Making the case for running shoes, a study
I was glad to see this article come out (with its corrections) "Making the case for running shoes, a study Link Here"
In summary, the study asks "is barefoot running more efficient"?? Sure it can be considered more efficient because we are carrying less mass on our feet - but if the mass was the same(held constant), would it still be more efficient?
The way they tested this was comparing O2 use between runners using 150gram shoes and the same runn ers wearing 150gram taped weights on their feet and running barefoot. These runners are barefoot experienced - so there was hopes of removing that variable.
They were shocked to find that weight bare feet were LESS efficient than wearing shoes. This is expected to us. I mean the removal of weight advantage is carved out of the experiment, so the only question is are we metabolically more efficient when barefoot?? I'd say 'who cares'. If (and this is a mid-sized 'if') we are less injury prone and have years more of lifetime running due to having good form, would 101 breaths in stead of 100 be a worthy trade??
Why don't you find out and run as shodless as possible to correct your form. I've NEVER heard a story (Not One) where supportive shoes extended a runner's running career, yet I've heard many testimonials to the contrary. Testimonials are not science, but they may be indicators of what would happen to you. We're all an experiment of one.!
Thoughts? Explicatives? Mints?