Do running shoes really matter?

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
😕 Terrible analogy.

The increase in the number of running races, triathlons, increase in enrollment limits to existing races would indicate an increase in the popularity of running.

Sure there are more fat people but more people are also running that wouldn't be able to run without running shoes.

Quick search found that marathon participation has doubled in the last decade - Marathons have become so popular that what once seemed masochistic now seems almost normal. Almost.

Half-marathons' popularity continues to grow

😕 Terrible logic.

The fact that the number of people participating in marathons is increasing may have nothing at all to do with shoes. If anything, I bet it correlates far better with the obesity epidemic and the perception of running in our culture as the "proper exercise" for losing weight.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
😕 Terrible analogy.

The increase in the number of running races, triathlons, increase in enrollment limits to existing races would indicate an increase in the popularity of running.

Sure there are more fat people but more people are also running that wouldn't be able to run without running shoes.

Quick search found that marathon participation has doubled in the last decade - Marathons have become so popular that what once seemed masochistic now seems almost normal. Almost.

Half-marathons' popularity continues to grow

😕 Terrible logic.

The fact that the number of people participating in marathons is increasing may have nothing at all to do with shoes. If anything, I bet it correlates far better with the obesity epidemic and the perception of running in our culture as the "proper exercise" for losing weight.

Not sure what you're trying to debate. Silverpig mentioned that there are less people running. I corrected him.

Yes, and if people's only option was to run barefoot or with vff's, you wouldn't see as many people running and more people would be biking, swimming, etc.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
For context I'm 290lbs and I jog for 30 to 45 minutes 4 to 5 times a week. I started out wearing a pair of flat soled athletic shoes I picked up for around $35. After 3 or 4 months of use I had some pretty severe and persistent joint pain. I upgraded to a pair of Brook's Glycerin 7 and it took about 2 or 3 weeks for my joint problems to resolve themselves and I've been using my new shoes for 3 months pain free. Granted I'm not nearly as athletic as most of the people posting in this thread but I'd be crippled by wearing anything like the VFF's or any cheap shoe to jog in.

You might not be; the VFF are in no way shape or form similar to el-cheapo "athletic shoes".

That said, whatever the reason if you're doing fine in the Glycerin 7 you should be thrilled and I wouldn't bother thinking of changing at the moment.

It is possible the glycerin are offering some kind of an orthotic benefit; as you get lighter and fitter your body's mechanics and strengths will change, so what is prudent now may not be ultimately.

 

[TallBill]

Brikis, you read way too much and you act like you train olympic athletes on these boards. I'm not saying that what you post is incorrect but it's annoying as hell.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes, and if people's only option was to run barefoot or with vff's, you wouldn't see as many people running and more people would be biking, swimming, etc.

Unfortunately we'll never know. I don't believe that modern running shoes have made more people able to run (and no study supports it), although it's possible that via marketing they have contributed to people's desire to run. As a percentage of the population, running is more mainstream now, although the runners of a few decades ago are different from now; people now typically suck as runners. The percentage of runners who are actually fast or elite is much smaller than it was years ago. People were more likely to be hardcore or not at all, whereas now you have an entire gamut of elite down to amateur.

I think that other than the top tiny elite, among high-end recreational runners, people have actually gotten quite a lot slower than they were in the 70's. I'd guess that less actual Americans can run, say, a sub 2:25 marathon now than a few decades ago although I don't have the numbers.

 

[StageLeft]

This is an admitted segue, but interesting trends in American Runners.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
😕 Terrible analogy.

The increase in the number of running races, triathlons, increase in enrollment limits to existing races would indicate an increase in the popularity of running.

Sure there are more fat people but more people are also running that wouldn't be able to run without running shoes.

Quick search found that marathon participation has doubled in the last decade - Marathons have become so popular that what once seemed masochistic now seems almost normal. Almost.

Half-marathons' popularity continues to grow

😕 Terrible logic.

