Minimalist, what was your experience?

thanks for the feedback. i think we hit on a good point. i find that as a serious runner, i have to include strengthening/stretching type exercises in my training. in defense of the minimalists, it's much better to teach your body to run efficiently and strengthen/lenghten your muscles and tendons. these days most runners are of a recreational mindset, which i don't discourage, but the shoe companies have inevitabley marketed to them, they outnumber us. i believe that built up shoes are a quick fix to the inefficiences we may all have in our natural strength and gait. it's so much easier to just perscribe someone orthodics than to tell them they can stregthen they're legs over time.

I think this point can be somewhat validated by the fact that we often read in various print material (newspaper, magazines, books, etc.) how the kenyans go for strolls. I think we've all heard / read about the kenyans taking 3 hour strolls on sundays as part of there rest or what ever you would like the training day to be classified as.

I don't meant to signal the Kenyans out, I just think that is probably an example that is more widely known, but wouldn't be surprised if this happens in a lot of countries where they don't own cars or other modes of transportation other than walking.

Check out Toby Tanser's Book Train Hard Win Easy, you'll find this. Maybe if I have the time I'll put down some of the qoutes / references, but don't count on it, because as you can see from the seer # of questions I ask I'm lazy when it comes to the research thing. I'm working on that though. This does however, make me think I should start walking more. More time on the feet / legs = less time sitting = more calories burned = more efficent = faster and less injured. Could be possible.

GS

But 2hrs a day is not a huge waste of energy.

It's just a function.

I adddressed this already.

You don't think someone like Gebrselassie was getting atleast 2hrs a day of running,

That's an anecdote (and for that matter, one that is difficult to verify), not a scientific study. I'm not interested in unverifiable anecdotes.

s. It seems far easier and more logical to just use your body weight as a counterbalance and do the running.

Why do you refuse to answer this simple question ? The question is not, "should one do weight training instead of running to strengthen the feet", the question is, "does one need to run every day in flats to acquire those (presumed) strength benefits ?" And you still haven't even pretended to answer it.

Why do you refuse to answer this simple question ? The question is not, "should one do weight training instead of running to strengthen the feet", the question is, "does one need to run every day in flats to acquire those (presumed) strength benefits ?" And you still haven't even pretended to answer it.

I'll take a stab at this, but I think the answer has already been given. I've only been training in flats for about 2 months now and seriously thinking about footware in a more broad perspective for maybe 4. Anyway I think the answer to your question is probably no, but think of it this way. When you train, you start gradual and your muscle develop new fibers and grow stronger. This is a response to the training and thus the body develops the necessary strength to handle this training. Then you decide ok now instead of just two miles per day, I want to start running 3, then 4, then 5, and so on. Well the more you add the more the body grows, the more the muscle fibers grow, the stronger you become. It's like going for a long run, you fatigue one set of fibers, so another is activated, then another, and another until you finish your run. You keep going farther and farther trying to fatigue more fibers so that you will gain more strength. I think that the same may hold true for running in flats. It just a continual cycle of stressing more, gaining more strength, stressing again, and so on.

Is there a point where you will not gain more strength, I don't know. Can you have overkill, I also don't know that. Does it make more sense to build the strength necessary to provide resistance to injury and not rely on equipment such as shoes and orthotics, to me it does.

Obviously trackhead will have a much better answer than mine. Injury prevention I think is the main point for doing the running everyday in flats.

And if you are injury free with a mix of trainers, flats, spikes, clown shoes, or whatever then DON'T CHANGE. Keep doing what you are doing, but other people have benefitted from this minimalist idea.

GS

Agreed. I tried the quick fixes, more than once I might add. Three pairs of orthotics, numerous different standard American trainers, and alot of injuries, missed seasons, and unhappiness, I don't think I have much to lose trying to train in more minimal shoes. What is the worst that can happen I get injured again. Well that wouldn't be anything new.

trackhead wrote:

JY,

I am curious to know why you would believe that an average healthy person would be built so poorly as they would not survive in a hunter/gatherer environment.

