What shoes should I buy my ten year old? Trainers or rcing flats.

Quote me the study that shows training shoes cause injuries.

Above you have opinion that it's better to have the foot deal with the impact of foot fall. From a theoretical point of view, perhaps barefoot is more efficient in strenghtening one's foot. From a real day to day training experience shoes make a difference. No shoes, obvious risks. Light shoes pound the crap out of many people's legs.

As a practical matter I am unable to run in light shoes and survive a normal month of training. Even if it's good for my foot strength, as a practical matter my feet can't take the pounding. I imagine others experience the need for good training shoes.

I'm sure you get success both sides of the issue - trainer v. light shoes. I would be curious how many people train exclusively in light shoes. A poll would be interesting. It would be interesting to see a break down of on the level of competitiveness also.

Youth Coach

You prove my points even more with your coments.

#1: You were a fine runner and how did you train? barefoot. it wasent the barefoot running that hurt you, it was the glass. Along the same note I would say that running into street lamps will shorten ones running career due to concussions.

#2: Roads and pavement are the antichrist for a runner. anyone who does all thier training on the roads is likely to get hurt from it. again, its not the running but the hard surface.

3#: goes with #2. For women and girls they are most likely doing the same workouts as the men and boys. Girls cant handle the intensity as well as boys. Males and females need to be on different training schedules to maximise their potential and (for females) reduce the risk of injury. Q-angle, hormonal, developmentaland and mucsular differances are the major contributing factors.

I am willing to go out on a limb and say that not many of your runners have matched your times. Probably because you grew up with less shoe to run in. I am assuming that you are a bit older than the current group of pathetic US elites.

I was a little harsh on your training schedules, and am sure that they are good. It is always nice to hear of a real runner coaching runners. Good on you. I was making an example out of you, sorry.

Youth Coach, please stop talking about pounding, you shouldn't be pounding, you should be running fleet foot across the ground, not pounding your feet into it.

your steps should be as light as possible from the beginning of your run to the end.

practice easy efficient technique, allowing the achilles tendon to flex more. If you can't do that, then your shoes are too big and clumsy and the heels too high.

Most of todays fashionable trainers are designed for walking not for running. when we walk we heelstike, when we run we don't.

We also have to look at the term "training". The human body can only take so much. I am sure that 40mpw for a lifetime is feasable (yes, everyone is different, some can take more, some less) but the high level of training that we are talking about is a quesion in my mind. I'm not sure what # is the tops but I would be willing to bet that one could not do 150mpw for a lifetime and stay healthy, no matter what shoe or surface they run on. (again, everyone is different, look at Ted Corbit) Guys like Benji Durden (sorry good buddy) are seeing the effects of years of hard training and are resorting to science to help them gut not guide them.

I think it was Tinman Or Jtupper that said that the athlete is 15 years ahead of science, thus explaining why east africans are so dominent on the mens side. coencidenty (sp, sorry) civalized countrys have taken a step backward in using science to guide the training. You cannot dent that the state of running in the US, Canada, England ect. are not performing well. Prefontaine and Shorter would still be among the best today. 30 years and little or no improvement? something is wrong here. It was Dave Welch who first enlightened me on the effects of sport science on the running world. Science is the study of nature, why use the study guide? let nature dictate the training. Use science as FEEDBACK from the workouts, not to dictate them. (also read as running form)

My number one tenant is no roads - period.

Grass is great. Trails also great.

Impact is evil. That's why certain people, like myself avoid the roads like the plague.

I grew up on the roads. I tried running barefoot on grass and the beaches. I ran some great races. In retrospect, I believe there are better ways of training. There are many good programs on all levels throughout the country. Lot of good information out there. Through some trial and error coaches and individuals will find what works best for them. Things change - what you did with Sam isn't necessarily going to work with Bill and even less with Suzie. As a coach, you have to be flexible in the way you approach your training. Trying to emulate some super star's program you read about is nice, but likely frustrating and ineffective. That's the big coaching mistake, the way I see it. One size fits all - and it's my size. Hey it worked for some great guy I coached twenty years ago.

