Skora. I still have a few original (not the silly re-issue not-minimalist shoes) pairs and run in them once/twice a week. I'd use them more but they don't make them anymore and I want them to last me. Does anybody know what happened? I assume they were bought out with condition to never make them again. Otherwise I run in Altra trail shoes, mostly the Superior. The Skora shoes are minimalist ... some-days they can be rough on my feet on a long run but I run almost exclusively on (single track) trails with no diffculty. I've been using shoes that let me feel the earth for over 50 years running. Right now about 1800 miles/year.
There is research. In the 80's Steve Robbins who was an internist at McGill University did a lot of research on the relationship between running shoes and running injuries. He found that the more sophisticated and expensive the running shoe the more likely the user was to be injured. At the time he wrote that your best chance of avoiding running injuries was to be in a shoe that cost $40 US or less. With inflation that's probably a hair under $100 now.
At the time Nike had been donating money to McGill. Their reaction to Robbins' work was to threaten McGill with dropping their funding unless they either shut Robbins up or fired him. McGill did neither and I don't know if Nike followed up on the threat or not.
I have read many of these. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the intimidation you are referring to actually occurred following another a study of Robbins. It showed that elderly were more likely to injure themselves in unstable, thick-soled, squishy Nikes vs a control of a thin-soles material that did not decompress. This was and is common knowledge and it is a fact I doubt anyone would argue with (imagine an 80-year-old trying to take a set of stairs or a sharp turn in alphaflys!). Funny enough, Nike responded saying the study was false, but of course it was valid. Just wasn’t groundbreaking for runners; only the elderly.
The study you mentioned, from Bernard Marti in 1989, showed injuries higher among those who paid more for their shoes. And I reckon any time you EVER run this study— including today, even with the extraordinary, (likely) injury reducing features of super shoes, the stats will say similar. So is it spurious correlation or something more?
Well, here’s what they DON’T report from the same study (I think it’s the same one, unless he performed the same survey at the same race in back to back years), Martin’s conclusion:
Occurrence of jogging injuries was independently associated with higher weekly mileage (P < 0.001), history of previous running injuries (P < 0.001), and competitive training motivation (P = 0.03). Higher mileage was also associated with more frequent medical consultations due entirely to jogging-related injuries.
Their suggestion? Moderation should be observed.
Granted, that’s a bit less sensational than the ‘big bad Nike vs the world’ writers run with, and as such I can see why it isn’t covered.
I do believe there have been studies associating mileage with injury rates regardless of shoes. I think you're looking at two things. You can have higher rates of injuries related to volume in both high tech shoes and low tech shoes and still have a higher rate in one kind of shoe than the other.
I've largely given up on the shoe debate. I don't do well in high tech ones and wish there were more simple, cheap, models around. I mostly mentioned this because someone said there was no research on the topic and I know there is. What I have never seen is research supporting the idea that high tech shoes which are advertised as helping prevent injury actually do.
As for "big bad, Nike," I can't recall if Robbins mentioned their attempt at shutting him up in something he wrote publicly or privately to me. But his research seems to have struck a nerve with them and I do think trying to suppress valid research that may be beneficial to people seeing it does qualify for being big and bad.
The debate is if minimalist shoe movement is dead or not.
Correct. But people are replying to you stating that "At least it should be dead." As you can see, many disagree with you, and it is definitely not dead.
But it should be dead :)
Fascination after 4 pages almost no counterarguments to mine. You 'minimal guys' should read more and other literature than born to run.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious and/or elite runners who still subscribe to this fad ideology. I'm sure there are a good amount of hobbyjoggers and ultrarunners who are into it though.
So you're saying Herb Elliot was following a fad by running barefoot? And he limited his potential by choice of lack of footwear in training?
“I believe that athletes that have been training barefoot run faster and have fewer injuries. It’s just common sense.” - Vin Lanana
Barefoot does strengthen the foot and increase foot coordination and sense of balance. Don’t need to run meaningful miles barefoot to see the benefits but living life barefoot and in barefoot style shoes does help if you have the ankle and toe mobility.
I'm 65 and I've been running/racing for more than 50 years. Raced track, road and x-country, most training on roads if not on track.
