The Japanese don't do too badly either and they mostly train on asphalt in light, comparatively thin, shoes.
The Japanese don't do too badly either and they mostly train on asphalt in light, comparatively thin, shoes.
Now think of how much better they would run if they ran on trails!
I don't know much about their training locations, but I wonder if it has anything to do with access to good trails?
HREThat's certainly a fair response that I respect and don't feel any more need to debate. Thank you.
For the record, I've taken several runners who thought they were perfectly happy with their Kayanos etc and moved them into less shoe once I found out they had nagging issues.
I think the one factor that too often gets completely left out of this debate is the difference in the people who made up the running public 30 years ago as compared to today. In America particularly, I think people are less fit, not as light and generally less active before they decide to run these days. That is liable to lead to more injuries now no matter what they are wearing or where they run.
I personally prefer low heeled shoes and smooth ground but I'm not dogmatic. Like you, if someone is struggling I'd suggest that they consider changing something, footwear, surface, etc.
I wrote one of the earlier articles advocating what are now called "minimalist" shoes. I actually consulted with Robbins on it. I got several e-mails and a handful of phone calls from people who read it and wanted to know about switching or from people who switched after reading the article and were happy they did. But I did get one e-mail from someone who was running happily in some "normal" trainer with no problem at all asking me about how to switch to "less" shoe. I wrote back and asked why they would do that when they were doing so well in their current shoe.
i haven't read all of the replies, but I will say this. The body will adapt to anything if there is appropriate progressive stress.
If you grew up playing in the streets, and then ran 20 miles per week as a freshman in hs on the roads, and increased that gradually 60+ by the time you were as HS senior and then upped that through college, all on the roads, you would be fine.
On the other hand if you grew up in the soft surface era, then it is likely that you would rightfully say, hard surfaces beat up my legs.
and if you had a nice equal mix of both, you might not have a preference either way. Neither is bad if used appropriately and there is no right or wrong. Each runner is an experiment of one with a unique background.
HRE wrote:
The Japanese don't do too badly either and they mostly train on asphalt in light, comparatively thin, shoes.
Not bad but not the best
Why put any padding on shoes it just does not make any sense that running on a hard surface is good for your feet. A road is man made and evolution has gone on for millions of years get on the trails where nature intended. Sure a shoe is man made but you would have even less injuries if you were brought up barefoot and ran on a natural surface
Like I said I'll follow a Kenyan any day rather than some guy with a PhD. He might be a smart ass but when it comes to running he's a dumb ass. Good night!
And at this stage of my life I'll follow whatever makes my knees hurt less and that seems to be a road, which is what I've spent forty fours years running on, and a thin pair of shoes.
Soft Soles Could Be Hurting Runnershttp://www.coolrunning.com.au/general/1997e003.shtml
"According to the researcher, the shoes and floor mats do not really absorb impact well. "It's been shown that when people land on thick soft surfaces, they land harder," he explains. "And they land harder by landing with straighter legs. The leg doesn't bend, sink down, which is a very effective shock absorber." He notes that the increased impact with straighter legs "overcomes the little advantage that the shoe has," but Robbins adds that although researchers ("but not the public") have known about this phenomenon for years, no one has understood why."
joel wrote:
For all you crybabies, I give you exhibit A, Sebastian Coe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgUuMzMWk4#t=01m40sAnyone who's read his Dad's books knows this is how he did most of his miles and hill sprints.
Finally a good point in favour of the hard surface
If you train '40' miles a week and weigh under 60 kg it might work for you!
Seb also used to do his long weekly run on the moors and I don't think they make tracks out of concrete - it's a relatively soft surface that's why you can run in spikes. Take the spikes out of them and try running on the road.. there is a bit of minimalism for you!
brogan1 wrote:
My legs feel much better when running on softer surfaces. Harder surfaces leave my legs feeling beat up. That's enough evidence for me.
me to.
As a moderately heavy runner I make a point of doing 95% of my running on soft trails, dirt paths, woodchip trails, and other natural paths in the woods. I can totally feel it when I am stuck on the roads.
another shoe guy wrote:
It is becoming painfully obvious that the answer is variety.k.
This. Although, I would add as a " necessity " and not painfully. Variety IS definitely the key.