ATTN: Everyone who disagrees with me: Arguements against training in racing flats -- help please

man trackhead is pwning those boot wearing bitches left and right.

Trackhead,

Not sure abot the heel striking thing. Im am assuming that they (some heelstrikers) naturally treat their heel as a crash pad. (Although the guy I have in mind is 6'6) Just a intunitive thought here, and I may be wrong.

As for the natural underpronator. Assuming someone has a super boney and rigid foot, and is an underpronator, they are going to take lots more shock while running. There's just not any give in their foot except the posibility of them running on their forefoot. Even in this case though there isint much give because they underpronate.

Pronation is a good thing and if you dont have it, run on roads, then there dosen't seem to be any way that the body will absorb the increased shock.

To your points:

1) Tumors are anamylous -- not standard activity.

2) To say that running barefoot is not comparable with running in something like the H Street is ridiculous; footwear is not all black and white: it's spectrum and minimal shoes are much more like being barefoot than a thick, inflexible trainer.

3) How is getting cancer and standard daily activity a valid comparison? Those with cancer are the rareities (and one may argue, results of progress).

4) Still: Why the necesity of footwear? You say that I srgue that everyone incapable of running 100mi weeks unshod has been weeded out of the gene pool?

5) The Free does as good a job a shoe can of allowing feedback and flexibility. People who try it tend to notice the difference.

6) When running, why spending time out of the racing shoe? Why spend time not giving muscles and such the maximum opportunity for improvement, or putting them at a higher risk for injury. Unlike secondary resistance training, as you mentioned, that is designed to replace something that they're not getting out of normal activity. The same reason that Lydiard said the only time he had any athletes use weights was when there were no hill available (when he was national coach of Danmark). The running takes care of it.

7) The science is getting there -- one successful podiatrist I spoke with agreed with all the stuff I put out on here and said that I was just looking at things from a different perspective but was not in error.

More to come.

That is... talking about pronation in flats.

the "crash-pad" is possible because of all the cushioning. Just the same if you go for a quick dash without shoes, the footstrike at least moves forward, or the landing is much softer.

Where ever the footstrike begins, for the minimalist, it's always under the center of gravity and it's never slamming. It's more like catching the ground, similar to a swimmer slipping into the water as opposed to slapping it.

In terms of pronation, everyone does it to varying degrees. People the pronate so moderately that it's unnoticable, and that's fine. I know two guys like that -- both putting in big miles in the Rc-150 and the H Street. It's all about meeting the ground with proper technique and having hte strength.

[quote]JY wrote:

Beyond that, for the 1 millionth time, running barefoot has nothing to do with running in trainers vs flats. [quote]

Bullshit. Running in racing flats with a minimal midsole and minimal net heel lift is obviously much more similar to barefoot running than than running in training flats is. (Why the hell do you insist on calling racing shoes "flats" and training shoes "trainers" when they're both flats? The term "flats" is just meant to distinguish them from spikes.) I've been training in racing flats for more than 2 years now, and I can assure you that my footplant is much more similar to my footplant when running barefoot than it ever was when I wore training flats. This is just absolute no-brainer. Take away that unnatural heel life and your footplant more closely approaches your barefoot footplant. You don't need any multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial to tell you that, anymore than you need one to tell you that eating vegetables is good for you. Don't get me wrong. I'm a strong believer in the scientific method, having helped conduct several clinical trials over the years. But I also know that you don't need any stinking NIH-funded study to unearth a truth as obvious as this one.

And by the way, I've scratched my head over that Nike Free video a few times, trying to figure out how they justify that huge heel lift in a shoe that is expressly intended to mimic barefoot running. They never do. So how do you explain it?

Rock on, trackhead. You have no reason to apologize for posting on this subject. It's an extremely important one for serious runners, and I hope you drill some sense into that shoe maker when they finally grant you an audience.

If training in regular flats does not cause injury, pain, or soreness, why would someone want to go through the trouble of switching?

trackhead, though your arguments make sense, you still have never touched on the main goal of any serious runner: to become faster. Will training in racing flats make you a better (faster) runner?

