Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

news.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 247 posts

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#231

Post by undersuit »

jackmott wrote: post #13
rosser wrote: post #9

The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong, beyond a passing mention of barefoot running, and some dissing of treadmills (which is hyperbolic and orthogonal to reality; you can run "correctly" or "badly" on a treadmill or on the street or trail). I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thin…

>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes. The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more c…

>People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.

People set world records without using shoes even. The Vibram is less strange and more a compromise between foot protection and flexibility. In other words: gloves aren't strange, mittens are.

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#232

Post by DanBC »

jackmott wrote: post #13
rosser wrote: post #9

The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong, beyond a passing mention of barefoot running, and some dissing of treadmills (which is hyperbolic and orthogonal to reality; you can run "correctly" or "badly" on a treadmill or on the street or trail). I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thin…

>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes. The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more c…

> People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.

Zola Budd was pretty fast with no shoes. http://www.garycohenrunning.com/images/ZolaBarefoot.jpg

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#233

Post by undersuit »

anonymousDan wrote: post #142

These claims about how we're running in the wrong way because we should be running barefoot all seem to rest on the premise that that is how we evolved. The problem I have with that is they neglect to mention there weren't any concrete roads or sidewalks around when our running abilities evolved either, so who's to say our anatomy was ever designed to work on such hard surfaces? Sure if you can manage to run barefoot…

Our anatomy evolved to work on almost all surfaces. The early homo erectus that could not run on a surface was genetically less fit. Our gait changes slightly depending on what surfaces we run on; loose rock, sand, packed dirt, or concrete. Not being able to run on concrete would mean our ancestors would have avoided rocky areas... which they did not.

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#234

Post by undersuit »

slipslap wrote: post #75

what are your thoughts on https://www.vivobarefoot.com/us ?

I've used the Scott and Hiker models as my winter shoes for 5 years now. Walking 2-6 miles daily in Montana winters. Disliked the Hiker, the molding between the sole and the top was flimsy, the Scott is much better IMO but ice-salt will wreck their appearance if your don't take care of them. They can't handle smooth ice, but neither do most regular shoes without some assistance anyways.

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#235

Post by zzalpha »

dahart wrote: post #222
zzalpha wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL, perhaps in its most basic form. Do you breathe using your chest or your stomach? How deeply? At what cadence? Through your nose, or through your mouth? All of these things really matter when learning to run comfortably.

I'm curious how it matters, can you be more specific? You didn't answer the question, what is the "correct" way to breath? What bad things happen if you don't breathe correctly, aside from passing out or dying? You'd have to be consciously trying to not breathe for that to happen, right? If there's discomfort, what adjustments am I making naturally that might be "incorrect"? What about breathing is so non-obvious tha…

As you mention, it's about rhythm and timing with your stride to maximize comfort and minimize effort so that running is challenging but not unnecessarily strenuous.

Being conscious of your breath forces you to manage pace. If you're trying to maintain an aerobic pace, noticing when you start breathing hard is a signal to dial back.

Additionally, particularly in colder climates, it's also helpful to breathe in through the nose and out through the mouth, in order to warm and moisten the air before it hits your lungs, thus increasing comfort.

Sounds like you've probably already landed on an effect breathing technique for you. But just because you figured that out on your own, don't assume everyone else naturally will. People unfamiliar with aerobic exercise may not realize it's abnormal to be gasping and out of breath while running.

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#236

Post by Kiro »

Raidion wrote: post #196
joekrill wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense to you personally, but it's kind of disconcerting that this is the top comment. You've outright admitted to only having "used to run a bit" -- and not very much, at that. But then go on to promote barefoot running as if you're somehow a fully qualified expert who knows enough to talk on the matter and declare barefoot running is _clearly_ the answer. I'm not saying you're wrong or right. This shoed/barefoo…

Maybe I can chime in here, I've been running competitively through HS, College, and some marathons after. Barefoot running is only revolutionary to some people because it correctly aligns the incentives to have proper form. If you're barefoot/vibram running with proper form, you'll pretty much instantly feel all this discomfort of the impacts in your heel, knee, and back. This discomfort doesn't exist when you're in…

> If you're barefoot/vibram running with proper form, you'll pretty much instantly feel all this discomfort of the impacts in your heel, knee, and back.

