Minimalist, what was your experience?

I prefer either Ice cup or just ice pack. It is just easier to focus on the area to me.

Yes I do think over time more people are going to understand that their bodies are designed to handle lifes activities without the need for excessive footwear. Unfortunatley we will always be fighting an uphill battle because to many people make money off of other peoples pains, therefore the mis-information runs rampede.

Common sense does not need to be peer reviewed.

But it does, because it often happens that what you (or even people much brighter than you) believe to be "common sense" in fact turns out to be completely wrong.

Higher heeled trainers create more shock up the lower leg into the knees,

That's only because people run poorly in them. My heels barely touch when I run in lightweight trainers.

Why do you believe shoe companies blinded that more shoe is better for your knees when there are many studies which show this to be false.

There's more to your leg than your knee. Most of the "studies" that get posted in these threads are of dubious merit anyway. Steve Robbins is an anti-shoe crusader, most of the other studies seem to be based on his work.

It sounds like you got the PF problem because of compensating for arch pain. I actually posed a question on the Yahoo Barefoot Forum yesterday on this topic. Here's some replies:

Trackhead, Thanks for the tip but nobody within 75 miles of me does A.R.T. I would go in a heartbeat if they did..Let me know when you can ship a tape..Thanks

It would appear from your posts that you put your faith in your shoes vs trusting your body is capable of doing its intended functions. It is to bad that you feel your are biomechanically challenged are confined to a life of wearing thick padded shoes, but pleased don't assume that everybody that runs is biomechanically challenged like yourself.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a NB900 type trainer with a low heel that has CUSHIONING along the lines of a bulkier trainer. It's still an improvement on the high heeled trainer via less heel heigth.

Trackhead, even you say the NB900 is a decent minimalist compromise, yet it's not a flat. I see nothing but a move in the right direction with the introduction of a low heeled, cushioned trainer.

My experience in a nutshell:

Tried flats for about 2 years. I never got to the point where my knees/ankles didn't hurt after doing easy runs in flats. I was always worse for wear, but then again I do almost all my running on concrete.

I wear lightweight trainers for my easy days and flats (or spikes) for my hard days.

It would appear from your posts that you put your faith in your shoes vs trusting your body is capable of doing its intended functions.

Taking 100,000 steps on the pavement in a week is not what I would consider an "intended function" of my body. If you really believed that it was, you'd run barefoot on concrete instead of wearing shoes with a 7mm or so heel lift (even the cubato has 7mm. Most flats have 10)

It is to bad that you feel your are biomechanically challenged are confined to a life of wearing thick padded shoes,

I don't feel "biomechanically challenged" at all. I don't know why you're resorting to such cheap put-downs -- maybe running in flats is some sort of ego thing for you ? BTW, no-one who's actually seen me run has called me "biomechanically challenged". But I'm not interested in boasting about my foot wear, I'd rather focus on my race performances. For me, a combination of flats and trainers works just fine. Why should I do anything differently if what I'm wearing now is working for me ?

As someone who runs in flats regularly, I have to say that I don't feel overly "confined" by the extra millimeter of rubber that my trainers have on them. Nor do I assume that my way is right for everyone -- I have never recommended that someone who is uninjured and running well in flats should switch. But you appear to be of the opinion that I should switch for what I consider fairly silly reasons (to be more "natural", to be less "confined", or whatever)

Mr. Flats wrote:

If you consider yourself injury prone then you are definitly over training in some portion of your training or have biomechanical deficiency which is causing your injuries. I would find someway to determine which is your major problem and then proceed with a good plan to fix it. If you would like to leave your email I will give you some advice.

Mr. Flats,

I'm almost positive it is a biomechanical deficiency. I've never been able to determine the exact cause, but I do know that my right foot points outward when I run due to my knee joint being rotated in that direction. I can correct it if I want, but that would require me running with my right leg rotated inward. I don't know if I explained that right. Also, my right leg is a little shorter than my leftand I land more on the outside of my right leg.

I left my email, and would appreciate any help.

To jaguar1,

Yes I was running in the waffle racer II's. As far as the pace of my easy runs, the guys on my team last summer would bag on me because I'd be running slower than the girls on most easy runs. I usually kept my pace at no faster than 7:45, and most days were around 8:00, sometimes slower. I'd estimate my shape at the time to be around 28:00-28:30 for 8k.

ghost racer,

think of "regular" shoes as casts -- they're great for disabling normal function to allow healing, but ultimately weaken the affected area.

so i treated my achilles the same as a broken bone -- in the casst for 3 weeks, and see how it goes.

Board,

Thanks. Trackhead that makes sense to me.

For the people wondering about ART, I had some treatment today and I just got done running and I had pretty much no pain while I ran in my PF/arch area. I've also been doing all the icing and massage stuff that has been discussed. It is my opinion that the ART is the real key though.

