RE: this thread will put an end to "minimalism" and vibram forever

Fair enough, thank you.

Unfortunately there are enough "shoe guys" out there that don't embrace variety in what they recommend that we sometimes all get lumped together.

Every good running shoe retailer should realize that every runner is an experiment of one. There are some that need to go the McDougall route to overcome years of problems, there are others that shouldn't dream of running without a motion control shoe. Most are somewhere in the middle and it's my job to take care of them as well as possible.

maybe it's cuz Solinksy is a big fatty

prememorialaward wrote:

biggus dickus wrote:

Maybe I didn't get the "memo' but I consider barefoot/VFF different than minimalist. I want the "minimum" shoe possible that my mechanics and body allow.

I just ran a marathon this weekend in the same 6oz flats that I train in everyday and had no issues....yes, I qualified for Boston with many minutes to spare.

Hope I'm missing your sarcasm here about qualifying for Boston. Is that really a bar? Oh s---?! You Qualified for Boston wearing a flat?!? Maybe everyone should try it then!

...and you recommend Brooks Beast? If not what then, exactly the shoe that you wear?

My point is you should wear the minimum shoe that your form and abilities allow. That is a different answer for everyone. After 3 years of transition I know the right answer for me.

My issue is with someone telling me that minimalist shoes (e.g. which includes more aggressive flats) are "wrong" because of some issue with a label and association with some practices (barefoot/VFF) that can be harmful in the wrong context.

I for one don't give a damn what people wear on their feet. Put on some dead poodles and call them Susan for all I care.

shoe guy wrote:

We didn't "need" computers or cars either. If e-mail you my address will you send them to me?

Yes we did "need" them to speed things up in the society. When I got the Kayanos they slowed me down.

Shoes are only meant for basic protection against rocks and cold.

Dude, whatever. These "examples" are ALWAYS used in a context in which their intent is to show why barefoot running is beneficial.I have no problem with barefoot running. I have a problem with people asserting that it is the "right" way to run, from a performance point of view.You're right, I would allow others to drink wine in a marathon if they wanted, but if somebody was drinking it while trying to run a PR, or trying to make the trials, or trying to win the Olympics, I would call them an idiot. Same for barefooting.

Not a knowledgeable coach wrote:

The quotation you cited does not suggest that barefoot running would work for everyone. I'm sure you would not suggest that shod running is best for everyone. (Maybe you would considering your flawed interpretation of the article.)

If you consider it stupid, don't do it. Surely you are reasonable enough to allow others to drink/wear whatever they feel is best for them.

What argument? That barefoot running might be beneficial? So Bikila changed his mind (or maybe got a shoe contract). How about those who move from shod running to barefoot and experience improvement? According to your logic, that would make the "shoes are better" argument pretty stupid.

It is obvious that you did not read the entire linked article. There was no "argument" for barefoot running. It was simply a review of the scientific literature concerning running barefoot and with footwear.

Let me be clear about this...

Abebe Bikila was an idiot (at least during his first Olympics),

Herb Elliott was an idiot (who cares if he was undefeated and an Oly champ),

Zola Budd was an idiot, and

Doris Brown Heritage was an idiot.

I, on the other hand, am not an idiot even though my own running credentials pale in comparison to theirs. What a bunch of dumbasses.

biggus dickus wrote:

...and you recommend Brooks Beast? If not what then, exactly the shoe that you wear?

My point is you should wear the minimum shoe that your form and abilities allow. That is a different answer for everyone. After 3 years of transition I know the right answer for me.

My issue is with someone telling me that minimalist shoes (e.g. which includes more aggressive flats) are "wrong" because of some issue with a label and association with some practices (barefoot/VFF) that can be harmful in the wrong context.

My point is, I could qualify for Boston in the Brooks Beast, or with some Basketball Shoes on. Qualifying for Boston is not a real acheivement (even if you have a couple minutes to spare in doing so.)

If getting Kayano's truly did slow you down (and didn't solve a previous injury problem) then you went to the wrong shoe guy. Sorry about your luck.

o.O wrote:

There was this one African

Won the Olympics

Go figure

Then won again wearing shoes - only in a faster time!

Stupid Arguments wrote:

Let me be clear about this...

Abebe Bikila was an idiot (at least during his first Olympics),

Herb Elliott was an idiot (who cares if he was undefeated and an Oly champ),

Zola Budd was an idiot, and

Doris Brown Heritage was an idiot.

I, on the other hand, am not an idiot even though my own running credentials pale in comparison to theirs. What a bunch of dumbasses.

Guess what dipshit: things that apply now, don't necessarily apply in the past.

Now, you'll say someone is an idiot if they think the world is flat. However, there was a time before certain knowledge existed, and before that time, they would not have been an idiot, just uninformed like everybody else.

Clearly, drinking wine during an olympic marathon today would be idiotic. Clearly, everyone who did it 100 years ago was not necessarily an idiot, they were simply uninformed. Regardless of this, anybody who tired this TODAY would be an idiot.

