For all you minimalist runners, how long did it take to transition?

Onerunner wrote:

I recently transitioned to zero-drop shoes from 10mm drop Nikes, and they have felt pretty natural for a couple months now. No injuries. I also purchased a pair of FiveFingers...and I have begun to use them for a couple miles once or twice a week. At this pount I feel like I could go much longer but really wish to avoid getting injured. How long does it typically take to transition to minimalist shoes, and how did you do it?

You brought "These shoes the best," out of a long retirement.

Many people will never be able to wear minimalist shoe for the simple reason that we are not all biomechanically the same. There are also those who are 5-9 135 or less that can wear anything.

We do not all point our toes straight ahead. Not everyone is a young Frank Shorter.

I don't believe that there are certain people who are completely unable to run in minimalist shoes. Unless you are unable to run at all, I see no reason why minimalist shoes simply will never work no matter what.

I am 5'9" and 125 and I don't think I could wear anything...why do you think that?

Altras, brah! I love them...moderate cushioning and zero drop. Works for me.

You love Luna Sandals or racing flats?

I have always wondered how sandals or "huaraches" would work out for me, since winter takes up six months where I live. But I am pretty sure they don't have "moderate cushioning," they are mainly a strip of rubber with a strap.

Onerunner wrote:

You love Luna Sandals or racing flats?

I have always wondered how sandals or "huaraches" would work out for me, since winter takes up six months where I live. But I am pretty sure they don't have "moderate cushioning," they are mainly a strip of rubber with a strap.

not me, that's onerunner

john utah wrote:

Onerunner wrote:

You love Luna Sandals or racing flats?

I have always wondered how sandals or "huaraches" would work out for me, since winter takes up six months where I live. But I am pretty sure they don't have "moderate cushioning," they are mainly a strip of rubber with a strap.

not me, that's onerunner

Oh you were refering to Altras...

What model of Altra shoes do you prefer? The "One" models seem to be my best fit; both the version 2.5 and V3.

I started in the 80s so you could say almost 35 years.

What do you weigh?

New study:

http://www.unisa.edu.au/Media-Centre/Releases/2017-Media-Releases/Heavy-runners-risk-injury-in-lightweight-running-shoes/#.WYLmlBIw-s0

“We found that the best shoe choice depended on your body weight.

“Lighter runners, weighing less than 71 kilograms, were able to improve their performance more when training in lightweight shoes, and this had no adverse effects on their injury risk.

“Heavier runners, weighing more than 71 kilograms, also improved their performance in lighter shoes, but had more injuries in that shoe type—and the heavier the runners got, the greater the risk of injury.

“Runners weighing over 85 kilograms—as the average Australian male does—are three times more likely to sustain an injury when wearing lightweight shoes.”

... a few months of really good running until my achilles went with little prior warning, basically (as alluded to by a previous poster).

Short, lightweight, midfoot striker who supinates a bit and has relatively rigid high-arched feet fwiw. I do much better back in more traditional running shoes now, even though I loved the feeling of the low-drop ones right until my achilles went.

The design concepts of running shoes are bogus. The notion of getting "support" from them is particularly absurd. Problems with eversion at the ankle (typically confused with pronation) are caused by thick midsoles and the instability they create in the first place.

However one trains, the important thing is to allow yourself time to adapt.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The design concepts of running shoes are bogus. The notion of getting "support" from them is particularly absurd. Problems with eversion at the ankle (typically confused with pronation) are caused by thick midsoles and the instability they create in the first place.

However one trains, the important thing is to allow yourself time to adapt.

I agree. I don't pronate though, but I'm not sure if my feet are ready to go without cushion since I have run with cushion my whole life.

LightWeightRunner wrote:

What do you weigh?

New study:

http://www.unisa.edu.au/Media-Centre/Releases/2017-Media-Releases/Heavy-runners-risk-injury-in-lightweight-running-shoes/#.WYLmlBIw-s0

“We found that the best shoe choice depended on your body weight.

“Lighter runners, weighing less than 71 kilograms, were able to improve their performance more when training in lightweight shoes, and this had no adverse effects on their injury risk.

“Heavier runners, weighing more than 71 kilograms, also improved their performance in lighter shoes, but had more injuries in that shoe type—and the heavier the runners got, the greater the risk of injury.

“Runners weighing over 85 kilograms—as the average Australian male does—are three times more likely to sustain an injury when wearing lightweight shoes.”

About 125 lbs or 57 kgs. So I guess I'd consider myself "light."

Bad Wigins wrote:

The design concepts of running shoes are bogus. The notion of getting "support" from them is particularly absurd. Problems with eversion at the ankle (typically confused with pronation) are caused by thick midsoles and the instability they create in the first place.

However one trains, the important thing is to allow yourself time to adapt.

I agree, people aren't biologically born with a need for running shoes. However if you've spent your entire life playing sports, running, and even walking in cushioned and structured shoes it's quite the process to make the conversion to essentially running barefoot.

What's the point in going minimalist if you are risking injury in doing so? The hype from a few years ago was that it reduced injury risk, because if was more "natural". The has pretty much been debunked. You yourself are concerned about injury risk. So why is it a goal to get minimal?

I could see how some barefoot dills on grass might be useful to strengthen feet. I myself love walking around barefoot in the summertime and things like that. But what's the point in making yourself run longer and longer distances on hard surfaces while wearing fivefingers or sandals or similar shoe?

If you do it correctly, it most certainly does not increase injury risk. It has already been proved to reduce injury risk numerous times. And not because it is more natural, it reduces risk of injury by letting your feet respond to the ground and grow stronger bones and muscles. I want to go minimal in order to make my future running career as injury-free as possible, and it is seriously just plain fun to run in those FiveFingers. I feel so much lighter and faster when i use them as opposed to cushioned shoes (even Altras).

Running barefoot on grass is just like running on cushion. The hard surfaces give you a better chance to work on your form and learn to land lightly.

I don't understand, why do you want to run in minimalistic shoes?

I'm not advocating that you run in marshmallow styled Hokas, but I just don't get it.

What are said benefits of running in minimalistic shoes over other shoes?

Aside from personal preference (Nike Zoom Elites), my train of thought is that quite a few professional runners have unlimited research and resources backing them (i.e. Nike with the Nike Oregon Project). If the pros of minimalistic shoes outweighed the pros of standard running shoes today by any margin at all, don't you think they would be using them for training or workouts?

I just can't get it through wrote:

I don't understand, why do you want to run in minimalistic shoes?

I'm not advocating that you run in marshmallow styled Hokas, but I just don't get it.

What are said benefits of running in minimalistic shoes over other shoes?

Aside from personal preference (Nike Zoom Elites), my train of thought is that quite a few professional runners have unlimited research and resources backing them (i.e. Nike with the Nike Oregon Project). If the pros of minimalistic shoes outweighed the pros of standard running shoes today by any margin at all, don't you think they would be using them for training or workouts?

Nope. They already do some training barefoot, but don't forget that they are being SPONSORED by big shoe companies.

That video is silly. Vibram is a big enough company that they could easily sponsor Pro runners, if any pro was willing to race in five fingers and able to win. Vibram has been around since 1935. Nike was one a small startup, but they actually make shoes that are good for running and racing (among shoes that are good for other sports). I also don't buy his second point about Kenyans. There are many other factors that contribute to Kenyans being great distance runners. "Running with the Kenyans" has some good insight on all that.