Again though if that is the only way to train great do it. At the same time though I hate it when people try to shove it down others throats acting like it is the solve all (you are not doing this so don't think I am saying you are). I can't wear Nikes but love Asics at the same time I am not going to tell everyone that Asics are the solve all to being a better runner. I say wear what makes it so that you can train.
Well, minimalism (again, NOT barefoot running) IS better way. It's simply more efficient, give more injury protection, much greater speed at short distances. Go ahead and run in whatever you like to, but "normal" shoes and heel-strike are your disadvantages.
And since this is discussion board, where we discuss about random aspects of running, especially how to improve our running speed, efficiency, decrease injury rate and so on - people like me will advocate minimalism, just like I would explain how to stop smoking at health related boards.
Your arguments sounds like "Hey, I like smoking so don't advocate smoking cessation here" at heart diseases related forum.
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
this is natures way, when you see kenyans on TV and you see their nice Nike shoes remember they did not start that way? 90% of them in their early years did not wear shoes. Ever wonder how they developed the effortless stride?
I'm guessing it was not by running on pavement.
Oh my! I see a shoe ad at the bottom of this forum! It can't be trusted!
It's just a fad. I enjoy walking around in the Vibrams every now and then, sure, but running in them? Say what?
You're asking for trouble if you run on pavement, regardless of which shoes you use.
I'm a vibram wearer myself. I don't expect them to make me run faster or totally eliminate injuries. They take years to get used to and even then there isn't much of a difference from running barefoot.
The only benefits I am seeing are:
- strengthening of foot/ankle
- increased balance
- impact spread out over a less injury prone area
- slightly different stride mechanics
I don't wear them to make a point, nor do I boast that everyone should be wearing them. I've dealt with stiff calves, tender areas in the forefoot, and fatigue. However, I am now running quite comfortably with them and I'm definitely not going back.
tomtom wrote:
yeayh6 wrote:http://running.competitor.com/2010/05/features/the-barefoot-running-injury-epidemic_10118article sponsored by shoe company, so sad no study confirm such revelations :(
just beginning, "Fogt says he has four or five current patients with heel injuries clearly resulting from a switch to barefoot running"
while running barefoot, heel never touch the ground, or just barely touch it. Of course there are clowns around who try to execute heel strike while running barefoot, but I have problems calling it "running".
Most common cause of heel pain is plantar fascitis which is generally not caused during heelstrike, but typically by abnormal loads through the plantar fascia during stance phase/propulsive phase of gait.
J.R. wrote:
tomtom wrote:"Fogt says he has four or five current patients with heel injuries clearly resulting from a switch to barefoot running"
Wow he had 0 patients a year ago and now he has four or five patients.
NOTICE: ALL DOCTORS LIE TO TRY AND DECEIVE YOU
My feet land flat when running barefoot, not with all the weight on the heels or the toes, but distributed throughout the base of my feet.
Yeah, we all have to pass that lying and deceiving course before we can graduate.
when the hell did all these ridiculous 5 hour marathoner runnersworld worshippers sneak on to letsrun? With comments like "how do you think the kenyans developed their effortless stride" and "running on pavement is asking for injury".......
lassevirenjk wrote:
when the hell did all these ridiculous 5 hour marathoner runnersworld worshippers sneak on to letsrun? With comments like "how do you think the kenyans developed their effortless stride" and "running on pavement is asking for injury".......
agreed.
BUT I THINK THE REAL POINT IS, you can have bad form barefoot, and you can have bad form in shoes. You can have good form barefoot, and good form is shoes. As long as your shoe doesn't have a ridiculous heel you can have good form. IMO a heel strike is asking for knee problems. Imagine jumping in the air and trying to land on your heels.
I would remind you that running in highly cushioned shoes with large heels was a fad for the last 30 years. One that is long over due for an end.
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
we were born with leather under our feet, so that is the way?..not
we are one with the earth, feel for once the earth under your feet, take off your shoes and run in the grass....but not more than 3 or 4 minutes there is a adapation priod(many months). this is natures way, when you see kenyans on TV and you see their nice Nike shoes remember they did not start that way? 90% of them in their early years did not wear shoes. Ever wonder how they developed the effortless stride?
Is that you Gabe?
