A few good articles for barefoot/minimalist people

does anybody know anything about the new adidas supernova competition? I have been seeing a different model on websites like Eastbay. I didn't think the new and improved version was released. After I get done running I'll try and post a link.

Thanks,

GS

Great, I'd love to see a photo of the Asics shoe. Thanks. You can find the Titan Suede on the internet. I've heard that the Titans are stiffer than the H Streets because of a board-like insole.

I will make this one negative comment about the H Street. Yesterday, I used them for a 9-mile run in freezing ran. I wore thick socks, but my feet were still pretty cold by the end. Kind of stupid, but it really wasn't a big deal. So much for Storm-fit, Clima-fit, etc.

My friend, I trained & raced in flats for years; around 1991 I developed PF. I had it for 2 years. (I still attribute it to the shoe co's. changing the materials/construction methods in the flats...either/ or I got OLD.)

I went to more cushioned shoes and problem disappeared. Today EVERY time I wear a lightweight, minmalist shoe the condition comes back.

I understand your point, yes it makes sense, however my situation is NOT imagined. It took several months of EXPEN$IVE accupuncture to solve the problem. I have NO desire to wake up limping again every day, but then again I am not nor was I ever an elite (5-minute mile pace) runner.

I LOVED the feel of flats, but have no interest in getting injured again.

you must be smoking weed man! get a life!

Like I've said before, not all lightweight/flats are built the same. There are many many problems that could have caused your problems. I'd have to see you in person to make a full judgemnet. Again, not saying it wasn't your shoes, but there are many factors.

16x wrote:

I don't wear high heels, but I was wondering how I got by for years and years springing around nearly every day on the track in spikes and never had an injury of any type...and with rigid feet arches...

I was thinking along the same lines the other day. I've never suffered a lower-leg injury while running track intervals in spikes. In fact, the only injury of any kind I've experienced while running in spikes was an upper hamstring pull. On the other hand, I've had one lower-leg injury after another when training off-track in cushy training flats. Sure, the volume has been higher in training flats than in spikes, but I've still run a lot of miles in spikes, and the intensity has been generally much higher than off-track. Hmmm.

That first study is ridiculous. Why would they test heel strike while unshod. One of the purposes of running unshod or in minimalist shoes like the H Street is to land with bend knee on your midfoot or forefoot under your center of gravity. This has been found to put more stress on your ankle and lower leg but less stress on the knees and everything above.

What I would like to know is how you can get people test heel strike unshod, it's quite difficult (and jarring) heel-strike when barefoot in my experience. In the case of heel-striking I can totally see how the thicker cushion would help, but for everyone else it seems like it would just reduce range of motion. I would be interested in knowing the effect of shoe cushioning for people who land forefoot-first, then come down lightly on the heels after.

check THIS out wrote:

trackhead wrote:

These are some good studies:

http://nhscc.home.comcast.net/l3_paper.htmhttp://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

nice - some actual real studies. interesting conclusions from the last article.

Check this out:

Did you read these studies? As Caroline Burge the reviewer of the article you cite points out:

"As acknowledged in the present review, evidence that barefoot running reduces risk of injury appears to be entirely observational. As such, it is premature to recommend barefoot running for reducing the incidence of running-related injuries."

She further points out that:

"Also not addressed in this review is the issue of the role of shoes in the etiology of stress fractures, a common injury in distance runners...."

And

"Not wearing shoes may also accelerate development of other injuries in vulnerable runners. Some of the common and most difficult injuries of the foot to diagnose and treat, particularly if the injury becomes chronic, are presented below."

Futher point: Google is not a reliable search engine for refereed scholarly work.

For example, it would never turn up an article I found in BIOMECHANICS May , 2004 by Ben Patritti, which claims that cushioning HELPS to reduce injury and improve economy in distance runners:

Some quotations from Patritti's article:

"When there is no cushioning layer at the foot-ground interface, as in barefoot running, the severity of impact is much greater than during shod running. This is typified by higher rates of loading11-13 (Figure 1) and greater peak shock to the lower leg.11,14 Although mechanical impact tests and simulations of foot-ground impact in running have predicted that more cushioning will result in reduced peak impact forces,6,12 this has not always been demonstrated experimentally.11,15 Researchers have suggested that adjustments in lower limb kinematics at foot strike may affect the expected reduction of peak loads.16 In fact, it has recently been suggested that peak impact force is not an appropriate index for characterizing the cushioning performance of running shoes.17,18

