Stability, Motion Control, Cushioned-Lydiard says all this technology is rubbish

I think I remember a long time ago a post that was kind of about this sort of thing. Less Lydiard, but still the same thing. I was directed to

www.barefootrunning.com

It's a bit extremeist, but none-the-less, it is interesting

.

Strengthen the small stableizer muscles in the feet and arches. Do some toe raises, walk on inside edge and outside edge of feet, walk toe-in, toe-out, on your heel with toes off ground, high on toes forward and backward. Work on both strength and flexibility.

Correct your biomechanics. Toe off your big toe. Run smooth and light on your feet. Lots of barefoot running really improves your running efficiency.

Do this stuff, and you wont need orthotics and expensive shoes. And you'll stay injury free

I agree with the '70's runner regarding shoes. I remember wearing Tiger shoes back in those days which had less cushioning than today's racing shoes. And I was younger then, but I was never injured at all and I don't remember hearing about stress fractures, plantar fasciitis, achilles tendonitis, etc. like we do now. People ran a lot of miles and were rarely hurt. I think that Lydiard has a very good point.

It might be great for a lot of people. I'd done it for three or four years and noticed that I'd been spending a lot of time complaining about my feet hurting. A few weeks ago they hurt so much I couldn't stand to be barefoot and for some reason decided to go back to the conventional pattern and my feet were fine by the next day. Maybe just a coincidence.

kritter wrote: Correct your biomechanics. Toe off your big toe. Run smooth and light on your feet. Lots of barefoot running really improves your running efficiency.

Do this stuff, and you wont need orthotics and expensive shoes. And you'll stay injury free

I'm beginning to come around to this idea. It seems the more I spend on shoes and orthotics, the more often I get injured.

Relying less on your shoes and more on your feet and muscles makes a lot of sense. People like Gordon Pirie maintain that most modern shoes, with their high net heel lift, force people to become heel strikers. This would seem to lengthen the support phase of your gait, which would not only waste energy but also put more weight-bearing strain on the foot and leg,resulting in problems like excessive pronation. Without that big chunk of rubber under your heel, it seems that you would tend more toward a mid- to forefoot strike, just as you run when you're barefoot, which would decrease the duration of the support phase. So maybe Arthur's right -- the shoes are encouraging poor technique and hurting people. I've always liked Tiger/Asics because they generally don't have the huge heel wedge that some shoe cos. prefer. I liked Arthur's shoes, too, but mainly because they looked cool.

Thinking back, it seems that many of the best were obvious forefoot strikers, such as Viren and Ryun, two guys who I think had great technique (except for the Ryun head-roll, of course). And notable examples today are Geb and Sammy K.

bumper bumper eat my jumper

This is absolutely astonishing. I was going to write an almost identical e-mail, for I too ran in those Lydiard shoes, and I too, along with several friends, suffered miserably from the same blisters. I would not have mentioned, however, Lydiard's emphasis on sprints, but mostly because, as best I can tell, no one does those anymore. In my own case, I improved my running significantly when I added them to my training. By the by: Are you the same AB who translated Xenophon?

Tom Matti has "discovered" sandals to be the best.

http://www.higuy.org/

[quote]ds-man wrote:

Anyone remember the shoes Lydiard helped design for Converse about 15 years ago? I don't recall the model of the shoe (maybe the "lydiard trainer" or something), but they were lightweight, sliplasted trainers that were supposedly designed to allow the foot to do what it was supposed to do, like he says.

[quote]

You mean these shoes???

what shoes? that's the eastbay site

Bring back the Onituska Tiger Marathon flat!!!

I trained in flats in h.s. in the late 60's to early 70's and they were exclusively Onitsuka (the pre-ASICS name) or early NIKE, when the swoosh logo was not yet referred to by that name.

Someone posted that those shoes are like the NIKE Cortez of today. Well, the trainers were. The racing flats had one Less Layer of cushion.

As noted elsewhere we never got injured from the shoes.

After a decade I returned to running and lo 'n behold the old Blue Ribbon Sports stores were no more (I used to love those places) NIKE was a behemoth, and Phil Knight very Rich.

At first I ran in whatever I could find on the shelves. Back then it was the ancient and honorable Etonic KM's. I never got hurt.

I moved to some blue, silver and white flats when NIKE started opening some smalle stores. Again no injuries.

In the late 80's I was wearing what must have been the early Air Pegasus. The felt great and I could tell when it was time for new ones when my little toes would pop through the shoe. Yes, they ran narrow.

Then (circa 1990?) those Oregon twits changed the Pegasus. I have had an attitude about NIKE ever since. I moved around and went back to Tigers, but they were now ASICS.

After a bad marathon (a crash and burn and walk effort) I tried to start training a few days later and suddenly had the beginnings of plantar issues and ITBS. I have never been the same.

If I wear flats or lightweight trainers (meaning under 11 oz) I can anticipate the return of aching arches and much limping. Granted I am fifty years old, but not ready to give up yet.

I would be very reluctant to suggest people do all their training in flats, but that is based on my own experience.

I was barely sub-6's on distances over 5K in my best years, but owing to a screwy job schedule rarely trained over 50 miles a week. I also ran with a crew that was far superior to me (I know now...back then the ego ruled.) so many training runs were at or near race pace for me.

That is just one man's experience.

well the link worked earlier today...??? Anyway it's the Converse Men's Retro Runner. I'll link again and see what happens, you can always use the search at the Eastbay site as well.

http://www.eastbay.com/catalog/productdetail.cfm?TID=5555-10070410570110100711466-0&module=productDetail&action=view&sku=1187&model_nbr=52117&supercat=shoes&id=54507&mvp=brand

adidas titan spike remake as flat. do you remeber when?

damn, didn't work. see page 10 of casual/fashion for the titan spike of the late 70's without the pins. very cool.

Dirk wrote:

[quote]ds-man wrote:

Anyone remember the shoes Lydiard helped design for Converse about 15 years ago? I don't recall the model of the shoe (maybe the "lydiard trainer" or something), but they were lightweight, sliplasted trainers that were supposedly designed to allow the foot to do what it was supposed to do, like he says.

[quote]

You mean these shoes???

the pink trimmed ones are NNNIIICCCEEE...who wears pink shoes?

Adi Dassler wrote:

damn, didn't work. see page 10 of casual/fashion for the titan spike of the late 70's without the pins. very cool.

those are pretty cool...might just be forced to get a pair!

I came across this photo of a 70's pair of Nike Cortez. I recall that they two versions the Kenya Reds and the Findland Blues. They were the first pair of running shoes (that weren't hand-me-downs from my older brother) I owned. Not much too them, but they were great shoes for the time. As you can see in the photo, they did have a trouble for heel wear. Nothing that a good dose of Shoe Goo couldn't fix though.

Montesquieu wrote:

This is absolutely astonishing. I was going to write an almost identical e-mail, for I too ran in those Lydiard shoes, and I too, along with several friends, suffered miserably from the same blisters.

I'll vouch. The light brown ones with the orange diamond logo? Yup. had a pair. After they got wet, the leather hardened. I had terrible blisters on my toes and couldn't wear them again.