RE: this thread will put an end to "minimalism" and vibram forever

Some people like a minimalist shoe because it looks cool -> all minimalist shoes are worthless? Good logic.

o.O wrote:

There was this one African

Won the Olympics

Go figure

He wasn't wearing Vibrams.

Neither was Bruce Tulloh when he set the world record for crossing America.

Mmmm notice the google ads associated with this debate. Vibrams are faddish consumerism and vanity at its finest. When I run I want YOU to know I run minimalist!!!

I remember when Nike invented the Sock Racer. The sax player from Dire Straits wore them in a major concert on stage. To my knowledge, Vibrams have yet to achieve this level of "cool" ;-)

Regarding pronunciation: They were invented by Vittorio Bramani (Vi-Bram - geddit?) to minimize climbing accidents which occurred with people slipping in hob-nailed boots. So say a short "Vi", not "Vee". I was involved in the climbing business for some years and know that Vibram soles on boots have saved many lives. I give the firm a lot of credit for this.

Regarding barefoot strides: back since time immemorial, any middle distance runner who gets a chance to run on a good enough cricket pitch (no broken glass, bottletops, roll & seed for 500 years etc etc) would do so out of sheer joy in summer. It's like sex for your feet. Luckily for the Brits, John Landy did find some broken glass, which is a great argument for Vibrams.

Question: Do you ever run barefoot? Do you ever do barefoot grass drills or anything like that?

Chris Solinsky: I used to do that and then ended up getting really bad plantar fasciitis.

I wouldn't say that real athletes never run in minimalist shoes. Obviously, my college athletes as well as elites do most track work and tempo runs in spikes or flats, and some of us may do some warmup drills barefoot.

But running significant mileage barefoot or in garbage contraptions like vibrams is something real athletes (you know, the ones you see on TV winning races?) simply don't do.

Minimalism is for LOSERS and all knowledgeable coaches (including Renato, recently) know this.

I don't know why you aren't able to distinguish between minimalism and the Vibrams, but runners have been training in racing flats for years. If you think it's for losers you're a shitty coach.

No they don't. Elites do not train in flats full time they also don't wear vibrams, you on the other hand probably read runner's world and don't know the difference between Hicham ElG and Dean K.

Ho Hum wrote:

I don't know why you aren't able to distinguish between minimalism and the Vibrams, but runners have been training in racing flats for years. If you think it's for losers you're a shitty coach.

plzstop wrote:

No they don't. Elites do not train in flats full time they also don't wear vibrams, you on the other hand probably read runner's world and don't know the difference between Hicham ElG and Dean K.

Ho Hum wrote:

I don't know why you aren't able to distinguish between minimalism and the Vibrams, but runners have been training in racing flats for years. If you think it's for losers you're a shitty coach.

Personally I think whoever invinted Vibrams should be nominated for the RAzzies award. I mean, how much cooler can you get. Oh wait, maybe if you used them for something useful, like kayaking or rock clumbing or syrfing.

Running in racing flats is not minimalism. It's just running in racing flats. To call it minimalism is ridiculous. When they use "racing flats or spikes", they normally warmup in their regular training shoes. Minimalism is using ViCrap or barefoot running for regular training. Doing barefoot strides has nothing to do with the barefoot running crap that is the "fad" of the times. Why do Kenyan's get running shoes when they have the money?

I have never read a full issue of Runner's World; I know exactly who El G is and many other people because I obsessively read stuff about running.

Did you know that prior to the 80's all shoes were basically flats? Were those guys in the 70's losers?

The whole fad is just annoying to me because:

I bought the vibram's 2.5 years ago after reading about minimalism for a long time on this thread. I trained in lightweight trainers through high school and college (asics ds trainer/ mizuno elixir), and then i was curious to give the barefoot thing a shot to supplement my training.

