Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Ok- well comments like above suggest to me that you don't really grasp some basic concepts of overuse injuries.
Contrary to what you state above, asphalt is more likely to cause problems because it is so regular and even.
Every step you take is applying the same ground reaction force at the same angle- this gives a much greater chance of injury as the cumulative load is applied to the same tissues the same way.
Some people are fortunate enough to have flexibility/ alignment/strength that may be able to handle this repetitive motion, but there are many that do not have this, and footwear and or orthoses may be able to help them in someway like an adapter.
Asphalt is easier to run on if you are concerned about something like an acute ankle injury, but I am sure there are many runners out there who are like me and would much prefer to run on a natural undulating terrain (which may or may not be hard... this is not as important as the variability).
This is where I feel the evolution argument falls down- most of the time we are running on surfaces we have not evolved to run on... do you think we have evolved at all since running for recreation became popular?
For what it is worth, when asked about barefoot running I advise people that if they want to try it, do it carefully , progressively, and on natural terrain (and i would only advise it if I thought they had reasonable enough mechanics to handle it).
Quote:
In the complementary perspective of evolutionary medicine, foot conditions such as athletes foot, blisters, black toenails, corns, calluses can be interpreted as result of putting the foot in an environment (shoes) different from the environment in which the foot evolved.
Many of these problems often are not related to shoes, and often footwear can be part of the management. The only exception I can see on your list would be athlete's foot. I am currently working in an environment where people are habitually in open shoes and live in tiled houses where they go without footwear. I have lost count of the number of people who present with problems which they relate to being barefoot around the house. In addition the rate of heel fissures, and callouses is higher than I can recall in Australia. Don't see much athletes foot though...
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
What you are saying is all very interesting. I'm sure you will enjoy this little tune.
Best regards,
Zimmy
Thank you Zimmy for the tune... only from Texas hey. I did enjoy it, however, the tune did come back to haunt me later that day when I went for a run... it kept playing over & over in my head . Yet I feel the event did lead to something constructive as I did my tempo (steady state run) run on an undulating rocky bush trail. Reaching speeds of nearly 3min/km I came across two wallabies (creatures from the kangaroo family – if you’re not familiar with Australian wildlife) that effortlessly took off & left me behind. I then pondered on the running ability of us humans & that of the primate family. This run was of about 15km on a course which required jumping down rocks on the way out & subsequently bounding up them on the way home. Despite the lack of endurance capabilities present in the primate family the main comparative attributes that kept resurfacing (between bouts of that tune popping up) was that of the physiology/biomechanics involved & the apparent conducive pathways needed to take place for this presumed unguided evolutionary course.
The physiological implications are wonderfully diverse & must make a thoughtful person stand in awe of the complexity required for such an ordinary thing as running. How could so many multiple, independent adaptations converge on the ability to run? How many lucky mutations did that require? How many additional adaptations are required for running up and down stairs, running up and down hills, or hopping from boulder to boulder either running down or up a mountain?
Keep in mind that it’s not just the skeleton, joints & muscles that need to be adapted for these things. All the body’s systems must be prepared for the jolts of running: circulatory, endocrine, reproductive, nervous, sensory, digestive, excretory, lymphatic & respiratory (as well as heat dissipation) - from the subcellular level, to the tissue, to the organ, to the integrated body. A lucky mutation here or there will accomplish nothing, & will likely be selected against & removed, unless every change is synchronized to the whole function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Most of the morphological traits involved are likely to be polygenic (influenced by genes at a relative large number of loci). How fast such traits evolve will depend on the strength of selection and the amount of additative genetic variance in the trait. As is evident from animal and plant breeding, large evolutionary changes can occur in just a few generations, beyond the range of variation found in the initial population, if selection is strong. See any introductory textbook on quantitative genetics. Once persistance hunting appeared as a novel new method of obtaining food, selection may have been very strong for a few hundred generations.
So called genetic correlations with other traits (caused by pleiotropic genetic effects) and selection pressures operating on these other traits may create so called indirect selection in the opposite direction. Such genetic correlation and the resulting indirect selection can be viewed as a cost associated with a trait such as "running ability".
Experimental science has shown that epistatic interactions prevent this, effectively falsifying the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Looking at the results & conclusions of experiments by three evolutionary biologists at the Institut Cavanilles de Biodiversitat i Biologia Evolutiva, Universitat de Valencia in Spain (Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena, “Evolution: The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus,”) (abstract here).
The team was looking for epistatic interactions i.e. the effects of multiple independent (non-allelic) mutations on each other, rather than the effects of single mutations alone. These interactions can be antagonistic or synergistic: they can work against one another or with one another. Epistasis is defined as “any interaction of nonallelic genes, especially the suppression by one gene of the effect of a nonallelic gene.” Of note in this paper are the opening lines in the abstract that tell how rarely this important concept has been studied before (i.e. never - at date of publication)...
“The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. “
They performed two classes of experiments to measure the effects of epistasis on mutations...
“Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic.”
In other words, none of their pairs of mutations occupied the necessary box labelled “beneficial & synergistic.” Half of the synergistic (working-together) actions they measured were “synthetic lethals” (killed each other). The other 50% maybe didn’t kill the organisms but still decreased fitness overall. The second experiment was all the more depressing... given two beneficial mutations in the same organism, all significant interactions were antagonistic - they often counteract one another.
In the above cited paper, the researchers found that beneficial mutations do not add up, even in the best of circumstances. Neo-Darwinian theory assumes that beneficial mutations act independently, but the team found that of the eight actual best-case scenarios (two beneficial mutations working antagonistically, since none worked synergistically) over half decreased the total fitness of the result from what would be expected if the beneficial mutations acted alone. They called this “decompensatory epistasis”. What does this mean to neo-Darwinian theory?
“Indeed, when epistasis is decompensatory, both beneficial alleles involved in the interaction cannot spread to fixation in the population, because the double mutant is less fit than each single mutant.”
