everything we've been told about running shoes is wrong - and that it might even be better to go barefoot...

Here's the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/ar...aste-money.html

i think that this has been discussed at length in a previous thread, although i'm too lazy to search for it. the end result was... um... can't remember. but i think it's more like 'runners suffer lots of injuries because, you know, they run, and running is intense on the body. some people like this shoe, some people like that shoe, some people like no shoes. lets all hug'.

To Bonechina, those who can remember the "tiger G nines" would not agree with you .Prior to the "tiger G nines" the only option was to wear tennis shoes. If you are unfortunate enough to get injured I doubt that the modern running shoe caused the problem. The "tiger G nines" consisted of little more than about 6-7 milmetre solid rubber sole ,and mabe 12 milimetre heel,(same matrial) cost about 10 dollars,and we thought they were great. Even if 40 years later we had to have our knees replaced.PHEIDIPPIDES.

bonechina, thanks for the article, nice read, those converted already know all of it, those resistant will always argue against.

nicely put : double the prize of the shoe, double the risk of injury

come to our BF and transitioning topics - threads, we are very friendly bunch.

previous discussion had a slightly different skew:
http://www.coolrunning.com.au/forums/index...showtopic=22952

Kevin