Total gimmick. The ideal heel-to-toe drop is in the range of 22-26mm.
Total gimmick. The ideal heel-to-toe drop is in the range of 22-26mm.
oh monica mon wrote:
Are you high? wrote:
Yeah, no. Shoes with a drop cause injuries for me. You say it is a fad, but it is not. For millions of years we ran without a wedge. And I know for my feet and biomechanics, this wedge causes major problems for me.
Agreed. I find it impossible to believe that after millions of years man suddenly needs a significant slope underfoot--that running is inherently injurious.
I know a counter-argument is that before recent times we ran on softer surfaces. That's why I grant you the need for underfoot CUSHION but I fail to see the logic of a need for underfoot SLOPE.
Podiatrists say running is inherently injurious and is safer with heel wedge? Any source you can cite? Doesn't that simply rob the achilles it's wonderful elastic power and fundamentally change our biomechanics?
Thousands of years ago, it wasnt the soft surfaces that were the difference, it was that they weren't "training," they were just living. They weren't trying to run 40 mpw at a bmi of 25 or 100mpw at any bmi.
Also, people probably got injured a lot and were forced to rely on other members of their family to pick up the slack while they healed.
Look at studies of mummies of older people from 30k years ago: they generally conclude they were in constant pain from various joint/bone damage issues. The heel wedge is an attempt at long term comfort and an attempt at allowing an unnatural level of running late in life.
It could he that zero drop is better, but not because we were "born to run," because we weren't. We were born to do some running, sure, but also we were born to do a wide range of things all mixed up and survive, not necessarily in comfort. Survival of the species has no interest in comfort, only survival.
Drainthefecesswamp wrote:
oh monica mon wrote:
Agreed. I find it impossible to believe that after millions of years man suddenly needs a significant slope underfoot--that running is inherently injurious.
I know a counter-argument is that before recent times we ran on softer surfaces. That's why I grant you the need for underfoot CUSHION but I fail to see the logic of a need for underfoot SLOPE.
Podiatrists say running is inherently injurious and is safer with heel wedge? Any source you can cite? Doesn't that simply rob the achilles it's wonderful elastic power and fundamentally change our biomechanics?
Thousands of years ago, it wasnt the soft surfaces that were the difference, it was that they weren't "training," they were just living. They weren't trying to run 40 mpw at a bmi of 25 or 100mpw at any bmi.
Also, people probably got injured a lot and were forced to rely on other members of their family to pick up the slack while they healed.
Look at studies of mummies of older people from 30k years ago: they generally conclude they were in constant pain from various joint/bone damage issues. The heel wedge is an attempt at long term comfort and an attempt at allowing an unnatural level of running late in life.
It could he that zero drop is better, but not because we were "born to run," because we weren't. We were born to do some running, sure, but also we were born to do a wide range of things all mixed up and survive, not necessarily in comfort. Survival of the species has no interest in comfort, only survival.
1. My BMI is about 21.
2. "They weren't training 100 mpw at any BMI". Compared to how hunter and gathers lived, 100 MPW is just a walk in the park.
3. A lot of the trauma you see in mummies is from brunt force trauma. Because of how hard life was back than and there was no modern medicine. So if you broke a bone due to a accident it would not heal properly.
Every time I've tried zero drop it's messed up my hips and back. Then I go back to 8-10mm heel and feel great. Different strokes for different folks. The fact that Altra only makes zero drop limits them from catering to everyone.
The truth is most street shoes have heel on them. If you're highly conditioned to this and trained most of your life with some heel on your running shoes, it can be hard to change and adapt. I can run barefoot no problem, but doing so with cushioned shoes isn't the same thing.
It has nothing to do with drop. It's entirely based upon your mechanical efficiency. Center of mass needs to be optimally over your toes, you need to have a high turnover. It's been shown that foot-strike just changes location of injury not likelihood. Change your stride first then worry about other things. This is possible in many shoe types. It's more about what enables you to run with that form for the longest period of time without allowing you to become lazy. Think the streak 6 vs. hokas. I guarantee if you run in a high drop racing flat you'll still be a better runner than a 45 year old hobby jogger in Hokas.
Yeah .... No wrote:
1. My BMI is about 21.
2. "They weren't training 100 mpw at any BMI". Compared to how hunter and gathers lived, 100 MPW is just a walk in the park.
3. A lot of the trauma you see in mummies is from brunt force trauma. Because of how hard life was back than and there was no modern medicine. So if you broke a bone due to a accident it would not heal properly.