This drastically undercuts any hope for evolutionary progress. Beneficial mutations are “scarce” to begin with, but more is not better – it’s worse. Like adding hot sauce to ice cream, the benefits of each counteract one another when combined. “As a consequence,” they continue, describing the only hope left...
“lineages bearing alternative beneficial mutations should compete with each other on their way to fixation & as a consequence of asexuality and clonal interference, and only the best competitor will eventually become fixed in the population.”
That is, only one beneficial mutation can become fixed at a time, even in the best case scenario...
"... antagonistic epistasis represents the most abundant type of interaction among beneficial mutations, with several cases showing decompensatory epistasis.”
So there. These scientists finally put neo-Darwinism to the test in a microcosm that should have shown (if the principles were correct) a clear case of fitness increasing as a result of natural selection acting on beneficial mutations. It failed. Not only were no instances of synergistic beneficial mutations detected, the beneficial mutations that were artificially inserted worked against each other! Neo-Darwinism is falsified! And it was falsified not by creationists, but by evolutionary biologists working in the lab at an institute for the study of biological evolution!
I even believe (vaguely remember) that Professor Lieberman was involved in a study back in 2004 that pointed out that running is not a by-product of walking – it requires too many independent structural adaptations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Yes, nothing comes without a cost so there is likely to be some cost associated with the evolved genetic basis underlying the physiological ability to run long distances. So once a direct survival advantage associated with running disappears or weakens, there is going to be some selection against these traits. We clearly do not know how large these costs are and how fast evolved adaptations to running are being lost.
I would think that our current sedentary lifestyle plays a bigger role here. So it is more a question of what can be achieved with proper training. Another prediction of evolutionary medicine would be that the body is more likely to respond well (through evolved plasticity) to challenges which have occured in our evolutionary past.
Putting aside many speculative points that doesn’t resonate with me (or science on the whole).You seem to be painting a grim picture of the future of running for us humans. This planet contains a vast contrast between humans who are extremely active & those who are extremely sedentary. From your line of reasoning... what does the supposed future hold for us? Could it be the species of Homo Sapien could split to something like what is depicted the 1960 film of H. G. Wells’ “The Time Machine”? Where there could be a split to post-human races like i.e. the Eloi & the Morlocks (of the film).
We must notice the stark contrast between the measurable science & the fluffy speculation about evolution i.e. in the writings of Professor Lieberman (with his research i.e. Foot strike patterns...) & Christopher McDougall (i.e. Born to Run). Necessity is the mother of invention, not evolution: invention is intelligent design; evolution, on the contrary, is mindless & directionless... based ultimately on accidents.
Any scientific hypothesis must be testable & subject to falsification by experiment. It is not enough to tell just-so stories & describe things in glittering generalities with armchair scenarios. Neo-Darwinian theory: the idea that natural selection acting on “scarce” beneficial mutations can produce all the diversity of life (including the physiological/biomechanical requirements needed for that of some primate lineage to run my 15km course) must be testable if it is to be declared scientific. It is practical/real experiences like this that help us (at least me) realise the implications involved in a topic such as this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
In the complementary perspective of evolutionary medicine, foot conditions such as athletes foot, blisters, black toenails, corns, calluses can be interpreted as result of putting the foot in an environment (shoes) different from the environment in which the foot evolved. I cannot imagine that there is anything controversial about that.
Of course there is nothing controversial about the above stated conditions being the result with some individuals (not all) who of which have provided a conducive environment (i.e. poor fitting footwear, inappropriate footwear) for these conditions to occur. It happens... you find the cause, deal with it & move on. I can easily provide another list which can be associated with barefoot running... ‘barefoot’ (minimalist footwear) running a marathon for example (I’m sure Professor Lieberman could have enlightened you after his London experience in the Vibrams). These are superficial results of the lifestyle we choose & it does not need to embrace evolutionary medicine (Darwinian medicine) to understand it. Call me dim... but I just do not get it!
However, I have been thinking of late about this field in which you embrace to substantiate your views. This field of evolutionary medicine does seem to have influences & repercussions... & the only natural progression I can see which embraces this evolutionary paradigm is the potentially destructive & debasement field of Eugenics... the pioneer of which was Sir Francis Galton, who was none other than the cousin of Charles Darwin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
So based on our past evolutionary history, I really don't think it is a far-fetched hypothesis that also many of the injuries associated with running may also be a result of shoes which certainly warrants further research.
Yes, I agree (all here on this forum also agree) it warrants further research but (I feel) not in association with the premise based on as you stated... “past evolutionary history”. We should study what lays before us... the ideal parameters of the foot (structure & movement) in association with the ideal parameters of foot protection which do not inhibit the ideal function of the foot, which in turn should enable us to gain strength, efficiency & fitness during our training & enhance speed/performance during our racing. It is these aspects I have been looking into.
Subsequently I have come up with a means to train in minimalist type footwear (for want of a better term) to enable a more natural (uninhibited) foot function but not at the expense where foot health can potentially be compromised via bruising, cuts, puncture wounds etc... However, the goal (I feel) with training as opposed to racing is to increase O2 consumption (increase metabolic cost) for extra strength & fitness, thus I have added weight to the lower limb (but not in association with the shoe) for some sessions of my training. Conversely with racing, we want a light shoe to decrease O2 consumption (decrease metabolic cost) but not to the point where the foot/lower limb (i.e. muscles) have to work harder, thus less efficient for a race environment where as most energy is needed towards optimum performance endeavours (particularly for the marathon). Thus a light shoe with a light custom made semi-rigid (or semi-flex - whatever term is more appropriate) orthotic inside to aid in efficiency (i.e. reducing degree of muscle effort), shock-absorption & energy return whilst running at a higher speed for as long as possible is the objective.
Had a very interesting "barefoot" moment this weekend at a presentation on gait. One of the people in the audience made a comment that going barefoot would cure all gait issues and further that going barefoot and using only the toes was the best way to store impact energy in the muscles and then release it to propel one forward. Commentor said "studies have shown" that the major purpose for several large muscle groups was energy storage for the rebound, and not energy generation... The presentor replied with "I wrote that study, and that is not what I said."
