Do elite train in flats?

I was dealing with an achilles injury in 2000-2001 and switched to training in flats, specifically the original Mizuno Phantom (best shoe ever). The injury got better, never came back again. I was putting in 100-120 miles a week for the first time when I made the switch. I also used to suffer from a lot of calf tightness following races and workouts. Now it's much less. There's no reason not to run in an 7-9oz flat such as the Phantom or Nike Triax TC. These are what most would call "marathon" flats and aren't much different than lightweight trainers. I train in lightweight trainers now simply because I don't like buying new shoes every month.

Alan

jaguar1 wrote:

This compensatory mechanism is not natural for the body..... I should also mention that during midsupport while shod, your feet are on the ground MUCH longer due to the compensatory pronation that occurs because of the shoes-- when the body is preparing for takeoff while barefoot, the foot is still pronating to a significant extent while shod. This added pronation could be the culprit for a multitude of injuries. If you want to have the ultimate degree of pronation for your anatomical makeup, you will have it while barefoot.

Actually, the published literature supports the fact that pronation is generally greater when running without shoes. If you have publishable data that contradicts this you should send it to a journal.

JY wrote:

Actually, the published literature supports the fact that pronation is generally greater when running without shoes. If you have publishable data that contradicts this you should send it to a journal.

Incorrect. Not only can it visually be seen by video clips that the foot stays longer on the ground during midsupport due to greater pronation (than while barefoot), but past research supports this. Read below:

From Lore of Running by Dr. Tim Noakes: "The softness of the midsole has no marked effect on landing forces during running (T.E. Clarke et al,1983b; Frederick,1986; Nigg et al., 1987). It seems that runners alter their gaits and muscle activation patterns (Komi et al., 1987) when running in harder shoes or when running barefoot. Thus, the degree of pronation is reduced when one runs barefoot (Frederick, 1986; L.S. Smith et al., 1986), a reduction due to changes in running patterns...."

"Footwear modifies some of the characteristics of the propulsion phase in other ways. Several of these changes are related to the aforementioned elevated heel of the shoe. One byproduct of heel elevation is a shortening of the Achilles tendon and calf muscles. Three of the calf muscles – the posterior tibial, flexor hallucis longus and flexor digitorum longus – play important roles in the function of the arch. As these muscles become shorter, they fail to pull properly on the back of the heel thereby increasing the flattening of the arch. Pronation occurs at a time when the foot should be in a neutral position. The unnatural position of the elevated heel also disrupts the work of some tendons connected to the toes. These tendons, which originate in the lower leg, apply their pull around ankle bones above the heel to hold the toes against the ground while the body passes over them during propulsion. The raised heel leads to an imbalance in the tug of these tendons thereby interfering with efficient propulsion.11"

Something else to add:

"Wearers of expensive running shoes that were promoted as correcting pronation or providing more cushioning experienced a greater prevalence of these running-related injuries than wearers of less expensive shoes (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard. Anthony (1987) reported that running shoes should be considered protective devices (from dangerous or painful objects) rather than corrective devices, as their capacity for shock absorption and control of over-pronation is limited....Other features of footwear, such as arch supports and orthotics, may interfere with shock-moderating behavior and probably hinder the shock-absorbing downward deflection of the medial arch on landing (Robbins and Hanna, 1987). These features reportedly reduce pronation and supination or offer the wearer lateral and arch support. They may help some people with foot pathologies, but their benefit is uncertain for runners with healthy feet (Yessis, 2000, p.121)."

I'd like to point out there is nothing conclusive in this experimentation, and that you can't extrapolate much from them. Let's look carefully at the data and the conclusions.

AGREE -- people who run in cheaper shoes exhibit fewer injuries than people whoh run in more expensive shoes

DISAGREE -- this is an argument for flats. Note the conclusion in this paragraph is inconclusive re: people with foot pathologies. Even these authors don't advocate cheap shoes for all! With respect to cheaper shoes causing less injury than expensive shoes, the experiment needs to control for possible influences. It may be that people who get injured a lot SPEND MORE money on their shoes. Or it may be that people who RUN MORE spend more money on their shoes. And there is no statement here about whether the cheap shoes are less cushioned (i.e. are FLATS)

In summary:

