Mizuno Thread [8] - Post all info, pics & questions here!

Actually the sedentary folks should be barefoot/in zero drop footwear as much as the athletes among us.....preventing another part of their body from genetically expressing itself is the last thing they need.

 

These are absolute stunners. Calls me back to the Wave Cup Rivaldo of 02.

 

Not to open old wounds, but......

http://www.drnicksrunningblog.com/t...arch-height-from-running-in-minimalist-shoes/

 

Harvard good enough for you?

http://runbare.com/389/new-study-by...t-running-makes-cover-story-in-nature-journal

Or one from the archives: http://www.bsmpg.com/Portals/52884/docs/1905Hoffman.pdf

 

I would argue that it is relevant (both studies actually) as "the foot is the foot" and insole support/foot function is the same as a concept across most aspects of footwear in the context of our conversation, otherwise we are splitting hairs. An orthotic might help aid pain management with a short term injury, but it's not going to improve or correct mechanical/alignment problems over the long haul, it just isn't and the entire position supporting that goes against everything we have proven to be correct about the body and it's function. Preventing natural function of the body doesn't improve it, regardless of the appendage, the feet aren't some vastly unique attachment in material make up vs. the rest of our body .

As someone well versed in long term study methods, you must be aware of the questionable nature of virtually any study - even the ones I presented - when it comes to data presentation. At the risk of sounding blunt, part of what happens with study centric folks is that they become obsessed with other people's data (while never doing their own research) only support their own position. In many cases the dots are right in front of them they can't connect them to the bigger picture or they refuse to believe what ends up being almost an Occam's Razor solution to a situation where modular thinking and common sense application have been discarded in the name of pseudoscience. Just because a lie or fallacy is often repeated doesn't make it the truth.

Your heels are dug in, you want to believe the ethos and rhetoric of those you respect, which I understand. We will just have to have a difference of opinion. For what it is worth, I have seen my own arch height increase since I have ditched shoes with a drop (98% of the time) and that self experimentation and result is enough convincing for me that there is truth and sensibility losing the "support" that never actually supported anything by poor function.

 

I agree. I use very in-depth studies to support and debunk many things in those fields as part of my real life profession, so I have firm grasp on evidence based practice and it's application to medical opinions and medical practice.

I also think some evidence is plainly apparent and virtually undeniable in many cases (like this). Ten year long double blind studies - and so on - do little in those cases other than muddle the application of common sense, evolutionary theory, and basic biology, especially when it's not a new procedure/practice and the evidence has been sitting plainly in our face since the beginning of time. As effective as studies can be in persuading specific groups of people, it is undeniable that most all studies present correlation, not causation and we both know that the former doesn't imply the latter. The funny thing is that the studies that show/support causation are often poo pooed, because they present an inconvenient truth for parties with specific interests and rarely support popular dogma. The latter sentence wasn't a dig at you - just so you know - but something I encounter on a pretty regular basis.

If you want to have a look at minimalist and barefoot studies coming out, specifically performance related studies to heel strike look at the AAOS site. There is some interesting stuff there.

 

The funny thing is....her and I never argue. Haha.