(Apparently actual energy storage is miniscule, but the idea of a free lunch seems to be quite seductive. A perpetual motion machine right there in our legs if only we take off our shoes!)
The presentor replied with "I wrote that study, and that is not what I said."
I love it! We see that all the time. That has been my big gripe in this thread and others about barefoot running. Its the way the barefoot running community misue, misrepresent and misquote research to say something that it did not.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Had a very interesting "barefoot" moment this weekend at a presentation on gait. One of the people in the audience made a comment that going barefoot would cure all gait issues and further that going barefoot and using only the toes was the best way to store impact energy in the muscles and then release it to propel one forward. Commentor said "studies have shown" that the major purpose for several large muscle groups was energy storage for the rebound, and not energy generation... The presentor replied with "I wrote that study, and that is not what I said."
Ouch- shot doooownnnn....
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
Had a very interesting "barefoot" moment this weekend at a presentation on gait. One of the people in the audience made a comment that going barefoot would cure all gait issues and further that going barefoot and using only the toes was the best way to store impact energy in the muscles and then release it to propel one forward. Commentor said "studies have shown" that the major purpose for several large muscle groups was energy storage for the rebound, and not energy generation... The presentor replied with "I wrote that study, and that is not what I said."
(Apparently actual energy storage is miniscule, but the idea of a free lunch seems to be quite seductive. A perpetual motion machine right there in our legs if only we take off our shoes!)
Their interaction lasted all of 10 or 15 seconds. Neither cited the paper they were referring to. So in answer to the question "which paper were they talking about?" I'm sorry, but I have to say that I don't know.
I was interviewed by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette newspaper a few weeks ago on the topic of barefoot running. Here is the article that was published today.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
The following has been touted (advertised) as the "Barefoot Running Bible" on an Australian based running forum...
The following are quotes from the linked website from that forum site... found here.
Quote:
Book Description
Full of incredible characters, amazing athletic achievements, cutting-edge science, and, most of all, pure inspiration, Born to Run is an epic adventure that began with one simple question: Why does my foot hurt?
..."cutting-edge science". "cutting-edge", give me a break! I can guess what 'science' the author of this piece could be referring to & part of it aint science (in the true context of the term... philosophy maybe!) & subsequently it is at least 10 parsecs from what we know (or should term) as "cutting-edge".
Quote:
In search of an answer, Christopher McDougall sets off to find a tribe of the world’s greatest distance runners and learn their secrets, and in the process shows us that everything we thought we knew about running is wrong.
Well, it may have revealed everything what Mr McDougall knew about running was wrong (i.e. with constant injuries - obviously something wasn't sinking in) but some people have been nutting over these related questions for quite a while... longer than the expressed supposed 'enlightenment' of the fellowship of McDougall, Lieberman & the mysterious runners from the mysterious Canyon lands. Come to think of it... it sounds like an intriguing plot for a movie. What's the bet that one will result???
Quote:
Isolated by the most savage terrain in North America, the reclusive Tarahumara Indians of Mexico’s deadly Copper Canyons are custodians of a lost art. For centuries they have practiced techniques that allow them to run hundreds of miles without rest and chase down anything from a deer to an Olympic marathoner while enjoying every mile of it.
I am further intrigued by the claims... & curious - do deer live in that region? More importantly... "Olympic marathoner"... which one??!! I really would like to know.
Quote:
Their superhuman talent is matched by uncanny health and serenity, leaving the Tarahumara immune to the diseases and strife that plague modern existence.
"Modern existence" is plagued be a great many things. In short... poor diet & lifestyle factors (choices)... i.e. fast, fatty, nutrient deprived food accompanied by laziness is the basis of the "diseases and strife that plague modern existence"... not the state of foot attire... or the philosophy thereof.
Quote:
With the help of Caballo Blanco, a mysterious loner who lives among the tribe, the author was able not only to uncover the secrets of the Tarahumara but also to find his own inner ultra-athlete, as he trained for the challenge of a lifetime: a fifty-mile race through the heart of Tarahumara country pitting the tribe against an odd band of Americans, including a star ultramarathoner, a beautiful young surfer, and a barefoot wonder.
The mysterious loner has been given a name... "Caballo Blanco" - otherwise known as "Horse" or even "Space Horse" (that sounds even more mysterious). He even has his own website... no really, he does... here.
Quote:
With a sharp wit and wild exuberance,
WOW! ... You can say that again.
Quote:
McDougall takes us from the high-tech science labs at Harvard
Yep, my presumption of quote 1 seems to be correct i.e. Professor Lieberman at his "high-tech science labs at Harvard." Where would this topic be without those “high-tech” science labs to substantiate this movement.
Quote:
... to the sun-baked valleys and freezing peaks across North America, where ever-growing numbers of ultrarunners are pushing their bodies to the limit, and, finally, to the climactic race in the Copper Canyons. Born to Run is that rare book that will not only engage your mind but inspire your body when you realize that the secret to happiness is right at your feet, and that you, indeed all of us, were born to run.
Indeed all of us were born to run... because we were Created to run. However, who would have thought that "the secret of happiness is right at your feet". I have alternative views on this statement. However, as silly as the statement is, it does sound like a good slogan for Podiatry... hey, maybe for Podiatry Arena.
With the above quotes in mind, I think the following award is now well overdue...
As I have said before: Some barefooter convertees may be enthusiastically ambitious but may appear also to be more fascinated with fame & fortune than with serious science. The claims made by the cardinal exponents of the barefoot brigade may have given rise to a new era in running: one of smoke & mirrors, in which style triumphs over substance, logic & reasoning.
Having read 'Born to Run', there is no cutting edge science in it! Just nonsensical misinterpretation and mispresentation of science.
It still amazes me how many people are that gullible that they fell for so much fiction in that book.
