Hacker News Reader

With no evidence, you're taking it as a given that shoes are protective of joints. Shoes are protective of skin. That's what they were created for. They stop you from cutting your foot on sharp stones.

There is mounting evidence that typical running shoes are bad for joints, because they encourage heel striking. Evolution is indeed limited, but it did a pretty good job of producing a structure that absorbs the impact from running. Modern running shoes short-circuit that structure by making it possible to heel strike, putting that impact through the knees and ankles instead of letting muscle and connective tissue absorb it. The think heels of typical running shoes make heel striking almost a necessity, because it's so awkward to forefoot strike while wearing them.

They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.

Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or a belief based on intuition? I have seen studies that support "barefoot" running (where the feet may not actually be barefoot, but have hard, protective coverings) based on less accumulated injuries, and based on bio-mechanical arguments on force dissipation.

You're taking a lot of correlation and trying to prove causation, much like the people you criticize.

"They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had."

Of course their lives were short. They had no healthcare, medicine, or sanitation. A band-aid and some antibiotic could have been the difference between life and death for some people. A daily, clean shower, clean water, and living quarters (mostly) free from predators. We take simple things like these for granted.

The major point from all of these books and articles is that humans do have superb shock-absorbers for legs and don't need air-cushioned soles. Modern shoes have taught people from a very young age to run a certain, un-natural way and this has been proven with more than just speculation.

This at least has some evidence. The guy pushing barefoot running has done some a study showing you put less stress on your joints when running barefoot then with shoes. I believe it had something to do with running with a better stride then when in padded shoes because your feet now have more feedback information. Just found his website here: http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

My understanding of the mechanics are simple: when you heel-strike, your heel hits the pavement hard, and the shock is absorbed by your knee. When you toe-strike, your ankle can act as a spring and absorb the impact over a greater period of time, meaning your joints experience less force. I think it's the toe-strike versus heel-strike is what's important. Running shoes just encourage heel-striking.

This may be purely anecdotal, but as a runner I was injured for 5 months (Sep - Feb) with illiotibial band syndrome. I was running in traditional running shoes. I'd had no problems in the few years up until that point.

I've been re-habilitating myself by stretching & foam rollering, but also by adopting barefoot running, paying strict attention to my running form. I use Vibram five fingers for the most part, but I've also some of my runs totally barefoot. Aside from one little incident with a small bit of glass, running on asphalt felt fine, almost as nice as sand.

I'm not saying that barefoot running alone cured my ITBS, I'm sure it has something to do with the stretching and rolling, but it is contibuting to injury free running.

It also feels amazing.

Actually, there have been studies that show that the more expensive your running shoe, the more likely you are to get injured.

People think they need running shoes because they run incorrectly. You are not supposed to land on your heel. This is something you can only do with super padded running shoes.

> They will certainly wear out faster without shoes, no matter what you're running on.

Why should your body `wear out' from activity? Are humans some kind of clumsy machine that wears out from friction?

Well, yeah. Our joints are mechanical.

(Note that I am agreeing with the notion that our bodies wear out, as do all machines. I am not endorsing the parent post's claims about shoes being better for running.)

Yet our bodies have excellent self-repairing facilities (as always, supported by appropriate diet, sleep, yada yada).

Sure, but not enough to keep our joints healthy indefinitely.

Parts of our bodies have excellent self-repairing facilities. Parts. Your liver won't repair itself if you damage it enough. You have one set of lungs, so if you smoke enough they most likely aren't growing back. And most critically for this discussion, ligaments and cartilage will not heal once damaged. They are optimized to be as tough as possible, at the expense of not healing at all once damaged.

As the recipient of 2 knee surgeries, and possibly an upcoming 3rd, believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to have my knees "self-repair". But it just isn't going to happen naturally. You get one set of cartilage and ligaments, and once they are gone, they're gone.

Thank you... This seems like one of those basic things we should learn in elementary school -- the healing rates of various parts of our body. We should know what needs the most protection/care. I still do not know that information, and it seems that somebody has to be damaged in order for others to learn about it. Mentally putting "ligaments and knee cartilage" on my list of things to be careful about. I didn't know there was no regeneration there. :(

The main problem with your argument is that it applies just as much to old ways of making shoes with lots of heel support as it does to running without any shoes at all.