The fact that the number of people participating in marathons is increasing may have nothing at all to do with shoes. If anything, I bet it correlates far better with the obesity epidemic and the perception of running in our culture as the "proper exercise" for losing weight.

Yes, and if people's only option was to run barefoot or with vff's, you wouldn't see as many people running and more people would be biking, swimming, etc.

Dude, again, that's entirely your assumption.

For example, from The Health Gazette: "In 1979, over 700,000 people died of heart disease. At the start of the exercise boom in 1968, there were about 100,000 people jogging regularly. In 1978, the number of joggers increased to a remarkable 27,000,000." You think shoe technology made some astronomical leap in those 10 years to account for such an increase?

You may also want to read "Fitness Movement" and "Who Knew? The Running Boom Re-Booms" both of which discuss reasons for the running boom of the 70's and the new running boom of the last decade and neither of which mentions shoes as a cause, at all. In particular, people primarily took up jogging "for reasons of health" and that the recent boom in marathon races is simply due to more women participating and that "almost all of the races now make a point of including a charitable aspect". You'd also note that bodybuilding and aerobic dance also had huge increases in participation - you think that's also due to shoe technology?

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Brikis, you read way too much and you act like you train olympic athletes on these boards. I'm not saying that what you post is incorrect but it's annoying as hell.

Thanks.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
😕 Terrible analogy.

The increase in the number of running races, triathlons, increase in enrollment limits to existing races would indicate an increase in the popularity of running.

Sure there are more fat people but more people are also running that wouldn't be able to run without running shoes.

Quick search found that marathon participation has doubled in the last decade - Marathons have become so popular that what once seemed masochistic now seems almost normal. Almost.

Half-marathons' popularity continues to grow

😕 Terrible logic.

The fact that the number of people participating in marathons is increasing may have nothing at all to do with shoes. If anything, I bet it correlates far better with the obesity epidemic and the perception of running in our culture as the "proper exercise" for losing weight.

Yes, and if people's only option was to run barefoot or with vff's, you wouldn't see as many people running and more people would be biking, swimming, etc.

Dude, again, that's entirely your assumption.

For example, from The Health Gazette: "In 1979, over 700,000 people died of heart disease. At the start of the exercise boom in 1968, there were about 100,000 people jogging regularly. In 1978, the number of joggers increased to a remarkable 27,000,000." You think shoe technology made some astronomical leap in those 10 years to account for such an increase?

You may also want to read "Fitness Movement" and "Who Knew? The Running Boom Re-Booms" both of which discuss reasons for the running boom of the 70's and the new running boom of the last decade and neither of which mentions shoes as a cause, at all. In particular, people primarily took up jogging "for reasons of health" and that the recent boom in marathon races is simply due to more women participating and that "almost all of the races now make a point of including a charitable aspect". You'd also note that bodybuilding and aerobic dance also had huge increases in participation - you think that's also due to shoe technology?

Shoes were available at that time. If people were forced to run in barefeet or VFFs, you wouldn't have the popularity in the sport.

If bodybuilders, had to use stones instead of barbells, weights, etc or if aerobic dance had to be done in barefeet, you think it would be as popular?

And yes, due to people's biomechanics, genetics, fitness levels, etc. modern footwear has allowed people to start/continue their sporting activities. We have numerous examples of people on this board as examples.

 

[StageLeft]

And yes, due to people's biomechanics, genetics, fitness levels, etc. modern footwear has allowed people to start/continue their sporting activities. We have numerous examples of people on this board as examples.

I think they've also hindered people's ability to continue in sporting activities. Unfortunately, we don't have numerous examples here because they are not on the health & fitness forum 😉 They can be found, however, in other forums where people who were unable to run in running shoes are now able to in non-running shoes, or occasionally in none at all.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
😕 Terrible analogy.

The increase in the number of running races, triathlons, increase in enrollment limits to existing races would indicate an increase in the popularity of running.

Sure there are more fat people but more people are also running that wouldn't be able to run without running shoes.

Quick search found that marathon participation has doubled in the last decade - Marathons have become so popular that what once seemed masochistic now seems almost normal. Almost.