I did get am email from a barefoot runner the other day as a result of them reading here at Podiatry Arena, which I though was quite neat. In part they said:
Quote:
I think you have made some very valid points, particularly about the fringe element of the barefoot running community. I find the ridiculous claims made annoying and bordering on evangelical.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Indeed all of us were born to run... because we were Created to run. However, who would have thought that "the secret of happiness is right at your feet". I have alternative views on this statement. However, as silly as the statement is, it does sound like a good slogan for Podiatry... hey, maybe for Podiatry Arena.
With the above quotes in mind, I think the following award is now well overdue...
I think an award for the most "stupid religious quote of the week" would be more appropriate. Seriously though, am I the only one who find Matthew's take on the issues in this thread a bit ... bizarre? Or are you all evolution deniers?
How about you Professor Payne, what are your views on the theory of evolution?
I read "Born to Run" last month while traveling, and tried to read it with an open mind. Here are my takeaway thoughts:
* An entertaining read about a mystical tribe of people that embraced running for the pure passion of running. Interesting characters like Caballo Blanco tossed in.
* A beautiful job of product placement. If you want to run like these people, you need to be wearing Vibram 5 Fingers.
* Brazen, unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of barefoot or scantily-shod running. This invites controversy, and solidly places zealots on either side of the debate. As long as the debate rages, there's money to be made.
* McDougall and company travel the world espousing the benefits of barefoot running, collect handsome speaking fees, sell books and are generously supported by Vibram Five Fingers. Best-seller book royalties, speaking fees and paid endorsements - absolutely brilliant.
* Reports of running injuries associated with VFF, especially stress fractures, are reported in waves. Barefoot Ted or McDougall pull-out in agonizing pain from a barefoot "fun-run" event. The media looks at the mounting scientific evidence about health dangers of barefoot running, and jump on to a "juicy" story discrediting barefoot running. The Tamahura tribe is photographed running in Brooks Beast shoes.
* After 3 years, Vibram 5 Fingers, and a rash of Chinese knock-offs fall out of favor. McDougall & company count their money.
Conclusion: Excellent entrepreneurship, at the expense of a ton of suckers.
I think an award for the most "stupid religious quote of the week" would be more appropriate. ?
Welcome back zimmy.
I must admit I had second thoughts about posting that image as it could potentially be a thorn in the sole of some barefooters out there... who didn't see the humour of it. However, I felt the image & associated text represented the issues discussed on this topic (thread) rather well.
Anyway, I had hoped your comprehension of my previous posts was satisfactory to at least understand the direction I was coming from. I (thought) at least I tried to articulate the points quite clearly. For starters zimmy, I am not (was not) talking about religion... I was discussing the origin of life in association with its use by the expounded supposed acclaimed key researcher on this topic of Barefoot Running i.e. evolutionary biologist Professor Lieberman. Did he or did he not use evolution as the basis behind his reasoning on this topic? Does he always (from at least what I have read in articles & seen in videos) use this same evolutionary premise as the basis for his reasoning?
OK then, with that in mind, I have an alternative view on this perspective... & I expressed it... & I am entitled to express this alternative point of view in relation to the topic. I gave reasons for it; I provided evidence of it & provided scientific research to counteract the evolutionary perspective supported by Professor Lieberman & yourself. If what I have said has been inappropriate, false or deceitful in any way then please provide an example.
Tolerance is usually granted in one direction (particularly in academia) when it comes to the issue of the origin of life - & that is towards the evolutionist. However, I must admit the tolerance on this forum has been a pleasant surprise (thank you all). I am a Creationist as a result of much thought on the matter (I had no religious upbringing) . I do not, nor intend to push these views onto anybody & I certainly avoid a religious dialogue. I simply express an alternative point of view which isn't adequately expressed or discussed due to reasons outlined in post # 411 i.e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEN-HUR
I can also understand why the issue I am about to refer to isn’t readily discussed, questioned & subsequently challenged/debated for fear of intellectual suicide... & even discrimination. It would (& does) seem acceptable that most (if not all) fields of study can have divergent viewpoints without attracting the perils stated in the previous sentence... except it seems one field... that being the issue of Origins – where did we come from & how did we get here? These two (potentially profound) questions seem to be academically totally devoid of any contrary association other than primarily one so called theory... to the point where an alternative explanation is forbidden in academic circles. These two questions alone can potentially tell us a lot about the intentions, consequences & reality relating to the material/immaterial factors (organic/inorganic; natural/supernatural) contained within the universe, thus subsequently may potentially give us greater insight into topics of this nature. However, having said this I do not feel it is an absolute prerequisite into the study & understanding of issues involving barefoot/shod running & the associated sciences (i.e. biomechanics/pathophysiology).
Isn't this worth considering? Isn’t a potentially more positive & logical (i.e. post #417 ) perspective to Lieberman’s viewpoint worth investigating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Seriously though, am I the only one who find Matthew's take on the issues in this thread a bit ... bizarre? Or are you all evolution deniers? ?
Why do you find it bizarre? Like I have said, my take on this thread has been directly related to the topic & the issues surrounding it. I'll admit, considered by many as unconventional... but I feel I have expressed some valid points & valid reasons for concern. Which brings me to the next issue...
What is this "stupid religious quote of the week"... or was it just a comeback take on my barefoot image.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
How about you Professor Payne, what are your views on the theory of evolution?
I have provided reasons why this is unfortunately a sensitive/controversial topic i.e. discrimination. I personally feel to single one person out on his/her view on this issue is not appropriate.
I personally feel to open the door to an Intelligent source to that of which I would describe as an intelligently designed (sorry, no pun intended) structure (i.e. the lower limb) can potentially give us greater insight on this topic & the associated issues involved i.e. barefoot running, running footwear design, biomechanics, injuries etc...
Welcome back zimmy.
I must admit I had second thoughts about posting that image as it could potentially be a thorn in the sole of some barefooters out there... who didn't see the humour of it. However, I felt the image & associated text represented the issues discussed on this topic (thread) rather well.
