Continuum of support / protection from zero (barefoot) to lots (chunky shoes).
Minimalism is obviously between (exactly where depends on how minimalist the shoes). Its not two-state digital thing, its analogue. Minimalism is clearly CLOSER to barefoot than wearing chunky shoes is.
all the good reasons - that would be all of your good reasonscongratulations, you have now taken the throne as the dumbest person I have ever come across either in person or on these message boardsyou should be proud of yourself, not easy to reach that status
....................... wrote:
I won't rehash all the good reasons for running with shoes, but I will say this: twice I raced against barefoot XC runners, and both times I intentionally tried to stomp on their foot, and both times I got them good. You better believe that if you race barefoot enough, you'll get stomped by someone, and it will not feel good. I'd be more likely to try this on the track. All you need is one person like me, and you could be out for quite a while.
I overpronate like a mother, but I wear minimalist shoes for absolutely all my running and most of my casual wear. When I wore stability shoes, I had chronic injuries. With minimalist shoes, I have the occasional issue but nothing major. I get flack for it all the time, but it works for me, so shut up.
........................ wrote:
Minimalism and barefoot are not the same, nor are they even close.
They are not the same, but they are close. The philosophy behind both is the same: a return to more natural running. I thought that was obvious.
Know your sport's history wrote:
........................ wrote:Minimalism and barefoot are not the same, nor are they even close.
They are not the same, but they are close. The philosophy behind both is the same: a return to more natural running. I thought that was obvious.
Your logic is flawed. 1 is closer to 1,000,000 than it is to zero. Barefoot and minimalist cannot be equated.
Know your sport's history wrote:
They are not the same, but they are close. The philosophy behind both is the same: a return to more natural running. I thought that was obvious.
........... wrote:Your logic is flawed. 1 is closer to 1,000,000 than it is to zero. Barefoot and minimalist cannot be equated.
You must learn to read, my friend. I clearly wrote that they are not equal. They are, however, forms of the same fundamental philosophy and have many similarities. This is fact, not flawed logic.
Know your sport's history wrote:
Know your sport's history wrote:They are not the same, but they are close. The philosophy behind both is the same: a return to more natural running. I thought that was obvious.
........... wrote:Your logic is flawed. 1 is closer to 1,000,000 than it is to zero. Barefoot and minimalist cannot be equated.
You must learn to read, my friend. I clearly wrote that they are not equal. They are, however, forms of the same fundamental philosophy and have many similarities. This is fact, not flawed logic.
But you have insisted that a large majority of elite runners go barefoot OR minimalist. This is faulty logic when extolling the virtues of barefoot running since many may go minimalist but only a tiny fraction go barefoot.
Listen, you are an idiot, so I'm done with this. All of you who run without shoes, good luck. You'll make your podiatrist very happy and your health insurer very pissed.
........... wrote:
But you have insisted that a large majority of elite runners go barefoot OR minimalist. This is faulty logic when extolling the virtues of barefoot running since many may go minimalist but only a tiny fraction go barefoot.
Listen, you are an idiot, so I'm done with this. All of you who run without shoes, good luck. You'll make your podiatrist very happy and your health insurer very pissed.
Now I see that it is you, my friend, who lacks an understanding of logic. The word "or" implies at least one and possibly more than one. Therefore my statement that most elite runners do some barefoot/minimalist training is correct. And considering the strong relationship between minimalism and barefoot running, this is certainly understandable.
By the way, I don't see a podiatrist because I have no need to. But I have enjoyed reading articles written by a podiatrist who rails against the problems caused by today's shoes. Good stuff.
Because thousands of years ago ancient man discoverd that having something protecting his feet was much better than not.
You my friend are an idiot.
You need to stop calling people idiots Jizzmo. Shoes protect us from the cold. When it's not cold, we don't need to wear them all the time.
Maybe if you used a bit of intelligence before you post, you wouldn't make such ignorant comments.
man also discovered cigarettes thought they were good for a bit and then decided they weren't that great for you
Jizzmo wrote:
Because thousands of years ago ancient man discoverd that having something protecting his feet was much better than not.
You my friend are an idiot.
yeah you are probably right. Thousands of years of people wearing shoes to protect their feet from sharp objects and cold weather is just not enough evidence. Every culture, every country across the planet wears some type of protection for their feet.
Maybe you can go back to eating raw food too. You know that having fire thing is totally over rated, we don't really "need" heat. It's not natural.
And anyone that compares wearing shoes to smoking cigarettes is beyond hope.
Jizzmo wrote:
Every culture, every country across the planet wears some type of protection for their feet.
Not true.
........... wrote:
All of you who run without shoes, good luck. You'll make your podiatrist very happy and your health insurer very pissed.
The unfortunate reality is that runners wearing modern running shoes are more likely to need the help of a medical specialist and a good insurance plan. Barefoot and/or minimalist running has been well established as a good injury prevention activity. You should give it a try.
Does running barefoot help reduce the risk of stress fractures? (especially metatarsals).
Why does no one refer to the Nike Frees anymore when talking about minimalist running? Seems like all the threads i visit about minimalism only tallk about flats recently. Is there a reason for this? Have the Frees been found to be ineffective?
please show some stats behind this.....you have absolutely no proof that someone is less likely to be injured when running barefoot/minimalist, just your opinion.
and as far as elites training minimalist it's probably during workouts and that's it. do you really think bekele, geb, tergat, etc are doing 20 mile runs in something like the streak xc??? when one of you barefoot/minimalist people can make top 10 in the US 1500m through marathon then i might stop laughing at you. until then, you jokers need to stop spouting off your opinions as fact and post something more substantial.
There's proof all over the internet. Do a some searching and you'll find a ton of info on not wearing shoes and being less injury prone.
Common Sense Chiming In wrote:
Ovett, Coe, and Cram would not even make the finals in the olympics.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
Those guys are gods, especially Coe. In his prime he could have raped any field of the top middle distance runners of today. No 800 runner today even holds a candle to Coe in his prime. And if anyone dares say that Webb or Kaouch or even Rashid "EPO Monkey" Ramzi would even stand a chance against him in a 1500...well, there's nothing I could do about it. But I would vehemently disagree.