Does Training in Minimalist Shoes = Faster Racing?

runninginsandiego wrote:

"It is hard to not do most of your running in America on Asphalt or concrete" .

scottiee wrote:

Thus the need for cushioned trainers.

Wrong.

This quote says it best:

"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."

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

Oh come on, the problems with this "study" have already been beaten to death in prior threads. What was the basis of that claim by the Anthony (1987) article ? Many of the sources the barefoot running "article" cites "report" a lot of things. These vary from questionable (e.g. Robbins: real science but the guy is an opinionated crusader) to outright bogosity (Yessis)

I am interested in this idea of minimal training, casually dismissing it at first, and now reading more and more about it. As a rising collegiate runner, maybe this could be what I need to help me to be the best runner I can be. However, one thing keeps me from trying it. A lot of people who have made the switch to minimalistic training have preached that it is better because it has basically eliminated their injury problems and allowed them to train more consistently. In my four years of running, I've never had any injury problems. Basically, I'm questioning if "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should apply here. I'm at a low volume point in my running right now, just beginning to train for a freshman collegiate season. I think now would be a better time than for a while in the forseeable future to make the switch. Any comments, opinions, or similar experiences?

there are comments on the article as well

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/cb.htm

As a rising collegiate runner, maybe this could be what I need to help me to be the best runner I can be.

Sure, and maybe El G, Geb, Tergat, etc should listen to Trackhead to be the best runners they can be too -- or maybe not.

I'd go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

FWIW, I've run in light trainers, heavier trainers, flats, etc. My primary training shoe is a light trainer (Mizuno precision). The extra cushioning on my heavier trainer (the Wave Rider) doesn't seem to provide much besides extra weight. For an easy training run, I find both just fine. I don't think it matters a whole lot performance-wise if you use a clunky shoe or a flat or bunny slippers when you're going to do an 8 minutes per mile recovery jog. I personally like the extra heel lift offered by regular or even light trainers for recovery runs though.

The bottom line is that you could probably train in flats and it wouldn't hurt -- but why mess with something that's working ? And -- one thing the flats people still can't answer -- is, how will doing a 10 minute per mile recovery run in flats help me run under 4:30 for 1500m ?

Intrigued and Interested wrote:

As a rising collegiate runner....

If anything, the best advice I could give to a rising collegiate runner is don't kill yourself every day. Don't put pressure on yourself to keep up with your teammates every day. Know when to take it easy and allow for rest and recovery. There were too many times when I ran collegiately I found myself nearly racing my teammates on easy days and long runs. If you don't feel like running with them or feel like taking it easy, then jog by yourself. Take your easy days easy so you can get the most out of your hard days AND races.

elflord,

more to your point: how many times has Geb been broken?

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything and it seems you aren't either. But I am interested in the discussion. Do you find that your form changes when you move from training shoes to racing shoes? As I have progressed to lower profiled shoes, I seem to run "lighter" and perhaps more efficiently. (This may or may not actually be true, but it is just how I feel). I used to wear heavier trainers for recovery, but now they seem to make me plod. So it just seems, why not keep consistent? And perhaps that is what you are saying. There is a big difference between the Precision and the Kantara, for example.

trackhead wrote:

elflord,

more to your point: how many times has Geb been broken?

If only he would listen to you, damn he sucks. He would have never been injured and probably broken a few more world records. Man Geb is an idiot, doesn't he suck?

runninginsandiego-

Your ignorance is matched only by your poor use of capital letters.

Lydiard recommended that his athletes train in as little shoe as possible and do the vast majority of their running on tarmac (That's pavement!). This is documented in virtually everything Lydiard ever wrote. Your running on sand thing is nonsense. You may be thinking or Ceruty.

Here's the point about Lydiard (in my estimation). People on this board swallow everything Lydiard said as gospel, but refuse to acknowledge his recommendations on shoes.