I did some research and apparantly you have adopted that image from some anti-evolution, creationist website. So yes, I suppose it represents your point of view rather well...
Quote:
Anyway, I had hoped your comprehension of my previous posts was satisfactory to at least understand the direction I was coming from. I (thought) at least I tried to articulate the points quite clearly. For starters zimmy, I am not (was not) talking about religion... I was discussing the origin of life in association with its use by the expounded supposed acclaimed key researcher on this topic of Barefoot Running i.e. evolutionary biologist Professor Lieberman. Did he or did he not use evolution as the basis behind his reasoning on this topic? Does he always (from at least what I have read in articles & seen in videos) use this same evolutionary premise as the basis for his reasoning?
Yes. Get it. No need to shout brother.
Quote:
OK then, with that in mind, I have an alternative view on this perspective... & I expressed it... & I am entitled to express this alternative point of view in relation to the topic. I gave reasons for it; I provided evidence of it & provided scientific research to counteract the evolutionary perspective supported by Professor Lieberman & yourself. If what I have said has been inappropriate, false or deceitful in any way then please provide an example.
It's very unclear to me what you actually believe. If I remember correctly you claim that we (home sapiens?) have been "designed to have bipedal intentions right from the origin". By whom? How on earth did that happen? Why is it that we share so many characteristics (a large part of our DNA) etc.. with other primates? That would be very unlikely under a creationist theory but is a prediction of the theory of evolution. So this is (some of the) evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
Quote:
Tolerance is usually granted in one direction (particularly in academia) when it comes to the issue of the origin of life - & that is towards the evolutionist. However, I must admit the tolerance on this forum has been a pleasant surprise (thank you all). I am a Creationist as a result of much thought on the matter (I had no religious upbringing) . I do not, nor intend to push these views onto anybody & I certainly avoid a religious dialogue. I simply express an alternative point of view which isn't adequately expressed or discussed due to reasons outlined in post # 411 i.e.
Isn't this worth considering? Isn’t a potentially more positive & logical (i.e. post #417 ) perspective to Lieberman’s viewpoint worth investigating?
Why do you find it bizarre?
I find your anti-evolution standpoint bizarre because there is an overwhelming number of facts which supports the theory of evolution. Go read something on the topic, e.g. "why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne rather than spending your time on creationist websites. If you really think you have disproved evolution, why don't you submit your findings to a major scientific journal?
Quote:
Like I have said, my take on this thread has been directly related to the topic & the issues surrounding it. I'll admit, considered by many as unconventional... but I feel I have expressed some valid points & valid reasons for concern. Which brings me to the next issue...
What is this "stupid religious quote of the week"... or was it just a comeback take on my barefoot image.
I find your statement "we were Created to run" "stupid" as there is no evidence whatsoever supporting it. The fossil record provides (some) evidence supporting that running capability evolved about 2 million years ago. See Lieberman's (2004) paper and references therein.
Quote:
I have provided reasons why this is unfortunately a sensitive/controversial topic i.e. discrimination. I personally feel to single one person out on his/her view on this issue is not appropriate.
I have seen this claim made many times by those in the barefoot running community when arguing with critics. Why do they bring that up for? What has it got to do with evolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
How about you Professor Payne, what are your views on the theory of evolution?
This has nothing to do with evolution. My views on evolution have nothing to do with it. To me, its all about the misrepresentation and misquoting and misunderstanding of the research by the evangelists from the Church of barefoot Running.
If I am an evolution denier or not, what has that got to do with the way the research is being totally misused and misquoted?
How many times in this thread and others have I said I have nothing against barefoot running. I just have a problem with the nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims that get made for it.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
I have seen this claim made many times by those in the barefoot running community when arguing with critics. Why do they bring that up for? What has it got to do with evolution?This has nothing to do with evolution. My views on evolution have nothing to do with it. To me, its all about the misrepresentation and misquoting and misunderstanding of the research by the evangelists from the Church of barefoot Running.
If I am an evolution denier or not, what has that got to do with the way the research is being totally misused and misquoted?
How many times in this thread and others have I said I have nothing against barefoot running. I just have a problem with the nonsensical and unsubstantiated claims that get made for it.
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but if we evolved without shoes, that is, if the genetic basis underlying the physiology of our feet are a result of millions of years of natural selection operating on quantitative genetic variation, one would expect our bare feet to be fairly well adapted to the demands of walking and running, just like the feet of other animals. Yes, there is more to it than just this but this is at the core of the argument.
For someone who does not believe that we are a result of evolution, no such prediction follows.
So, seriously, how you can say that evolution is irrelevant is beyond me. If we are going to take you seriously, it is of course relevant to know what your view on the theory of evolution is. While focusing on the "misrepresentation and misinterpretation of research" you seem to repeatedly overlook the core of the argument. So, again, what is your view on the theory of evolution?
Last edited by zimmy : 7th June 2010 at 12:47 PM.
Reason: typo
Evolution is irrevalent to this debate. What has evoluition got to do with the way that the barefoot running community misintepret, misrepresent and misquote research?
I not debating if barefoot running is good or bad. I debating the misinterpretation, misrepresnetation and misquoting of the research and the nonsensical claims made by so many barefoot runners.
My views on evolution are totally irrelevant to how the research is being interpreted.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
Last edited by Craig Payne : 7th June 2010 at 02:18 PM.
Reason: typo
I not debating if barefoot running is good or bad. I debating the misinterpretation, misrepresnetation and misquoting of the research and the nonsensical claims made buy so many barefoot runners.
[sarcasm]Yeah... the issue of misrepresentation and misquoting is obviously much more important than the real issue of whether barefoot running is good or bad[/sarcasm]
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but if we evolved without shoes, that is, if the genetic basis underlying the physiology of our feet are a result of millions of years of natural selection operating on quantitative genetic variation, one would expect our bare feet to be fairly well adapted to the demands of walking and running, just like the feet of other animals. Yes, there is more to it than just this but this is at the core of the argument.
For someone who does not believe that we are a result of evolution, no such prediction follows.
