If flats are so much better, why don't we see elites training in them?

ArizonaRunner5k wrote:

so trackhead, how would you suggest someone with completely flat arches, that's been training in something like the pegasus w/ heavy duty orthotics his whole life to make the transfer? would you consider something like the zoom elite before going to something like flats?

also, flats cost just about the same as trainers, some even more, but they last a lot less don't they? isn't that a pretty big investment? correct me if i'm wrong.

I made the switch after 12 or 13 years in orthortics and the heaviest, most expensive shoes. My gait has so heavy and poor that I once wore through the outsole of a pair of Air Structure Triax in 8 days!

Now I expect my racers to last 1000 miles. But then I have a LOT of improving in style to do still - maybe I'll get more out of them in the future.

I have been training in a neutral cushion shoes all my life(Nimbus, Mizuno Rider, Pegasus, etc). I run about 90 miles a week and run only on asphalt. I have been reading about all the posts on running in minimalist shoes and I totally agree. I think the shoe companies are really scamming everyone. I have never had a stress fracture or any major injury, but I've recently been battling through achilles tendonitis and some other minor lower leg injuries when trying to bump the mileage over 100 a week. My question is, how does a guy like me go from running in heavier cushion shoes to running in flats? A little background on myself; I've been running for 10 years, am in my mid-twenties, and have run 14:05 for 5K.

thanks

what's a good example of a minimalist shoe then?

I can't speak for the 60's as I didn't run much. In the late 70's many training shoes were 8-11 oz and a most flats were 5-7 oz.

In the October 1981 RW Shoe Issue the lighest trainer was 6.88 oz (Tiger X-Caliber). The three lightest were all Tiger (ASICS). The next 4 lightest shoes were Brooks from 8.3 to 8.4 oz. The heaviest was the Nike Equator at 12.8 oz. All in size 9 for men

The lighest flat was the Tiger Ultimate at 5.07 oz and the heaviest was the Pony Fukuoka at 8.42 oz. Those were mens size 9 as well

ArizonaRunner5k wrote:

Okay, I'm not trying to create an argument out of this, I'm just asking a serious question. If you look at the pictures of past footlocker guys and girls, and the ones this year, none of them are training in flats. If you saw what ritz has been wearing since he got to colorado, the nike kantara's, and if you see what bob kennedy, goucher, and culpepper wear to train in, you see that none of them are in flats. I am, however, interested in knowing more about training in flats, but I'm just wondering, if it's such a good thing as many of you have brought up great points, then why don't many elite runners wear them? Just asking a question that I really was wondering about. thanks.

Are you asking about elite runners or americans?

Here is what I think. The Japanese have been training in racing flast for such a long time that combine with how small on average they are it doesnt affect them. Flats break down a lot faster than training shoes and do not offer the stability and cushion components that people need to put in mileage.

It all comes down to personal preference and I think a lot of these guys would be injured or have the tendency to be injured easier in racers.

it also comes down to a mentality that if you put on lighter shoes to race, you feel like you are going to race if that makes sense.

i do think some people would use a lightweight trainer or a more beefed up racer for a tempo run or some repeats of something, but doing it on a consistent basis isnt going to work.

also, the kantara is a medium-high stability trainer and is not even close with medial side stability to be considered motion control; it does however offer a lot of cushioning for the stability it offers; working in a specialty store, this is just what i have seen.

with respect to the life of the flats/shoes, let me ask you this: if you ran in the asics tai-chi (no midsole) how many miles would it take to break down? and to take that a step further, if you ran 100% barefoot, how many miles would it take for your feet to break down?

it's not like your feet are not built to run, and run all day. remember watching "endurance" and yonas zergaw (playing the young haile) running 20k per day barefoot. his feet weren't going to break down.

the life of the shoe depends on your perception and the strength of your muscles and ligaments. some years back, i think i got 80 miles out of a pair of NB 853s. i personally know guys (170 lbs+) who have run 1000 miles on the Cubato, and many more on this board have run thousands of miles on shoes, or others have run in watersocks.

and as far as transitioning, i;ve never been faced with the issues you descrubed, but I'm sure many of the above testimonies can give light on the subject.

The first thing to break down if you run in the Tiger Tai-Chi's is going to be your wallet. My god those things look incredible, and I might give in and get a pair, but they are going for $120+ on EBay and that's the only place I can find them since they are sold out everywhere.

Trackhead...What is your opinion on Adidas Classic series...ie..Boston...Supernova classics..??...thanks

You know, I actually really like the feel of the Boston Classic. The SNova Classic was a little too clunky for me.

And while they're not awful (not too heavy) ultimately they are affecting your footstike too much. An interesting observation LaWoof gave me one time on a run, was that once you have trained your foot to run in nothing, you can go crazy in normal shoes like the DS-Trainer or Boston. I think the Boston 9.0 men's is 10.5oz, and I don't know about the heel height.

Bottom line: if you're healthy and the shoes don't give any troubles than that's fine, but your muscles and ligaments aren't as strong as they could be.

Come by the store tomorrow if you can. Me and LaWoof will be in.

Actually a little hip and knee pain...only 1 leg though...not sure if its because of standing all day now with job I have or they changed the Boston Classic or was running too much..was thinking of trying the Supernova classic..the supernova cushion is spongeland ...cant run in that

come on by tomorrow. i don't know exactly where you live but it can't be that far.

Not hip on what elites are wearing now (though I imagine most those African' elites to b' are running barefoot a lot of time until they get noticed and sponcered by a show company) However, I do know when I trained at ASC with Porter that he never wore anything but racing flats, ever! And that included day after day of hard road runs often enough. He wore them out fast but Nike gave him all he wanted. He was short on injury too

Wheres the store?

now why doesn't nike market something like that over here in the states??

i'm pretty sure it's in taiwan.

nike won't market it in the USA because they don't believe it will sell. we got a part number for the shoe but nike.net didn't have it.

i'd love to get one.

legalizit,

if you were refering to the store you could find me at, carlsbad, ca.

napoleon wrote:

what's a good example of a minimalist shoe then?

adidas cubato

nike air streak vapor

asics tiger paw (a little heavier than the previous 2)

mizuno wave spacer

i'm considering getting the waffle racers to train in, will they be the same as the road flats?