minimalist shoes for natural overpronator

jaguar1 wrote:

[quote]Spider wrote:

I agree about the barefoot running. I don't know whether you necessarily can "increase" the amount of arch you have, but I'm sure the barefoot running could at least improve foot and leg strength to counterbalance a discrepancy.

I can attest that my arches (which my doctor warned were "in danger of collapsing," are now significantly higher after less than a year in minimalist shoes.

vcxc wrote:

I can attest that my arches (which my doctor warned were "in danger of collapsing," are now significantly higher after less than a year in minimalist shoes.

That's cool.

I second the comment about dancers being strong but way more flexible than most runners. I was a fairly competitive dancer for 10 years and I know that the flexibility from that training has helped my running immensely (I'm not nearly as competitive as a runner, but I love it way more; if you think runners are psycho, try spending a week with a bunch of neurotic ballerinas-you'll be glad you are a runner b/c you'll be trying to get away fast!). Also, this means I get to run in flats everyday (50-60 mpw) and stay injury-free. Good stuff.

Wearing shoes with an elevated heel, like most trainers, can lead to a flattened arch. The elevated heel results in a shortening of the Achilles and calf muscles. Three of these calf muscles play an important role in the function of the arch. As these muscles become shorter, they fail to pull properly on the back of the heel leading to a flattening of the arch. The result is the foot pronates when it should be in a neutral position.

Caution: If you've been running in shoes with an elevate heel and want to try some barefoot/minimalist running, work into it gradually. It takes time to safely return the Achilles and calf muscles to their natural length. Too much, too soon, can lead to injury. Start by doing some barefoot walking around the house or yard, then do an occasional shorter run with minimalist shoes. Gradually increase the amount/length of barefoot/minimalist running. Good luck!

I have a question - is it bad to run barefoot on a treadmill? My treadmill's deck, according to the manual, is supposed to be "softer than grass" but while it may be, the actual surface is obviously not as soft as grass.

Wanksta wrote:

Wow......what a surprise. A guy who works in a RUNNING store is trying to defend his practice.

Sorry bud, I know you hate to realize the truth and lose business, but it's the facts.

My friend. I have no need of defending my business. I purely sell the best running shoes available to me.

If the EXPERTS i.e. the guys at Asics etc tell me that soft, cushioned midsoles and comfortable and supportive uppers are last years thing and that old school, minimal racers, that feel shit are the way forward then I will just change my stock and continue to stay in business.

I just know that at the end of my long Sunday run, I want something comfortable and cushioned on my feet and will pay whatever the price to have that.

I do get the sense that some people do not like to pay out regularly for shoes, thus coming up with a justification of wearing cheap shite shoes.

Hmmm, next someone will be on here trying to convince everyone the world is flat!!

Running shop boy wrote:

If the EXPERTS i.e. the guys at Asics etc tell me that soft, cushioned midsoles and comfortable and supportive uppers are last years thing and that old school, minimal racers, that feel shit are the way forward then I will just change my stock and continue to stay in business.

First, what makes the guys at Asics the experts in what is good for your feet? They are experts at one thing: selling shoes. They will sell what people will buy. People want a soft ride, althought that is not ideal in the long-term. The shoe industry does not have an interest in selling us what is right for our feet and bodies (although this appears to be changing to some small extent). They are interested in "new and improved" shoes that will make it more comfortable for Joe Public to get out and do his 2 mile long run. Most people who run don't put enough miles to be that adversely affected by shoe design, or don't run in their running shoes at all. These are the people the shoes are marketed towards.

Have you actually met anyone from the footwear department at Asics?? How about Saucony, or Brooks, or Nike?? Have you ever been to the test site of Nike's in Oregon (Spelling?) Have you had a show through of product by any of the sales reps at any of these companies?

Then how the f*** have you come up with your post, other than making an outrageous and wrong assumption.

The head of running footwear at Asics UK is a f**king podiatrist!! Asics spend millions each year on developing the technologies in their running shoes and if you spent anytime in a specialist trade, taking to someone that knows what they are talking about, you'd find this out.

Just because you run more than two miles run, doesn't mean you need a different shoe to 'Joe Public' either!!

Don't be so cynical.