I don't understand. Do you mean with improper form?

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#237

Post by sjeohp »

pg314 wrote: post #198
sjeohp wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength. Over long distances it is easy to fall back on heel-running out of laziness, because the impact is absorbed more by joints and less by tired muscles, but that is a failure of fitness and…

> As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. Nonsense. You can go tell Meb Keflezghi, winner of both the Boston and New York marathon, that he's not built to run. He's a prime example of a heel striker [1], though slightly less prominent in his later years. More generally, in [2], a study of elite level runners in t…

> Meb Keflezghi, winner of both the Boston and New York marathon, that he's not built to run. He's a prime example of a heel striker [1], though slightly less prominent in his later years.

Trained hard and overcame the limitation for a time? I did say there are exceptions.

> More generally, in [2], a study of elite level runners in the half marathon, found that at the 15km point the top 50 was comprised of 62% rear-foot strikers, 36% mid-foot, and 2.0% fore-foot strikers.

Reflects that heel-strikers are more common.

From a quick search:

1,991 runners were classified by foot-strike pattern, revealing a heel-strike prevalence of 93.67% (n=1,865). A significant difference between foot-strike classification and performance was found using a Kruskal-Wallis test (p

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801105/

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#238

Post by rikkus »

mdorazio wrote: post #188
joekrill wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, what you're saying here is purely anecdotal. Actually, it may not be, but I have absolutely no idea because the way you are presenting it is in a purely anecdotal way.

Is this not basic physics looking at pivot points? If 160+ pounds is landing on your heels, the shock of that must be absorbed entirely by your knees and hips. If the same weight lands on the the front of your feet, you have the added absorption offered by your toes, ankles, and achilles tendon. That's not exactly anecdotal. As for the long-term health effects of one or the other, that's still being debated and might…

I don't know if your heel touching the ground first is the same thing as what you're describing. I usually run as a 'midfoot' but I sometimes let my heel touch the ground first. I don't drop my weight onto it, though. I just roll the foot forwards. 'Heel striking' doesn't mean running on your heels.

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#239

Post by anonymousDan »

undersuit wrote: post #233
anonymousDan wrote: post #142

These claims about how we're running in the wrong way because we should be running barefoot all seem to rest on the premise that that is how we evolved. The problem I have with that is they neglect to mention there weren't any concrete roads or sidewalks around when our running abilities evolved either, so who's to say our anatomy was ever designed to work on such hard surfaces? Sure if you can manage to run barefoot…

Our anatomy evolved to work on almost all surfaces. The early homo erectus that could not run on a surface was genetically less fit. Our gait changes slightly depending on what surfaces we run on; loose rock, sand, packed dirt, or concrete. Not being able to run on concrete would mean our ancestors would have avoided rocky areas... which they did not.

Not convinced. I highly doubt there is any evidence of our ancestors running barefoot for long distances over rocky areas. From what I know the primary reason our running abilities evolved was to allow chasing grazing animals over long distances on grasslands. Be interested to see any evidence otherwise though!

Re: We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong

#240

Post by mcappleton »

magic_beans wrote: post #200
mcappleton wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran cross country in high school and I just ran barefoot around the neighborhood. I'd run 10 miles barefoot sometimes. I had Vibrams but didn't like em as much. The great thing about running barefoot is that you can feel the ground under your feet. It makes it much more interesting to run and less boring.

I HATE wearing shoes, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to run barefoot in New York. I don't know what it is about barefoot running that is so stimulating -- maybe it's the simple exercise of avoiding constant danger? -- but wearing shoes certainly dampens the thrill.

Haha avoiding danger definitely makes it more interesting... or when you step on an acorn!
Post reply on HN