Very true! So why not let your runners, or some of the ones that are injury prone try flats? By your logic, you must have coached someone who could have benifited from being in less shoe.

Dont let any of this going back and forth get to you. I will reiterate, good on you for even coaching and caring about running at the youth level.

I run roads two or three times a week no problem, up to 26.2 miles.

my legs got a bit tired at the 24 mile mark in London last year, gosh it took me nine whole days to get back on them evil roads.

how's this:

http://barefooters.org/medicine/

look especially closely at the work of Robbins.

peace

I like the insight on this thread. I may have

just been talked into wearing flats when I run.

Good points and stuff I knew but never really thought about.

I have to go to bed. Great thread, great discussion.

Youth Coach-

good luck in the up cumming track season. Assuming that you are american and going into spring track with your athletes.

JonnyO-

Good luck in london. Hope you have to do that naked run for Jason, following a PB of corse.

I originally read about heavier shoes leading to more injuries in Jim Fixx's "Complete Book of Running" (I don't have it with me at the moment, otherwise I'd quote it). I further researched this thought and found this (I'll post some highlights, which further support what everyone, except you, are saying):

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

Where barefoot and shod populations co-exist, as in Haiti, injury rates of the lower extremity are substantially higher in the shod population (Robbins and Hanna, 1987)....

Wearers of expensive running shoes that were promoted as correcting pronation or providing more cushioning experienced a greater prevalence of these running-related injuries than wearers of less expensive shoes (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard. Anthony (1987) reported that running shoes should be considered protective devices (from dangerous or painful objects) rather than corrective devices, as their capacity for shock absorption and control of over-pronation is limited. The modern running shoe and footwear generally reduce sensory feedback, apparently without diminishing injury-inducing impact?a process Robbins and Gouw (1991) described as the "perceptual illusion" of athletic footwear. A resulting false sense of security may contribute to the risk of injury (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). Yessis (2000, p.122) reasoned that once the natural foot structures are weakened by long-term footwear use, people have to rely on the external support of the footwear, but the support does not match that provided by a well functioning foot.

Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes reduce shock. Robbins and Gouw (1990) reported that running shoes did not reduce shock during running at 14 km/h on a treadmill. Bergmann et al. (1995) found that the forces acting on the hip joint were lower for barefoot jogging than for jogging in various kinds of shoe. Clarke et al. (1983) observed no substantial change in impact force when they increased the amount of heel cushioning by 50% in the shoes of well-trained runners. Robbins and Gouw (1990) argued that plantar sensation induces a plantar surface protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock. The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990).

Other features of footwear, such as arch supports and orthotics, may interfere with shock-moderating behavior and probably hinder the shock-absorbing downward deflection of the medial arch on landing (Robbins and Hanna, 1987). These features reportedly reduce pronation and supination or offer the wearer lateral and arch support. They may help some people with foot pathologies, but their benefit is uncertain for runners with healthy feet (Yessis, 2000, p.121).

Conclusions

? Running in shoes appears to increase the risk of ankle sprains, either by decreasing awareness of foot position or by increasing the twisting torque on the ankle during a stumble.

? Running in shoes appears to increase the risk of plantar fasciitis and other chronic injuries of the lower limb by modifying the transfer of shock to muscles and supporting structures.

? Running in bare feet reduces oxygen consumption by a few percent. Competitive running performance should therefore improve by a similar amount, but there has been no published research comparing the effect of barefoot and shod running on simulated or real competitive running performance.

? Research is needed to establish why runners choose not to run barefoot. Concern about puncture wounds, bruising, thermal injury, and overuse injury during the adaptation period are possibilities.

? Running shoes play an important protective role on some courses, in extreme weather conditions, and with certain pathologies of the lower limb.

Cheers LaWoof, I don't need any encouragement to be an exhibitionist though, I run on the track with naked feet.

Youth Coach wrote:

Light shoes pound the crap out of many people's legs.

I'm sure you get success both sides of the issue - trainer v. light shoes. I would be curious how many people train exclusively in light shoes. A poll would be interesting. It would be interesting to see a break down of on the level of competitiveness also.

