Running shoes and injuries (again) (Read 783 times)

The article is interesting, and I certainly agree with a few points - like the fact that we can get far more mileage from our shoes than most people think, and that - some of the time, for some people - a pair of $50 shoes might be as good (or better?) than a pair $130 shoes. But as far as his main premise that running shoes actually *cause* running injuries? Let's just say the author appears to be a gold medalist in the Leap to Unsupported Conclusions event, and somebody desperately needs to send him a dictionary with the words "causation" and "correlation" highlighted and underlined - since he pretty obviously doesn't understand the difference between the two. His argument is roughly analogous to pointing out that since widespread flouridation of water began, rates of tooth decay have risen - thus flouride causes cavity (sure, it makes sense ... as long as you ignore changes in eating habits and the fact that prior to flouridation most people didn't keep thier teeth long enough to get cavities in them).* Causation. Correlation. Not the same thing. But people confuse them constantly. In fact, most people use that confusion as their most frequent rhetorical tool. This confusion has actually risen by 447% since the advent of the Internet (according to my keen observations), thus computers clearly cause logical lapses. And cavities. Probably running injuries, too. Damn you, Bill Gates. *Note: the above was a rhetorical example. I have no clue whether cavities are on the rise. If you're a dentist and know better, don't bug me. Go wax and polish some incisors or something.