I have some Skechers slip-ins that I love. I live in Japan where you have to take off/put on shoes all the time at home, restuarants, doctors/dentists, gyms, etc, so they are incredibly convenient. Also very comfortable, and constructed about as well as a pair of Nikes costing twice as much.
I am unapologetically into Skechers. Though I do try to seek out the ones without that big ugly "S" on the side.
I've never been able to get over their children's shoes branding. As a kid I felt the tv was flooded with light up sketchers ads and I can't shake that impression that they are only made for kids.
I have a pair of Sketcher slip-ins for when I want to do some quick errands. They may be ok when comparing to Nike or Adidas, but IMO they generally just feel terrible and don't provide good support. In no way comparable to e.g. my ECCOs, which not high-end either (though slightly more expensive than Sketchers).
It's interesting, I wear Sketchers for exactly the reason that they are the most comfortable shoe for being on my feet and standing/walking around all day... indeed when I was looking for such a shoe it was a friend of my wife's who is a nurse at our local hospitals A&E department who recommended them as practically what all the nurses (at least here in the uk) wear, according to her anyway.
In theory I like Skechers; in practice they self-destruct after a few months on my legs. Luckily nowadays there is a lot of differents slip-on shoes I can buy - I've got 2 pairs of Crocs slip-on shoes which are better in every way and also Merrel slip-ons for the cold and wet days which are great too.
Yes the Sketcher slip ons have been a game changer. Also their shoe laces seem to be constructed so that the knot doesn’t untie over time. I had a single knot lace that stayed intact over four months of daily wear.
Most comfortable shoes ever? Maybe not. But probably top 5-10 in my lifetime.
Similarly, when I was younger, I came across this test: Sit down on the floor (all the way, butt on the ground). Now stand without using your hands at all. I was told that inability to do that was a strong indicator of failing health.
I imagine there's lots of different ways to evaluate general fitness like that.
> The human body really was never supposed to go over 50
As I get older I'm beginning to align with this.
When you're younger you think everything is going to be great until you die from a short illness at the average age of 79. Wrong. In my cohort of friends, notable age-related degradation started appearing in our late-30s/early 40s, even in the fit ones who stayed active.
I’m in my mid 40s, and I constantly thinking about https://xkcd.com/605/ and trying to extrapolate what shape I’ll be in when I get ”old” based on the decline of the last ten years.
I'm in the same boat. Looking around here, the older guys in the best shape that I know of are in the local triathlon club. Pushing 50s, 60s, and even 70s, and they are still very fit and can also party harder than I can.
I love cycling, and a run can be refreshing, but I don't really have any desire to swim - much less an open water swim. But triathlons seem to be a pretty effective path to longevity, so it may be something I need to force myself to take up. That and weight training.
Hunter-gatherers who survived to adulthood (and childbirth!) could expect to live to their mid 60's to early 70's. The big wins that modern medicine have gotten us are drastically decreasing infant/child mortality and deaths during childbirth. Compared to our ancestors, we've only really added 5-10 years to the life expectancy of elderly life. Largely unrelated to modern medicine, deaths by misadventure are reduced living in civilization, and then even moreso when you've got a large portion of the population not working in dangerous manual labor roles.
