I would love to have some of you respond to this lame post I received over at MN Talk, the other forum I take care of. Here's the link to the thread, so be sure to read it all. It's a fun one. http://www.mortonsneuromatalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=101 I will approve your account, then you can login to respond. Anyone got a good persistence hunting YouTube video you can share?:
This is an interesting topic....barefoot versus shod, what's worse?
The scientific literature indicates the jury is still out on which causes more injuries. Here's a recent review:
A Review of Mechanics and Injury Trends Among Various Running Styles
LTC Donald L. Goss, SP
Michael T. Gross, PhD
There are tons of confounding factors...FFS, RFT, MFS, shoe type, age, sex, injury history, race, BFI, you name it. Until a couple more decades of research are done, neither team can claim their style ultimately is less injurious. Yes, certain forces are altered and somewhat reduced in certain ways as a FOREFOOT striker, regardless if in minimalist shoes or barefoot, but you increase risk of lacerations and other forces upon a barefoot.
I am not an anthropologist, and don't have time to read up on this right now, but persistent claims sound absurd to me.
1. Homo sapiens evolved to be an endurance runner. I'm going to have to call BS on that. What would have been the evolutionary pressure? Humans could not outrun any predator that comes to mind (sabertooth, cougar, bear, you name it). Humans didn't often run from other human enemies...not with kids in tow for certain. Humans evolved in the savannas of Africa as I recall (perhaps theories have changed though), where they were gatherers until they devised clubs and projectile weapons. They would have utilized ambush and short sprints rather than try to catch an ungulate on foot and stab it. They would have initially eaten carrion and stole from other animals. Females would have nearly never run distances considering they would have been pregnant nearly every other year of their lives they ovulated. Can't run with 3 -6 kids in tow. Males were hunters that predominantly utilized ambush style means of hunting, or trapping. They may have followed the herds, but not running with kids. That was dozens of thousands of generations in the past....think about how many mutations occur in one generation. We migrated into Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Unless you are of African descent or a Native Tribe recently removed from evolutionary processes, you have been coddled like I have. My European ancestors did not run for thousands of years that I can fathom. Men run during war....in shoes though. The Romans wore sandals and conquered the world. I have no doubt my feet and the majority of Europeans look little like those of mankind 200,000 years ago. Many of us have high arches, long toes, longer second toes (mortons toe), bunions, and other anatomical deficiencies. We did not evolve to run on concrete or asphalt. Nor on pinecones or lava rock. We ran in the grasslands long ago, likely short distances, and predominantly men did this. Those in the jungle and other forested regions would not have run much...they've used projectiles for hunting and fishing.
2. Women were built to run. Not really. Our wide pelvis evolved for bearing children and creates unfortunate angles in our femur position that is not ideal for running. We have added stress on our knees because of this. Some women are great runners, some women have narrow hips and less drastic issues with running. Mutations exist.
3. Humans are built to run after 30. I don't think so. The average lifespan of a human as recently as 300 years ago was less than 35. Thanks to medicine and nutrition improvements, we are long over-living what our ancestors were capable of. Arthritis, tissue degradation, broken bones, atrophy....it's all normal, not due to wearing shoes.
I agree wearing bad shoes will destroy you....too tight, high heels, bad arches, etc. But shoes are not the main problem, or everyone that ever ran in shoes would have MN and whatever other problems BFRs believe may be attributed to shoes.
It will be interesting to see what future research reveals. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? any anthropologists out there?