If humans evolved to run miles upon miles, why do people have so many injuries. Older people always complain about their joints and knees even though they have not been running their whole lives, and good runners are prone individually to certain types of injuries like shins splints or tendonitis. Injuries do not seem conducive to survival, so why are they so common?
Have they found fossilized skeletons of prehistoric man wearing Nike Shoes?
We don't live or run like our ancestors.
Also, natural selection simply means being able to survive just enough to breed and ensure the offspring reach reproductive maturity. It doesn't mean you have to be pain free.
How you feel during old age is also irrelevant for evolutionary purposes.
It is because the shoes now suck and are actually designed to injure you. Also, because we run on concrete and not grass/water.
After about 30 you basically would have been dead for most of human history, so after that point your body is in a constant state of decay (which we all try to slow, of course).
well over the course of thousands upon thousands of years humans have evolved into upright running machines but they ran barefoot! their skeleton was designed to run practically injury free cuz ever since they took their first step as a baby to the last step before they died... they were all barefoot! but in the modern world we grow up on real hard surfaces like concrete ect. and we grow up with shoes on our feet! so unlike the tarahumara the kenyons or ethiopians who all grow up barefoot and run barefoot till they are basically done growing... in kenya they dont let u wear shoes to run in till ur 17...so these people have feet that are stronger and more resilient to running unlike they feet of americans that have been immobilized in a shoe for the better part of their growing years. so this is just a theory but ie americans are more easily prone to injuries cuz their foot hasnt grown up like the people of east aftrica. also there is a new craze of running barefoot or in vibram fivefingers but this could keep a person from running cuz their foot has wayy too stress on it so a person gets injured! i suggest if ur desperate to run barefoot i would barefoot for a few years just like walking around and then maybe like run 2-3 times a week barefoot for a couple of months and gradually work ur way into a good routine running barefoot after a few years. im not a firm believer in running barefoot but if i was that would be a sensible plan
modern diet, modern lifestyle, modern shoes
Unfortunately humans were NOT genetically engineered to evolve as competitor runners. The training involved is to rigorous for the human body. Some runnres adpat to large volumes of training, however most human bodies CANNOT tolerate the degree of physical training without some sort of breakdown.
Early humans used the pose method, they didn't get injured. Use gravity to run faster.
After seeing more than one friend get a stress fracture after switching to barefoot or those monkey vibram thingies, I gotta say BS on the barefoot running theory.
Runners get injured these days so frequently because we are running on asphalt most of the time.
As already mentioned: shoes, surfaces, lifestyle.
But also, we didn't necessarily evolve to train - to run with consistently high volume and intensity, pushing our limits to get faster year after year.
It's also probably an unfair comparison to assume injuries were unknown 500 or 5000 or 50,000 years ago. Who knows how rare or common various types of injury were in the distant past?
Because when we evolved to run, we were doing it, and a lot of it from birth, barefoot, and on softer terrain. Our bodies adapted. Now, we're in shoes most of the time, and don't exercise nearly as much as was required to survive back then.
And can anybody tell me what "Kenyons" are? Are they related to Klingons?
nsmb, minimalist wrote:
As already mentioned: shoes, surfaces, lifestyle.
But also, we didn't necessarily evolve to train - to run with consistently high volume and intensity, pushing our limits to get faster year after year.
It's also probably an unfair comparison to assume injuries were unknown 500 or 5000 or 50,000 years ago. Who knows how rare or common various types of injury were in the distant past?
True. Plus, the injuries we sit out usually aren't so bad that you couldn't run if your life depended on it.
Your friends probably got injured because they switched over and did too much, too fast and their bodies weren't adapted to running barefoot after having run shod for so long.
Ignore any of the above posters using the words "designed" or "intended" as this verbiage reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. I can't really comment on the shoe/barefoot issue, as there is very little research on that as far as I am aware. The fact is our bodies are a fascinating collection of responses to selective pressures, and we are only beginning to understand some of these complexities and evolutionary "trade-offs." For example, our spinal columns appear to be very inefficient for bipedalism, but not to the extent that some variation would have produced differential reproductive success. Our spine is structured like a suspension bridge, which structure you can easily ascertain would be best suited for walking on all fours, rather than on two legs. This structure is one reason back problems are so prevalent in human adults.
korviev wrote:
After seeing more than one friend get a stress fracture after switching to barefoot or those monkey vibram thingies, I gotta say BS on the barefoot running theory.
Runners get injured these days so frequently because we are running on asphalt most of the time.
That's good because I've never seen a runner get an injury in normal trainers or "stability" shoes. I gotta say BS on high heeled trainers.
