Ridiculous Vibram Article

There is no argument that minimalist shoes and even some barefoot running are training tools for competitive distance runners. Like you said, many college athletes do strides barefoot. Most serious runners do tempo runs or track workouts in some form of minimalist shoe. I think most people on the boards here would do whatever they believe would help them be injured less and perform better. So the questions are: will incorporating some or all of the other training mileage to minimalist shoes or barefoot do this? If so, what percentage is ideal for whom? Is there a systematic way of figuring this out?

Ok Terminator X you think you are so smart. First you plant on ever publishing in a magazine you might want to learn that a lot are two words and not one. Next no I can't wear any Nike's due to the fact that their toe box is too narrow. On the other hand I wear asics due to the wider toe box that fits my foot better. Also I was just giving an example to put off the point the previous poster made. Also I do run strides barefoot and I do track workouts in either my road flats or my spikes. For me I feel this is plenty of stress so that during race time I do not have calf or achilles pain. Again I have only once had an injury in 10 years that has sidelined me. Also as to why I wear the bulky shoes is not for the heel but for the added forefoot cushioning which I feel as though I need for the impact that my feet and legs take running 120 mpw. Also why is it that hte burden of proof is on the shoe oompanies. I think the burden of proof should be on both sides. Also I would like to see some of this research you claim to have seen. Please post links. Don't try to talk about Africans and people who live in their lifestyle because I am sorry but that is not research that can be related to the average american who has been in shoes for 15 years before they start to run. Again though you can see if you look back that I came into this with a very open mind not trying to shove shoes down peoples throats but pointing out how ridiculous it is that someone running a 3:30 half marathon thinks that minmalism is the best way to improve. I advocate traning harder and training smarter. In the world of running these two things are much much more imporatant than the type of shoes you wear. Again though I will always be happy to race.

Before we decide who carries the burden of proof, could someone let me know what's being proved? Thanks in advance.

I believe the "proof" required is that running shoes decrease injury rates.

i bereeve wrote:

I believe the "proof" required is that running shoes decrease injury rates.

In general? For highly competitive runners?

Are we talking about the elimination of shoes altogether? Or just shoes with big heels?

Do Vibrams count as shoes?

What's the time frame? Are we talking about over the course of an entire running career? Or during a year of transition?

How can we account for people who make the transition improperly?

And what about people who, perhaps, wear the wrong kind of shoe?

Should we take into account the different foot shapes?

How about the general fitness of the runner? Are we going to consider the overweight?

How does the type of shoe that one wears when one is not running affect the problem? Or whether or not one went barefoot growing up?

Should climate be taken into consideration? Does running barefoot reduce injury when it is 30 below and there's snow on the ground?

I recently had a conversation with two of America's elite road racers that will remain nameless. Both agreed 100% that running barefoot, or in very minimalist shoes would dramatically improve the overall lower body and foot health of almost any runner regardless of speed. Nature designed our foot to walk and run...nature is much better at that job than a shoe company.

The problem as they see it, is that competitive runners are usually not willing to go through the adaptation process required to run barefoot in a healthy manner. If you're running 100 miles a week preparing for high level competition, you can't f**k around with easing into barefoot or minimalist shoe running.

The guy (like me) or gal that runs a bit but doesn't really care about how fast his next marathon is can afford to experiment with something like Vibrams. If I go easy for several weeks and decide I don't care for them, I haven't compromised my precious training regimen.

Most interesting was their support of runners of all levels, regardless what you have on your feet or how fast you run a marathon.

I recently had a conversation with two of America's elite road racers that will remain nameless. Both agreed 100% that running barefoot, or in very minimalist shoes would dramatically improve the overall lower body and foot health of almost any runner regardless of speed. Nature designed our foot to walk and run...nature is much better at that job than a shoe company.

