Any benefit from cycling as opposed to running?

[PUO3]

im of the mind that you should wear what feels good while doing that activity.

if raised heels didnt irritate my feet and ankles, i would wear them.

 

[Stargazer Rex]

I wanna sock mother nature in the face.

 

[PUO3]

drop that bitch imo.

 

[miaou]

As I understand it, there is not one shred of scientific support for this "minimal" thing- it is an assertion unsupported by any evidence. Personally, I see it as the hippie equivalent of bro-science.

This is actually the other way around. There is no good evidence cushion-sole shoes are better for your myoskeletal health, assuming you have proper running form.

There are a few studies that show cushioned shoes do not reduce the risk of injury, even when fitted according to the subjects foot alignment (overpronated/neutral/underpronated feet). There is also a good deal of research on barefoot running, and it seems to show that it is indeed a viable alternative.

The gist of all the research is pretty common sensical: you should run with good form and follow proper programming rules (basically don't do too much too soon) regardless of footwear, and shoes (cushioned or minimal) are not going to magically protect you from bad running mechanics (cushioned shoes may potentially "mask" bad mechanics that can eventually lead to overtraining injuries). Assuming you have decent form and follow proper programming guidelines, then you should just go with whatever footwear you feel more comfortable with. On top of the above, my opinion is that spending some time working on your barefoot running might help improving your gait (but if you do, make sure to start very light).

 

[miaou]

Shoe companies are going to sell shoes, regardless of whether they're shoes with cushioning and support, or a more minimal, less durable, type shoe. Plenty of shoe companies are coming out with their own minimalist shoe, and making shoes that while still providing some cushioning, are much more flexible, with less of a heel drop. So they're making money regardless. So it doesn't make sense to claim bias without any further evidence.

But regarding the idea that "Ooh, Ah, it's more natural and how people evolved to run", people also didn't evolve to live particularly long. Jaunty is already ancient by the standards of early man, and I'm practically a senior citizen at 26. So unless there's further evidence to support the idea that doing things "as nature intended" is the right way to go, it does't hold water, because mother nature can be a cruel bitch, and she just wants to live long enough to have a bunch of kids, and take care of them long enough so they'll do alright if you die. She doesn't care if you have no teeth, arthritis, and your joint cartilage is all gone and now your bones are grinding together to make a powder when you're 32, because you've outlived your usefulness.

It is true that something being "natural" doesn't have a bearing on whether or not it is optimal, and that "this is natural, therefore it is better" is in fact a logical fallacy.

But in the case of human biomechanics, "natural" is your starting point. If somebody is going to claim that "this cushioned shoe with a raised heel and overpronation control is better for you", then the burden of proof lies on them to prove it is so.

 

[Boekind]

Personally I am a big fan of cycling over running... I enjoy it FAR more. And being outside doing the Silver Comet 3-4 times a week is infinitely more enjoyable then the bike at the gym or even the cycling classes at the gym. Of course now that it's gotten cold I am forced into the gym... but that's to keep the momentum from the biking season for next biking season and get faster along with putting more miles on (goal increase from 1000 miles in the year to 1250).

 

[Tosa]

It is true that something being "natural" doesn't have a bearing on whether or not it is optimal, and that "this is natural, therefore it is better" is in fact a logical fallacy.

But in the case of human biomechanics, "natural" is your starting point. If somebody is going to claim that "this cushioned shoe with a raised heel and overpronation control is better for you", then the burden of proof lies on them to prove it is so.

I don't disagree with this, in principle.

But this is something where an individual can easily experiment and figure out what sort of footwear suits them best. It wouldn't be at all unusual for a runner to buy some minimalist shoes for hills, sprints or technique work, see how that affects things and go from there.

It's not about minimalist vs cushioned, it's about finding the right shoe or shoes for a particular individual. So there's only a need to show that cushioned shoes are probably better for some people, some of the time.

 

[chaospfa]

I preffer the feel of running barefoot. Similarly I preffer lifting barefoot, I've lifted with Dowins (sp?) before and didn't like the feel of the shoe. Must be all the years I spent walking barefoot as a kid. I get shin splits when wearing high end running shoes and switched to running barefoot and haven't had problems since. The only part that sucks is stepping on a dead bird.
@PUO3 tried the NB minimus zero mr00 after work. The feel is great but f-ing expensive. How long have your's lasted? My nikes have gone almost four years. Price wise I'm tempted to go with the nikes again as the NB's just don't seem very durable.

