Great article on barefoot/minimalist running!

Really I think most of the reaction against minimalists or barefooters reflects an insecurity about whether they are doing the right thing or not. Everyone runner will experience injury and its only natural to react against another postion in order to try and affirm your own.

There is way more evidence to support minimalism. However, none of this evidence suggests a "truth", though no scientific evidence can ever provide an ultimate truth.

What really annoys me is this ascertation that minimalism will doom you to a destruction of your body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxnZRm-WT50

Pause the video at 32 seconds. It took a long time for American marathoning to get back to where it was back then. Im not saying its the shoes, but the shoes reflect an attitude that the shoe wasn't that important. Now its all anyone talks about. High tech shoes will not keep you from injuries, this is both anecdotally true and emperically based. Nearly every runner I know who has worn clod hoppers has been injured at some point, same goes for minimalists. The same can be said from running in flats, it hasn't been proven to prevent injury so I dont understand the problem of just strapping on some skimpy shoes and just running with as natural of a foot strike as you can achieve with shoes.

Doesn't comfort matter? I know for me that running in the Pegasus is a heck of a lot more comfortable then running in Zoom Milers or of course the ridiculously uncomfortable Five Fingers. If I am more comfortable I can run more miles. If I run more miles I become a better runner...

Comfort counts.

I wore Pegasus for years. Now they feel like heavy, stiff bricks, after years of being in flats and barefoot. Once you go flat, you never go back.

I read the article; reads like sales tool in helping the BRC sell more shoes. I'll bet the key for Mark P running as well as he did was NOT the amount of foam under his foot.

Regardless of other considerations, wearing lower,lighter footwear has the effect of gravitating the runner to more natural surfaces, due to the improved stability and better proprioceptive feedback. Running trails or soft terrain in elevated, heavier shoes is risking serious injury to the ankle, at minimum, and the enjoyment of the foot adapting to every footstrike is denied. Even if lighter footwear gained me nothing (and I believe that it has added at least ten years to my competitive career), I would still do it for the improved kinesthetic benefits.

I have tried virtually every footwear tech out there, and paid $130 for a pair of shoes. I now run in my $35 retro "casual" shoes- a simple yet durable sheath of EVA rubber that adapt to my needs in the thousands of miles I will share with them.

Yes, comfort matters. Paradoxically even in an activity where to achieve any sort of success and/or satisfaction you need to explore your "comfort zone" often getting out of it, or no?Running is not really like driving, and wheels are not really feet.And simply running more miles will not necessarily turn you into a better, faster, uninjured runner or even just a plainly satisfied runner. Not everybody, i would not say even the majority of top level and recreational athletes. What is going to work ultimately is probably the right mix of ALL training variables. And footwear, like mileage is such a variable.The minimalism issue, approached responsibly, calls on this - the MIX of VARIABLES - more so than it tries to simply convince what sort of shoe to wear, or not to wear any at all.That is why saying, for example, Barefoot ONLY, makes very limited sense.

Dr philosopher wrote:

Doesn't comfort matter? .... If I run more miles I become a better runner...

Comfort counts.

To make the assertion that shoes have any value whether it is good or evil is unnecessary. Cushioned technology exists to lessen the load (think: % of americans classified as obese) to help augment overuse injuries on solid surfaces (think: pavement, asphalt). I think that people certainly can incorporate flats and minimalism to help strengthen legs, but like everything else it has to be done gradually and also appropriately.

A number of years ago I was an ardent believer in the benefit of racing flats to train in. Now, after moving to a more urban area with less access to soft surfaces for everyday runs, I find the less cushioned (but better feeling) shoes simply are leading to more injuries than I had previously with the same training. My environment changed, and as a result I have to adapt to that. For every minimalist bozo out there, also in existence is someone condemning them for their heresy. Turns out it is all about the individual needs.

Can you imagine a 300+ lb person trying to go running barefoot on pavement? I thought not. Can you imagine a 120 lb guy running barefoot on a soft grass field? Of course.

Are you asserting that you have always been running with some sort of injury?

Mogdor the Hamstrung wrote:

... I find the less cushioned (but better feeling) shoes simply are leading to more injuries than I had previously with the same training....

You don't sound to agenda-ed. But before worrying about 300 pounders in unlikely running barefoot scenarios, or minimalist "bozos" doing their thing, I would deal with your chronic or recurring injury problem.

tpcb

the point could be wrote:

Not everybody, i would not say even the majority of top level and recreational athletes. What is going to work ultimately is probably the right mix of ALL training variables. And footwear, like mileage is such a variable.

The minimalism issue, approached responsibly, calls on this - the MIX of VARIABLES - more so than it tries to simply convince what sort of shoe to wear, or not to wear any at all.

That is why saying, for example, Barefoot ONLY, makes very limited sense.

Yeah, this is why sometimes I'm running barefoot. Only sometimes. I believe such running have very strong impact on my technique (can't prove it tho).

