minimalist shoes for natural overpronator

Mate, most of the research you are quoting is a little out of date. My god 1991 was still in the dark ages.

Don't you think running shoes may have changed since then???

Or are you still wearing the same shoes you bought 13 years ago??

Running shop boy wrote:

My friend. I have no need of defending my business. I purely sell the best running shoes available to me.

If the EXPERTS i.e. the guys at Asics etc tell me that soft, cushioned midsoles and comfortable and supportive uppers are last years thing and that old school, minimal racers, that feel shit are the way forward then I will just change my stock and continue to stay in business.

I just know that at the end of my long Sunday run, I want something comfortable and cushioned on my feet and will pay whatever the price to have that.

I do get the sense that some people do not like to pay out regularly for shoes, thus coming up with a justification of wearing cheap shite shoes.

The Asics or

rep will sell shoes based on the idea that a human being NEEDS all this technology in order to justify the price for a $135 Kayano. The idea that a human needs a shoe in order to run is complete and utter bullshit. Explain to me how early and current hunter gatherer societies, unshod, survive? Shouldn't they be suffering from crippling shin splints and the like? In fact, the healthiest feet in the world come from countries where shoes are anamalous. Shoes weaken the feet, elevated heels transfer the absobsion of shock from the ankle (where it's supposed to be) to the knee (which is not designed to be an impact absorber).The shoe company is out to make $$$$. That's the bottom line. I have worked at many a running store myself, and I can't tell you how many people came through the door and were stunned at the trashed racing flats I had on my feet. "That gives you enough support and cushion?" they ask. "Nope. I don't want any of either. How mcuh should I have?" I ask them, They can't tell me -- no one can. When I tell customers that human beings don't need shoes by design, they're shocked at first and then say, "Well I guess that makes sense. I mean, people from Kenya go barefoot all the time, right?"So before you go thinking that you need this Nimbus or whatever big hunk of shit is on your foot (as virtually every shoe sold in America today is a big hunk of shit) just remember that you don't need shoes so don't be dependent on them. For some education, look how your beloved Asics arranges shoes at http://www.asics.co.jp You'll see that all the joggers shoes (2090, Kayano, Nimbus, etc.) are all listed under "Fun Runner", while an entirely seperate line exists for "Performance Runner", where the heaviest shoe in the line is essentially a Verdict DS and the racers look like track spikes. That's the best system I've seen.

Well out of touch.... wrote:

Mate, most of the research you are quoting is a little out of date. My god 1991 was still in the dark ages.

Don't you think running shoes may have changed since then???

Or are you still wearing the same shoes you bought 13 years ago??

Some of it is old.... some of it is new. Do the principles of Physics change over time? No!

ok, so most of you here seem to shun orthotics and corrective shoes. anyone, please tell me what you think of this...

i am a forefoot runner for 12 years. never had any problems until a host of "compartment injuries" in my calves over the past 3 years. i wear orthotics and slightly posted reliable shoes. a chiropracter/orthopedist insisted i start changing my stride, heel-toe on all runs.

anyone ever tried forcing a change in stride? any thoughts?

Jag: Haven't you realized yet that sound research and logic have no place in this thread's subject? You and Trackhead are 100% on the money; but, for some folks you will always have to spend big bucks to "equip" yourself.

Hey, remember the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico? ...hundreds of miles in "tire" sandals?

(By the way, I've got my own research: 20 years of logs that showed every major injury followed the purchase of a new high-tech trainer; I always went back to my Ultimates, Jayhawks, Explorer, etc.)

This is an interesting argument, I agree that maybe shoes are becoming a little 'over engineered' but you have to be careful in your statements. for example in Japan Asics does market its shoes very differently, many of the shoes we see as serious trainers are marketed as fun running shoes and our racers are their elite training shoes. There are other reasons for this though. If you look at any serious Japanese distance runner (and lets face it they are all at 10k and above) you will notice that they all have a very similar low knee lift, heel striking action. this is something which is coached and which they believe is a positive in terms of distance running, this technique is also low impact, and is more suited to lighter, thinner, less cushioned footwear, look at any western world class distance runner, Mottram, Radcliffe etc... theres a lot more impact in the foot plant, hence the need for more cushioning. I think its all relative though. If you see most good distance runners training they tend to wear fairly light unobtussive shoes, skylons, triax tc, rotterdams etc... this isn't just because they are lighter than the average guy/gal but they are also more efficient. The market for running shoes has changed. Twenty years ago there were more serious fast efficient runners, so shoes were targeted at them, now its more recreational, bigger heavier slower runners, they are the ones buying the shoes, and you can't knock the companes for taking advantage.

Similarly getting back to the Japanese, they ahve amazing depth in the mararthons, hundreds of people running sub 2.14, thousands running sub 2.20, this is wheer the market lies in Japan, tehy ahve enough fast runners to sustain a market of lightweight trainers and flats, that market doesn't exist here anymore, its changed. I think its obvious that a 140lb guy doesn't need a pair of shox or something, f you are moving relatively quickly you don't need a hunk of eva between you and the road, the natural moton of your body is cushioned enough...

I've spent a significant amount of time in Japan----

Nobody runs in the "fun runners." Lightweight, minimal shoes are what everybody wears....fast, slow, thin, fat...The only guys (or gals) who get injured are the ones running 200 miles per week (which is a fairly large number in Japan).

By the way, the guy from the running store is a moron.

"By the way, the guy from the running store is a moron"

I thought this was a forum for reasoned discussion based upon both personnal experiences and scientific findings.

