Running Shoe vs. Walking Shoe
By Wendy Bumgardner
Walking Expert
The Differences Between a Running Shoe and a Walking Shoe
A running shoe has different characteristics from a walking shoe. Runners should not run in walking shoes, while fitness walkers can usually find a running shoe that meets their needs better than most shoes marketed as walking shoes. Let's take a tour of what a fitness walker should look for in a running shoe for walking, or a so-called walking shoe for fitness walking.
Cushioning for Running Shoes vs. Walking Shoes
Runners impact the ground with three times their body weight with each step, while walkers impact with only 1.5 times their body weight. Runners need more cushioning in the heel and forefoot than walkers, which is why you see all of the hype about air cushioning systems. Walkers need less cushioning, especially in the forefoot. Extra cushioning adds extra weight, so it is a trade-off between a heavier shoe that lessens the trauma to your feet and legs and a lighter shoe in which you may be able to run or walk faster.
Fitness walkers should look for a lighter shoe that still provides adequate cushioning so their feet and legs do not feel beat up from the impact after a long walk. While racing flats and extremely light shoes may work for shorter walks, they do not have enough cushioning for regular use or longer walks.
Heel Height for Running Shoes vs. Walking Shoes
Shoe Sole Height Comparison.
Runners strike the ground anywhere from the forward part of their heel through the midfoot to the ball of the foot, depending on the individual. Walkers should strike with their heel. Running shoes are designed to provide stability for runners with a built-up heel. Runners who strike with their heel or midfoot should look for less built-up heels, while those who land on the ball of their foot need a more built-up heel.
Runners strike the ground anywhere from the forward part of their heel through the midfoot to the ball of the foot, depending on the individual. Walkers should strike with their heel. Running shoes are designed to provide stability for runners with a built-up heel. Runners who strike with their heel or midfoot should look for less built-up heels, while those who land on the ball of their foot need a more built-up heel.
Walkers should look for running shoes with the least difference in height from the heel through the toe. The shoe outer sole can be deceptive, some may appear to have higher heels but the heel actually sits lower inside the shoe. Walkers will be striking with their heel and rolling through the step. They have no need for a higher heel.
Heel Flare for Running Shoes vs. Walking Shoes
Flared Heel vs. Straight Heel.
Running shoes may have a flared heel to provide extra stability for runners who strike the ground at their midfoot for forefoot. A flared heel is also often seen on trail running shoes.
Fitness walking shoes should not have a flared heel. Walkers strike the ground with their heel, and a flared heel impedes rolling forward through the step. A true fitness walking shoe would have an undercut heel rather than a flared heel or built-up heel.
In the photo, the running shoe on the left has a flared heel, while the running shoe on the right does not.
Flexibility for a Running Shoe vs. a Walking Shoe
Shoe Flexing at Forefoot.
Updated June 01, 2014.
Both running shoes and walking shoes need to be flexible. Press down with the toe of the shoe and see where the shoe bends. Many running shoe designs flex most at the arch or midfoot. But some designs flex most at the forefoot. These suit the differing needs for runners who strike at midfoot or with the ball of their foot.
Fitness walking shoes should flex at the forefoot, as walkers should push off with their toes. A shoe that bends at the arch does not provide the platform they need. A shoe that doesn't bend at all is unacceptable. Unfortunately, many shoes marketed as walking shoes do not flex at all. They are unsuited for fitness walking.
The photo shows a running shoe that flexes at the forefoot and is suitable for fitness walking.
Motion control shoes and stability shoes will be less flexible, as they have medial posts and other construction elements that aim to keep the foot from rotating too much during a step. Runners and walkers who need motion control have to sacrifice some flexibility in their shoes.
What Shoes are Best for Walking?
1. Flexible - you should be able to bend and flex the shoe.
2. Low heel and no flare - Some running shoes have higher heels to support runners who land on the ball of the foot. Walkers land on the heel and do not need a built-up or flared heel.
3. Fit - the shoes should be fit by an athletic shoe expert, best found at the store in your area that caters to serious runners. These shoe experts will be able to determine whether you overpronate and steer you towards the right design of shoe for your foot and stride.
How safe is your locker?
Swiss banks may no longer be a safe haven for unaccounted money, but even wealth on which tax has been duly paid is not safe in a bank locker. In a dramatic heist couple of months back, the perpetrators dug a tunnel leading to the locker room of a Punjab National Bank branch in Sonepat, prised open 89 lockers, and decamped with the loot.
