundred years ago people lived as ragged peasants enslaved to cruel overlords who forced them to stack mud in rat-infested villages where they lived in moldy straw huts and drank typhoid infested water polluted by their own urine.
In healthy people urine is clean and harmless to drink (unlike feces).
Ragged enslaved peasants stacking mud in moldy huts drinking typhoid infested water are rarely healthy, so that is a moot point.
Bad Wigins wrote:[/b/]
well,. wrote:In healthy people urine is clean and harmless to drink (unlike feces).
Ragged enslaved peasants stacking mud in moldy huts drinking typhoid infested water are rarely healthy, so that is a moot point.
Polluted urine is a Sign of kidney failure, nothing Else, idiot.
Vibrams 4 Life wrote:
Asphalt isnt that much harder than natural surfaces.
What like the wood between your ears
I feel like it's a widespread fallacy to believe that Humans were built for running. When would Humans ever have run 30+ miles per week on any kind of surface? I feel like we were built for sprinting but there is no evolutionary advantage to being built for long distance running.
Injury Master wrote:
I feel like it's a widespread fallacy to believe that Humans were built for running. When would Humans ever have run 30+ miles per week on any kind of surface? I feel like we were built for sprinting but there is no evolutionary advantage to being built for long distance running.
See this? Now this is how you troll right here. Good work that man.
You think so? Maybe.. I can easily see some hunter gatherer run 30+ miles per week. That part was a bit weak. Also the the built for sprint point, as humans are very poor sprinters. But yeah, the trolling style is very believable. I''ll give him that much.
Running shoes are good for performance, and making money. The average Joe runner would be much better off removing their shoes for exercise most of the time, even running on pavement *Yes, this includes vibrams.
Their stride will be short and choppy, and they will be going much slower (aka pavement), but they will also be learning how to run properly, as well as building strength in their feet. And since the average joe runner isn't concerned with mile repeats the next day or running 6min pace for every run, they can do this and get healthier, incrementally, running in shoes some of the time. Meanwhile, elites who already posses good running form/ don't care about the shape of their feet can use running shoes to extend their range.
While running shoes are good for running fast, many features of them will deform your feet/body over time. (tapered toe boxes, raised heels, arch support). They also just make you dependent on them. I want to see a long term study of someone in the hokas. But then again, we are already dependent on many man-made things and that's not necessarily bad. Jizz.
Vibrams 4 Life wrote:
Bullshit. The premise behind modern running shoes is that the human foot is somehow inherently defective and requires lifelong coddling in the form of all kinds of artificial support. It's a 100% pure steaming pile of bullshit.
Vibrams 4 life: what is the rate of dental braces among modern humans?
What is the survival rate of appendicitis without medical intervention?
What is the rate of corrective glasses/contact use?
What is the loss of hearing percentage due to ear infection without access to antibiotics?
Still think we are perfectly evolved in every way? I think I will go ahead and wear my trainers, but not be too lazy to run with correct form while wearing them, and get the best of both worlds.
Also your comparison of natural versus man made surfaces being equally hard makes no sense. Do you really think pre technology man was running on granite surfaces? No way, they might have occasionally walked a short distance for some purpose, but they definitely weren't out for an easy ten on granite. It would be reasonable tobimagine them running this kind of distance between villages in the woods though, which would have been a soft surface.
Asphalt and concrete with really thick shoes.
Straw M Thoroughman wrote:
What were they meant to run on?
Balian wrote:
Asphalt and concrete with really thick shoes.
So we evolved for something in the distant future? Cool.