AGREE that you should probably get rid of all unnecessary bells and whistles in a shoe, and that you should aim for a low heal height, and that shoe manufacturing companies need to produce more shoes that are flat (instead of elevated), but DISAGREE the data suggest abandoning cushioning in the forefoot for already neutral runners who are bashing their feet for over long hard miles in training. OBSERVE that the flats advocates treat their view as a kind of religion, which cannot be disproved, so I don't expect to convince them.

johnston

I am finding this thread very interesting. I am a fairly succesful runner who knows a lot about training but never really took the time to think about the shoe thing and always stuck to traditional trainers like the pegasus. I am a big time heal striker. Lawoof and others on this thread, would you recommend someone like who hasn't really ever had any injury problems still try to make the switch to something more simple like a flat. I will keep reading this.

I'd like to point out that your rationale is flawed. You still seem to think that cushioning reduces force! Besides trying to use biased studies funding by shoe companies, where's your scientific support for your "intuition"?

Pronation is normal, even for those with a neutral footstrike. Although not clarified in this secondary source, if you assume a variety of subjects were used, this normal degree of pronation is going to be exacerbated during midsupport while shod than while barefoot. Not only does this previous research come to this conclusion, but this is also prevalent in my video clips.

I would sure hope they encourage pronation, as this is normal! A large reason for the increased pronation while shod during midsupport is because of the reduction in sensory feedback and the loss of the stretch reflex of tendons/ligaments/muscles in the feet and legs. The idea of flats (which typically have a lower heel lift and thinner midsole than trainers) is that you get greater sensory feedback and the foot is better able to flex to absorb and withstand the energy and force. Read below:

From Lore of Running:"One problem with cushioning properties of the shoe is that the tendons and ligaments of the foot are designed to absorb shock when one runs barefoot (R.M. Alexander, 1987). Furthermore, these structures in the foot act act as highly efficient springs, converting as much as 93% of the energy they absorb on landing into elastic recoil at toe-off. Compared to these structures, the midsoles and outer soles of running shoes are relatively inefficient, because they convert only 40 to 50% of this energy back into elastic recoil (Alexander, 1987; Alexander & Bennett, 1989); the remainder of the energy heats up in the midsole."

Do you really think more cushioning dampens shock? You're basing your judgement off of intuition instead of science.

:"Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes reduce shock. Robbins and Gouw (1990) reported that running shoes did not reduce shock during running at 14 km/h on a treadmill. Bergmann et al. (1995) found that the forces acting on the hip joint were lower for barefoot jogging than for jogging in various kinds of shoe. Clarke et al. (1983) observed no substantial change in impact force when they increased the amount of heel cushioning by 50% in the shoes of well-trained runners. Robbins and Gouw (1990) argued that plantar sensation induces a plantar surface protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock. The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990)."

The point is flats tend to have a LOWER heel elevation, thinner midsole, and greater flexibility than trainers, which means a greater likelihood of getting the sensory feedback and stretch reflex of the tendons/ligaments muscles.

You fail to grasp that the body compensates for less cushioning by adjusting biomechanics to absorb and withstand the energy and force. You don't need cushioning to do this-- the body is naturally AND efficiently designed to do so. A shoe should just offer just protection, NOT increased cushioning.

Im just another person advocating the puma H-streets. If puma made this shoe forever, I would never buy another shoe. As it is, im attempting to stockpile as many of them for the future as possible.

so, conclusion: get the h-street, just not in my size please.

Ive been of the minimal persuasion for about two years now, and the best indicator of my progress is the adidas cubato. When I first saw the light, I trained in typical heavy trainers, and did workouts in the cubato, which at the time felt like the most minimal, weightless shoe ever made.

I did an extremely gradual transition (a full year), but did it different than most--instead of the standard progressive introduction of less and less shoe, I went from a few weeks of nike flats (ekiden), straight to solely barefoot running for three months, then XC waffles for three months, now H-streets. I put on the cubato the other day and was amazed at how bulky and high-heeled it felt; I would never run in "real" flats anymore, and would obviously never even think of trainers.

Im super impressed with how minimal shoes, especially the h-street and barefoot, have smoothed out and changed my form, and I feel much more efficient and sense a much more explosive toe-off.

For what it's worth, Im a 175 lb fatass and just ran a 15:21 5k PR off of 30-40 mpw.