This question has as much to do with addressing my points as would me asking you what the paleolithic record was for the marathon.

I'm a masters runner. Did hunter gatherers even live that long?

Hi. While I don't agree with your answer, at least you are responsive to the question. I understand some people have enjoyed good results training in flats, and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle applies equally to them as it does to anyone else.

I would like to respond to this:

When you train, you start gradual and your muscle develop new fibers and grow stronger. This is a response to the training and thus the body develops the necessary strength to handle this training. Then you decide ok now instead of just two miles per day, I want to start running 3, then 4, then 5, and so on. Well the more you add the more the body grows, the more the muscle fibers grow, the stronger you become.

Actually, it is generally believed that you don't develop new fibers (there has been speculation but probably not true, rare at best). Fibers often become thicker (hypertrophy) though not likely with running. Paul Tergat doesn't look like he's gotten very much hypertrophy. Neuromuscular adaptions may take place, this is most likely the primary source of strength increase. Connective tissue may also adapt (though very slowly). This may help reduce soreness, and even improve injury resistance.

However, for the most part, strength gains are not what one would call "volume effects". That is, doing more and more produces rapidly diminishing returns. For example, there are studies that compare weight training 3x/week with 2x/week and show that there is very little difference in results. If it were a volume effect, then you'd see sprinters doing 100 mile weeks. But you don't, because it isn't (or at least, that's what todays exercise scientists and coaches believe)

Thanks, I definently understand and agree with you. Nice example with Tergat. I was just trying to make a pretty general statment, in hopes you pick up what i was trying to say, and I think you did so we can agree on that.

Your explanation is better than mine so everybody go with that. The diminishing returns effect makes alot of sense to me, but it is hard to argue with personal trial and error and the success achieved by some people.

Could we possibly say that by training in flats exclusively allows for greater neuromuscler adaptation to take place. Along with more strengthening of connective tissues, ligaments, and whatever else us humans have got inside us?

I thought going into this discussion we were all aware that there are way to many varibles at work during the gait cycle to every come up with a scientific study that brings verifiable data that can be applied to everyone.

The diminishing returns effect makes alot of sense to me, but it is hard to argue with personal trial and error and the success achieved by some people.

I think it boils down to two things:

(1) a lot of people go from training exclusively in trainers to training exclusively in flats. So most people probably never test the diminishing returns idea. It seems a lot of people who come to this board tend to want to jump from no training in flats straight to all training in flats.

(2) Maybe some people just have trouble with trainers. For example, the squishy heel on the Nike pegasus could potentially cause problems for people who would do just fine in light trainers or flats (for example, I recommended light trainers for a friend because his feet were very unstable in the pegasus). So my position is that it's not as much the benefits of the strengthening effects as it is that for some people, it may be the case that trainers are not effective in providing "protective" function.

Regarding the two points you just made:

1) There might be some merit there, but basically I think it just boils down to trial and error and the if it ain't broke don't fix it approach. Although people have said that doing a mix is working and they are getting desired results so they are not going to run completely in flats. At the same time we have people in H-streets also doing well. Whatever seems to work for you makes sense to me. Personally I really don't see myself going down to the H streets for a few reasons. I don't believe that I am strong enough and durable enough to wear them at my present state and I'll see how a mix of lightweight trainers and flats work. If the mix works, why change in my opinion as long as I am healthy and can run, thats all I am looking for, others will have different opinions regarding improved function, proporception, and so on. For individuals I think we can agree that you have to be an experiment of one and find out for yourself.

2) I agree 100%. Different people, different shoes, differnet training, etc.

Depends on disease and natural disaster.

My point is relevant in that +2hrs of daily running about is not inappropriate for a healthy human being. If it was, humans would have dies off long ago.

elflord wrote:

the question is, "does one need to run every day in flats to acquire those (presumed) strength benefits ?" And you still haven't even pretended to answer it.

I don't know where the dividing line is. I would argue that time not spent in your racing shoe is time that those muscles and such are not getting adequate stimulation. Why rob your feet/legs of time where they could be getting stronger and better prepared to race on the track in a spike?

