Are shoes really a bad idea?  A few days ago I stumbled across this short video on the blog of a guy named Aaron Schwenzfeier.  (Great blog by the way)

Now I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m not really an expert on the mechanics of distance running.  We all know (or should know by now) that endurance running does not even compare to interval training for fat loss and the cardiovascular benefits are about equal.

However, I think it is completely unfair to represent running shoes as evil based on a video of their effect on a single person.  The very nature of scientific study is to have as large a sample as possible to better represent the population as a whole.  We all know at least one person who has smoked two packs per day and lived to 85, but that certainly doesn’t mean that smoking healthy!  My point is that a single case cannot be taken to represent the entire population.

The other inconsistent thing is that there is some debate as to whether landing on the heel or the forefoot is actually better.  Most high level sprinters run on the toes or forefoot, but the consensus among endurance athletes is mixed.  It could be that landing on the heel (where all of the cushioning is in the shoe) is better than landing on the forefoot.  If this were the case, then the shoes actually corrected the problem instead of causing it.

And finally, running on a treadmill does not fairly represent running on pavement as the two are completely different.  There is typically less active hip extension in treadmill running than there is in running on a hard surface.  Making a comparison of the two and claiming they’re the same isn’t exactly accurate.   Again, I’m not saying that this video isn’t correct, but it is important to not just drink the proverbial Kool Aid without critically analyzing it.

While the video does offer some compelling evidence, I wouldn’t throw out my shoes just yet.