Half-marathons' popularity continues to grow

😕 Terrible logic.

The fact that the number of people participating in marathons is increasing may have nothing at all to do with shoes. If anything, I bet it correlates far better with the obesity epidemic and the perception of running in our culture as the "proper exercise" for losing weight.

Yes, and if people's only option was to run barefoot or with vff's, you wouldn't see as many people running and more people would be biking, swimming, etc.

Dude, again, that's entirely your assumption.

For example, from The Health Gazette: "In 1979, over 700,000 people died of heart disease. At the start of the exercise boom in 1968, there were about 100,000 people jogging regularly. In 1978, the number of joggers increased to a remarkable 27,000,000." You think shoe technology made some astronomical leap in those 10 years to account for such an increase?

You may also want to read "Fitness Movement" and "Who Knew? The Running Boom Re-Booms" both of which discuss reasons for the running boom of the 70's and the new running boom of the last decade and neither of which mentions shoes as a cause, at all. In particular, people primarily took up jogging "for reasons of health" and that the recent boom in marathon races is simply due to more women participating and that "almost all of the races now make a point of including a charitable aspect". You'd also note that bodybuilding and aerobic dance also had huge increases in participation - you think that's also due to shoe technology?

Shoes were available at that time. If people were forced to run in barefeet or VFFs, you wouldn't have the popularity in the sport.

If bodybuilders, had to use stones instead of barbells, weights, etc or if aerobic dance had to be done in barefeet, you think it would be as popular?

And yes, due to people's biomechanics, genetics, fitness levels, etc. modern footwear has allowed people to start/continue their sporting activities. We have numerous examples of people on this board as examples.

I'll let you in on a secret.

1) He is smarter than you
2) He will inevitably say that you should read Starting Strength
3) He jerks off to Mark Rippetoe posters

Best to just leave threads that he tries to take over.

 

[dealmaster00]

Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
I'll let you in on a secret.

1) He is smarter than you
2) He will inevitably say that you should read Starting Strength
3) He jerks off to Mark Rippetoe posters

Best to just leave threads that he tries to take over.

how about no.

 

[Deeko]

ahhahahah

epic

 

[Megatomic]

Wow, some of you feel so very passionately about the shoe vs. no shoe vs. minimalist shoe issue. 😕

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Wow, some of you feel so very passionately about the shoe vs. no shoe vs. minimalist shoe issue. 😕

One of us does anyways 😉 Same with any "issue".

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Wow, some of you feel so very passionately about the shoe vs. no shoe vs. minimalist shoe issue. 😕

One of us does anyways 😉 Same with any "issue".

You rarely see this level of passion in H&F discussions. This has the flavor of a P&N thread. 😀

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Wow, some of you feel so very passionately about the shoe vs. no shoe vs. minimalist shoe issue. 😕

One of us does anyways 😉 Same with any "issue".

You rarely see this level of passion in H&F discussions. This has the flavor of a P&N thread. 😀

I feel myself becoming evangelical, which is such a cliche for this topic. 🙂

 

[brikis98]

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Very classy guys, very classy.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: brikis98
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Very classy guys, very classy.

You are the problem, not the articles that you link.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The best running shoes I've had so far are New Balance 992s, but they're damn expensive. I wore them out eventually and got some cheaper shoes and there is definitely a noticeable difference. My feet, ankles, and knees are all sore after even my moderate pace 6-10 mile runs. That just didn't seem to happen with the 992s. Also, I don't know if it's in response to the constant higher level of discomfort I'm enduring now or if the 992s were just somehow making my running more efficient, but I get more fatigued more quickly with my current pair that I seemed to do with them. In my specific case, the difference is there. My next pair will probably be 992s unless someone turns me on to something that is similar but better in some way.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: brikis98
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Very classy guys, very classy.

You are the problem, not the articles that you link.

ok

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: brikis98

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: brikis98
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."

Very classy guys, very classy.

You are the problem, not the articles that you link.

ok

Now you're catching on.