Always tended to wear about the lightest shoes I could (started in gym shoes, which had no padding).
Until the carbon fiber shoes came along, I was doing steady runs in Kinvara (still do a lot of my easy runs in those), and faster stuff in Nike Streak LT (about 4 oz) and New Balance RC 5000 (did a session of hill sprints in them a couple of days ago).
I do have some concerns about what the carbon shoes do in shifting stress, but being a pragmatist, I've switched to them for racing, and some trainings sessions.
Interestingly enough despite decades of running in lightweight shoes on roads when I had a foot x-ray recently (small cyst under toe, not running related), there was very little in the way of arthritic changes.
The answer is simple. Because its not good for your health.
Running creates a lot of impact on the body, this is a fact. A good shoe helps to protect the body, you can do more miles. This is latest sience reflected in marathon/hm shoe technology. They have a good and also responsive cushion. If the shoe does not absorb the impact energy the body has to. If you run barefood the impact forces are still there.
Then wtf did humans do before shoes? Ran around with broken and throbbing feet everywhere? There is no animal on earth who needs special protective clothing to do its main mode of locomotion. We are no different.
WTF humans did before cars, trains, airplanes ,boats? How about microwave ovens or a stove and a refrigerator? How about a cell phone that probably you use to post here? I can go on and on. Don't conveniently pick and choose, while drawing the benefits of modern day technology as you type in these forums, it makes you look really bad, like a hypocrite.
Why don't you apply your same logic to all what I mentioned, move into a cabin in the middle of nowhere and communicate using pigeons or smoke signals?
Correct. But people are replying to you stating that "At least it should be dead." As you can see, many disagree with you, and it is definitely not dead.
But it should be dead :)
Fascination after 4 pages almost no counterarguments to mine. You 'minimal guys' should read more and other literature than born to run.
You are wrong. It shouldn't because there are people who enjoy running in minimalist shoes.
What is fascinating is that you came to this thread to state something that is clearly wrong, to insist on your point, and that you can't just shut up and let other people be happy doing something they enjoy, and that doesn't interfere at all with your life and happiness.
You have no arguments that need to be countered. You should read more about running barefoot and/or in minimalist shoes. Even this thread would be enough, and you would understand that unlike you, people heard about running barefoot/in minimalist shoes DECADES before McDougall even dreamt about writing Born to Run.
Correct. But people are replying to you stating that "At least it should be dead." As you can see, many disagree with you, and it is definitely not dead.
But it should be dead :)
Fascination after 4 pages almost no counterarguments to mine. You 'minimal guys' should read more and other literature than born to run.
I do 80% of my training on grass and barefoot, not because of born to run or because of some minimalist fad. Simply because its the only way I can get volume in these days due to my calves. 10 minutes of running shoed and on asphalt and my calves feel like they will explode whereas on grass and barefoot, I can run for hours and my calves actually feel lighter and looser the further I run. If you dont believe me that it works or some placebo effect, I have even tested multiple times with a hr monitor. In everything from vaporflys to flats to barefoot.
My easy run pace is almost 20 seconds per mile faster barefoot on grass for the same heartrate. My perceived effort is much lower and my body feels better and I can run wayyy more volume. Running shoes on either grass or road turns everything into a slog for me and its torturous.
So there's my counterargument to you, I'm well aware that I'm an extreme case but I would not be running today if it wasn't for barefoot and grass.
You are wrong. It shouldn't because there are people who enjoy running in minimalist shoes.
What is fascinating is that you came to this thread to state something that is clearly wrong, to insist on your point, and that you can't just shut up and let other people be happy doing something they enjoy, and that doesn't interfere at all with your life and happiness.
You have no arguments that need to be countered.
If you are so confident in this case of minimal running that everything is wonderful and great, why do you bother that another person provides counterarguments, or does not share your opinion? Makes no sense.
And you think about taking away your joy, fun and even happiness? Makes even less sense. If you would be really confident about what you do, you would not bother and that would not influence your joy and happiness. I don't want to take that away from you.