So, seriously, how you can say that evolution is irrelevant is beyond me. If we are going to take you seriously, it is of course relevant to know what your view on the theory of evolution is. While focusing on the "misrepresentation and misinterpretation of research" you seem to repeatedly overlook the core of the argument. So, again, what is your view on the theory of evolution?
Zimster:
I agree with Craig. The question of evolution is not relevant to this issue. While I agree we are a product of our ancestors, we are also, very importantly, a product of our environments and habits, which our ancestors did not share with us.
I don't believe that our ancient ancestors sat behind a computer for 6-8 hours a day, were 50 pounds overweight, drank caffeinated-sugared drinks during the day, tried to run only on the weekends to lose weight, read Born to Run, and then decided that their injuries were caused by them weaing their Nike Air Shoes to run.
We are very different animals now compared to a 1,000 generations ago. I am very suspicious of anyone who guesses about how our ancestors lived to explain observations that are occurring in the bipedal humans of 2010 when there are much better scientific explanations that are readily available to the intelligent individual who isn't hung up on evolution as being at the root of all of the woes of society.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Evolution is irrevalent to this debate. What has evoluition got to do with the way that the barefoot running community misintepret, misrepresent and misquote research?
I not debating if barefoot running is good or bad. I debating the misinterpretation, misrepresnetation and misquoting of the research and the nonsensical claims made by so many barefoot runners.
My views on evolution are totally irrelevant to how the research is being interpreted.
To further expand on this....
We have the Kerrrigan et al research that was widely claimed on barefoot running websites that it showed that running shoes cause osteoarthritis. It did not show that. It was not even a study on osteoarthritis and the methods were so flawed it not worthy of any conideration. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community claiming running shoes cause osteoarthritis based on this study?
Then there was the Liebermann et al research in Nature that we discussed earlier in this thread. This was touted on barefoot running websites that this 'science' further proved barefoot running was better and there were les injuires from barefoot running (or something to that effect). Liebermann himself had to publish a disclaimer on his website to distance himself from those silly conclusions. His study was not about what was better and was not about injuires - his study was just about the differences. I have seen several biomechanists totally dismiss his methodology. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community making claims about the results of this study that even Liebermann denied the study showed?
Then we have the increasing number of reports of stress fractures occuring in those using the Vibram Five Fingers. These are being dismissed by the barefoot running community (in general) as being due to training errors. Yet when a runner gets an injury in a shoe, its the fault of the shoe and not a training error. What have my views on evolution have to do with the barefoot running community having double standards on this issue?
Then we have etc etc ... its all about the misuse, misrepresentation, misunderstanding and misquoting research.
__________________ Craig Payne
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ Follow me on Twitter | Run Junkie God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
I read "Born to Run" last month while traveling, and tried to read it with an open mind. Here are my takeaway thoughts:
* An entertaining read about a mystical tribe of people that embraced running for the pure passion of running. Interesting characters like Caballo Blanco tossed in.
* A beautiful job of product placement. If you want to run like these people, you need to be wearing Vibram 5 Fingers.
* Brazen, unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of barefoot or scantily-shod running. This invites controversy, and solidly places zealots on either side of the debate. As long as the debate rages, there's money to be made.
* McDougall and company travel the world espousing the benefits of barefoot running, collect handsome speaking fees, sell books and are generously supported by Vibram Five Fingers. Best-seller book royalties, speaking fees and paid endorsements - absolutely brilliant.
* Reports of running injuries associated with VFF, especially stress fractures, are reported in waves. Barefoot Ted or McDougall pull-out in agonizing pain from a barefoot "fun-run" event. The media looks at the mounting scientific evidence about health dangers of barefoot running, and jump on to a "juicy" story discrediting barefoot running. The Tamahura tribe is photographed running in Brooks Beast shoes.
* After 3 years, Vibram 5 Fingers, and a rash of Chinese knock-offs fall out of favor. McDougall & company count their money.
Conclusion: Excellent entrepreneurship, at the expense of a ton of suckers.
Cam:
You are right on with this one.
My thoughts exactly. Both McDougall and Lieberman are being sponsored by Vibram.....no conflict of interest there.... Lieberman's research and website are sponsored by Vibram....I'm sure neither of these two will say anything negative about "barefoot running" as long as they are on Vibram's payroll.
__________________
Sincerely,
Kevin
**************************************************
Kevin A. Kirby, DPM
Adjunct Associate Professor
Department of Applied Biomechanics
California School of Podiatric Medicine at Samuel Merritt College
Now if I could only find a lost tribe of gorgeous, Amazon super-marathoners that run effortlessly in stilettos, because it stimulates their libidos, and dance all night - imagine the possibilities!
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but if we evolved without shoes, that is, if the genetic basis underlying the physiology of our feet are a result of millions of years of natural selection operating on quantitative genetic variation, one would expect our bare feet to be fairly well adapted to the demands of walking and running, just like the feet of other animals. Yes, there is more to it than just this but this is at the core of the argument.
Ok- well comments like above suggest to me that you don't really grasp some basic concepts of overuse injuries.
Contrary to what you state above, asphalt is more likely to cause problems because it is so regular and even.
Every step you take is applying the same ground reaction force at the same angle- this gives a much greater chance of injury as the cumulative load is applied to the same tissues the same way.
Some people are fortunate enough to have flexibility/ alignment/strength that may be able to handle this repetitive motion, but there are many that do not have this, and footwear and or orthoses may be able to help them in someway like an adapter.
Asphalt is easier to run on if you are concerned about something like an acute ankle injury, but I am sure there are many runners out there who are like me and would much prefer to run on a natural undulating terrain (which may or may not be hard... this is not as important as the variability). This is where I feel the evolution argument falls down- most of the time we are running on surfaces we have not evolved to run on... do you think we have evolved at all since running for recreation became popular?
For what it is worth, when asked about barefoot running I advise people that if they want to try it, do it carefully , progressively, and on natural terrain (and i would only advise it if I thought they had reasonable enough mechanics to handle it).