I am a mid foot striker with my heavy as all get out shoes on. Also I have only had one injury that sidelined me during the last 10 years. I run 120 miles a week. Do you know how long it would take me to try to start being a minamalist without winding up with stress fractures up and down my legs and possible back. I also don't see how you can compare smoking to running in lighter or absent shoes. There at this point are very few if any credible research articles showing that this is beneficial. I came on here to point out that there were extremely slow runners who thought that switching shoes was all of a sudden going to make you a much better runner. At the same time I tried to have an open mind about it all. One thing that I have always learned in life is that if there a cult like attitude towards something it is probably not as good as they think. So you keep going minamalist I will keep training with my clunkers and at the next road race I will wait for you to finish with gatorade in hand after I have already had time for me to do my cool down.
Where is all the shoe research at. n = 1 means nothing you bumping grasshole.
Not a Minamalist wrote:
I am a mid foot striker with my heavy as all get out shoes on. Also I have only had one injury that sidelined me during the last 10 years. I run 120 miles a week. Do you know how long it would take me to try to start being a minamalist without winding up with stress fractures up and down my legs and possible back. I also don't see how you can compare smoking to running in lighter or absent shoes. There at this point are very few if any credible research articles showing that this is beneficial. I came on here to point out that there were extremely slow runners who thought that switching shoes was all of a sudden going to make you a much better runner. At the same time I tried to have an open mind about it all. One thing that I have always learned in life is that if there a cult like attitude towards something it is probably not as good as they think. So you keep going minamalist I will keep training with my clunkers and at the next road race I will wait for you to finish with gatorade in hand after I have already had time for me to do my cool down.
Sometimes I wonder if letsrun is a depository for all the almost-coherent things that those chimps trying to type up Shakespeare's life work spew out. This post is so full of half-baked ideas, logical fallacies, and willful ignorance that I have trouble believing it's anything other than mindless chimp blabber.
1. If you're a forefoot stiker, then why do you have a beefy shoe with a raised heel to begin with? The whole idea behind the thick heel is for heel-strike cushioning, which you don't need, so get rid of it. All it's doing is artificially shortening your achilles which will make you more prone to calf/achilles injuries when you DO switch into spikes/flats for races. Plus, when you run in a shoe with a flatter heel, your achilles is able to lengthen further and provide you with more power during your pushoff phase. Furthermore, stress fractures in your back??? If you get stress fractures in your back it's going to be because of some other pre-existing, degenerative condition, not because of a tiny difference in footwear cushioning. And like I was saying, as a forefoot striker, you don't use the heel cushioning anyways. There are a number of flats with forefoot cushioning comparable to that of most trainers. Hell, the Green Silence (by Brooks) is cushier than most traditional training shoes.
2. "...few if any credible research articles..." Two things: Just because you haven't bothered to look for them doesn't mean they don't exist. I've spent hours googling them and reading them - they're out there, you're just lazy. Second thing: The burden of proof is on the shoe advocates. It may seem like shoes are the norm and anything else that goes against the shoe status quo should need to prove itself, but the modern running shoe as we know it has only been around for a few dozen years - and guess what? There's no scientific evidence to support the idea that it's an improvement over the REAL status quo that's been in place far longer than the 70's - barefoot/extremely minimalist footwear. High heeled cushion shoes came onto the scene without a shred of scientific evidence suggesting they help, and haven't done much since to prove that they do. Since you're so critical of the supposed lack of scientific studies supporting minimalism, I suppose you have a wealth of peer-reviewed studies supporting cushion and motion control shoes? I've looked and haven't found them. I look forward to reading them.
3. RE: slow runners doing it because they think it will help them get faster... so what? What's your point? Are you just resorting to ad hominem attacks? Yes, of course people are always looking for ways to improve. Your logic is absurd. Slow people do it, so it's bad. Is that about the gist of it? If you want to argue against the people who are looking for an easy quick fix who want to get faster without putting the work in, argue against that mindset, not the venues they use to try to get that quick fix... especially since far more people view stability/motion control shoes in the same "this will fix my injury problems no problem" light - believe me, I've seen it nearly every day for the last year working in a running store. People come in and blame their (insert any body part from the hips down) pain on their shoes, and expect a new pair to fix it without having to do any other work. The quick-fix attitude many people have towards shoes does not discredit shoes outright, nor does the same attitude towards minimalism discredit IT outright. It just means those people are dumb and lazy.