Finally, if one particular athlete (or four athletes) do something, and it works for them, that is fine. On the other hand, for people to then take the thing that works for them, and act as though their single experience 50 years ago should dictate training decisions made today, is idiotic. I am sure that all kinds of other "brilliant" training nuggets could be garnered from the Olympic champions of 50 years ago.

The most idiotic thing here is people who claim that "XX ran barefoot in such-and-such situation, so clearly it is superior."

prememorialaward wrote:

biggus dickus wrote:

...and you recommend Brooks Beast? If not what then, exactly the shoe that you wear?

My point is you should wear the minimum shoe that your form and abilities allow. That is a different answer for everyone. After 3 years of transition I know the right answer for me.

My issue is with someone telling me that minimalist shoes (e.g. which includes more aggressive flats) are "wrong" because of some issue with a label and association with some practices (barefoot/VFF) that can be harmful in the wrong context.

My point is, I could qualify for Boston in the Brooks Beast, or with some Basketball Shoes on. Qualifying for Boston is not a real acheivement (even if you have a couple minutes to spare in doing so.)

Ah, so this confirms that you actually did not have a point since this is not a thread about the merits of qualifying for Boston. FYI, I stated that I qualified by "many" minutes which is different than a "couple."

Regardless, I am sure that flats allow me to post my "best" time and I have not seen an argument yet that race flats are not a good option for those properly prepared to use them.

Ryan Prentice ran with only one shoe on for most of Nats. Is that minimalist enough for you?

The next guy at a race start line who does the "joke" where he pretends to stomp on my foot is going to get his jaw broken.

I have done over 20,000miles in regular shoes.

A few hundred miles in Vibrams.

Honest truth is that I would love to be able to run in them all the time but an inflexibility in one toe stops me from running longer than 5-6mi in them. I don't have delusions of them making me invincible or faster than I have been in the past. I merely state that they are enjoyable to wear and can allow for (if you do it right) a smoother stride.

If you put these shoes on Geb would he still run fast?....its the Runner that matters not the shoes.

The argument most barefoot/minimalist runners make is that it translates into a lighter, shorter and quicker stride and because of this it must be healthier. Its nuts to think that without lots of variables coming into play. People are unique and if regular shoes work for you use them. If barefoot works do it. Who here really cares what is on the feet of other people in the races?

One last thing, the whole argument about VFF wearers being fat is rather dumb. Fact is most runners like most Americans are fatties. Most runners get hurt every year with cushioning, stability or anything else. (full disclosure I'm 5'7 136lbs...need to loose 5lbs)

Ah, the joys of internet provincialism.

Look around, boys. The world of running and runners is so much bigger than high school and college team members and former members of both, just as the world of golf is so much larger than would be found on a message board for scratch golfers.

The regular duffers who haven't much talent or tons of spare time but love golf get excited about the gear and the newest gadgets like clubs and shoes and dimple designs.

There are millions of folks who love to jog or hobble or prance and can't or never have been great at it but they have lives and heaven forbid, they have other interests as important or more important than running.

Why in the hell should that bother you when weekend duffers don't bother a top notch amateur golfer?

I'm not so sure that the typical letsun waif with a female bone structure who runs 2:30 is a better athlete than some of the 3:30 'hobby joggers' I've seen who carry the skeleton of a gorilla for 26.2

This is exactly what bothers me about "barefoot/minimalist/whatever you want to call it" runners. You try to prove that barefoot running is better for you and faster by citing bullcrap like this. For every fast barefoot runner that you have to research for hours to find, there is an endless amount of people running in trainers who are faster. I always love how people like to mention something along the lines of "Kenyans running throughout their homeland are legendary". I like how people who always quote this act as if they and the "kenyans" are buddies. The kenyans don't give a shit or even know about minimalism. They run barefoot because they live in a village in the Great Rift Valley and herd cattle. You can't compare yourself to them. And I guarantee you that if I were to chunk them a few pairs of Pegasus 27's, they wouldn't be running barefoot. But I might wrong. Kenenisa, Rudisha, and Lagat all still run barefoot right? Oh wait....

You know why it "bothers me"? Because yuppy hobby joggers are telling me I should run in Vibrams, its the way you were supposed to run, it's more "natural" like how cavemen ran, etc. If THEY kept to themselves, I wouldn't be so annoyed. But nooooooo, I have to hear "it's supposed to be better for you".

Same goes for those P90X douche bags. Of course you got improvement over your usual work out of 4 sets of bench presses with 5 minute rest in between and your 20 minutes of "cardio" at 12 min/mile pace on the treadmill. Again, I have to listen to these guys tell me I "have to do this".

Just as annoying as those Adkins Diet drones 10 years ago telling me to not eat any carbs. Eating hamburgers without the bun, WTF!?

No way that broken glass affected Landy's race. If it did, he would have run much worse than 3:59.