Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday November 23 2016, @12:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-running? dept.

Runners who wear running shoes with no cushioning and land on the ball of their foot rather than the heel put significantly less demand on their bodies, new research suggests.

Researchers compared how quickly the force acts when runners' feet hit the ground -- known as the loading rate -- which has been shown to influence running injury risk.

The study of 29 runners found significantly lower loading rates for those who wore so-called minimal running shoes and landed on the ball of their foot, compared to people in normal running shoes, regardless of whether the latter landed on the heel or ball of the foot.

The article may be of academic interest to Soylentils.

[Editors note: I wonder if Vibram will get its money back based off this study? Also, we ran a somewhat related story a few months ago on the detriment of shoes to the foot's natural spring action...]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Desler on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:24AM

    by Desler (880) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:24AM (#431677)

    To add, one of the major part of Vibram's claim was their shoes strengthen foot muscles which is not backed up at all by this study.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:42AM (#431682)

    I wear vibrams. I have for a long time now.

    I spend a lot of time on my feet (although I don't run for pleasure).

    My feet are definitely stronger than before I made the change.

    It has generally improved my gait.

    Vibram's problem wasn't that their claims were BS, it was that they couldn't back them with chapter and verse in some paywalled Elsevier-owned publication, and that's what the lawsuits were about.

    Making the switch fixed a couple of foot-related problems I had, and I don't want to switch back.

    • (Score: 2) by Desler on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:44AM

      by Desler (880) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:44AM (#431683)

      If their claims weren't BS then were is the evidence? Why would they have settled if they had independent, peer-reviewed evidence for their claims?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:53AM (#431688)

        Read again. They did NOT have independent, peer-reviewed evidence. I know that. They had a solid idea, and forget that americans like to start the morning with a nice run, a cup of coffee and a lawsuit.

        As for why they settled: they didn't want the distraction, they wanted to make it go away and go back to making shoes. Pay money, move on with life. There was no admission of any guilt or anything - all they do is not tell people that it strengthens feet; let people figure that out for themselves.

        Problem solved.