This is a forum were different opinions should have a space. For any topic.
these barefoot/minimal shoes are actually decent for middle distance runners. the reason being that the spikes 400-1500m runners wear have negative heel-to-toe drop. by having a zero drop shoe for your easier days, you would build up stronger calves/achilles and a forefoot running habit that would allow you to better excel in these racing distances. now with that said, these shoes are very minimal and don't feel very good when you're running on hard surfaces, so only run with these shoes on grass/dirt/turf
these barefoot/minimal shoes are actually decent for middle distance runners. the reason being that the spikes 400-1500m runners wear have negative heel-to-toe drop. by having a zero drop shoe for your easier days, you would build up stronger calves/achilles and a forefoot running habit that would allow you to better excel in these racing distances. now with that said, these shoes are very minimal and don't feel very good when you're running on hard surfaces, so only run with these shoes on grass/dirt/turf
spikes are not negative drop
they are probably like 30-40mm+ drop due to the stiff spike plate causing a teeter totter effect. take a spike and press the curved toe flat onto the ground and the amount the heel floats is the effective drop
Then wtf did humans do before shoes? Ran around with broken and throbbing feet everywhere? There is no animal on earth who needs special protective clothing to do its main mode of locomotion. We are no different.
WTF humans did before cars, trains, airplanes ,boats? How about microwave ovens or a stove and a refrigerator? How about a cell phone that probably you use to post here? I can go on and on. Don't conveniently pick and choose, while drawing the benefits of modern day technology as you type in these forums, it makes you look really bad, like a hypocrite.
Why don't you apply your same logic to all what I mentioned, move into a cabin in the middle of nowhere and communicate using pigeons or smoke signals?
What did we do before all that? Uh we walked places, swam and cooked food over fire… which suggests that the human body is always capable of walking swimming and cooking over fire. Not sure what you thought you did here.
I was responding to the guy who said it was bad for health, or injurious, to run without shoes. Which it must not be, given the evolutionary processes that govern biology.
I’m not sure what argument you thought you were refuting.
This video does a good job of showing why minimalist shoes are better for you. The guy in the minimalist shoes has much better biomechanics than the girl with the chunky shoes, who is clearly straining her knees with each lunge.
I do believe there have been studies associating mileage with injury rates regardless of shoes. I think you're looking at two things. You can have higher rates of injuries related to volume in both high tech shoes and low tech shoes and still have a higher rate in one kind of shoe than the other.
I've largely given up on the shoe debate. I don't do well in high tech ones and wish there were more simple, cheap, models around. I mostly mentioned this because someone said there was no research on the topic and I know there is. What I have never seen is research supporting the idea that high tech shoes which are advertised as helping prevent injury actually do.
As for "big bad, Nike," I can't recall if Robbins mentioned their attempt at shutting him up in something he wrote publicly or privately to me. But his research seems to have struck a nerve with them and I do think trying to suppress valid research that may be beneficial to people seeing it does qualify for being big and bad.
I respect your thoughts and don't explicitly disagree with anything you wrote. I do believe we will see supershoes shown to reduce injuries, chief among them stress fractures. Of course they will also invite their own new injuries (Achilles and chain issues) just like minimalism changed stress points to knees, fascia, and calves. Such is the push and pull as humans adapt. But my takeaway is the tech of today is very, very different than that of 1989 and those studies no longer hold the weight they once did.
But I do wonder how much nostalgia and youth might play into sculpting your personal critical analysis of the shoes of yesteryear vs today. I say this after having gone back and tried many of the older shoes once universally believed to be The Shoe....and hot d*mn, have most aged poorly.
Finally, on Mcgill- they have been behind recent studies showing how powerful the effect of the supershoes is, so essentially they have gone 180 on their Nike research over the last 30 years.
I should mention I'm not opposed to minimalism. In fact, I quite like it. I'm just a realist about it and its place in training. And when McDougall, the figure front and center in the movement (try finding a barefoot article or YouTube video without him or his book mentioned) is making iffy statements and thousands are running with those statements, well, I believe someone should push back against that. For example: "People weren't meant to run marathons." Two minutes later in the same podcast: "People evolved to do parkour." Or "Shoes don't make you faster." And then when it is shown they do in fact make you faster: "The tech behind the supershoes will soon be forgotten." Of course, it will not be forgotten: it has changed the running landscape forever. At the end of the day, he's a tribalist, and I don't blame him-- his tribe pays him well.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.