1) that's nice
2) source? I'd love to see a study showing how most hunter gatherer societies were running 100mpw. Walking is very different than running, keep in mind. We aren't discussing walking shoes. I'm inclined to believe that we were "built to walk," but not "built to run" the way we run today.
3) are you referring to all the studies on Neanderthals? The blunt force trauma comment fits with them. Everybody reading this has 0 to 4% of their DNA from them, not what I was referring to or really relevant.
Here are some of what I was referring to:
https://www.mdlinx.com/rheumatology/article/1187https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/knee-arthritis-old-problem-s-much-more-common-today-180964529/https://rheumatoidarthritis.net/blog/the-16th-century-italian-mummy-and-ra/Dont get me wrong, I enjoy running and intend to continue. But to take the attitude of "we were built to run, so we shouldn't wear high heel drop shoes" is illogical. If we are meant to wear zero drop shoes, it needs to be argued from a different perspective. Im not saying you are wrong about zero drop shoes (I'm not convinced either way), just that your argument for why has no merit.
Yeah, it's a load of rubbish innit.
Most low drops are ~ 4mm with "high" drops ~ 10mm. So ~6mm difference. Pinch that out between your finger and thumb and look at that size and tell yourself that over a full stride length in cushioned shoes that's making any difference! Then laugh at yourself for even considering it.
oh monica mon wrote:
Agreed. I find it impossible to believe that after millions of years man suddenly needs a significant slope underfoot--that running is inherently injurious.
I know a counter-argument is that before recent times we ran on softer surfaces. That's why I grant you the need for underfoot CUSHION but I fail to see the logic of a need for underfoot SLOPE.
Podiatrists say running is inherently injurious and is safer with heel wedge? Any source you can cite? Doesn't that simply rob the Achilles it's wonderful elastic power and fundamentally change our biomechanics?
I haven't read "Born to Run", so I may overlook something here. However, one could ask how regularly people were actually running long distances on a consistent basis in pre-industrial, pre-modern societies. Running today is a free-time activity, a means of fitness or sport for people with time and energy to spare. I have a hard time imagining any notable segment of human society running for extended periods like joggers and athletes do today. First, most civilizations developed on the basis of agricultural, pastoral or fishing economies, primarily self-sufficient or for small-scale trade. These rarely created a long-term nutritional surplus; as a result of limited available calories, people limited unnecessary caloric expenditures. Second, these lifestyles may build hardy people, but did not require distance running. A shepherd may walk days on end, but does not grind out 10-20km at a jogging or running pace on a daily basis. Hypotheses about "persistence hunting" are based on very scant historical and contemporary evidence from rather exceptional societies in e.g. the Kalahari. While there are many migratory civilizations to compare, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were running down their prey or training to do so. But maybe I am missing something. Historical anecdotes about running as a sport in antiquity suggest that some athletes ran, although we know nothing about their training mileage or regimen. In Europe/Eurasia, most sports, both in antiquity and the middle ages, were on horseback. Certainly in medieval Europe there is no meaningful evidence that many people ran very often or for long distance. Singular anecdotes aren't compelling evidence, nor does walking=running. But I may be overlooking something or a lot.
That said, running in slanted shoes screwed up my running. I had great form in HS, then became a plodding, slow-cadence runner with constant injuries when I later started running in built up shoes in my 20s. I then switched to "barefoot" shoes (Inov8 zero-drop) and racing flats (ex. Asics Piranha) and renewed consistent, injury-free running. Went from injured all the time at 80km, to almost never injured at 150km of hard training. My cadence and form improved, and my Achilles problems seemed to disappear. IMO, we don't need historical evidence to support the idea that less is more.
Yeah .... No wrote:
. Compared to how hunter and gathers lived, 100 MPW is just a walk in the park.
.
Myth.
iceslipper wrote:
oh monica mon wrote:
Agreed. I find it impossible to believe that after millions of years man suddenly needs a significant slope underfoot--that running is inherently injurious.
I know a counter-argument is that before recent times we ran on softer surfaces. That's why I grant you the need for underfoot CUSHION but I fail to see the logic of a need for underfoot SLOPE.
Podiatrists say running is inherently injurious and is safer with heel wedge? Any source you can cite? Doesn't that simply rob the Achilles it's wonderful elastic power and fundamentally change our biomechanics?
