Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Your expensive running shoes could be destroying your knees, ankles and hips

2»

Comments

  • #32
    T runner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    mossym wrote: »
    you are completely missing my point, i'm not arguing for or against either side. i'm pointing out the complete inaccuracy of dealing in absolutes.

    you seem to be confused why i have a problem with absolutes, then point out there are 5% of people with issues. the fact that there are 5% proves my point about dealing with this issue as absolutes. i'm not trying to convince people either way, i think people should do whatever they want. people throw out absolutes in an effort to convince others they are right, when it is never going to happen.



    becuase i am simply arguing about the use of absolutes to prove either case. i have never said which side i come down on

    You are being pedantic. People use general rules. There are exceptions, but they only prove the general rule. i dont believe that 5% need structured shoes. If you read the post you would see that it was a hypothetical figure.
    If you could come up with any incident where a person without a pedestrian imlediment would need altered shoes id like to hear it. Otherwise the proof is all on the side of evolution.
    People should not do as they like. People should do whats best for theirs and their chi,drens feet. Forcing structured shoes on healthy feet is equivalent to forcing glasses on healthy eyes, whether we "like" doing it or not is irrelevant.


  • #33
    mossym
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 8,766 Mod ✭✭✭✭mossym


    T runner wrote: »
    You are being pedantic.
    .

    perhaps, but at least then we'd be discussing what i actually said, not what you wanted me to say in order to have an argument I've no interest in having.


  • #34
    James_R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭James_R


    There was a good BBC Panorama program about this a while back:

    http://barefootrunner.co.uk/bbc-panorama-the-truth-about-sports-products

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l1yxk


  • #35
    sconhome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,468 ✭✭✭sconhome


    James_R wrote: »
    There was a good BBC Panorama program about this a while back:

    http://barefootrunner.co.uk/bbc-panorama-the-truth-about-sports-products

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l1yxk

    Actually thought those programs were a poor excuse for sensationalist journalism.

    Absolutely nothing was researched into the differences between different running shoes or the reasons for those shoes being different or to whom they may be suitable.

    It was the usual headline craic of "your expensive running shoes are killing you".

    Expense has absolutely nothing to do with it, and for as long as the idea that most expensive shoe is the best shoe is perpetuated nothing will ever change.


  • #36
    Dr Silly Bollox MD
    Site Banned Posts: 256 ✭✭Dr Silly Bollox MD


    spurscormac wrote: »
    In theory I agree, in practice I have transitioned slowly (17 months now) from standard shoes (12mm drop) to more minimal ones (9mm, 6mm & now 3mm drop).

    If you go from built up shoes straight to flat, you'll have to cut back the mileage, otherwise you'll destroy you achilles and calves with the extra stretching that's required of them.
    What Trainer (Brand/Model) are you using?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    spurscormac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,523 ✭✭✭spurscormac


    Dr Silly Bollox MD wrote: »
    What
    Trainer (Brand/Model) are you using?

    I run in Inov-8, road-x shoes.
    Started with the 9mm drop 255 ( shoes are named by weight), then the 6mm drop 233, and have just got the road-x-treme 178 for track and short races.
    255 now used for lsr, 233 most sessions & 178 as I said above.
    I don't know if I'll move fully to zero drop or not, may depend on durability of the newly released road-x-treme shoes or if the bring out a lower drop road-x similar to the 233 (I don't like their current offering, different sole to the 233 & 255) that I could use for standard sessions.


  • #38
    James_R
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭James_R


    amphkingwest wrote: »
    Actually thought those programs were a poor excuse for sensationalist journalism.

    Absolutely nothing was researched into the differences between different running shoes or the reasons for those shoes being different or to whom they may be suitable.

    It was the usual headline craic of "your expensive running shoes are killing you".

    Expense has absolutely nothing to do with it, and for as long as the idea that most expensive shoe is the best shoe is perpetuated nothing will ever change.

    What I got from it (being quite naive at the time about running/trainers etc) was that trainers don't play a big part as they are all similar but what's more important is your running technique, giving your body enough time to recover after runs and eating/hydrating correctly.

    I've since learned that not all trainers are created equally and after a few trips into AK Ballymount to find the right trainer for my running style I now know that the right supportive trainer will prevent injuries to the knees etc.


Advertisement