I used them for about a month and then concluded i was best off with a low profile lightweight trainer. Though barefoot running can be good, as I realized if you did not grow up your whole life running barefoot you lack some key developments in your foot development from where shoes at critical times of growth in your life. The process of strengthening my feet and adjussting form was not worth it. So it just annoys me today when people ask me if I have heard about the vibrams or if they are wearing them and talking big about them. I know the benefits of them but I am also way beyond that and have thought through the drawbacks. I've read all about minimalism. I know the people wearing them probably read one article or heard from a friend they were good and then just fully committed to them.

No big deal. Just a little annoying.

There does not seem to be a clear definition of minimalist. Running Times says

"To get the full benefits of natural running or a barefoot style of running, look for minimalist shoes with a few key characteristics. First, the shoes should be lightweight, low to the ground and flexible, have a limited heel-to-toe drop and have a thin layer of medium-firm cushioning under the forefoot. (Some minimalist runners prefer a slightly more cushy shoe for longer runs, but even a thin layer of soft foam under the midfoot and forefoot will dampen the foot's ability to feel the ground and respond accurately, particularly for faster-paced efforts and races.)

By nature, minimalist shoes offer little to no support and no stability control, based on the belief that the foot in an efficient gait can naturally off set much of the rolling (pronation/supination) that would occur after a heavy heel-strike gait. Essentially, minimalist shoes offer just enough protection from the pavement while letting the foot move naturally through a stride cycle.

Many traditional training shoes put the foot 22-24mm off the ground in the heel and 10-15mm off the ground in the forefoot, and the difference between the two -- typically 12-14mm in traditional training shoes -- creates a forward-leaning slope, designed to reduce stress on the Achilles. Minimalist shoes trend toward being much more level (a 2-10mm slope) with the assumption that the runner will land on the midfoot and use the natural cushioning of the arch, thus the built-up heel only adds weight and gets in the way of an efficient stride.

But understand that there are varying degrees of minimalist shoes. For example, a Pearl Izumi Streak has a 10mm heel-toe drop (20-10mm), a Brooks Green Silence has an 8mm drop and the Newton Gravity Trainer has a 3mm drop. Other current shoes within the minimalist realm include the New Balance 100, ASICS GEL-Hyper Speed 4, adidas adiZero Ozweego 365 CLIMACOOL, ECCO BIOM A, and K-Swiss Ultra-Natural Run II S."

In my book barefoot and minimalist are still DIFFERENT and flat are examples of minimalist shoes.

Per Me, In summary:

Minimalist - Give the proper adjustment and selection a minimalist shoe WILL provide for your best performance.

Barefoot - A valuable training aid when properly used but WILL NOT produce your best performance.

Question: Do you ever run barefoot? Do you ever do barefoot grass drills or anything like that?

Chris Solinsky: I used to do that and then ended up getting really bad plantar fasciitis.

So Solinsky did something one time and got hurt, so we should never ever do it? Had you actually read the interview, you'd have noticed that he jumped into doing 10 fast strides barefoot every other day. I've done 12x900m barefoot and I didn't get plantar fasciitis. See how easy it is to refute these anecdotal stories?

On a well-maintained grass cross country course or grass track, barefoot would be faster than racing in spikes if the grass wasn't slippery--it's simply a weight issue.

I must say, that running times article is another salvo of hogwash. More unsubstantiated claims about "feeling" the ground in minimal shoes (earth to RT, anything between the sole and the ground muffles the plantar mechanoreceptors, whether it's 10mm or 20mm is insignificant) and other such business. Just another fad for hobby joggers. Hopefully the movement will influence shoe companies to produce lighter and more minimal shoes. But I can't wait for the day when I stop seeing these overpriced aqua socks at my local running store.

Also, seconded on the silly "prancing" stride. You know why they run like that? Because they read about forefoot striking in Born To Run, then try to do it all the time. Except instead of doing it right, they just run normal, but lock their calves and point their toes down. So they really do prance along the pavement!

i give you the vibram 1 finger

Agreed, the issue with minimalist or barefoot running is probably more related to the pseudo-euphoric emotion about barefoot running that's built up in BTR, Runner's World, and Running Times. So, you get a lot of casual joggers or non-runners prancing around on the sidewalks like show ponies, talking about second winds and an harmonious relationship with nature. "Feel" for the ground is a load of crap. The only euphoric feeling I get is on those rare days when you can absolutely hammer it, and you hardly "feel" the ground at all.