I haven't read "Born to Run", so I may overlook something here. However, one could ask how regularly people were actually running long distances on a consistent basis in pre-industrial, pre-modern societies. Running today is a free-time activity, a means of fitness or sport for people with time and energy to spare. I have a hard time imagining any notable segment of human society running for extended periods like joggers and athletes do today. First, most civilizations developed on the basis of agricultural, pastoral or fishing economies, primarily self-sufficient or for small-scale trade. These rarely created a long-term nutritional surplus; as a result of limited available calories, people limited unnecessary caloric expenditures. Second, these lifestyles may build hardy people, but did not require distance running. A shepherd may walk days on end, but does not grind out 10-20km at a jogging or running pace on a daily basis. Hypotheses about "persistence hunting" are based on very scant historical and contemporary evidence from rather exceptional societies in e.g. the Kalahari. While there are many migratory civilizations to compare, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were running down their prey or training to do so. But maybe I am missing something. Historical anecdotes about running as a sport in antiquity suggest that some athletes ran, although we know nothing about their training mileage or regimen. In Europe/Eurasia, most sports, both in antiquity and the middle ages, were on horseback. Certainly in medieval Europe there is no meaningful evidence that many people ran very often or for long distance. Singular anecdotes aren't compelling evidence, nor does walking=running. But I may be overlooking something or a lot.
That said, running in slanted shoes screwed up my running. I had great form in HS, then became a plodding, slow-cadence runner with constant injuries when I later started running in built up shoes in my 20s. I then switched to "barefoot" shoes (Inov8 zero-drop) and racing flats (ex. Asics Piranha) and renewed consistent, injury-free running. Went from injured all the time at 80km, to almost never injured at 150km of hard training. My cadence and form improved, and my Achilles problems seemed to disappear. IMO, we don't need historical evidence to support the idea that less is more.
Exactly. There were probably just a few individuals from a few groups or tribes who actually hunted in this manner to a significant degree. Those individuals likely stood out like a sub 4 sub 2:10 guy does today.
The human wolf pack idea is a bit ridiculous.
iceslipper wrote:
oh monica mon wrote:
Agreed. I find it impossible to believe that after millions of years man suddenly needs a significant slope underfoot--that running is inherently injurious.
I know a counter-argument is that before recent times we ran on softer surfaces. That's why I grant you the need for underfoot CUSHION but I fail to see the logic of a need for underfoot SLOPE.
Podiatrists say running is inherently injurious and is safer with heel wedge? Any source you can cite? Doesn't that simply rob the Achilles it's wonderful elastic power and fundamentally change our biomechanics?
I haven't read "Born to Run", so I may overlook something here. However, one could ask how regularly people were actually running long distances on a consistent basis in pre-industrial, pre-modern societies. Running today is a free-time activity, a means of fitness or sport for people with time and energy to spare. I have a hard time imagining any notable segment of human society running for extended periods like joggers and athletes do today. First, most civilizations developed on the basis of agricultural, pastoral or fishing economies, primarily self-sufficient or for small-scale trade. These rarely created a long-term nutritional surplus; as a result of limited available calories, people limited unnecessary caloric expenditures. Second, these lifestyles may build hardy people, but did not require distance running. A shepherd may walk days on end, but does not grind out 10-20km at a jogging or running pace on a daily basis. Hypotheses about "persistence hunting" are based on very scant historical and contemporary evidence from rather exceptional societies in e.g. the Kalahari. While there are many migratory civilizations to compare, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were running down their prey or training to do so. But maybe I am missing something. Historical anecdotes about running as a sport in antiquity suggest that some athletes ran, although we know nothing about their training mileage or regimen. In Europe/Eurasia, most sports, both in antiquity and the middle ages, were on horseback. Certainly in medieval Europe there is no meaningful evidence that many people ran very often or for long distance. Singular anecdotes aren't compelling evidence, nor does walking=running. But I may be overlooking something or a lot.
That said, running in slanted shoes screwed up my running. I had great form in HS, then became a plodding, slow-cadence runner with constant injuries when I later started running in built up shoes in my 20s. I then switched to "barefoot" shoes (Inov8 zero-drop) and racing flats (ex. Asics Piranha) and renewed consistent, injury-free running. Went from injured all the time at 80km, to almost never injured at 150km of hard training. My cadence and form improved, and my Achilles problems seemed to disappear. IMO, we don't need historical evidence to support the idea that less is more.
You haven't masturbated to the thought of Scott Jurek racing indigenous Mexicans? Do you even run?
vandelayindustries wrote:
[quote]iceslipper wrote:
You haven't masturbated to the thought of Scott Jurek racing indigenous Mexicans? Do you even run?
Lol!
oh monica mon wrote:
also, weren't ALL running shoes before the 1980's "ZERO DROP"?
Old school pictures I see of onitsuka tigers, early nike's etc sure don't seem to have a bloated heel and downward slope.
