If this happened at Chicago, it would be front page news. Boston and NY aren’t WR eligible. Since it happened in London, place it behind soccer in the priority list.
Was the barefoot movement ever about running faster? I always thought they sold injury prevention by strengthening tissues that running shoes tend to over support.
Yes, that was the claim but it was never really backed by evidence. Vibram settled a lawsuit over false claims that their minimalist shoes reduced the risk of injuries. (I still like those shoes myself and use them on some slow recovery runs.)
This topic deserves so much more nuance, but it's always reduced to "barefoot running doesn't work" in internet forums. In every articles about the harm caused by barefoot running I've read, those reported injuries all end up being overuse injuries. The article you linked is specifically about bone marrow edema, which is basically bone bruise. Other possible injuries include muscle and tendon soreness.
If this were a bodybuilding discussion, you would get advice on how to manage DOMS symptoms and how to plan your loading schedule, nobody would say that weightlifting "doesn't work" because a beginner got sore after lifting a 80kg barbell for the first time. But people has been conditioned to think that running is a purely cardio activity, so we don't talk about how the muscles and tendons in the foot need to be loaded up gradually just like your bicep.
Barefoot running is a weightlifting activity. Your calf muscle has to lift your entire bodyweight for the forefoot stride. "No pain no gain" applies. Proper posture and techniques are important. Proper workout schedule and loading plan with rest days are important. Sufficient protein intake are important.
When Vibrams were first popular, I took to training with them on my runs. People told me to "take it easy" or you might get injured. I thought what's the worst that can happen? Well let me tell you. About a month into wearing them, I was doing a hard run and the trail had a section of concrete. My foot felt a sudden sharp pain and "snap!" I broke my 3rd metatarsal bone in my foot. Took a month or so to heal, and I decided to stop using the Vibrams.
A month isn’t enough to adapt your ankles to high force hard running.
You have to take it easy.
Build low impact volume (walking and hiking), and then scale it (jogging then running), over time emphasizing recovery. Shoe adapted gaits are expecting materials to handle forces that simply aren’t there ‘barefoot’ (minimalist).
Flip side: adapt like you understand the intense forces generated in running and that the baseline level of chronic dysfunction is high, and proper foot function can help correct movement form and posture issues, both of which are major drivers of chronic pain.
Big thick shoes allow us to run like assholes. Shin splints, knee problems, chronic injuries, overuse injuries… Great for competition(!), great for sacrificing health to get speed (faster!). Unquestionably better for racing. But for people interested in longevity, evolution did one thing, Nike/Adidas another.
My understanding of the advantages from barefoot running is that it was more about helping you lock in stride and form while preventing injuries outside of race days.
You don't need to be competing on the world stage to enjoy some of the benefits of Alpha flys or those pumas. 500 for the new Adidas does seem a little silly though.
While the foam may last longer than older EVA foam shoes, the outsoles of the shoes have gotten ridiculously thin these days.
The continental rubber outsole on these Adidas Adios Pro EVO 3 shoes are so thin (less than two sheets of paper, I think), that they don't even appear in side/profile views of the shoes. The outsole doesn't even extend the length of the entire shoe, it stops around the middle of the shoe. So heel strikers aren't welcome and will have loads of fun in wet weather. see https://www.adidas.com/us/adizero-adios-pro-evo-3/KH7678.htm...
In general, these high stack, forward-leaning shoes are meant for going straight ahead - imagine ladies' high heel shoes with an inch and a half of foam on the bottom - any sharp turns will force the runner to slow down or they'll twist their ankles. Looking at the London Marathon course, https://www.londonmarathonevents.co.uk/london-marathon/cours..., there's about twenty ninety-degree or sharper turns.
What sort of gain would that be for a non-world class runner? I'm unfamiliar with high level running, but I'm curious as in most sports these sort of things provide a small benefit at the top level (seems to be about a ~3% reduction in times over the past decade since the shoe wars began), and that quickly becomes statistical noise outside of the top due to diminishing returns.
But if you really want to reduce your marathon time by 15 minutes, then gaining a few minutes from better shoes, a few minutes from a high altitude training camp/holiday in Flagstaff/Dolomites, and a few minutes from a day at a gait analysis centre, may be worthwhile - or atleast a fun way to spend money on your hobby.
