| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nor
152 Posts |
 Posted - 08/02/2009 : 21:06:56
|
This is in relation to all the running injury discussions we've been having....The author of the book, Born to Run that Wavy Soul has recommended made such an interesting point. He talks about how the arch is one of the strongest architectural structures and how if something pushes it up from underneath, it actually weakens the structure. Yet, we've been told by experts for years that we need arch support in our footwear, especially runners. With an injury, it seems the first thing recommended is usually orthotics. I can name about 20 healthy, active, young people off the top of my head who've been sold orthotics, myself included.
Thing is, adequate foot support simply makes sense. Where do we draw line in a place that still allows us the belief that we're not such fragile creatures in continuous need of gadgets and aides to support us.
-Nor
|
|
|
Piano5
29 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 09:21:36
|
That is a great question, and one that I have pondered as well. I've wondered why, through our evolution, we use not the NEEDS but the CONVENIENCES of sunglasses, arch supports, sunscreen, and dozens of other inventions that I can't think of that help us get through life.
All I can say is that I've been running without arch supports for 6 or 7 years and didn't injure myself in my pre-TMS days. Anatomy is different for everyone, and it's an interesting concept to think about how inventions can reduce wear-and-tear on our bodies.
For example: dentistry, open heart surgery, antibiotics, erectile dysfunction pills, the list goes on. All of these things have extended our life expectations and changed the way we can operate into old age.
But back to the arch support: I don't know where we draw the line. We were designed to move with agility and high speed, that's for damn sure. Whether arch supports are another tool in our arsenal to reduce wear and tear is beyond my expertise. |
 |
|
|
crk
124 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 10:03:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nor
... Thing is, adequate foot support simply makes sense.
With greatest respect for you and your point of view, Nor, I must disagree. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where is the evidence that shoe support leads to stronger feet or less pain? Yes, if you take away arch support from someone who has had it from infancy, their feet will not feel good - so what? Atrophied muscles do not spring back in a matter of days or weeks-- rather months, and maybe even years.
We've got the evidence of 2 million years worth of successful foot health, vs. very few decades of "arch support" and the advent of flat feet. Just because lots of runners have been given arch support doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I'm sorry if I sound angry. It is not directed at you; I only recently have discovered that I have been crippled, and have crippled myself, by believing in the shoe industry's misinformation. And I am deeply sensitive about it right now. (That's the polite way of saying I jump on the soapbox at the least suggestion... ;))
Since early July I have been trying to give my feet back their rightful inheritance of barefoot strength. It takes a lot of time to undo 50+ years of "protection." We have to think long term. My little acorn will take a long time to be an oak.
But getting back to TMS, I don't see the shoe issue as a relevant factor. Just my opinion here, but I have yet to see a running injury that is "real," and not TMS -- with the exception of blisters, sprained ankle, or other obvious signs of harm to tissue. I even question the all-prevalent "stress fractures." Bone abnormalities exactly like those found in "injured" runners exist in almost everyone without causing pain. The world of running is a great Culture of Injury, the perfect breeding ground for TMS.
Your point about not seeing one's body as fragile is very important. This is a key point in thinking positively and turning one's life around. I love that about McDougall's book. It's a great paradigm shift!  |
|
|
|
Nor
152 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 14:36:08
|
Oh, crk - you don't seem angry at all. And I'm more in agreement with you than you think. I guess what I meant was that good foot support makes sense on the surface. But I question everything now.
I'm constantly bothered by continuous drug and product ads convincing people everyday that they have a phantom illness/syndrome. Our culture is one of so much medical speak among lay persons. Much more than when I was growing up. I'm 45 and I can name less than 3 peers of mine off the top of my head who aren't on some kind of regular medication or seeing a chiropractor regularly for years or constantly having issues with some stomache/knee/migraine problem...Not saying these people are babies and faking it. We all know from experience that these aches and pains are real. I'm just disgusted by how much our culture supports TMS. Yes, running can cause injuries. But sitting on the couch too much is far worse for you.
I work in rehab and I see it everyday. People come in after back/neck/hip/knee surgeries and so often I wonder if it'll do any good at all. Hopefully it will get better on that end some day. I wish there were more Dr. Sarnos. Nor
|
|
|
|
crk
124 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2009 : 15:32:10
|
Nor wrote: " I question everything now."
RIGHT ON!  |
|
|
|
Webdan65
USA
182 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 14:18:16
|
I just finished the book "Born to Run" last night and it completely changed the way I think about shoes. Also changed the way I think about the human body. A great read for anyone - whether you are a runner or not.
As a result of that book, I'm walking around barefoot more often at home now and I've been thinking about going out and getting a pair of Converse All Star Chuck Taylors - you know, the canvas sneaks from the 60s with virtually NO arch support.
It's funny - I used to see this hippy dude running around my town all the time wearing converse high tops and I'd think to myself - "doesn't he know about running shoes?" Apparently he was WAY more enlightened than most people. That guy could RUN. I'd see him out and all over town - sometimes twice in the span of 3 hours - in very different parts of the area.
The books author totally makes sense about the arch of our foot not needing support and providing it actually weakens the structure.
I'm not much of a runner - but the book has inspired me to start.
Dan
|
|
|
|
crk
124 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 15:44:33
|
Webdan, that's how I reacted too. I want less shoe! I'm in my 50s, and I realized that I have worn some kind of shoe for almost every waking moment of my life. Alarm went off in the AM, and I'd slip into my Birks before even standing up! Now I'm barefoot all the time and so happy to know I can redeem my feet!
I was watching Chariots of Fire the other day and noticed the flimsy little things they wore on their feet back then to run. Maybe someone should bring those back. |
|
|
|
cfhunter
119 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2009 : 19:39:39
|
ahhh the ever present arch support dialogue. I have engaged in that many times over the years as well. I am wearing the Newton running shoe right now and feel like I have less of a shoe on my feet then I ever have...and I went through 5 pairs of the "fix it all orthotic" many years ago.
Orthotics are poo.
|
|
|
|
crk
124 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2009 : 09:45:17
|
| I've heard lots of great things about the Newtons. Too pricey for me, but glad to hear you like yours. Orthotics = poo - agree! Costly poo at that. :) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Architecture, Running and TMS