Come up with concrete proof of that and then you'll be onto something.

trackhead,

Somehow your version of logic and mine don't seem to intersect, so we end up ridiculously circling around what the other person is trying to get across. Given that, I think I'm done directly addressing you on this topic. As an example of how I think we are disconnecting, my use of the Lance Armstrong example was to talk about the folly in trying to use evolutionary pressures on a population to make assumptions about individual variation withihn that population. I was not attempting to say that running and cancer were analogous. I thought it was a particularly clever argument. Once the genius of that point was not appreciated the fun just got sucked out of this whole pointless back and forth.

I've had two points all along. 1) that individual variablitity will limit the ability to make gross generalizations about footwear needs. 2) much of what you site as supporting arguments are either not fully valid science or somewhat faulty logic.

I liken your stance to a rabid anti-government conservative. Any mention of government is met with a knee-jerk, big government is bad speech (and by government I mean, of course, shoes). The Gov'ment Sucks! My stance is that, yes, government can be bloated and inefficient, but guess what, some folks need welfare, and some need medicare, and some folks need social security. So, for all it's faults, government exists to assist those that actually need it, even if not everyone does.

And pavement is like big corporations, see, and the govenment should exist to protect all individuals from the evils that corporate america would inflict if left unchecked, like environmental damage and... OK, so I've drifted. The Lance Armstrong analogy is better, especially because sometimes the only way to rally the typical Lets Run reader to your side is the liberal use of the phrase nutsack.

Anyway, good luck with the crusade.

JY

greater efficiency

although he's had some controversial points before yessis' article in the feb running times touches on that issue, comparing noguchi and drossin

but, for someone like el g or bekele who regularly do 6mi of drills daily, there's not much efficiency to be gained. their biggest gains would be in injury prevention.

also, strength in terms of those who get calf/lower leg problems and can't get up on their toes to kick in races because of the huge change in heel heights.

Jerry,

Read carefully. I never said that running in flats was not more like running barefoot. I said that you can't take scientific studies comparing running barefoot to running in trainers and extrapolate the findings to comparing flats to trainers. There are studies showing that if you modify the amount of cushion in trainers you get less shock transmission to the body with more cushioning. You also can not extrapolate these findings to comparing flats to trainers. Just call me a stickler for precision.

Can no one here separate out the details from an argument from the overall message. No one is saying that runnning in trainers is inherently bad. But if you justify a 100% flat approach with arguments that are not valid you may have to toss out the arguments even if you retain your overall position.

If I go in for accupuncture, because I believe it will work, and it has worked for people I know, great! I have no problem doing it even if have no idea how to explain why it helps. However, if I start trying to tell others that I have improved the flow of my Chi by getting needles stuck in my nutsack, and that I have tapped into healing energy reserves in my liver, I deserve whatever ridicule I receive.

Rock On, Gerry

blahblahblah wrote:

If training in regular flats does not cause injury, pain, or soreness, why would someone want to go through the trouble of switching?

If you're training in training flats and not getting injured frequently, there probably is little reason to switch to racing flats for training. But based on my experience and observations, as shoes have become more built-up over the years, more people are getting injured more frequently.

trackhead, though your arguments make sense, you still have never touched on the main goal of any serious runner: to become faster. Will training in racing flats make you a better (faster) runner?

Not to speak for trackhead, but . . .

Fewer injuries = better performance, no? Besides the obvious, though, it could well be that if your footplant changes so that you make better use of the potential energy stored in your soft tissues (i.e., shortened support phase), you will run more efficiently and thus faster. This idea does need to studied, although there is already a lot of evidence that better runners tend to have a shorter, quicker stride, and some evidence that as a runner becomes fitter, their stride becomes shorter and quicker.

You don't think there have been enough posts on this ? See "minimalist what was your experience" thread. 200+ posts and counting.

You said nothing of the sort. Here's exactly what you said:

"The article linked to above is not a serious review of the field, it is a propoganda piece that selectivley chooses articles that support the authors agenda, ignores contradictory articles, and misrepresents the findings of at least one paper to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion of the study's authors. The superior shock absorption of the heel in barefoot running this guy presents was actually indicative of a LOSS of shock absorption capacity by the heel pad when running barefoot."