What the hell did people run in from 1900 to 1950's? Leather flats?
I started running in the 1990s, when bloated heel with slope was the norm.
Is there any biomechanical reason to introduce a slope to the natural running motion/gait?
It seems ZERO DROP should be the DEFAULT for running shoes.
I was a big fan and proponent of the minimalist push 10 years ago, and even ran a bunch in Puma H-streets if anybody remembers those (basically a Puma harambee spike with a flat rubber outsole).
I loved the zero drop, but did note that sometimes the old foot bones could have used a little more cushion between the rocks and roads.
Life responsibilities took me out of the running game the last 5-8 years, and now upon my return I see the market swung the complete opposite direction, with these giant foam pillow Hoka shoes, and manufacturers like New balance and others stopped making their minimalist lines??? bummer
The reason for a higher heel is to lighten the stress on the Achilles.
DGL54 wrote:
oh monica mon wrote:
also, weren't ALL running shoes before the 1980's "ZERO DROP"?
Old school pictures I see of onitsuka tigers, early nike's etc sure don't seem to have a bloated heel and downward slope.
What the hell did people run in from 1900 to 1950's? Leather flats?
I started running in the 1990s, when bloated heel with slope was the norm.
Is there any biomechanical reason to introduce a slope to the natural running motion/gait?
It seems ZERO DROP should be the DEFAULT for running shoes.
I was a big fan and proponent of the minimalist push 10 years ago, and even ran a bunch in Puma H-streets if anybody remembers those (basically a Puma harambee spike with a flat rubber outsole).
I loved the zero drop, but did note that sometimes the old foot bones could have used a little more cushion between the rocks and roads.
Life responsibilities took me out of the running game the last 5-8 years, and now upon my return I see the market swung the complete opposite direction, with these giant foam pillow Hoka shoes, and manufacturers like New balance and others stopped making their minimalist lines??? bummer
The reason for a higher heel is to lighten the stress on the Achilles.
It is supposed to be stressed. It’s 6 inches of wonderful free energy potential.
Why don’t we all run in high heels and be done with it.
Banana Bollocks wrote:
Yeah, it's a load of rubbish innit.
Most low drops are ~ 4mm with "high" drops ~ 10mm. So ~6mm difference. Pinch that out between your finger and thumb and look at that size and tell yourself that over a full stride length in cushioned shoes that's making any difference! Then laugh at yourself for even considering it.
Global bio mechanical changes can be influenced by small differences, especially when you make 80 to 90 impacts a minute.
You have a poor argument as I could just as easily make the same case for the difference in weight between normal trainers and racing flats. Hold that 50g in your hand and laugh.
Question: Why don't most of the elites where zero drop shoes?
Clearly they have efficient strides, yet they are pretty much all in the standard 6-10mm drop shoes.
Wowzers wrote:
Question: Why don't most of the elites where zero drop shoes?
Clearly they have efficient strides, yet they are pretty much all in the standard 6-10mm drop shoes.
Last time I looked most spikes were 0mm drop.
Rato. wrote:
Wowzers wrote:
Question: Why don't most of the elites where zero drop shoes?
Clearly they have efficient strides, yet they are pretty much all in the standard 6-10mm drop shoes.
Last time I looked most spikes were 0mm drop.
Presumably he was referring to longer road distances. For example, half marathon and marathon.
Still though, 10k on the track versus road, most elites choose pretty different shoes. It's an interesting difference, why not road racers on the track 10k with a heel drop? Or why not waffles in the road to mimick the zero drop of spikes?
Gimmick.
Real men (Trump supporters, meat eater, and concealed carriers) run in Hokas. Zero drop shoes are much too flimsy for our 30 BMIs.
Rato. wrote:
Banana Bollocks wrote:
Yeah, it's a load of rubbish innit.
Most low drops are ~ 4mm with "high" drops ~ 10mm. So ~6mm difference. Pinch that out between your finger and thumb and look at that size and tell yourself that over a full stride length in cushioned shoes that's making any difference! Then laugh at yourself for even considering it.
Global bio mechanical changes can be influenced by small differences, especially when you make 80 to 90 impacts a minute.
You have a poor argument as I could just as easily make the same case for the difference in weight between normal trainers and racing flats. Hold that 50g in your hand and laugh.
This response was so irrelevant and therefore pointless that you must have been really bored to make it. Yeah, you can have lighter or heavier shoes and the fatigue that will bring will have an impact but claiming 6mm will make a difference (actually less, unless you are doing a full heel to toe roll, and EVEN the less if you consider the strike pressure into a cushioned heel) is just a joke.