The problem as they see it, is that competitive runners are usually not willing to go through the adaptation process required to run barefoot in a healthy manner. If you're running 100 miles a week preparing for high level competition, you can't f**k around with easing into barefoot or minimalist shoe running.

The guy (like me) or gal that runs a bit but doesn't really care about how fast his next marathon is can afford to experiment with something like Vibrams. If I go easy for several weeks and decide I don't care for them, I haven't compromised my precious training regimen.

Most interesting was their support of runners of all levels, regardless what you have on your feet or how fast you run a marathon.

This is a pretty good, balanced post.

And ii just went for an awesome, injury and pain-free 12k roll in my Vibrams.

This is of course anecdotal evidence, to say the least.

But here's what I really don't get. Whenever someone is injured in making the transition to bare feet, it is deemed "user-error." But when someone gets injured running in shoes, it's the fault of the shoes. Isn't there a double standard at work here?

Also: minimalism is very different from barefoot running. Most folks I know who run a lot are, more or less, minimalists. Very few are barefooters.

And perhaps there is a correlation between going barefoot and getting over an injury. But maybe this is because many runners go barefoot when they finally get serious about getting over their injury. Most runners, after being injured, become uninjured--whether they run in shoes or not.

This is what I have been saying all along. Is that people should wear what they feel works best for them. At the same time they should be willing to listen to others. I personally feel like the majority of minimalist feel the need to cram their ideals down others throats. Maybe it is due to the fact that they feel the need to be reassured, I don't know though. Personally I think that in the prime of my running it is a bad idea to try to take what maybe 2 years to make this transition. Loosing possibly the 2 best years of my running career. It is as they say if it ain't broke don't fix it. Also the entire point of me pointing this out was that it seems like so many think that switching shoes is going to make them a lot faster. In reality as runners we should show people that their training methods need to be changed for faster times not their sheos. Except for in the case of injuries. I am all for the guy who isn't able to train in shoes going minamalist if that is how he can train. At the same time though don't try to say that is the only way that people can train.

I am reminded of what my ex-coach (yes, from waaaay back in the day) told me after I had a recent conversation with him on this very topic. He said: "... if you have a system that works for you there may not be a reason to change too much. I think it’s important to remember that the best thing shoes can do is allow each of us to train and race as much as we want to without getting hurt. The old notion that shoes make you “run your fastest and jump your highest” just doesn’t hold that much water. If we can run to our heart’s content and do so without injury, how much better can it get?"

To which I would add that we are all our own experiment of one. Finding what works for one's self that allows one to enjoy the experience of and excel at running for a long, long time is, I think, the main goal. No one thing works for everybody, and those that say otherwise are just flat out wrong. One can't simply listen to what works for others and assume it will work for you. One must experiment and keep an open mind, be it with or without shoes. It's very difficult to do your experiments in private, unless all you do is run in your basement on a treadmill. So rather than take other people's inventory, why can't we all be supportive of all runners who are trying to discover what works for them.

I thought that yesterday when he said he was having surgery. Although, he is in his 50's and running fairly high mileage, so that could have something to do with it too.

I can't help but snicker at these fads and just tell my athletes........just go run, damnit.

For the record, "Just do what works best for you" is so obvious as to not even count as real advice. Of course you should do what works best for you. No shit. That's not advice. It's pointing out the obvious fact that people SHOULD do what's best for them, but without giving them any hint as to how to determine what's best for them. Anyone who gives out that advice is basically answering the question "What type of shoe would work best for me?" with "Whichever shoe works best for you." It's not advice, it's not an opinion on shoes, you're just restating the question in the form of an answer and avoiding any actual critical thinking.

That's what editors are for. A shame you don't have one, he'd have probably caught the missing punctuation in your first sentence, switch "plant" to "plan", and point out that I wouldn't actually be the one "publishing" anything, but rather "getting published".