In review:

1. Lydiard believed that shoes should be "like slippers."

2. Lydiard believed that for proper aerobic conditioning, runners should train on pavement.

Also:

3. Lydiard was a shoe maker.

4. When Lydiard made shoes for his athletes, he made them with no heel lift (in his trainers), and added a slight heel lift in racing shoes.

5. If anything, point 4 is the complete opposite of what is recommended in the U.S. today.

6. Lydiard was known to rail against orthotics. At his clinics, he was known to have runners jog barefoot to demonstrate that the problem was with the shoes, not the feet. He said, "Orthotics are for the shoes, not the feet."

7. If you want to disagree with this, then say, "Lydiard was wrong." Just say it once for the record.

Furthermore:

8. There is well documented science to establish the dangers of athletic shoes. Certainly, there is controversy here, but there are repeated research that shows:

-Heel height exaggerates pronation

-Increased cushion increases leg stress

-Products like Sorbothane have shock absorbing

qualities when tested on machines, but when

added to the human foot, actually increase leg

stress.

-Support shoes weaken feet and ankles

-The body has natural shock absorbing mechanisms.

-Shoes interfere with these mechanisms

-Barefoot populations sustain fewere injuries

than shod populations.

-Their is a direct correlation between the cost

of a running shoe and incidence of injury.

-The higher the cost, the more likely the

injury.

Nobody is saying that this is simple. Most humans have adapted to shoes and re-adapting (to minimalism) takes time and patience. It is, however, the best thing to do for the vast majority of runners. This includes 99% of runners who visit this message board.

jack shoes wrote:

It is, however, the best thing to do for the vast majority of runners. This includes 99% of runners who visit this message board.

This is an ignorant statement. That is like Trackhead saying Geb, Torres, anyone would be better if they followed his stupidty. Everyone is different and you can't generalize about people that you don't know. That's like saying everyone would be better running mile repeats everyday. It might work for some but not EVERYONE or 99%.

thank you for making the point for me. I am simply saying not everyone s the same and everyone is different so not all things work for everyone. Each case needs to be seperate.

I am not saying that minimalists are bad for everyone. For some people if it works then great. Maybe the injuries occur because of so many not taking the time for strength drills and stretching. There is not a lot of time spent on stretching because americans tend to always be in a rush. I know that is the reason I hurt my IT band a while back was because of not stretching enough.

I find it interesting that all you can do is call my thinking "stupidity" and cannot defend the use of insulating high heels.

What would you do, if you read an interview where someone like Geb credits the permenant solution to his Achilles troubles to training full time in lower shoes?

Please, illustrate the benefits of running in high heels.

By the way dickhead,

I've taken my case to both experiences and respected podiatrists and top level shoe designers with significant backgrounds in science/physics and they've all given me the green light and had only praise to give -- not one word about what I was doing as 'stupidity.'

99% was for dramatic effect. I'm prone to that kind of behavior. Truly, though, I believe that most runners could benefit from running in as little shoe as possible.

This would necessitate a great deal of patience, an initial significant reduction in training, and a potentially long retraining of the neural pathways involved in running.

It may not be practical or desirable for some runners. If I were in the prime of my competitive career, I wouldn't go making any big changes. Since I'm on the down-slide, I have less to lose than, say, Alan Culpepper. If I were somebody like Geb, however---constantly battling injuries, I'd take make the change.

trackhead I hope you realize that you will continue to be ridculed because as humans we are resistant to change and scared of it. I think you are doing a fine job following your passion. As I may not agree with it completely I do respect it.

runningingsandiego,

I know and that is why I appreciate your comments. Are you going to RnR next month? There will be some stars out there.

This needs to be done in a lab format in order for us to have any conclusive results. There needs to be a group brought togetehr and split in half of trainers and flats. Having them follow the exact same training schdeule and stretching and everything the same. This is the only way for us to get any answers. This can be done and needs to be done. If Nike really wants to make a huge boom with their new shoes this is what needs to be done. I do think this should be done with at least collegiate level runners or runners of this caliber at least in order to see what happens with high mileage runners.