And overall, if it’s going to snow/be wet, I suggest using another model (I think the flow is suited for cold and wetness better than any other model). If you can keep the treks dry though, they can probably handle down to about 0 degrees C with socks.

The reason I am posting is your line: “Conventional wisdom is most often, wrong. The field is irrelevant- the principle applies to literally any area of interest one can imagine.”

I couldn’t agree with this more, but it is impossible to get this point across. It holds true nearly every time it is tested. I’ve been thinking about starting a blog based on this premise alone…basically taking a widely held belief and taking it apart. Which, is sort of what you do on this blog. And while I tend to disagree with you on some of the finer points, my contention is that your point of view is closer to the truth (let’s be honest, perception is reality, and the truth as Howard Zinn so perfectly proved, is almost always different for everyone).

But, the premise still holds up. And that is because counterintuition takes time and thought and it is easier to believe what seems logical on the surface than to dig deeper to find what is really going on below the surface. So, while the truth may differ depending on our viewpoint, it is almost never the knee-jerk reaction that we have initially.

I agree on the point that running barefoot (or close to it), is far safer, more effective, and enjoyable- than running shod. However, I still believe running to not be proper exercise. I think it’s great when a part of recreational activities, or required for a sport/specific skill training- but should never be performed as an effective, safe, and efficient way to exercise.

I have 3 links that should help answer why I believe this to be true- in light of the information you provided. If this does not answer your questions completely, let me know and I will do a full write up on Why Not to Run

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-studies/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statistics/observational-studies-2/

http://www.arthurdevany.com/?p=1262

thanks again for commenting, look forward to your response (or, further questions, but if you do have any substantial ones I will write a full blog on it so everyone can benefit from the information).

-Anthony

The first week or two of wearing Five Fingers was painful for me, every muscle in my lower leg and foot was sore. In The Matrix Neo asks Morpheus “Why do my eyes hurt?” Morpheus replies “Because you’ve never used them before.”

Why did my feet and legs hurt? Same reason, because I’d never actually used them before. After the first week or two the muscles stop being sore and you develop a new appreciation/addiction for walking in the grass, sand, mud, etc. You feel closer and more in touch with the ground below your feet.

My only complaint is that they will start to smell quickly if you don’t wash them. I just wear them into the shower every other day and it keeps them from getting funky.

Since then, I’ve done a lot of reading to confirm/deny what he claims, and all I’ve found is confirmation.

To your point on running being harmful, here are two studies that show the opposite:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6923/231

“Athletes from all types of competitive sports are at slightly increased risk of requiring hospital care because of osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, or ankle. Mixed sports and power sports lead to increased admissions for premature osteoarthritis, but in endurance athletes the admissions are at an older age.”

Endurance is defined as long distance running and cross country skiing in this study. (It’s from Finland.) So runners have a lower incidence of arthritis than weight lifters.

Here’s another:

http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(08)00353-X/abstract

“Long-distance running among healthy older individuals was not associated with accelerated radiographic OA [osteoarthritis]. These data raise the possibility that severe OA may not be more common among runners.”

And, to sum it up:

“It’s exciting to find a long-term study that supports the connection between running and good joint health, but I wonder how many other docs and medical organizations are ready to take up the cause. To check up, I call Patience White, M.D., the chief public health officer of the Arthritis Foundation. I tell her about the Fifty Plus runners, and ask if she’s surprised by the results. “That study makes complete sense to me,” Dr. White says. “People with pain in their joints imagine that runners must have even more pain, but we have lots of good data to show that running doesn’t cause arthritis.”

“She goes on to say that obesity is a major culprit in the onset of arthritis, and that runners do themselves a lot of good simply by keeping the pounds off. Also, ‘Runners keep their muscles strong and well-balanced, which helps the joints.’”

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-241-285–9247-0,00.html

So, if you have any links to article that disproves it, I’d be really interested in seeing them.

On the survivorship bias point, a couple of points. The study I linked to above doesn’t answer the question: Running is good for everyone. This study would be susceptible to survivorship bias on that question, agreed. Even the question that the study does claim to answer, “Regular running slows the effects of aging” is susceptible to survivorship bias, as the running subjects maybe better specimens than the non-runners. But if you’re going to argue that running is bad for you, you need to address why a group of runners is in better health, and has better joint health, than a group of non-runners since your premise would suggest the opposite should be the case. Since doing a fully double-blind study is impossible on a topic like this, this study may not be perfect, but it may also be the best information that it is possible to get.

Further to the survivorship issue, is the question that prompted McDougall to write his book: if running is good for you, why do so many people get injured trying to run? The answer appears to be, for a lot of people, shoes with heels higher than the toes, and that’s where the Vibrams come in, although there are other possibilities. (I think the Vibrams are the best choice, btw.) And yes, there’s a fair bit of scientific evidence to support that premise too.

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm , for starters…

My experience has been that I’ve been trying to be a runner for 10+ years, but the aches, pains, and shin splints have kept me from running regularly more than once a week, and often a lot less than that. I got Vibrams two years ago and ran a bit, and did a long barefoot beach run. Those felt great, and would encourage me to run more, until my sneakers discouraged me again. Since running in Vibrams and super-minimal sneakers exclusively, the aches and pains have gone away. My knee which has bothered me for 20 years (meniscus and cartilage damage, neither of which will ever heal) has felt better than ever, and I can’t wait to get out on the next run. Weight falls off if you run regularly.

So if running really is bad for you, I’d like to know, I’m doing a lot of it now. If you’re basing your argument solely on the fact that runners in running sneakers have lots of injuries, then I’ll agree with you, but the reason for the injuries doesn’t seem to be running, it’s the sneakers.