man vs. wild

NPR has an interesting article on a study that suggests we're better off running barefoot.

I've heard this debate before, and it seems possibly a bit wrongheaded. I mean, yes: we should learn to run in ways that are less harmful to our bodies and better absorb shock naturally. Heel-first landing is unequivocally more stressful to our bones and joints. If you look at professional athletes, however, you'll see that they don't actually land heel-first, but rather closer to the balls of their feet, which the article states is less stressful. That point is obvious. But what I find a bit chancy is the assumption that this means we're better off running barefoot.

This nature vs. technology theme recurs in studies every so often (are eggs/margarine/artificial sweeteners good or bad for me this week? I can never remember.), but why does it cast doubt on the role of the shoe? Sure, cheap shoes are designed for heel-first footfall; that ought to be rectified through better design. But really, nobody ever explains to folks growing up the proper way to run (unless you're on a track team), and besides, you shouldn't be running in cheap shoes anyway. They're not supportive or well designed. I won't argue with that.

This shouldn't automatically mean we ought to have at it podiatrically au naturel, though. To put it bluntly, ancient humans used to live to be 30, and they ran barefoot. Modern humans--despite excess creature comforts and far less exercise--live double that. I'm going to go on a limb and say that (tens of?) thousands of scientists research the proper design for shoes. Are you really suggesting that all these scientists are so incredibly wrong?