Happy running everybody...

i'm not responding to any particular post, i just thought i'd throw in my two cents.

consider this exaggerated example:

walk on stilts, very high off the ground--you lose control and balance don't you? now walk directly on the ground, your body has tons of control.

so this example is a simple analogy and quite similar to shoes. I haven't figured out if weight has as much to do with it, but it makes complete sense, having a shoe with too much midsole increases instability. i'm not telling you to go out and run barefoot all the time, or even switch to the most minimalistic shoe there is, but its worth a try to lower yourself to the ground (ie. making your form as close to natural as possible). sure you may say running on concrete you need all this extra stuff, but in reality thats not the case. like many have said, give it a try, improve your form and yes its trial and error--but for me, i'll try any improvement i can to reach my potential.

move into them slowly, increase your strength, and i wish you the best. even nike sees their mistake as they've introduced the frees--i don't quite understand if they've realized their problem why they still make their shoes the way they do with their high heel counters... anyway, good luck

Jaguar:

Respectfully, I disagree. And if you read my reply carefully you'll note where you are overextrapolating. The core of your argument is that it is mere "intuition" that cushioning reduces shock. And that cushioning merely reduces the sensation of shock, and thereby the body's adaptive biomechanical response. Okay lets run an experiment. Try this: punch a brick wall in boxing gloves. Now puch it with your bare hands. Do this for 90 minutes and see which your hands prefer. Next, drive your car without air in the tires and see what happens to the rims. Tell pro-football players to remove their helmuts and smash heads -- Look Jag, as I point out in another thread you're falsely concluding that shock setting is totally incompatable with cushioning, and yet the relevant experimentation hasn't been done. You're extrapolating too much from slender evidence. In ten years, this will be "old science" and improved methods will reveal the errors.

Johnston.

"Try this: punch a brick wall in boxing gloves. Now puch it with your bare hands. Do this for 90 minutes and see which your hands prefer." Johnston writes

Dude seriously you need help! What does punching your hand against a brick wall have to do with the biomechanical effiecieny of the foot and ankle? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop posting until you can do some research and come up with something inteligent to say on the subject.

johnston wrote:

The core of your argument is that it is mere "intuition" that cushioning reduces shock. And that cushioning merely reduces the sensation of shock, and thereby the body's adaptive biomechanical response. Okay lets run an experiment. Try this: punch a brick wall in boxing gloves.... Now puch it with your bare hands. Do this for 90 minutes and see which your hands prefer. Look Jag, as I point out in another thread you're falsely concluding that shock setting is totally incompatable with cushioning, and yet the relevant experimentation hasn't been done. You're extrapolating too much from slender evidence. In ten years, this will be "old science" and improved methods will reveal the errors.

Johnston.

Again, you are basing your conclusion on intuition instead of real science! Lets see you back up your points with peer-reviewed research. As you mentioned with the hand, if you did it over and over again, you would build up strength and adapt. The same can be said of a bare foot or a foot in a shoe with less cushioning (that simply offers protection). It's when you start increasing the cushioning that problems develop, including changes in biomechanics that are incompatible with how the body naturally functions without shoes. A cushioned shoe is not going to enhance the functionality of the foot-- it simply weakens the muscles in the feet/legs and increases instability and the reliance on artificial support. The greater the amount of cushioning, the higher one's center of gravity. Cushioning trainers are like SUVs-- higher center of gravity means a greater likelihood of "tipping" over.

To say an elite runner has the same "shock setting", or biomechanical adaptations, while shod as while barefoot is absurd! It is very clear from video clips that there IS a DIFFERENCE in biomechanical adaptation strategies.

A shoe should offer protection and allow normal foot functionality. Simply looking at what Nike is doing with the Free shows that they are catching on to this concept, even if the Free is still somewhat flawed with a thick midsole and heel lift. Ten years from now shoes will be more like what is worn over in Asia and people will wonder how we got away with training in "army boots". ;) jag

Jag 1:

I do not base my conclusion on "intuition" but rather on my experience, and the experience of 95% of the elite runners out there. Your research consists of pulling quotations selected from books designed to promote "minimalist running" and from your experience. Look, I'm on vacation, but when I get back early in the New Year I"ll check and see whether anyone has bothered to test whether cushioning dampens road shock, and I'll post what I find. And I suggest that you think more critically about what this "reasearch" actually establishes about the bodies ability to absorb running massive mileage and intensity on hard surfaces which its own resources.

