Wow, those are really some interesting results...

It reminds me a bit of an old article that "disproved" that running can take a toll on your hips and knees by stating that out of runners who had put in over 50 miles a week for over 30 years, they had substantially healthier joints than non-runners. But of course, that's a self-selective group isn't it? Wouldn't only the healthiest of the healthy be able to run that milage for that long?

I'm interested to hear what you all have to say along with your yearly show allowance.

I'd say I spend around $200 a year on running shoes for 2-3 pairs a season, I run between 30 and 50 miles a week and change my shoes more on 'feel' then on set milage. Ever since switching to my Brooks Adrenalines in fall 2007 I haven't had a major injury that wasn't my own dumb fault.

As a second question, how loyal are you to your shoes? I am obsessive about my Adrenalines to the point where I buy them in bulk and I trust them so much I've even run an A race, a half-marathon, in a pair fresh out of the box without breaking them in first.

Any thoughts?

PAINFUL TRUTH No 1: Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones.
... it may be that folks spending more money on their shoes are more serious about their running...are putting in more time...and make up the largest percentage of runners in the study...how many serious athletes are there that are spending less than $40 on an adult pair of running shoes?

PAINFUL TRUTH No 2: FEET LIKE A GOOD BEATING
ummm, not really...mine don't

PAINFUL TRUTH No 3: HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESIGNED TO RUN WITHOUT SHOES
I do believe this, but with the caveat that we were designed to run on dirt, sand, and sometimes rock...not exclusively concrete and asphalt [or broken glass and metal shards].

Yearly show allowance varies, but it'll be 5 pairs of trainers, plus a pair of flats. I go for the least supportive shoe in both regards, and run a lot of miles in the flats (at least 10 per week for speed work) so they wear out pretty quickly. Maybe $300-400/year.

I don't care what shoes I'm in so long as they fit appropriately, have good forefoot cusioning, and don't have excessive support. Currently, I'm in a rotation of 2x DS trainers, Puma Complete Prevail, and Mizuno Wave Musha. I like the pumas for cruising miles, the Musha's for faster stuff (mile repeats and tempo runs - plus the look awesome and match my racing colors for this year), and the Asics I'm sort of growing out of after using them for about 10 years off and on. Never a bad shoe, but they're becoming a bit overbuilt for me.

I have heard many people comment that they cannot run any type of distance because their knees or shins hurt too much. I don't have any data, but I would bet most are in the wrong type of shoe. The shoes then add to the problem instead of helping. I have had two people I work with change their minds about running after educating themselves on the different types of shoes and what their foot type and other physical characteristics are. They now run regularly after going to a running store not just a shoe store.

I am not loyal to a brand due to the seemingly constant "updating" of previously worn shoes. I have had good luck with my choices over the years and consequently have had little to no injuries.

I have been reading My first triathlon by Joe Friel and the strides workout encourages not wearing shoes to that you learn to land on the fore-foot and on your heel. I am a big heel stricker and am trying to change my ways but I have always been one so it is easier said then done. I am totally faithful to the Nike Air Peagasus. I have been since I was in high school. The military issued them in boot camp and I know when I slip them on I don't have to do anything to get adjusted to them.

I have read that there are clubs around the country that have been created for people who run barefoot. It very interesting.

From what I have read on the subject, this is more about heel striking than shoes. Stated simply, heel striking is bad form. Landing on your heel transfers the shock of your weight landing on the ground directly to your knees and pretty heavily to your back as well. Midfoot or forefoot striking allows your body's natural shock absorbing abilities in the foot and calves to dissapate the shock. If you think this is wrong, run barefoot (the way we evolved to run) across a lawn. Notice where your foot hits the ground. I'll bet it's not your heel. It's not so much that cushioned running shoes cause injuries directly, rather, they encourage you to heel strike. Once proper running form is developed, heavily-cushioned shoes are unneccessary. An no, you don't have to literally run barefoot. Just use a minimally-cushioned shoe. I use the Nike Free, but I'm sure others out there would work just as well for me.

PAINFUL TRUTH No 1: Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones.
This is what "real science people" (yes condescending and question of the daily mails credibility) call false positives. It was like when they told us that coffee drinkers are more likely to die of heart attacks, but didn't factor smoking into their studies. come on people... it's not that simple.

PAINFUL TRUTH No 2: FEET LIKE A GOOD BEATING
The only thing that I like having on my feet more than my running shoes are a pair of new, out of the package, socks. back me up this is MONEY!