I have highlighted one part which I am (still) interested in you response to...
Care to comment?
__________________
Craig Tanner
Podiatrist ASPETAR-
Qatar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital
Doha
QATAR http://www.aspetar.com/
I did some research and apparantly you have adopted that image from some anti-evolution, creationist website. So yes, I suppose it represents your point of view rather well...
That is correct... clever wasn’t it? I saw similarities in the nature of the reasoning with the expositors from both camps (barefoot & evolution).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Yes. Get it. No need to shout brother.
Wasn’t shouting brother – just making sure you realised the core topic of discussion. I believe forum etiquette states that using caps is equivalent to shouting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
It's very unclear to me what you actually believe. If I remember correctly you claim that we (home sapiens?) have been "designed to have bipedal intentions right from the origin".
This is correct – bipedal & erect right from the start. I did provide evidence for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
By whom? How on earth did that happen?
Now, this is something I have not covered... & for good reason. It will diverge too far away from the topic i.e. barefoot running. Please keep in mind I can & have asked similar related questions in regard to evolution – with no acceptable answer in return (over the years). However I did give a hint to your question in post # 417. The answer does not violate the principles of causation – unlike that of evolution i.e....
"Getting back to your view of causation (i.e. proximate, ultimate). My perspective on this topic (& that of Origins) does not violate the principle of causation. That being... the cause of all subsequent causes must itself be uncaused. That meaning... there must be a cause which is the cause of all subsequent causes but is not itself caused (an eternal entity) by some other cause... otherwise the chain keeps going back (i.e. traversing through eternity – illogical??... as there cannot be an infinite regress of causation). This principle of causation trouble Einstein due to the following...
The common evolutionary perspective is that there was some form of a Big Bang. Just to prove I’m not making this up, one of the greatest scientific minds on the planet – Professor Stephen J. Hawking (wrote the number 1 scientific book of all time – "A Brief History Of Time") said that almost everyone believes that the universe, in fact time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang. Here is something interesting... if you have a beginning, by definition you must have a beginner (this troubled Einstein). Einstein tried to find ways round it but Edwin Hubble confirmed he was on the right track... that being... there looks to be a beginning. But who or what was the “beginner”? Thus the evolutionary (materialist) perspective on this (confirmed by Dr Dawkins) is that... this grand, glorious, enormous universe came out of nothing that we know... for nothing that we know... by nothing that we know... because of nothing that we know. I just don’t have enough faith to believe in this “hypothesis”. To believe life can come from non-life is a medieval concept... & shouldn’t be used as the basis of their premise by intelligent researchers in fields such as this. I subsequently believe that evolution has actually hindered research."
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Why is it that we share so many characteristics (a large part of our DNA) etc.. with other primates? That would be very unlikely under a creationist theory but is a prediction of the theory of evolution. So this is (some of the) evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
Yes, I have heard this so many times before has part of the reasoning behind evolution. I agree we do share a large percentage of genome similarities... but what does this prove. Think about it for a minute... even if it is as high as 98% (figure in question)... that 2% difference in relation to the massive volume of genetic material is substantial i.e. millions of base pairs equivalent to millions of words/information. But putting this aside... look at the apparent differences this mere 2% has on the form & function of the two (or few) subject matters (i.e. primates & Homo Sapiens). I don’t know about you, but when I look in the mirror in the morning I see a trim, taunt handsome individual which is by far different than that of a chimpanzee (at least I like to think so). When I see people walking down the street towards me I think I can pick out which is a human & which is a chimp that has escaped from the zoo. When I see runners... (see post # 422)... I think everyone gets the picture.
Similarity (‘homology’) is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) as against a common designer (creation). For want of a better analogy; think of the Brooks Beast as opposed to the Brooks Glycerin. They both have characteristics (gimmicks if you prefer) of biomogo, DRB accel, HPR plus, POD tec & many other (the Glycerin even has this thing called DNA now ) similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different shoes have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer (maker)! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
To follow your logic here, even mice have 70% to 90& of their gene structure in common with humans. From memory I think the banana looks pretty good also!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
I find your anti-evolution standpoint bizarre because there is an overwhelming number of facts which supports the theory of evolution. Go read something on the topic, e.g. "why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne rather than spending your time on creationist websites.
You are lead to believe that there is “an overwhelming number of facts” but it is not so. The ironic thing I find between the barefoot standpoint & that of the evolution standpoint is that they both use similar tactics to substantiate their message/faith... that of misrepresentation & twisting of the facts (either intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of biased presuppositions when analysing the subject matter (I have already provided evidence of this). I have read plenty on this topic zimmy without delving into the above cited book (thank you anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
If you really think you have disproved evolution, why don't you submit your findings to a major scientific journal?
If you knew much about this topic &/or have an interest in this area you would realize why this is & has been very hard to do. To the point where there has even been a documentary made about it. As I have already said in my first post on this thread, there has been discrimination present – particularly in academia circles. Here are but a few examples:
- Dr Robert Gentry:
Robert Gentry (nuclear physicist) became the acknowledged expert on radiohalos, & published papers in a number of leading scientific journals, including Science, Nature, & Journal of Geophysical Research. However, when his creationist views became known, his contract with Oak Ridge National Laboratories was cancelled.
- Dr Guillermo Gonzalez:
Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure & promotion to associate professor by Iowa State University, despite apparently easily meeting their criteria. The university's stated criteria for promotion to associate professor says that "For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required & would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals". Gonzalez exceeded this by 350%, with 68 such papers, including papers that had surprisingly high numbers of citations.
However, Dr Gonzales co-authored a book in 2004 which revealed his support for intelligent design, and two of his colleagues have admitted that his views on intelligent design were a factor in denying Gonzalez tenure.
- David Bolhuis:
David Bolhuis, a teacher from Hudsonville, Michigan was told that the Michigan Science Teachers' Association had unanimously selected him as the High School Teacher of the Year. However, the American Civil Liberties Union protested, as Bolhuis had been "teaching about" both creation & evolution. Subsequent media pressure resulted in the decision to not give Bolhuis the award. (I wish I had him as a science teacher).