4. "...cult like attitude... not as good as they think." Again, two things. Thing One: Again, your logic is atrocious. You think that a group of people really like something, so it's most likely not that great, which is dumb enough on it's own, but then you just leave it there! You leave it at "probably not as good as they think" and don't bother to research it yourself to find out if your probability statement is correct. The basis for your entire opinion seems to be that some slow people do it, and that it has a cult-like following, therefor it's rubbish. Again, will you please discuss the pros/cons of minimalism itself instead of the pros/cons of the attitudes of the people who support. Thing Two: Shoes have a cult-like following as well. It's just a much bigger cult. But the proponents of shoes are oftentimes even more dogmatic than the minimalists. Working in a running store in a Portland (a running-centric, liberal, progressive city that has taken to the minimalist movement quite strongly) most of the people who come in wearing Vibrams or looking for a transitional pair of flats tend to come in with a "yeah the arguments for it make pretty good sense, so I figured I'd try it out". I've encountered very few dogmatic minimalists (hell, I can't even think of a single one), but the stubborn dogmatism of the "traditional" running shoe crowd is on display every day.
5. Another variant on the "slow people do it, so it's probably wrong" argument? Sheesh, how many ways can you rephrase that? It's completely irrelevant if you're faster in "clunkers" than someone else is barefoot. Completely. If someone beat you barefoot would you suddenly acknowledge that minimalism is the way to go? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Exactly as ridiculous as dismissing it because some slow people do it. What matters is if YOU'RE faster in minimalist footwear than in your "clunkers". Given that studies have demonstrated that there is something like a 5% increase in oxygen consumption for every 10oz on your feet, and that flats allow you to get more power out of your calves, I would bet that you WOULD be faster in flats. At the end of the 90's didn't we all realize that training with ankle weights just f***s with your form and doesn't provide any tangible benefit? Heavy shoes do the same thing.
In summary, you provided no real arguments against the concept of running barefoot/in minimalist shoes, and only attacked people that did so by making baseless assumptions and using vague generalities and useless stereotypes. It doesn't appear that you've put in any effort whatsoever to research or think about this subject for yourself, and I seriously question your ability for independent, rational thought.
i don't understand why you would want to take years to get used to a pair of shoes or barefoot. I already know how to wear shoes. I don't have years to learn how to run again
Terminator X: Thank-you for your very well thought-out, well articulated, and well-researched post. Along with a distinct lack of spelling/grammatical errors, your post is a breath of fresh air.
Not a Minamalist wrote:
Again though if that is the only way to train great do it. At the same time though I hate it when people try to shove it down others throats acting like it is the solve all (you are not doing this so don't think I am saying you are). I can't wear Nikes but love Asics at the same time I am not going to tell everyone that Asics are the solve all to being a better runner. I say wear what makes it so that you can train.
Of course, anyone whose knowledge of shoes is so simple and reductionistic as to lump every shoe made by a company into one giant category and say "I can't wear Nikes but love Asics" without the ability to distinguish between individual shoes probably isn't the best person to have this debate with.
Terminator X, that was one of the best posts I've read about minimalism. I especially liked your point about the burden of proof being on the shoe companies. I hope to see more of your responses on this subject.
I agree. Also, I like that you brought up the increased range of the achilles. Most people bring up proprioception (which is a good argument also).
Also, I agree that the burden of proof should be placed on those asking to bring the foot from a natural state to something else, which the shoe companies or anyone else has completely failed to do.
+1 On the misconception that minimalism is a fad when you could argue that wearing marshmallow high heels is a fad in the last 2 decades.
Anyone seen the shoes that the runners in the 70s trained in. They looked like they were built like todays track spikes. Its nothing new.
Thanks guys, this is something that I've spent ALOT of time thinking about over the last year, and there's alot of stuff I left out of that post because I think they each warrant their own individual topics. I've been meaning to sit down and do some serious work on churning out some articles, there's one idea in particular that I think could be pretty monumental but I need to do some more research before I get to work on that one. I'd love to get published in a major magazine if I can (Running Times would be ideal), but if I get some articles going and can't get anyone to bite I'll just start up a blog somewhere and pimp it on here.