PAINFUL TRUTH No 3: HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESIGNED TO RUN WITHOUT SHOES
are we also designed to ride without bikes? To me it's the same issue. we have designed a tool (a shoe) that aids us in running. If shoes are truly hurting us then we need to redesign them. I know that my knee problems are much better when I run in shoes that fit my foot and running style. So here is one for less injury with a good pair of shoes. Oh, and another cool too... the bike. Lastly... "HUMAN BEINGS ARE DESIGNED TO SWIM WITHOUT GOGGLES".

:) An interesting find though. good forum fodder.

I wonder about the cultural aspects of it all. Sure these tribes all over the world run without shoes and don't have injuries but some societies are less likely to complain about injury. So is it fair to say that they actually have less problems? I remember a study about back problems years ago. It found that Americans were not necessarily more susceptible to back problems than other cultures but they were much more likely to see a doctor about it. Thus increasing the number of reported cases and making it look like Americans don't take care of their backs.

Also, the article says that before the invention of the running shoe people ran in canvas flats and never had problems. It also stated that since the invention of the running shoe injuries have increased. What it does not say is how the rate of injury increase relates to the overall growth in the popularity of running. More runners = more injuries.

And finally, the invention of the running show has probably made it possible for those who should not be running to run. Some people are born with bodies that are not ideal for running but a shoe can correct that so you get people running that otherwise are not built for it and they get injured.

hilarious

great video... that increased my chances of doing hill repeats in the buff by 107%. scientifically unverifiable, but really, really persuasive.

+1, but seriously, that looks extremely uncomfortable- b/t the chafing and the bouncing- not for me

Not sure I agree with this. In places where humans live more or less indiginously, people frequently run long distances. Some of the best distance runners in the world come from places where they grow up running. A friend of mine who lived in Tanzania fifty years ago tells a story of sitting beneath a shade tree out on the plains while driving from one village to another. In the distance he saw two figures loping towards him. As they drew closer, he realized that they were a pair of Masai tribesman. They continued running, passing within 50 yards of him and continued at the same pace until out of sight on the other far horizon. I don't think it's any great surprise why many great distance runners come from places like Kenya where their genetic heritage is of many many generations of distance runners.

I remember hearing a story, perhaps a year ago, about various "super-running cultures" their traditions and perhaps it was the Masai, but they mentioned a "primitive tribe" in Africa. This tribe would team up in groups of 3 or 4 and would chase down gazelles exactly as stated above, by using human endurance rather than speed. They would take turns running the gazelles for miles across the plains until at last the gazelle would literally collapse from exhaustion and then they'd take it home, across all the dozens of miles they just ran. In all, each runner could put in 25-30 miles nearly each day, on an almost purely protein diet, doing this. I was floored, I wasn't really interested to research the tribe/validity of the article, but I certainly have used this image multiple times as motivation.

Just imagine the person in front of you is the gazelle.... Don't you want to be the person to bring that home? To enjoy the praise and victory of the -- Wait? You just passed him? Oh no! Now that girl is the gazelle... wait! now that guy is.... eventually the pace car :)

http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html

Evidence to the contrary...a quote from the article:
"All together, Lieberman said, these adaptations allowed us to relentlessly pursue game in the hottest part of the day when most animals rest. Lieberman said humans likely practiced persistence hunting, chasing a game animal during the heat of the day, making it run faster than it could maintain, tracking and flushing it if it tried to rest, and repeating the process until the animal literally overheated and collapsed. "

I should have also mentioned that Lieberman does have some very compelling information that could lead me to re-evaluate humans natural tendancey to "endurance" run.

I agree with the 'endurance' posters above.
There are many article on how our physiology developed toward endurance.
Humans as a species are not as fast as most of the prey we could possibly hunt.

A short burst of speed after a long period of slower travel is part of capability to finally overcome our prey when it has been run to it's limits. Pacing and finishing kick anyone?

Consider how now we can run a marathon and still give a push when we are close to passing someone or want to put a finishing kick in.

We also have developed the capability to create complex tools to assist us in many tasks.

I agree with you.

And PAINFUL TRUTH: We weren't designed, we evolved to suit our environment. And during our evolution we didn't run on concrete and asphalt, we ran on dirt, vegetation, mud, etc. And we didn't run 42.2k, we ran far enough to catch whatever prey we were hunting and then we stopped.

So if we really want to turn back the clock, forget the marathons and triathlons, get a spear and let's go chase down dinner. :)

jono