Ultimately, minimalist running or barefoot running--whether from Vibram's or from growing up running on red clay roads in Kenya--has merits if it helps teach good form. You read the Harvard study on barefoot running that BTR cites and the study points out that the type of shoes worn was really irrelevant in terms of force on the leg. Instead, it was a foot strike beneath the center of gravity (rather than ahead of it) that was the key issue. Kenyans who grew up barefoot, for example, could switch to larger, thicker trainers and run without issue because even in the trainer, their stride was biomechanically identical to the one without trainers. Only this time, they didn't have to worry about glass, rocks, etc. The whole point of minimalism is to force a more efficient running style--not minimalism for minimalism's sake. If all you do is change shoes (or ditch shoes) and don't change the stride, then you're just as apt to get injured as before (if not more so).

In my experience, hanging out online for a long while with a lot of the barefoot/VFF crowd, most folks are only looking to run injury free, not run faster. That is why you see a lot of 200+ lb overweight old folks starting with VFFs.

Eventually by running injury free their mileage increases and they get faster, but not as a direct result of their shoes, or lack thereof.

Only on runner's world forums do you see people list in their signature their 5K PR of over 30 minutes and feel proud. I'm amazed that people that run that slow and have just done their first or second 5K in their life are embracing and going barefoot/VFF.

But it's pretty funny arguing with a runner that is more than two times slower than you that you are "doing it wrong" by wearing shoes.

Minimalism was around long before this barefoot/VFF boom.

I'm a good but not elite d1 runner - top 100 at NCAAs. That should be irrelevant to the debate, but this thread is pretty lacking in credibility so I'm throwing that out there.

I, along with some of my teammates and friends from other schools of a similar caliber, have a heavy emphasis on minimalism and barefoot running. I try to do 2 miles a day or so barefoot in summer and fall, plus barefoot strides. It's helped my form a lot, and I've never had an impact-related injury.

The problem is not minimalism, vibrams, etc. The problem is, when you are training very hard at a high level, it is risky to introduce any sort of change. But over the course of 3-4 years, I've gradually transitioned to only running in 5oz flats and barefoot. It's helped a lot.

Oh, and for people spitting out so much hate for vibrams and minimalism -- ask yourself why? Why are you wasting your time? Because it sure sounds like you feel threatened by something beyond your purview.

Coach D wrote:

But running significant mileage barefoot or in garbage contraptions like vibrams is something real athletes (you know, the ones you see on TV winning races?) simply don't do.

Minimalism is for LOSERS and all knowledgeable coaches (including Renato, recently) know this.

"Abebe Bikila raced barefoot to a gold medal in the 1960 Olympic marathon. Herb Elliott, the 1500 m victor at the same Games, ran 17 sub-four-minute miles and was never defeated at either 1500 m or 1 mile. Photographs of Elliott during barefoot training runs twice graced the cover of Sports Illustrated. Two time world cross country champion and former 5K world record holder Zola Budd competed and trained barefoot. The first lady of American distance runners, Doris Brown Heritage, as a youngster enjoyed barefoot ten mile runs on the beaches and forest trails near her home. And the stories of barefoot Kenyans running throughout their homeland are legendary."

It is amazing how successful these runners were without "knowledgeable coaches."

vibrams suck wrote:

i agree to a certain extent. the elites arent out there doing minimalist running on a daily basis as their only training runs. they probably wear flats for tempo runs and speed work, and maybe do barefoot strides on a grass (or fake grass) field.

the thing that bugs me the most are the people that are out there every single day running in them doing that lame short choppy, almost like they are prancing, stride. and the people that buy them because they think that the vibrams are going to make them a faster runner. they are typically the couch to 5k kinda person.

What is wrong with someone getting up off the couch and getting in shape to run a 5K?