Bank lockers may not be as secure as you think they are. Besides, if the contents of your locker are stolen, you may not be eligible for compensation. The Reserve Bank of India guidelines say that banks are not responsible for the contents of the lockers they rent, though they are required to take precautions for their protection. Your valuables are also not insured. "A bank does not have the ownership or knowledge of the contents of the locker. Hence, it does not have any insurable interest in the matter," says an Axis Bank spokesperson.
According to Section 152 of the Indian Contract Act, a bank is not responsible for any loss or damage to the contents of a locker. "The relationship between the bank and the locker customer is that of a lessor and a lessee," says Narayan Raja, CEO, Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI).
Bank lockers may not be as secure as you think they are. Besides, if the contents of your locker are stolen, you may not be eligible for compensation. The Reserve Bank of India guidelines say that banks are not responsible for the contents of the lockers they rent, though they are required to take precautions for their protection. Your valuables are also not insured. "A bank does not have the ownership or knowledge of the contents of the locker. Hence, it does not have any insurable interest in the matter," says an Axis Bank spokesperson.
According to Section 152 of the Indian Contract Act, a bank is not responsible for any loss or damage to the contents of a locker. "The relationship between the bank and the locker customer is that of a lessor and a lessee," says Narayan Raja, CEO, Banking Codes and Standards Board of India (BCSBI).
However, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has rejected the argument that locker customers are only tenants and, hence, banks cannot be held liable for any loss suffered by them.In 2000, it ruled:"The depositors had taken the lockers on rent only because of the security provided by the bank, and it is not simply a landlord and tenant relationship."
However, as things stand, the law is loaded against the customer. He not only has to prove that the locker was robbed, but also submit evidence to establish the extent of loss. In the Sonepat incident, while there is clear evidence that the lockers were indeed robbed, customers will be required to provide evidence in support of the losses they claim.
The silver lining for customers is that if they are able to prove that the loss or damage has occurred due to the negligence by the bank, they can claim compensation. "If the negligence by the bank is proved, or a bank employee is found to be involved (in the theft), it becomes a vicarious liability and the bank is liable to pay compensation," says Mumbai-based advocate V T Gokhale.
However, the compensation may not cover the full loss. In one case, decided by the banking ombudsman, it was established that the customer's locker had been broken into. However, the compensation awarded was just '10 lakh, even though the customer had claimed a loss of '23 lakh. Affected customers can also approach consumer courts. In several cases, where negligence on the part of bank has been proved, courts have come to the rescue of customers. In July 2007, the NCDRC awarded compensation to a customer after termites ate into currency notes and important papers kept in the bank locker. "The bank was bound to ensure that the respondent's locker remained safe in all respects," the commission ruled.
However, as things stand, the law is loaded against the customer. He not only has to prove that the locker was robbed, but also submit evidence to establish the extent of loss. In the Sonepat incident, while there is clear evidence that the lockers were indeed robbed, customers will be required to provide evidence in support of the losses they claim.
The silver lining for customers is that if they are able to prove that the loss or damage has occurred due to the negligence by the bank, they can claim compensation. "If the negligence by the bank is proved, or a bank employee is found to be involved (in the theft), it becomes a vicarious liability and the bank is liable to pay compensation," says Mumbai-based advocate V T Gokhale.
However, the compensation may not cover the full loss. In one case, decided by the banking ombudsman, it was established that the customer's locker had been broken into. However, the compensation awarded was just '10 lakh, even though the customer had claimed a loss of '23 lakh. Affected customers can also approach consumer courts. In several cases, where negligence on the part of bank has been proved, courts have come to the rescue of customers. In July 2007, the NCDRC awarded compensation to a customer after termites ate into currency notes and important papers kept in the bank locker. "The bank was bound to ensure that the respondent's locker remained safe in all respects," the commission ruled.
Bogus purchases: Merely because a party has admitted to indulging in sham/ accommodation transactions does not mean that all his transactions with the assessee should be treated as sham We cannot accept a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham Read more of this post Santosh Kumar Agarwal | January 9, 2015 at 10:58 AM | Tags: ACIT vs. M/s G V Sons (ITAT Mumbai), Bogus purchases: Merely because a party has admitted to indulging in sham/ accommodation transactions does not mean that all his transactions with the assessee should be treated as sham | Categories: Case Law | URL: http://wp.me/p2e8mQ-1bp
|
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment