* Running (with shoes) is not a predictor of osteoarthritis (see http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/6/342.full). Elite athletes (running vastly more than typical recreational runners) do exhibit more signs visible in X-Rays, but do not report symptoms at a higher rate than any other group.
* Reliable predictors of acute injury are "too much, too soon", history of past injury, and, oddly, old shoes. (See http://www.time-to-run.com/footwear/mechanisms.htm). Matching the type of shoe to type of gait (as running shoes stores often attempt to do) has never been shown to reduce injury rate.
* It is possible to run with shoes and without injury. (I did it for 10 years; my old coach for 30+).
* It is possible to run barefoot on concrete and asphalt without injury. (I've done it for 5 years; others have for longer).
Those last two anecdotes don't speak to long-term injury, but I'm not terribly worried for two reasons: The first is the lack of correlation between running in shoes and osteoarthritis. The second is that the foot-achilles-knee is a spring-like appendage with vastly more play than 1/2 inch of EVA foam. Anecdotally again, I feel no pounding when running barefoot on concrete.
http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo...
Dredged that out of my memory from a couple years ago.
Heel strike - Effective mass is approximately the foot plus the lower leg, which equals 6.8% of total body mass.
Forefoot strike - Effective mass is the forefoot and some portion of the rearfoot and leg, which equals 1.7% of total body mass.
"We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners."
On the other hand, if you're a heel striker, the reduction in impact might be worth it. Stomping on concrete with your heels sends a lot of force through your ankles and knees.
Here's a Harvard professor who advocates running barefoot on asphalt:
Evolution is somewhat limited in what it can do. It must build upon things that are already there, over very long periods of time through subtle genetic mutations. Just because evolution didn't grace us with air cushioned soles and decent bridge and ankle support doesn't mean it's no good for us. Evolution had a lot less to play with and did the best it could. Humans made it better.
I do find it odd that some people like to look back at the way humans did stuff in the past and somehow arrive at the conclusion that it's better for us. They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had. We also lived in caves, but I don't see many people eager to do that these days.
And then there's stuff like the Palaeolithic diet which is absolute nonsense that ranks up there with Hal-Al and Kosher butchering.
That became a rant... I had no idea it bothered me so much.
There is mounting evidence that typical running shoes are bad for joints, because they encourage heel striking. Evolution is indeed limited, but it did a pretty good job of producing a structure that absorbs the impact from running. Modern running shoes short-circuit that structure by making it possible to heel strike, putting that impact through the knees and ankles instead of letting muscle and connective tissue absorb it. The think heels of typical running shoes make heel striking almost a necessity, because it's so awkward to forefoot strike while wearing them.
Is that a conclusion based on evidence, or a belief based on intuition? I have seen studies that support "barefoot" running (where the feet may not actually be barefoot, but have hard, protective coverings) based on less accumulated injuries, and based on bio-mechanical arguments on force dissipation.
"They invariably neglect to take into account the pitifully short lifespans our ancestors had."
Of course their lives were short. They had no healthcare, medicine, or sanitation. A band-aid and some antibiotic could have been the difference between life and death for some people. A daily, clean shower, clean water, and living quarters (mostly) free from predators. We take simple things like these for granted.
The major point from all of these books and articles is that humans do have superb shock-absorbers for legs and don't need air-cushioned soles. Modern shoes have taught people from a very young age to run a certain, un-natural way and this has been proven with more than just speculation.
I've been re-habilitating myself by stretching & foam rollering, but also by adopting barefoot running, paying strict attention to my running form. I use Vibram five fingers for the most part, but I've also some of my runs totally barefoot. Aside from one little incident with a small bit of glass, running on asphalt felt fine, almost as nice as sand.
I'm not saying that barefoot running alone cured my ITBS, I'm sure it has something to do with the stretching and rolling, but it is contibuting to injury free running.
It also feels amazing.
People think they need running shoes because they run incorrectly. You are not supposed to land on your heel. This is something you can only do with super padded running shoes.
Why should your body `wear out' from activity? Are humans some kind of clumsy machine that wears out from friction?
(Note that I am agreeing with the notion that our bodies wear out, as do all machines. I am not endorsing the parent post's claims about shoes being better for running.)
As the recipient of 2 knee surgeries, and possibly an upcoming 3rd, believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to have my knees "self-repair". But it just isn't going to happen naturally. You get one set of cartilage and ligaments, and once they are gone, they're gone.