By comparison, the cushioning effects of athletic shoes and sports surfaces are well differentiated by the rate of change and frequency characteristics of impact loads.11,12,15,19,20 The observed changes are generally consistent with the mechanical force-deformation properties of the midsole materials.11 Similar findings have been reported for simulations of ground contact21 and impacts under controlled conditions using a "human pendulum" apparatus.22,23 Rate of pressure increases, rather than peak pressures, under the heel on impact are also sensitive to differences in cushioning.24,25 Relative differences in impact severity of up to 25% may be shown by the rate of loading depending on the level of cushioning in question.22 These findings further support the observation that shoe cushioning does influence the loading of the body and can provide a protective function. "

And

"The adaptation of leg stiffness to cushioning at the foot-ground interface likely explains the influence of shoe midsoles and sports surfaces on running economy, as measured by oxygen consumption at a given running speed.33,42-44 The greater knee flexion velocities and accompanying decreases in leg stiffness associated with running in harder midsole shoes necessitate increased eccentric muscle action and impose a greater metabolic demand on the body. Running in soft-soled shoes can reduce oxygen consumption by 1% to 2% compared to running in hard-soled shoes,42 and it has been shown that a greater leg stiffness when running on softer surfaces can reduce the metabolic cost to the runner by up to 12%.43 "

There are lots of good databases for finding research in this area. Google isn't one of them!

Above all: listen to your body.

Johnston.

ps -- though I use trainers, just got back from a sweet tempo run in some very low flats (nb 950s.) Through experimentation (and injury) I've found that a mix of low heeled trainers, spikes & flats works best for me.

johnston,

My case is that trainers are too protective. Think of them like a cast: they're very good for immobilizing the foot and reducing input to the affected areas and thus are very good when an injury is incurred. However, just as with a cast, they will ultimately weaken and deaden the area.

Trackhead:

You may be right.

But I do not know whether you are right. For all we know, it may turn out that:

1) population level variation leads to different individual thresholds. For some, running (say) three times a week in a "cast" may foster recovery and strength, but not to the point where they can run in flats everyday without risk of injury. For others like you, 100 miles a week in zero midsole H-streets may be optimal.

2) Perhaps there are critical developmental windows, such that if you did not go through childhood and adolescence in minimal shoes, you'll always suffer from weakness, unless you are especially strong or anatomically blessed. Or perhaps, persistent deformities can be corrected, but through techniques other than minimal shoe running (say by physiotherapy or surgury, etc...)

3) Perhaps running in flats only works for midfoot strikers, but is disastrous for heel strikers. Maybe there is no single natural running gait, but stable variation in populations, and so variation in optimal shoe construction.

4) Perhaps their are tradeoffs: flats reduce the risk of achilles injury and stregthen the soleus, but at an increased risk for stress fracture.

5) Perhaps "casts" are nearly optimal for everyone in our sport, much like hockey gloves or football helmuts are in those sports (even if their are trade-offs in using this gear: reduced sensation, impaired performance in some domains, etc).

6) Maybe to strengthen our feet, we should all walk bare-footed but run in casts... etc.

There seem to be many possiblities, and the peer reviewed research is not unanimous in its verdict. So in the absence of real certainty, I'm sticking to what works for me.

I will agree with you that there isn't enough selection out there for people who benefit from a minimal shoe. And it is a shame to hear New Balance is canceling their 900 line. I also agree that it is worth exploring options other than those being sold to us by shoe companies in their mass marketing campaigns. And a point many will miss, but which you have stated before: I agree that any change should be introduced VERY slowly.

Johnston

Johnston,

From my personal experience, I grew running in the Asics 2000 series now am running full time in XC shoes and the H Street. Efficiency and strength are infinitely better than where they were (as they would need to be).

And that seems to be the case with most people I encounter. I suppose the big turning point is: how much protection is needed?

And I would argue that very very little is needed, if any, provided that technique is good and muscles/ligaments/etc are well developed.

In terms of technique, I always hear about the "pounding" associated with running, and that if you don't have a lot on your foot, you're going to certainly regret it. As to the "pounding" associated with running, I was thinking, what if you had a guy who tells you everytime he goes off the diving board, he says the impace kills him, and it's like being thrashed and his body simply wasn't meant for diving. So you watch you go off the high board, and he does and flat belly flop. Well, I think we've found the problem.

The same with running. The guys that run around and are active in their youth with little on their feet= naturally efficient

The guys that are sedentary their whole life until they start running for some event in later life= lacking efficiency

But, I don't know at what point that efficiency and strenght cannot be regained. The oldest runner I've put in flats from regular bulky shoes is in his 50s, and he's better now than when I met him 6 years ago.

Trackhead- I have some questions on transitioning into flats and was wondering if you could offer some guidance. Could you drop me an email at yourself@satx.rr.com ? Much appreciated