- Dr John Ashton:
The April 2007 issue of Chemistry in Australia included an article titled "creationist’s view of the intelligent design debate", written by Dr John Ashton, chemist and Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI), publishers of the journal.
The outcry against the article by evolutionists, which included effectively calling Dr Ashton a liar, sweepings dismissals of creationism, but little if anything in the way of actual rebuttal, resulted in the RACI removing mention of the article from their web-site.
- Letters to the editor of Science:
After failing to get a letter published in the journal Science, Dr Russell Humphreys wrote to the letters editor asking if the journal had a policy of suppressing creationist letters. She replied that "It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism". This was despite the journal's policy of publishing letters to include "the presentation of minority or conflicting points of view".
There are many others zimmy that you naturally would not hear about... because you are not meant to hear about it. I personally know of PhD research scientists who keep their creation views to themselves for fear of discrimination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
I find your statement "we were Created to run" "stupid" as there is no evidence whatsoever supporting it. The fossil record provides (some) evidence supporting that running capability evolved about 2 million years ago. See Lieberman's (2004) paper and references therein.
Due to the length of this already long post & the sanity of the reader: I have already provided reasons & evidence as to why I believe that the second sentence in the above quote is a fallacy (i.e. see post # 411). How about you provide some evidence to substantiate your views regarding the first sentence of the above quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
I'm sorry for repeating myself, but if we evolved without shoes, that is, if the genetic basis underlying the physiology of our feet are a result of millions of years of natural selection operating on quantitative genetic variation, one would expect our bare feet to be fairly well adapted to the demands of walking and running, just like the feet of other animals. Yes, there is more to it than just this but this is at the core of the argument.
Here where the problem lays zimmy... biased presuppositions when analysing the subject matter of barefoot running. I’ve said it, others have said it... you do not need to use the evolution paradigm to study & understand this topic. Unless one is in need to pad up the shaky barefoot perspective with a commonly unquestioned (yet ambiguous) hypothesis (evolution). The way I see it... two shaky hypotheses do not make a stable & balanced viewpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
For someone who does not believe that we are a result of evolution, no such prediction follows.
Correct! “Prediction”... here lies the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
So, seriously, how you can say that evolution is irrelevant is beyond me. If we are going to take you seriously, it is of course relevant to know what your view on the theory of evolution is. While focusing on the "misrepresentation and misinterpretation of research" you seem to repeatedly overlook the core of the argument. So, again, what is your view on the theory of evolution?
On the contrary... You heavily relying on the relevance of evolution on this topic are beyond me. Look & study the evidence that lies before you, at & in the present time... not on the historical guess work of others interpretation of the 'evidence'. Follow where the evidence takes you zimmy.
This is where I feel the evolution argument falls down- most of the time we are running on surfaces we have not evolved to run on... do you think we have evolved at all since running for recreation became popular?
I have highlighted one part which I am (still) interested in you response to...
Care to comment?
Since the environment which we have created for ourself in many ways is very different from our past environment in which we evolved, I would think that the current rate of human evolution in general is quite high. The tendency to become obese in our present environmental conditions, for example, seems seem to be heritable. Obesity also reduces fertility in woman. So this may create evolutionary changes (a reduction of the frequency of genes predisposing for obesity).
At the same time, as I said earlier, we may be loosing some of our ability to run because the selective pressure favouring this trait may no longer be present. Selection for other traits which are genetically correlated with running ability (as a result of pleiotropic gene action and trade-offs) may thus create indirect selection against running ability.
However, as long as running is not directly correlated with fitness (in the evolutionary sense) there should not be any evolutionary response to any changes in surfaces on which we run. Two or three generations of recreational running is also far too short for any significant evolutionary response to occur. So you might say that shoes perhaps fill in the gap instead. But you could equally well turn the argument on it's head and argue that shoes in fact constitute a further environmental change. As far as I know there is no hard scientific evidence supporting either point of view.
Last edited by zimmy : 8th June 2010 at 08:00 AM.
Reason: clearification
I don't believe that our ancient ancestors sat behind a computer for 6-8 hours a day, were 50 pounds overweight, drank caffeinated-sugared drinks during the day, tried to run only on the weekends to lose weight, read Born to Run, and then decided that their injuries were caused by them weaing their Nike Air Shoes to run.
And also LMAO.
This, and craig Ts comments, are the crux of the evolutionationary type argument for me. We DID evolve barefoot. However we evolved with this along with a huge cluster of other factors not least much superior physical fittness and non uniform terrain.
There was a documentary a while back which put a group of westerners in a tribe of very primitive folk to live as they did. Needless to say they failed horribly because their bodies were so adapted to western culture. Couldn't eat the food. Couldn't take the climate. Couldn't keep up with the physical demands. Doubtless they would have adapted in time but not by just adopting one element of the tribal culture!
If we take the primal thing to its logical conclusion...
The truth is we cannot expect our bodies to perform as our ancestors bodies did when all the circumstances, apart from taking our shoes, off remain the same.
Re: Barefoot Running Debate
. Yet I feel the event did lead to something constructive as I did my tempo (steady state run) run on an undulating rocky bush trail. Reaching speeds of nearly 3min/km I came across two wallabies (creatures from the kangaroo family – if you’re not familiar with Australian wildlife) that effortlessly took off & left me behind. I then pondered on the running ability of us humans & that of the primate family. This run was of about 15km on a course which required jumping down rocks on the way out & subsequently bounding up them on the way home. Despite the lack of endurance capabilities present in the primate family the main comparative attributes that kept resurfacing (between bouts of that tune popping up) was that of the physiology/biomechanics involved & the apparent conducive pathways needed to take place for this presumed unguided evolutionary course. 
) similarities (‘homologies’). Why do these two very different shoes have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer (maker)! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.
Linear Mode
