You are correct about the 70s.
What's more telling though was that we didn't know that we were SUPPOSED to
get injured more often, as the modern-day
exercise-physio-nonsense-running-geeks would want us to believe.
malmo
.
So back to the 70's!
Is it me or did we see less injuries back then
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Ward Nicholson wrote:
Randy Treadway writes:
The article says nothing about the trade-offs that usually
result from building up a shoe solely to reduce shock.
Ward's response is below, but my own input here
It has actually been shown that shock is less running barefoot
It seems that the Australian article has created a bit of confusion about
this new shoe. As I understand it, the shoe has nothing to do with
cushioning or motion control, but instead is an attempt to reduce energy
lost when the foot comes in contact with the track. Today's National Post
had a
There's also something about no mechanical aids (like springs or hydraulic boosters or
anything of a mechanical nature).
RT
--Original Message--
From: Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 10, 2000 4:56:53 PM GMT
Subject: RE: t-and-f: A new kind of shoe - to smash