 

[PUO3]

@PUO3 tried the NB minimus zero mr00 after work. The feel is great but f-ing expensive. How long have your's lasted? My nikes have gone almost four years. Price wise I'm tempted to go with the nikes again as the NB's just don't seem very durable.

i have only had mine a few months. i did a bit of research when i was shopping around for them though, and the general notion is the shoes with the extremely tough soles (like the vibram sole on the minimus) will last a long long time, and usually longer than the upper rest of the shoe.

if you like them and know your size in that shoe, look for them online. ive seen them from $70 up to $110.

 

[Human Bass]

Shoe companies are going to sell shoes, regardless of whether they're shoes with cushioning and support, or a more minimal, less durable, type shoe. Plenty of shoe companies are coming out with their own minimalist shoe, and making shoes that while still providing some cushioning, are much more flexible, with less of a heel drop. So they're making money regardless. So it doesn't make sense to claim bias without any further evidence.

But regarding the idea that "Ooh, Ah, it's more natural and how people evolved to run", people also didn't evolve to live particularly long. Jaunty is already ancient by the standards of early man, and I'm practically a senior citizen at 26. So unless there's further evidence to support the idea that doing things "as nature intended" is the right way to go, it does't hold water, because mother nature can be a cruel bitch, and she just wants to live long enough to have a bunch of kids, and take care of them long enough so they'll do alright if you die. She doesn't care if you have no teeth, arthritis, and your joint cartilage is all gone and now your bones are grinding together to make a powder when you're 32, because you've outlived your usefulness.

Actually some people lived quite long, they wouldn't simply die once they hit 30, afterall 30 years it's pretty close to peak physical condition.

The isse was infant mortality, surviving the first years that was really tough. Every primitize civilization has a big tradition on elders, something impossible if people only managed to live so little. The average 30 years life span is an AVERAGE, since it involves so many dying in their infancy much before being 30, it means that other people had to live much beyond.

 

[Tosa]

You could say thirty tears is an average of averages. In some cases, including infant mortality, life expectancy would be in the low twenties. Or you could measure life expectancy once children reach, say 15 or 20, and say life expectancy was 50.

But it doesn't change that age related health problems were seen in individuals much younger than we'd see them now.

 

[CRZA]

Has anyone mention jacked, huge legs

 

[SunNovaGun]

Another option is to go and get properly fitted for some running shoes.

I was getting some shin pain if I did two long road runs in three days. I was also getting a lot of blisters because my shoes didn't fit me that well and were moving around when I ran. A friend of mine saw me running on the treadmill and pointed out that my feet were collapsing inwards a lot when I was running, and recommended that I go to a speciality running store to get a pair of shoes that would fix my gait.

I went to a store in London, with my current shoes. The guy pointed out that my shoes were very hard. He put them on the floor and observed that they did not sit flat on the ground- both were tilting inwards, because I had worn away the inside a lot more than the outside (evidence of uneven gait). He suggested I needed a pair with much more padding, and fairly high arch support. I tried about three different pairs, and each time I would run on a treadmill and he would take a video of my feet and legs. Then he would play the video back so I could see how much my feet were coming off a straight line. Eventually I found one pair that felt most comfortable and which almost completely fixed my gait- eliminating the tendency to come off a straight line, and for my feet to roll inwards.

I haven't had any shin pain since getting these new shoes, and the blistering issue has been much better (basically, just got them once after the first long run). They feel great to run in, and my feet just feel *so* much better afterwards, especially after a long run (which is 10km+ for me).

I had almost the opposite experience. Got fitted just like you, have high arches and pronate a bit and ended up with a shoe with a ton of arch support and a thick heel.

The shoes ended up forcing me to heel strike and due to the high mileage I was putting in at the time preparing for an event (40-50 km per week total spread over three runs) I ended up with some serious pain in my heels and ITBS.

I've switched to a shoe with less arch and a much lower heel and thankfully the pain is slowly subsiding.

People should lift weights regardless of their choices for cardiovascular exercise.

Agreed but it's still worth mentioning.