1. Light shoes don't pound the crap out of anyone's legs; people pound the crap out of their own legs because they don't run correctly, a failure which is largely due to the fact that their feet have not developed correctly thanks to a lifetime in shoes.

2. If you want a break down on the level of competitiveness, try watching the olympics this summer, or any world-class track meet. The distance races will be dominated by East africans who grew up barefoot, effortlessly dominating the westerners slapping at the track with their atrophied, undeveloped feet. Yes, there are other factors, but foot development is a major one. The research is out there to prove it (such as in the link above).

Youth Coach wrote:

I would be curious how many people train exclusively in light shoes. A poll would be interesting. It would be interesting to see a break down of on the level of competitiveness also.

To reemphasize a few points:

"In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard...."

Unfortunately, people have been fooled into thinking more shoe is better (even you!).

The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990).

This strongly supports the idea that flats are better and more likely reduce shock and risk of injury. As I pointed out before, when you train in flats, your body adjusts in such a way to land more lightly and efficiently. Of course, if you only wear them once or twice a wear for hard runs, your legs are going to be sore-- it's not something you're used to doing! But, train in them every day over time, and the pain goes away (as well as the injuries!).

Some people were also fooled into thinking the Jason could play qb.....and that the Sooners were going to win it all...but they didnt....

Nasty Drunk wrote:

Some people were also fooled into thinking the Jason could play qb.....and that the Sooners were going to win it all...but they didnt....

....and some were fooled into thinking Fitzgerald deserved the Heisman!

I've gotten over it, have you?

I vote for the flats.

I almost hate to add to a thread as agrumentitive as this but I feel that the original poster may need some help organizing all the information. Here's a rundown of what everyone has said in as unbiased a manner as I can be. And for the record no one's 'personal experience' is important to resolving this issue because there are millions of runners and good runners run in flats and good runners run in trainers and barefoot and in army boots so 'what I did once' doesn't help in the decision making process.

1)Running barefoot is more efficient.

True, it is efficient, natural and comfortable

Problems: The human foot is not designed for pavement impact. The Kenyans grew up running barefoot on dirt not pavement. If you are two then run barefoot on grass. If you are ten, then you have been wearing shoes for ten years and can't just start running in XC racing flats in pavement without reprecussions.

2)Trainers don't protect you from pavement.

False. Who actually believes this? Would you sleep on pavement? No, because you'll have back problems. Would you sleep on grass? Yes, many people have, our bodies were designed to sleep on grass and soft surfaces, we don't Need beds but we need something softer than our concrete floors and beds are more convenient than bringing grass inside. Our feet, legs, etc were NOT designed to run on pavement without protection. Trainers provide that protect. Yes, dirt is a better surface to run on but it is not possible for every runner so we need to have a contingency plan for those of us who just have to run on pavement occasionally.

3)The Africans!!!

Africans were barefooted at age one, five, ten, fifteen and so on. Americans wear shoes. We can't just throw them away, it needs to be a gradual weening process. Wear trainers at ten. Light weight trainers at 12. Road trainer racers at 15. Flats at 18. Barefoot at 21. It's not black and white.

(Haile ran barefoot growing up. Now he wears training shoes. Training shoes on dirt. Watch Endurance. The opening sequence he is wearing trainers. They do have advantages for everyone.)

4)I know the perfect stride!!

Yes, there is a 'perfect' stride. Manute Bol will never have it even if he runs barefoot. Neither will Oprah. Some people have what it takes and others don't, you can't force the perfect stride on someone who isn't built for it. You can improve your stride but don't make the mistake of fighting natural motions, especially before the body has had a chance of developing muscularly. Barefoot drills, weight circuits, form drills, etc are a great way to improve the function of a stride naturally, without fighting your form everyday.

I guess the unbiased thing went out the window. I have more to say but this post is already over my limit. Everyone has points to make but you need to make an individual decision about what is the best thing right now and what might be best for the future. The two answers may be different.

Here is the answer to your problem, slow down until your body can catch up.