That is nothing but a childish comment

Is it possible for people to consider that different people will have different needs based upon many different factors. Also it may be necesary to consider, when focusing on many of the stereotypically barefoot running nations, that the environment on which they run upon is not that of a largely concrete/tarmac environment in which most of us find ourselves. All factors should be considered if we are to create a fully considered arguement

It may also be wise to consider what works for one may cause injuries to others. While most that take part in these forums are experienced runners, some may read as new runners looking to gain advise. Therefore it may be prudent to suggest that extreme advise in any direction may cause more harm than good - 'all cases should be judged on there own merit'

While i am not sure of your background i believe it is clear that you do not often read scientific papers. If you did you would know that it is both possible to find work to both support and reject your hypothesis/null hypothesis.

If you were to research this area for yourself you would see that you could follow strands of thought that would take you either way in this 'arguement'. Both strands would be supported by very credible scientific research. Just because you have chosen to back one side of an arguement i believe it is ignorant to call the science that does not back your ideas as purely there to create money fot the shoe manufacturers

Why is it that we should believe that shoe companies 'tailoring' shoes to what they believe are scientifically proven biomechanical needs is in an attempt to make money, and yet you working in a running store (which i presume is a business - set up to make money?)'operating' on shoes (obviously with the extensive lower limb biomechanical research that you have) is in the best interest of your 'customers'?

"This is an interesting argument, I agree that maybe shoes are becoming a little 'over engineered' but you have to be careful in your statements. for example in Japan Asics does market its shoes very differently"

A very reasoned argument, at last!!

I spent much of my running life with a certain Mr Ovett and he always believed that by wearing the heavier types of running shoes in training, meant when you put on your spikes to race you would fly - I guess it worked for him and the legions of Phoenix athletes that trained with him.

One piece of advice I was given as a junior is to not force changes upon your running style, it will develop as you develop. Running on your heels after running on your toes all this time could cause all sorts of imbalances in your body - you are maybe better off sorting the compartment injuries. There are the usual suspects, regular massages, ice baths after running etc. Maybe you have tried these.The answer maybe could lie with your shoes...Since you are landing on your fore foot, why the orthotics - all their work is done is at the back end and mid part of the foot - to sort out arch flexing and all that. And why the posted shoes, again, your by passing all the support -because you are on your fore-foot. A lot of podiatrists I have met will see you walking and prescribe an orthotic, making the assumption that your running style is a speeded up version of walking - which we all know is cobblers.Possibly, your next pair of shoes should be one with less support, with greater mid foot flexibility. The less flexible the shoe, the more strain on the calves to flex the shoe. The only thing you can do is try.The one main thing I find with customers who land on their fore-foot is that they need a softer cushioning. As a ton of miles on hard surfaces with a hard shoe is not the most comfortable.Having read all this post I know i'm going to be caned by the minimalist shoe folk, but I felt it necessary to add my penny worth.Regards

newenglandrnr wrote:

ok, so most of you here seem to shun orthotics and corrective shoes. anyone, please tell me what you think of this...

i am a forefoot runner for 12 years. never had any problems until a host of "compartment injuries" in my calves over the past 3 years. i wear orthotics and slightly posted reliable shoes. a chiropracter/orthopedist insisted i start changing my stride, heel-toe on all runs.

anyone ever tried forcing a change in stride? any thoughts?

One interesting thing to consider, is if fancier shoes are so much better, why haven't injuries significantly decreased in the last 30 years? Anyways, what are the best "minimalist" Asics shoes, and what are the worst. I'm assuming Kayanos and Kojis are pretty bad, what about 2090s?

Thank you for your thoughts.

I should also have mentioned that I believe my "compartment" problems result from overpronation while running on my forefoot. Of course, traditional orthotics only "correct" your heel-toe overpronation...but what happens if you need a posted forefoot and don't have one? No flexible/inflexible shoe will cure that, and I am dubious that a posted forefoot will even work. Thoughts?

newenglandrnr wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts.

I should also have mentioned that I believe my "compartment" problems result from overpronation while running on my forefoot. Of course, traditional orthotics only "correct" your heel-toe overpronation...but what happens if you need a posted forefoot and don't have one? No flexible/inflexible shoe will cure that, and I am dubious that a posted forefoot will even work. Thoughts?

The reason I wrote what I did is I have the same problem. I spend all my time on my fore-foot. The niggles I get are in my achillies. I never have problems doing steady mileage. I usually run 70-80 miles a week and go on the track once every two weeks during the autumn, winter and most of spring. The problems arise when I start the long quicker stuff on the track in May and June. I now do all the good stuff - ice baths, massage, running on grass - but the its basic maintainence stuff to get me through the season, my achillies are still wrecked come September

I have tried a lot of things to rid myself of the problems - orthotics, stable shoes, lightweight shoes, flexible, inflexible - the whole damn lot. But nothing out there slowed down over-pronation.

You should probably see a specialist physio, who is also a runner. I've had the benefit of meeting someone who works with most of the top athletes in the South East of the UK and he explained most of this to me. He reckoned nothing can slow down my over-pronation except lots of calf strengthening exercises, which he showed me what to do - they're very techical!! Nothing would stop the impact problems - as you always land on your fore-foot. But stronger calves will lower the amount of niggles. He said good shoes, grass, ice and massage.

Since I opened my store i've have the benefit of shoes at a slightly cheaper price. Anything flexible, with a soft fore-foot i'll try. Above 200 miles and they are in the bin. Since then i've not had as many injuries and am able to carry out a lot more training than I used to be able to do.

I don't have the answers as I still get injured, but I don't think there is an absolute answer. I hope this is of some help.

Regards