That's my point, you don't even know what you're talking about. All Nike's do not run the same width-wise, nor do all Asics. The Nike Structure, for example, has a wider forefoot than the Asics DS Trainer. Nike makes hundreds of shoes, all of which are quite different and distinct from each other. The same goes for Asics, NB, Brooks, Adidas Saucony, etc. To say "all Nikes are too narrow for me, and all Asics are wide enough for me" is ludicrous and demonstrates a quite significant pool of ignorance on the subject. All Nike shoes are not the same, not even remotely, and to label them as such is absurd.

Had you truly read my post with an open mind you'd have noticed the part where I said that there are plenty of racing flats with significant forefoot cushioning (Brooks' Green Silence is the first to mind, Nike Lunaracer too). If that's all you need out of a shoe, why add the extra weight of a heavy trainer? Go pick up a Saucony Kinvara or a Green Silence (which is plenty wide in the forefoot at that), shed some unneeded weight, and get faster.

Because they are the ones who are proposing putting something unnatural on the foot.

Sure, why not, that's a good attitude to have. I agree. But note that this still means that shoe-proponents DO have a burden of proof placed upon them, even if the other side does as well. Pointing out that the opposing side has a burden of proof as well does not relieve the other side from theirs.

Now your turn to send me published, peer-reviewed articles that support shoe usage.

Re-read my earlier post. Is your issue with barefoot running/minimalism or with the attitudes of some of the people who advocate it?

So should we only do the two most imporatant(sic) parts of training? And again, "training smarter" is pretty ambiguous, extremely obvious, and ultimately useless "advice" unless you can define what "smarter" is. Obviously everyone would benefit by "training smarter" - what's the alternative, training dumber? And what if training in a more minimalist shoe is PART of "training smarter"? An argument could be made that a smart, careful transition to minimalist footwear would be smarter training.

Terminator X wrote:

For the record, "Just do what works best for you" is so obvious as to not even count as real advice. Of course you should do what works best for you. No shit. That's not advice. It's pointing out the obvious fact that people SHOULD do what's best for them, but without giving them any hint as to how to determine what's best for them. Anyone who gives out that advice is basically answering the question "What type of shoe would work best for me?" with "Whichever shoe works best for you." It's not advice, it's not an opinion on shoes, you're just restating the question in the form of an answer and avoiding any actual critical thinking.

For the record, it wasn't meant to be advice, I didn't think this was an advice thread. Who on this thread is seeking advice? Seems like just a bunch of people engaging in point/counterpoint to me, with a lot of anecdotal evidence (which isn't really very useful) from both sides. My comments were meant to be critical of people who are critical of what other people are choosing to try without knowing them and working with them personally. There is not universal consensus on either side of this issue and quite frankly I don't think there ever will be. To say that there is just one right way that works for all people (shoes, no shoes, support, no support) is egocentric and borders on zealotry, which is why I said what I said.

Personally, I think barefooting is something that can work for many people and should be given a try by those not happy with their running and feel that it's the shoes. People should venture in smartly and be patient, for sure, but don't be surprised if ultimately it doesn't work out, your foot structure or other physical abnormality may cause barefooting running to be problematic (perhaps this is where the rub is, but it is what I believe.) There are many articles by reputable people that discuss many of the pros and cons and I think it is an insult to their reputation as professionals to automatically assume that they can't be unbiased. In fact, nearly all the articles that I've read include caveats contrary to their main thesis. On the other hand, most (not all) the critical comments I read to their articles and on these boards (which certainly aren't vetted) are incredibly biased and often have condescending tones. Who would you trust?

Oh, and Terminator X, you've clearly demonstrated that you have researched this topic well, and I hope that you do get your article together and published somewhere, I'd love to read it.

lucKY2b wrote:

For the record, it wasn't meant to be advice, I didn't think this was an advice thread.

That wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but the "just do what works for you" line is thrown around ALOT (excuse me... a lot) here (and in real life) when people ask for advice on the subject. Just wanted to throw it out there as it was on my mind.