I have dealt with quite a few shoe companies and those assumptions weren't all that outrageous. Just because someone is a podiatrist doesn't mean they know squat about runners. Sure those companies spend millions on "development", but how much of that money do you think goes into marketing and advertising, not to mention clothes lines, etc? You are right however, us "serious" runners don't need a different shoe (well, as long as it works with your foot structure) than "Joe Public" but a lot of times people aren't getting into the right shoes anyways, elite athlete or not. Instead of getting all crazy defensive about something, just remember, no one is going to come to your house and shave down the midsoles on all of your shoes (and to the guy who's done that, you so need to come to the running store I work at, we...err operate, if you will, on shoes all the time), so enjoy your built up shoes and I'll enjoy my flats :o)

I think what you're running into is an unexpectedly strong opinion from many of us about what we have found, often the hard way, to work well for us.

Clearly, if the Asics Kayano works well for you, then run in it with my blessing. But I, and I suspect several others here, simply found that using the best offerings of the shoe companies and following the advice in magazines just did not work for us. This has evolved into something of a subculture looking for low-heeled simple shoes, and there is nothing surprising about this. "Return to basics" movements are not new news in many areas of endeavor. Most of us doubt that Asics is likely to improve on the mechanics of a healthy functioning foot, and the writings and experiences of most runners from the 60s and 70s (when shoes really were pretty basic) as well as numerous coaches (Lydiard writes specifically on the topic -- try Running to the Top pg 74) reinforce this.

As to podiatrists and experts -- I have no problem with them. But it is hardly a new concept that medical professionals, with the best intention, go in a wrong direction; especially when dealing with healthy people, as medicine tends to focus on diseased people. Remember phen-fen, hormone replacement for women, or the low-fat high-carb diet (and next year maybe we'll look back the same way at the high-fat/protein low-carb diet)? Remember spine surgery for back pain? Remember psychoanalysts trying to tell us what kind of orgasm was right or wrong? (On the topic of orgasms, let me just say yes.) A podiatrist I like put me in orthotics and Brooks Beasts about 8 years ago. It's not really his fault -- I had a bad knee, was by then in my 30s, and this is what his training dictated. It's just that going in the opposite direction turned out to work better for me. Doing this, I've had five years without major injury, am in my 40s, and ran 3 marathons over one recent 8 week span (including Boston) -- all in simple shoes.

Actually, I think this is an opportunity for a shoe company and/or shoe stores -- just make (heck, even custom make) really simple shoes (you could even call 'em running moccasins, and boast about the complete lack of technology), and I'll come buy 'em.

Just to clarify, and to make sure I don't sound elitist, I didn't mean to say that people who run less don't need minimalist shoes or that people need different shoes based on how much they run. What I meant was that the more miles you do, the more shoe-related problems (or biomechanical, etc. for that matter) will be magnified. People who run less can go for comfort in shoes, while someone running higher mileage will have greater problems arise from elevated heel, medial post, etc. that will outweight the comfort.

I got a nasty shin spinlt on my rigt distal medial tibia. Doesn't hurt to stomp it barefoot, and it hurts on the way UP when I do a single leg hop, and the bone don't hurt so I am pretty sure it's not a stupid fracture (gonna check anyways). I wear the Air storm Moto's. They are three weeks old, and haven't given me any problems.

I am obviously intrigued by this thread. I was looking at the Zoom Maxcat's they got a modern upper and they got a Cortez like midsole which the older guys rave about. Think this will work? How should I accliamate to barefoot running so I don't get hurt?

.,.

Once again, I'll ask: anyone have expirience running barefoot on treadmills? (Mine is not a cheap one, and its pretty good quality, deck supposed to be better on your legs than grass).

I've done it a few times (on a treadmill of iffy origins) and had no problems. I regularly run on grass too, and as anyone will tell you, make sure you work up to it slowly and be prepared for the calf soreness that tends to show up for a couple of weeks until your legs are used to it. Good luck!

Running shop boy wrote:

I just know that at the end of my long Sunday run, I want something comfortable and cushioned on my feet and will pay whatever the price to have that.

I do get the sense that some people do not like to pay out regularly for shoes, thus coming up with a justification of wearing cheap shite shoes.

And the research says....

"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....

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)."

[quote]flat feet wrote:

Once again, I'll ask: anyone have expirience running barefoot on treadmills?

___________________

Flat feet -- Sorry, didn't mean to ignore the question. I have a good-quality treadmill too and I tried running barefoot on it exactly once. I did three miles or so and at the end of it had two enormous blisters. I think that the tread may be soft, but it's also rough, and I suspect one is going to generate a bit more friction keeping the tread going than one would on soft grass.

Jaguar1 -- Thx for the quotes; they're quite interesting, and don't really surprise me.

No prob, maybe if I ran on it with socks if that would prevent a potential blister problem.