All other animals have injuries. With most running injuries you can still run if you had to
Plus, as above you should stay off the roads
*Psst.. watch this*
It's because humans did not evolve.
http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/
How We're Wrecking Our Feet With Every Step We Take
Last year, researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, published a study titled “Shod Versus Unshod: The Emergence of Forefoot Pathology in Modern Humans?” in the podiatry journal The Foot. The study examined 180 modern humans from three different population groups (Sotho, Zulu, and European), comparing their feet to one another’s, as well as to the feet of 2,000-year-old skeletons. The researchers concluded that, prior to the invention of shoes, people had healthier feet. Among the modern subjects, the Zulu population, which often goes barefoot, had the healthiest feet while the Europeans—i.e., the habitual shoe-wearers—had the unhealthiest. One of the lead researchers, Dr. Bernhard Zipfel, when commenting on his findings, lamented that the American Podiatric Medical Association does not “actively encourage outdoor barefoot walking for healthy individuals. This flies in the face of the increasing scientific evidence, including our study, that most of the commercially available footwear is not good for the feet.”
Podiatrist:
http://nwfootankle.com/home/toes/101Myth #2
Athletic shoes are good for feet, because they are flat, they absorb impact, and they support the heel and arch.
Myth Dispelled
Many people know that high heels are more about fashion than being orthopedically-sound for walking. But what is wrong with athletic shoes? Even athletic shoes elevate the heel, extend the toes, and pinch the toes together. Instead of enhancing performance, this actually compromises the natural gait, leading to chronically tight extensor muscles and toes that structurally change so that they are crunched toward the midline. The foot functions best as a barefoot, that is, when the heel and forefoot are completely level, and the toes are allowed to flex, extend, and spread.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5584.html
"I discovered that the bones of the little toes of humans from that time frame were much less strongly built than those of their ancestors while their leg bones remained large and strong," Trinkaus said. "The most logical cause would be the introduction of supportive footwear."
During barefoot walking, the smaller toes flex for traction, keeping the toe bones strong. Supportive footwear lessens the roll of the little toes, thus weakening them.
korviev wrote:
After seeing more than one friend get a stress fracture after switching to barefoot or those monkey vibram thingies, I gotta say BS on the barefoot running theory.
Runners get injured these days so frequently because we are running on asphalt most of the time.
The fact that your friends have weak bones from spending most of their lives in a sedentary environment instead of an active physical environment is forcing you to call BS on the theory that humans ran for thousands upon thousands of years barefoot? My, you're a smart one.
The fact that your friends got stress fractures from running in minimalist shoes isn't proof that minimalism is BS, it's proof that your friends have spent too much of their lives sitting around on their asses and not enough time on their feet. Your bones internally adapt themselves and re-arrange their cellular make-up to account for whatever stresses are frequently placed upon them. Spend alot of your time on your feet moving around and your internal bone structure will adapt. Spend alot of your time sitting around watching TV and your bone structure will go to hell.
The fact that obese people destroy their feet with their excessive rolls of flab and poundage isn't proof that feet aren't suited for running, it's proof that people aren't suited to being so fat and lazy.
The fact that people have achilles problems when switching from high-heeled high-cushioned nikes to flats/vibrams/barefeet isn't proof that our achilles can't handle it and need the elevated heel, it's proof that wearing shoes with elevated heels for our whole lives artificially shortens the achilles and makes people prone to achilles injuries when they don't wear them. The Brooks Addiction is the most appropriately named shoe I've ever heard of - You know what addiction implies? Physical dependency.
As my co-worker put it today, probably only about 2% of the population is suited to actually run. Everyone else is too fat and too weak. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, just don't act like you're the victim of shoes/asphalt/genetics/etc and don't claim that barefoot running is BS just because you're too weak/fat/out of shape to handle it.
The fact that old people have joint problems isn't proof that running is bad for your joints, it's proof that old people didn't really exist for most of human evolution and that they only do now because of modern medicine.
Additionally, the whole "running is bad for your joints, therefor we aren't adapted to run" argument is hilariously flawed because what do the people who have joint problems typically run in? The shoe with the latest and greatest Patented-MoGo-Progrid-Zoom-Air-Midfoot-Hydroflow-Enhanced-Adiprene-Reinforced-Trusstic-Guidance-Dual-Density-Stabilicore-Posting-DRB-Variable-Wave-Plate-With-A-Decoupled-Gel-Caterpillar-Crash-Pad* technology that allows people to run with sloppy ass form and come smashing down on their heel as hard as they'd like. And somehow people use the enormous glut of injuries sustained by people running in these shoes as an argument against the idea of running barefoot with proper form? How is that exactly? I don't get it.
*Yes, those are all actual patended and trademarked names of shoe technologies used by Nike, Adidas, Saucony, New Balance, Asics, Mizuno, Brooks etc... WBut whatever you do don't run in the Nike Shox, because remember, gimmicks are baaaaaad... ;)
The bottom line is that, in whatever you do in life, if you find yourself requiring the services of anything called a "crash pad" for an activity that humans performed just fine naked and barefoot for thousands upon thousands of years, it's probably time to re-evaluate how you're going about that activity, because odds are, you're doing it wrong.