 

[redaxe]

Actually some people lived quite long, they wouldn't simply die once they hit 30, afterall 30 years it's pretty close to peak physical condition.

The isse was infant mortality, surviving the first years that was really tough. Every primitize civilization has a big tradition on elders, something impossible if people only managed to live so little. The average 30 years life span is an AVERAGE, since it involves so many dying in their infancy much before being 30, it means that other people had to live much beyond.

Thank you. This fallacy pisses me off so much. Besides the shoe thing, there was another entire industry based on it, selling estrogen pills to post-menopausal women because supposedly women didn't live past menopause before modern medicine. Blatant misuse of statistics for marketing purposes.

 

[marian]

Has anyone mention jacked, huge legs

F

 

[JauntyAngle]

I had almost the opposite experience. Got fitted just like you, have high arches and pronate a bit and ended up with a shoe with a ton of arch support and a thick heel.

The shoes ended up forcing me to heel strike and due to the high mileage I was putting in at the time preparing for an event (40-50 km per week total spread over three runs) I ended up with some serious pain in my heels and ITBS.

I've switched to a shoe with less arch and a much lower heel and thankfully the pain is slowly subsiding.

Well, I am a super heel-striker. I even heel-strike when I sprint, which apparently is pretty rare. So since I am going to heel strike, it seems that the arch support and padding are probably helpful.

 

[Human Bass]

Well, I am a super heel-striker. I even heel-strike when I sprint, which apparently is pretty rare. So since I am going to heel strike, it seems that the arch support and padding are probably helpful.

You are a heel striker because the shoes make you tolerate that, you are probably over-striding. Go barefoot for half mile to see how long you can remain heel striking.

 

[bowlie]

Shoe companies are going to sell shoes, regardless of whether they're shoes with cushioning and support, or a more minimal, less durable, type shoe. Plenty of shoe companies are coming out with their own minimalist shoe, and making shoes that while still providing some cushioning, are much more flexible, with less of a heel drop. So they're making money regardless. So it doesn't make sense to claim bias without any further evidence.

But regarding the idea that "Ooh, Ah, it's more natural and how people evolved to run", people also didn't evolve to live particularly long. Jaunty is already ancient by the standards of early man, and I'm practically a senior citizen at 26. So unless there's further evidence to support the idea that doing things "as nature intended" is the right way to go, it does't hold water, because mother nature can be a cruel bitch, and she just wants to live long enough to have a bunch of kids, and take care of them long enough so they'll do alright if you die. She doesn't care if you have no teeth, arthritis, and your joint cartilage is all gone and now your bones are grinding together to make a powder when you're 32, because you've outlived your usefulness.

My point was the trend towards making / selling minimalist shoes is relatively new, so alot of the studies into it are still ongoing or very recent, because the funding has only recently started to flow in that direction.

My other point was that the type of shoe doesnt really matter, but landing on the ball of my foot instead of the heel means i dont get shin splints because my calf absorbs the shock not my shin and knee joint. The shoes are irrelevant

 

[bowlie]

This is actually the other way around. There is no good evidence cushion-sole shoes are better for your myoskeletal health, assuming you have proper running form.

There are a few studies that show cushioned shoes do not reduce the risk of injury, even when fitted according to the subjects foot alignment (overpronated/neutral/underpronated feet). There is also a good deal of research on barefoot running, and it seems to show that it is indeed a viable alternative.

Im pretty sure the US army did a huge test, and gave all its recruits new shoes. half cheap normal trainers, half fitted to their feet / gait. They saw no difference in injury. That might be worth trying to find, but I have no idea where to look

 

[JauntyAngle]

Actually some people lived quite long, they wouldn't simply die once they hit 30, afterall 30 years it's pretty close to peak physical condition.

The isse was infant mortality, surviving the first years that was really tough. Every primitize civilization has a big tradition on elders, something impossible if people only managed to live so little. The average 30 years life span is an AVERAGE, since it involves so many dying in their infancy much before being 30, it means that other people had to live much beyond.

Change in infant mortality rate obviously accounts for a lot of the increase in life expectancy, but it is not plausible that it accounts for all of it, when you consider improvements in heath care and nutrition, development of social safety nets, and the fact that the chances of dying violently have been decreasing rapidly over the centuries, too.