Johnston.

Dear Pro-flats brigade:Preliminary research:1. You spell "research" with only one "a" and "with" is not spelled "which"2. I'm never going to convince you to challange your dogmas, no matter what I turn up.

johnston wrote:

And I suggest that you think more critically about what this "reasearch" actually establishes about the bodies ability to absorb running massive mileage and intensity on hard surfaces which its own resources.

Johnston.

johnston,

Your post fails to take into account the value of technique. A better example would be letting your hand get hit by a fastball, as opposed to catching it. Minimalist runners don't crash into the ground, they more or less "catch it."

johnston,

The elites get hurt just the same as everyone else. And note LaWoof's comment that non of any of Lydiard's personally coached athletes in all his life ever had a lower leg injury.

Shoe companies sell on technology, which is counterproductive to someone who is going to be racing.

Go check out the ASICS Japan website. The 2100, Kayano and such -- those are Japanese "Fun Runner" Shoes. The heaviest shoe for a performance athlete is like a DS-Trainer.

Johnston,

I should add to your final comment that, I do my very best to be open minded. However long ago it was that I was first introduced to this concept, I was exremely skeptical. It ran contrary to everything I thought about footwear at the time. But I did the reading, I saw the results, and I thought I'd give it a try. And, as it seems, regular shoes do deaden your feet, shorten muscles and tendons, and are poor preparation for racing.

I recommend that RunningTime article this month on Nuguchi vs. Drossin -- an excellent example of technique as a result of training shoes.

The arguement I awlays hear for regular shoes is that, yes barefoot and all may be great on grass and dirt, but we run much on asphault and concrete and...

Okay. How much is enough? One inch? Two? Three? I think that, for performance athletes, they've really overdone the thickness of midsoles. Why 24mm thick in the heel? Why not 20mm, or 16mm? Why did running specialty owners sell truckloads of the Ultimate 81s years ago but now most of those same owners wouldn't let you walk out the door running in those same shoes?

For the joggers, whatever makes them happy. They're not competitive, they're participants. Again, the ASICSJapan fun runners.

For performance athletes and those whose bodies simply could not function properly in high heels, you've got to bring it down to the ground.

A funny story: I stopped by a Snail's Pace Running store in Orange County last Friday. I started talking with one of the guys that works there and he asked my if I had worked with the Free. I told him it was my number one Nike for men and women. He was shocked. "You don't sell it as a running shoe, do you?"

"Of course," I said, "I've got lots of people running in it. They put it on, I watch them run, tell them how it works and every other shoe feels like crap."

"But I would think it wouldn't be stable enough for most people..."

"No, it's incredibly stable. It has just an 8mm drop from heel to toe so that it encourages very little overpronation, and it has such a wide base that I've never seen anyone look 'bad' in it."

"Wow...."

Funny shit. And, just to add, this evening I stopped by another running store in San Francisco to pick up a copy of TAFNews. While there, I heard one of the clerks talking about how th eKayano would last longer than the 2100 because of its extra cushioning. That's another misconception. Durability is entirely individual, and the EVA will still compress like all the other shoes. You can have denser cuts than others, and that gel unit or hydroflow unit may not go anywhere, but the rest of shoe is still just foam. How much shoe would it take for you to not replace it at 5000mi/yr of running? Like 15cm thick? Gimmicks.

trackhead wrote:

...

Go check out the ASICS Japan website. The 2100, Kayano and such -- those are Japanese "Fun Runner" Shoes. The heaviest shoe for a performance athlete is like a DS-Trainer.

Just been to the website and they recommend the DS Racer, DS Trainer and 2100 for me (although I did make some assumptions in the questions). I did my hill reps on Saturday in the DS Racer (very old pair) and might try out a pair of the DS Trainers sometime soon.

The only person on this thread that doesn't seem to have and open mind is "You". You have yet to back up any of your claims with any data other than your own experience. Please I would love for you to convince me how great extra cushioning is for running. But just like most of the posters here that have switched from thick padded trainers now have developed there natural biomechanical efficiency and now run with less than a 1/2 inch forefoot cushioning. You are going to have to come up with something much more scientific than I wear more cushioning in my shoes so it must be needed.