After years of martial arts, where I was forces to run barefoot, I cannot execute heel-strike, just cannot. It feel awkward, like running on hands or something. I never had knee injury in 3 years of running, which is amazing for me - my knees are VERY injury prone, I can't even ride bike due to knee pain.

On the other hand, I had few problems with ankles.

Lagat wears shoes, Geb wears shoes, Bekele wears shoes....i'll stick with shoes>barefoot. They may have started barefoot, but not by choice. Im sure they're still doing fine wearing their regular trainers and not running in flats everyday. Works for them and thats who i care about.

My guess is that, over time, your body simply adapts to either being barefooted or not. For example, if you have been shod for the first 13 years of your life and then suddenly start running in high school, your body has already largely set in place the muscles, tendons and ligaments necessary for ambulation. The older you get, the more difficult it will be to undo that structure which has developed from birth until you finally decide to chuck the shoes and go au naturel. Your body can adapt to change but not to sudden shock and can do so only gradually. This is where the minimalist argument fails. Ideally, it would be great to run barefooted but in practice we are all victims of our past shoe wearing habits. The older we get, the more difficult it will be to change our anatomy, IMHO.

Where does soccer cleats fall on the scale of mini and max pain shoes??

SSR wrote:

Lagat wears shoes, Geb wears shoes, Bekele wears shoes....i'll stick with shoes>barefoot. They may have started barefoot, but not by choice. Im sure they're still doing fine wearing their regular trainers and not running in flats everyday. Works for them and thats who i care about.

Lagat is sponsored by a SHOE company, Geb is sponsored by a SHOE company, Bekele is sponsored by a SHOE company.

Whether or not they started barefoot by choice or not is irrelevant...UNLESS starting barefoot (running or just living, by choice or necessity) better developed the feet and lower legs and made them a more durable runner during the careers.

I care what works for me and what makes sense. I could care less what any of the three runners you mentioned wears on their feet when they run.

-----------

On the comfort issue, sure if you like the shoe and you are happy with what you are doing and staying healthy, have at it and enjoy yourself. However, if you aren't running like you would barefoot in your shoe you are running with inferior to bad biomechanics/efficiency (probably heel striking, DEFINITELY not having the full achillies stretch reflex, and so on and the body IS a chain).

caveman: This is where the minimalist argument fails. Ideally, it would be great to run barefooted but in practice we are all victims of our past shoe wearing habits. The older we get, the more difficult it will be to change our anatomy, IMHO.

You could as easily say "this is where the running argument fails. Ideally, it would be great to run but in practice we are all victims of our past sedentary habits. The older we get, the more difficult it will be to change."

The minimalist argument doesn't fail here any more than the suggestion that sedentary middle aged adults should exercise; it's just, as with almost any new thing, patience is needed.

(For the record, I'm not suggesting trainer wearers need to lighten their footwear with the same urgency as couch potatoes need to get off their fat asses.)

Caveman,Not all, but if there is one thing that most minimalists I have "read", talked to, exchanged views and experiences with, agree on, is:BEING GRADUALWhy do critics of minimalism keep on saying, in essence, the reason why minimalism/barefoot arguments fail is because you have to be gradual?Why?Please help me understand. What is the problem with choosing to be gradual?Why is my argument flawed?

caveman wrote:

Your body can adapt to change but not to sudden shock and can do so only gradually. This is where the minimalist argument fails.

I've been wondering about this. I vaguely remember reading something relating hemolysis upon foot impact with anemia. Can you offer more on the subject? Ultra runners are starting to do with less and less and shoe, and I wonder how this could effect performance and long-term health.

Being gradual is key, but many athletes have biomechanical imbalances that are bound to be exploited by minimalism even with a careful progression. These imbalances need to be fixed before even considering a switch to minimalism, because minimalism itself will not help them. True story: I fractured two metatarsals in my foot solely from barefoot running about 160 meters on grass in the summer. Minimalism is NOT for everyone.

True story: I fractured two metatarsals in my foot solely from barefoot running about 160 meters on grass in the summer.

Holy shit, that can't be typical. Any idea why a tenth of a mile on grass was too much for your metatarsals? History of anorexia, drink no milk and a gallon of Coke per day, structural anomalies... ?

indeed bonecruncher.i did 42195m barefoot on cobblestones and asphalt and didnt break a thing.Still i would never use this as an argument for barefooting or minimalism.In fact i ran with shoes today.If you really want to know, an old pair of NBs 826 (not linked to JB deal obviously - just what i picked out of the shoe closet first.)

bonecruncher wrote:

True story: I fractured two metatarsals in my foot solely from barefoot running about 160 meters on grass in the summer.

Holy shit, that can't be typical. Any idea why a tenth of a mile on grass was too much for your metatarsals? History of anorexia, drink no milk and a gallon of Coke per day, structural anomalies... ?