That's what editors are for. A shame you don't have one, he'd have probably caught the missing punctuation in your first sentence, switch "plant" to "plan", and point out that I wouldn't actually be the one "publishing" anything, but rather "getting published".
That's my point, you don't even know what you're talking about. All Nike's do not run the same width-wise, nor do all Asics. The Nike Structure, for example, has a wider forefoot than the Asics DS Trainer. Nike makes hundreds of shoes, all of which are quite different and distinct from each other. The same goes for Asics, NB, Brooks, Adidas Saucony, etc. To say "all Nikes are too narrow for me, and all Asics are wide enough for me" is ludicrous and demonstrates a quite significant pool of ignorance on the subject. All Nike shoes are not the same, not even remotely, and to label them as such is absurd.
Had you truly read my post with an open mind you'd have noticed the part where I said that there are plenty of racing flats with significant forefoot cushioning (Brooks' Green Silence is the first to mind, Nike Lunaracer too). If that's all you need out of a shoe, why add the extra weight of a heavy trainer? Go pick up a Saucony Kinvara or a Green Silence (which is plenty wide in the forefoot at that), shed some unneeded weight, and get faster.
Because they are the ones who are proposing putting something unnatural on the foot.
Sure, why not, that's a good attitude to have. I agree. But note that this still means that shoe-proponents DO have a burden of proof placed upon them, even if the other side does as well. Pointing out that the opposing side has a burden of proof as well does not relieve the other side from theirs.
http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/463433a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v325/n6100/pdf/325147a0.pdfhttp://www.runnersworld.com/community/forums/runner-communities/barefoot-running/barefoot-minimalist-shoe-resources-research-articles-videos-websitesNow your turn to send me published, peer-reviewed articles that support shoe usage.
Re-read my earlier post. Is your issue with barefoot running/minimalism or with the attitudes of some of the people who advocate it?
So should we only do the two most imporatant(sic) parts of training? And again, "training smarter" is pretty ambiguous, extremely obvious, and ultimately useless "advice" unless you can define what "smarter" is. Obviously everyone would benefit by "training smarter" - what's the alternative, training dumber? And what if training in a more minimalist shoe is PART of "training smarter"? An argument could be made that a smart, careful transition to minimalist footwear would be smarter training.