RE: this thread will put an end to "minimalism" and vibram forever

biggus dickus wrote:

Maybe I didn't get the "memo' but I consider barefoot/VFF different than minimalist. I want the "minimum" shoe possible that my mechanics and body allow.

I just ran a marathon this weekend in the same 6oz flats that I train in everyday and had no issues....yes, I qualified for Boston with many minutes to spare.

Hope I'm missing your sarcasm here about qualifying for Boston. Is that really a bar? Oh s---?! You Qualified for Boston wearing a flat?!? Maybe everyone should try it then!

I wear Vibrams, and I'm a freshman, and I've run 16:50 on a 5k course. Probably could have run under 16:40 if I had qualified to run at the California state meet. They've done a lot for me in terms of running form and composure in the race.

Oh yeah, based on your generalizations, I'm a 200 lb. soccer mom getting stress fractures. Thanks.

I lean toward wearing minimal shoes. I like feeling light and efficient. I just went to a NB office this week to wear-test shoes for them, and they gave me some flats/lightweight trainers from NB and competitors (Nike, Asics, etc.) to run in. When we were done, the topic of Vibrams came up. I've never tried them, but they had a pair and asked if I wanted to try them on. I could NOT get my toes in them! After 5 minutes I gave up, and the guys thought that was pretty interesting.

For what it's worth, they sent me home with a pair of shoes they're working on - sort of their answer to real minimalism. I've only worn them once so far, but I loved them. They also provided me with more substantial shoe, with a lot of motion-control and cushioning in the heel. I've worn those 2x and don't like them.

Since going to a 'less of a shoe' that is flexible, it's been hard to go back to a built up shoe. Even the one I started with while transitioning to a lighter shoe just a few months ago, I am finding my feet likes the less shoe and I definitely have less injuries.

As for the argument of minimal versus flats versus vibram, I think the main theme is "less" is better for your feet, at least it has for me.

We have a friend (he ran a 2:2x back in the 80's) and whom I recently talked to at a party said he can't run anything but in flats. He did back then and he still does today...

If you wear a shoe (any kind including Vibrams) then you are not a minimalist. That word is so over used now days.

There is no such thing as a minimalist shoe. That is what we call an oxymoron (which is also what I call most of the posters on here).

You're an oxymoron.

Not a knowledgeable coach wrote:

"Abebe Bikila raced barefoot to a gold medal in the 1960 Olympic marathon.

I am so tired of hearing this shit. There are lots of reasons why this is a totally invalid point.

1: This is a list of 4 people who ran barefoot. How many people have won medals running with shoes? Hundreds? Thousands? There's no logical reason why the fact that a couple people having success barefoot should indicate that it would work for everybody.

2: Lots of people did lots of things in races that is now considered stupid. People won Olympic marathons while drinking wine for hydration, should we also do that?

3: 4 years later, Bikila beat his world record while wearing shoes. That along makes this argument pretty stupid.

For what it's worth, I am not anti-minimalist, I sometimes do some strides in bare feet, and I generally run in fairly minimalist shoes. I do think that some people go overboard with the minimalism fad, and it also bothers me that they are unable to make coherent arguments (as per above).

People won Olympic marathons while drinking wine for hydration, should we also do that?

Yes.

The body adapts over a lifetime. We should all agree that "Minimal", i.e. barefoot, is only "natural" in the sense that we were born without shoes on. Many of us are in soft shoes/carpeted rooms from infancy, learning to move from other people in the same conditions. This causes specific changes to the structure and function of your body. If you grew up running and doing activities in protective footwear (which we probably did unless we are from a third world country or New Zealand) than additional adaptation took place there.

Trending toward soft, supportive surfaces and footwear typically happens gradually and at a young age when the body is more adaptive. Abruptly going the opposite way - "minimal" - once you've already adapted away from it would be extremely stressful. In many ways soccer mom/non-runner mentioned have the advantage of not having already adapted as much to running in protective footwear.

For many "elite" runners, to abruptly change anything is usually difficult. Without changing anything else, to drastically alter (or remove) their footwear would -initially and perhaps permanently - cause decreased efficiency and performance, and increased injury and organ/joint/soft tissue stress. Theoretically, there's a possibility they could successfully make the "switch" but it would be extremely time consuming and laborious and pose a major setback to their running career. This is one reason why so many experienced "elite" runners won't/don't/can't switch to non-protective footwear.

There are very few athletes, coaches, shoe manufacturers or health professionals, for that matter, with any knowledge to constructively add to this debate. The debate stems from a lack an understanding of biomechanics and biological adaptation. Ignorance reveals itself when ideas are extremely polarized, in this case "minimal" vs. "non-minimal".

This guy trains in minimalist shoes, he got into with some guy about why Vibram's are "unnatural" and made some good points as to why he chooses a flat over a vee-brum... wheeeeee...

http://edwardedmonds.com/are-you-sheep/#comment-169

There are very few athletes, coaches, shoe manufacturers or health professionals, for that matter, with any knowledge to constructively add to this debate. ".[/quote]

Should add shoe retailers and writers to that list

I don't particularly like barefoot running, but it seems pretty obvious that the guy would run faster four years later. That's four years of training, probably with better coaching and conditions now that he had won an OG. If he didn't run faster something would be wrong, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had improved just as much without wearing shoes.

It's like someone said earlier with the Harvard study - people who already have an excellent stride will continue to have one in shoes. It's just that Americcans have grown up heel-striking in 12+ oz shoes.

That is sooo true.

It makes way more sense to listen to a formerly overweight often injured slow runner and 10 or so researchers who have worked with/studied maybe 1000 runners for a couple of years.

I certainly wouldn't want to listen to the collective wisdom of the very best runners on the planet, the people who trained them to be that good, the companies who have poured gigantic amounts into research over 50 plus years and especially not the specialty retailers who see thousands of real life individuals per store per year and want nothing more than to keep them healthy enough to keep running and keep them coming back.

Yeah shoe guy, you shoe guys rock. I love the way you put runners in stability shoes to slow them down and prevent their natural biomechanics, you guys are so good at making slow runners stay slow.

Obviously you aren't one of my customers. I do things like take customers out of the generic moderate stability shoe they've been wearing at the suggestion of the general public (and Runners World) and transition them into the correct neutral "regular" trainer paired with a minimalist inspired lightweight for a portion of their weekly running. It was such a bad recommendation on my part that it was almost a month before my customer was running healthier (and yes, faster) than ever before.

Bowerman is not a crook wrote:

So when I see someone wearing those ugly five finger disgraces, I want to smack some sense into them.

But if there was a tiny swoosh on them Im sure they would be OK.

shoe guy wrote:

the companies who have poured gigantic amounts into research over 50 plus years

To create a demand of something we don't need? It's a smart way of making money.

We didn't "need" computers or cars either. If e-mail you my address will you send them to me?

The quotation you cited does not suggest that barefoot running would work for everyone. I'm sure you would not suggest that shod running is best for everyone. (Maybe you would considering your flawed interpretation of the article.)

If you consider it stupid, don't do it. Surely you are reasonable enough to allow others to drink/wear whatever they feel is best for them.

What argument? That barefoot running might be beneficial? So Bikila changed his mind (or maybe got a shoe contract). How about those who move from shod running to barefoot and experience improvement? According to your logic, that would make the "shoes are better" argument pretty stupid.

It is obvious that you did not read the entire linked article. There was no "argument" for barefoot running. It was simply a review of the scientific literature concerning running barefoot and with footwear.