Admittedly, I’ve never ridden a 16” wheeled bike. My 20” is rough enough that I’ve never bothered considering the smaller wheeled models. Maybe if I bike/train commuted every day rather than a few times a month.
I think OP meant the phone was going to be replaced in three years tops, so no one cared much about battery longevity. Nowadays, the battery can be the constraint for practical phone life, since few consumers can replace one themselves and by the time they pay someone else to do it, may as well trade it in and let Verizon subsidize a new one.
Having an easily swappable battery returns some power to the user.
As an example of public policy it had significant impact on death, injury, medical costs, etc.
Road Traffic Accidents before and after Seatbelt Legislation-Study in a District General Hospital (1990)
Injuries among samples of car accident cases attending the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department of a District General Hospital (DGH) in the year before and after the introduction of seat belt legislation were classified applying the Abbreviated Injury Scale using information recorded in the patient case notes.
Those who died or did not attend an A & E department were not included in the sampling frame.
The number of those who escaped injury increased by 40% and those with mild and moderate injuries decreased by 35% after seatbelt legislation. There was a significant reduction in soft tissue injuries to the head. Only whiplash injuries to the neck showed a significant increase.
The downsides to have seat belts usage not mandatory outside of reducing deaths/injuries. A few that comes to mind:
1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them
2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them
3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up)
4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society
Upsides (I worked with someone who refused to wear it and told me something like that):
1. Anecdote about someone that was wearing one and got into an accident and the seat belt somehow prevented them to escape the burning car and they died
2. It's less comfortable
3. Makes me feel alive (freedom)
He would only falsely wearing it when there was suspected police presence.
4. Occasional anecdote about someone who knows someone who was in an accident while wearing seat belts, and the seat belts proceeded to slice their head off or cut the body in half or something else like that.
I assume an event like this happened more than zero times in the history of the world, but AFAIK it's too low-probability to worry about (with possible exception of kids under a certain age/height, that shouldn't be strapped in with regular belts in a standard adult configuration).
> 1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them 2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them 3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up) 4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society
If you are so concerned about this chain: price out the whole thing and add an appropriate tax.
Also their families (the kids normalise no seatbelts and spend their childhood with no seatbelts), also first responders (???!!!)
In reality, the worse an accident is (deaths, injuries) the longer and more difficult the clean up process is .. increasing the time that normal traffic flow is impacted and increasing the danger to all those attending who are exposed to potential (and common place) cascading disasters.
The deaths and injuries impact the local health response services - raising costs, demand for resources, and impacting triage decisions (fewer injured non seatbelt wearing idiots to look after, more free resources to devote to other patients).
Have you seen footage of how quickly an unbelted person moves around a car when it crashes? If there's someone in the passenger compartment without a seatbelt they can cause serious damage to everyone else - especially children.
I already said that I will wear a seatbelt whether any government forces me to or not. I just don't see the point in telling other people what's good for them.
Because the cost of taking care of a paraplegic who didn't want to wear a seatbelt falls on the insurance and healthcare systems, which are already over strained and horribly broken, and generally distribute their costs to the rest of us. forcing seatbelts is a good thing.
> If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life.
I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation.
But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision.
Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero.
> So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?
In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile. If you are in the back seat when this happens, you are most certainly a danger to those in the front seats.
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
> In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
> However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves.
If they sell the vehicle, the decision was already made for the new owner (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car). So no, they also endanger other people. Mandating them outright is the right decision.
> No one is forcing you to buy a specific used car.
In a hypothetical situation with no mandated seatbelts it could take decades for the market of new cars be close to 100% with seatbelts at best. And of course much longer for the used cars market. So yes, many buyers in the meantime would essentially be forced to buy such a car, simply because at their price point and locality there isn't one available with a seatbelt.
>> That being said, the world is increasingly crowded with "good enough" music.
As I enter my mid-50s this is how I feel about the music I listen to. I have decades and decades of music I love for a variety of reasons. I don’t have time for “discovery” anymore. If I get introduced to a new band by someone I know or algorithmically, that’s great but I’m not going to spend hours trying to find the next great thing when I have so much I enjoy already.
That’s not bad. One of my favorite times is college football season with a big game on say, ABC. You quickly learn who it watching OTA, who is watching on cable and who has YoutubeTV based on the different reaction times after a big play.
reply