If your audience isn't getting your message, maybe it would be healthier for you to re-examine your skill at conveying it rather blaming the audience. I simply took your statement ("Beyond that, for the 1 millionth time, running barefoot has nothing to do with running in trainers vs flats.") at face value. Maybe next time you should draw a picture or provide an official English>English translation.

Now you've really lost me. Did you mean so say, No on is saying that running in racing flats is inherently bad?

I don't ever recall trackhead making exotic claims for training in racing flats. I've only seen him say it has worked for himself and others, which is precisely analogous to others telling you that accupuncture has worked for them. He has speculated on the reasons why it has worked, and offered what he felt was testimony and evidence in support of his speculation. That sure doesn't deserve ridicule, or your adversarial tone.

First, as a prolegomenon to any future discussion, let me state that what I have to say on this subject should be considered an inquiry rather than a disputation. I do not believe either the pro-flats or contra-flats positions have enough data to do anything but speculate on either the risks or the benefits of training exclusively in flats. However, since in athletics practice leads theory you've got to place your bets somewhere.

That said, I support the premise: shoes change the way your feet operate when running, and in a manner that is detrimental to development of correct form and function.

Given a belief in this premise, what is the best course of action?

I do not think training exclusively in flats has the highest risk to benefit ratio. I would do so only under the condition that I were running exclusively on soft surfaces. I would most emphatically not recommend it as a general practice for all runners regardless of surface, out of concern for higher injury rates.

As another approach consider the "shoeless Joe" plan:

o Do all warmups/cooldowns barefoot on infield

o Twice a week run, or thereabouts do the "Kenyan diagonal workout" barefoot on the infield of your local athletic field

o Do all LT or faster workouts in flats (or spikes)

Above plan would result in 50 miles/wk barefoot, provided you warmup/cooldown every day (which you should) And barefoot is (arguably) better than running in flats. Since you've got plenty of barefoot time in, feel free to use the super-mega-trainers for the morning run.

So what's the point? There are options other than the all-flats approach which may yield equal or greater benefits without the perceived injury risk. I for one, would be more inclined to run 50% barefoot on grass than 100% flats.

The question becomes:

-what role do hard surfaces have in running barefoot/minimal?

What about 50mpw barefoot on grass and another 50 or 60 in flats?

JY wrote:Imagine Lance Armstrong walking into his doctors office with a huge tumor hanging in his sack, and his doctor tells him, "Shit Lance, humans wouldn't have gotten very far if they couldn't live without huge tumors growing in their nuts. I'm sure it's nothing".

Just what is with you dorky Armstrong groupies?

Sorry to follow up to this -- but you didn't say what you're speaking to the manufacturer about. Just a hunch -- is it Asics and are you lobbying them to make their Japanese line available in the US ? "No comment" is an acceptable answer, if you're not free to talk. But if that's what you're doing, I wish you all the best.

It might help if you avoid coming across as some sort of nutcase. You're not going to be preaching to the choir, so if you say things like "why don't you think you could survive in a hunter-gatherer society ?", they are going to dismiss you as some sort of nut. Avoid anything too tangential, or long-shot arguments about "evolution", how our bodies are "designed", or "hunter-gatherer societies". A sceptical listener will simply respond with the words "begone, kook", and laugh you out of the room. I know this, because I'm a sceptical listener, and my "kook" light goes on when people start babbling about this sort of garbage.

Do talk about the fact that minimal footwear is an emerging market. Do talk about the fact that a lot of people would like to see lightweight flats. Do talk about any studies that Nike have done that relate to the nike free shoe.

All the best, -- elflord

No comment.

As for your encouragement, it is most appreciated. I really do enjoy it when there can be cordial and civil conversations between people that don't see eye to eye. I've met some people on this website who, on various subjects, we're complete opposites, but have been able to have a drink and an enjoyable time as fellow track nerds.

I suppose the points I must stress are that people can run in minimal shoes, that it will be a growing market (see what Japan does), but at the same time the "normal" line of shoes is not terribly threatened. You get plently of recreationsal joggers, out of shape people, etc. who are so conditioned to support, etc. that it's all they can do. And that's fine. They're not racing, and if they're not injured they don't have a problem dropping $90 four times a year on Adrenalines.

This obviously begs the question: elflord, what kinda times do you produce? I think you might be kinda fast.