Hypertrophy is an increase in the size of muscle fibres and therefore, the size of the muscle. There is temorary hypertrophy, usually when the muscles are flush will blood and fluid, such as immediately after a workout. There is acute muscle hypertrophy where the muscle fibre has permenantly increaced in mass and volume.

Hyperplasia, a splitting of and creation of new muscle fibres has been documented in only a few cases. I thin one was with a cat or hamster and a few times in humans, but only with high level bodybuilders. It remains to be seen where hyperplasia can/does occur in the general population.

But that's besides the point. As distance runners (and even sprinters) the goal of this transition is not hyperplasia -- we don't want big muscle for instant power, such as a weightlifer. We want effective muscles that are lower in mass and weight but can do high levels of work for long periods of time. Ultimately, we're gaining muscle endurance.

Trackhead/Matt

You guy's are really getting technical here....running geeks for sure!

On the topic of minimalist shoes. You had mentioned the Supernova Comp earlier....Note the '05 Supernova Comp is available right now. The '05 Comp dials in at exactly 9.0 ounces for a men's size 9. The fit is performance snug, low profile, responsive, and flexible. The shoe feels most similar to our RaTS Racer of days past...

Cheers

Mike

I think the point is being missed. The theory is that standard trainers are restrictive and do not allow your body to absorb shock the way it biomechanicaly evolved to do so. Many have argued that you will get injured less and, thus, improve performance.

Improving your form is good, but really misses the point of changing shoes. I think these are two different topics.

**************

trackhead, it seems that a major point in your argument is improved form. I think form is very important, and if this is indeed a result of making the transition to flats, then obviously it's a good thing. However, as I've said before, anyone can improve their form in basically any shoe. I changed from a "heel-slapper" to a mid-foot striker in trainers. I really don't think people need to move to entirely different style of shoe just to learn to not land so poorly every step.

For the people talking about how they've had trouble going from running in trainers to working out or racing in flats or spikes, then yes, certainly you should do a few runs or a few workouts in your racing shoes before your race. I found that once I stopped being a heel-striker, my workouts in spikes left me with no sort of excess soreness whatsoever. I think this change you flat-wearers see is from improved form. Again, this can be achieved while you wear trainers.

So, I think racing or working out in flats is probably an advantage since you're getting used to what you'll be doing in races. However, why should one have to suffer the downtime of "building up" from scratch (to avoid injury) during the transition phase just to train in flats all the time? Aside from the improved form (which as I've said 100 times, can be done in trainers), what is the significant advantage of training all the time in flats? Faster easy days maybe? This is the only thing I can see as being an advantage, if you can even call it that (I go by effort, what my time is doesn't mean jack). I think the improved form is what all these "advantages" you're talking of stem from. So, I say save yourself a lot of lost training and money on new shoes and just work on your form. You'll see the improvement in your times, reduction in soreness, and fewer injuries.

Can you post a picture of that and maybe a website on where to get it?

I loved the 04 fit, but I knew the heal was too high and that stinking plastic post thing hurt my arch. Did they do something about the plastic deal?

Thanks,

GS

JY wrote:

trackhead wrote:

JY,

I am curious to know why you would believe that an average healthy person would be built so poorly as they would not survive in a hunter/gatherer environment.

This question has as much to do with addressing my points as would me asking you what the paleolithic record was for the marathon.

I'm a masters runner. Did hunter gatherers even live that long?

************

Yes, they did! There is a common misunderstanding about the longevity of people of ancient societies. Average life spans were roughly half what ours our now. HOWEVER, the infant mortality rate drasticaly affects this average. Remember, If one man lives to be 60 and a second dies at birth, that is an average life span of 30 years. Ancient people often lived well into their 60's.

Eastbay has the '05 supernova comp

http://www.eastbay.com/catalog/productdetail.cfm?TID=5555-43200515420143150145147-0&module=sideNav&action=keywordSearch&supercat=other&sku=552338&model_nbr=58050