GS

Mr. Flats wrote:

Common sense does not need to be peer reviewed.

Common sense tells me that you must work for the FDA, Mr Flats.

Pharmaceutical Company: We'd like to approve this drug.

Mr Flats: Ok, the FDA requires that you show the drug is safe.

Pharmaceutical Company: Common sense tells us that this is a safe drug.

Mr Flats: Oh. In that case, the FDA will approve your drug, since experimental evidence is clearly inferior to common sense, how could we do otherwise?

would you say that regular shoes encourage poor technique? interesting article by Michael Yessis (who has had some reasonable and not so reasonable claims in the past) who found that Noguchi's footstrike was far more efficient than Kastor's. Noguchi was landing directly under her centre of gravity, more midfoot, while Kastor was landing with her heel infront of her, essentially breaking with every step.

additionally, 150mi week for a top end runner is about 2hrs of running per day, right? Do you think that is an unreasonable amount for hunter/gathers?

peer review, in any field, is a must. It was a common belief at one point, that pushups could damage a woman's ovaries.

Here is my experience in flats:

I am a sophmore in high school. I started running in medium trainers in eighth grade. Whenever I was in a training season, I would have extremely sensitive shins. It didn't really hurt me, but whenever I touched or bumbed them, I would have extreme pain. I just considered it part of running. In high school cross country as a freshmen, I watch team members routinely get have shin splints, knee problems, etc. I never really got hurt because I am made of steel, but that shin pain stayed with me. This year, I got a pair of Tiger Paws at the beginning of the season, and they felt so good that I couln't control myself and wore them every single day.

I got the typical "You'll get a stress fracture!" "Your legs will fall off!" "You're going to die!" "The Apocalypse is upon us, Nostradamas said so!" from teammates sporting highly fashinable icepacks taped to their knees and ankles. I ignored them and began upping my mileage.

Now, this winter, after I finished a ten mile asphalt run, I suddenly realized that the shin pain I had assumed was just part of running was gone! Even more miraculous, the awful pain I had every time I bent my knees a lot was gone! I am now training 70 mpw in preparation for my sophmore track season, with no pain for the first time ever. I am now gradually transitioning to a very swell pair of Puma H-Streets, which are like running on a track in spikes no matter what surface you are on. Plus the ladies dig them.

That's my story. I don't know how much you crusty, fragile old geysers can get out it, though.

Mr. Flats wrote:

Common sense does not need to be peer reviewed. The less shoe one wears the better the efficiency. The better the efficiency the less likely one is to get knee injuries. Higher heeled trainers create more shock up the lower leg into the knees, and also inhibits a proper mid-foot to forefoot transition because of the excessive heel. Why do you believe shoe companies blinded that more shoe is better for your knees when there are many studies which show this to be false.

Why do you think I believe anything that the shoe companies tell me? I was not aware that shoe companies representation their products as fit for any purpose whatsoever.

Why do you think I don't believe barefoot running is best?

I'm only asking what evidence is there that running only in flats results in a lower rate of injuries. If your answer is "don't need any because common sense tells me I'm right", then let's let it stand at that.

The bottom line here is that people should know their own feet. Trying to convince others that there is one best footwear solution is ridiculous. There are so many biomechanical factors that influence how an individual will be able to handle a minimalist approach. Personally, I've always favored a low profile light weight shoe, but that preference is balanced against the fact that I have a very high arched, inflexible foot, that left to its own devices will not pronate at all and absorb the entire impact force on the metatarsal heads. The good news is that a big built up shoe is the exact wrong direction for me. The bad news is that a shoe like the 900 (which I tried on) would be painful on any kind of hard surfaces. I had worse shin splints when, as a 400m runner in high school I ran extensively in spikes and similar shoes without ever having been "weakened" by lots of miles in cushioned trainers. So, I know my feet, know their limitations, and I realize that I am an outlier, and my experiences can not be extrapolated to the running world at large. Others who can pound out 100 mile weeks in minimalist shoes should probably believe the same thing. The excellent review in the journal "Biomechanics" found by johnston and linked to in another thread makes the point that there are individual differences in the ability to sense changes in load on the foot. The author hypothesizes that runners who are deficient in this proprioceptive ability will be more likely to develop injuries when shoe cushioning is reduced. Again, individual differences.

As for the specific points brought up in support of minimalist shoes by Trackhead and Jaguar. First, you can not use studies of barefoot running to advocate minimalist shoes. Some of the points in that article condemning shoes are equally applicable to minimalist shoes. They still have a toe box as well, right? Second, you can't extrapolate differences between barefoot and high heel shoes to height differences of 2-4 mm between flats and trainers. You can run out a laundry list of differences in gait and mechanical efficiency between barefoot running and running with shoes, but those do not mean that (1) running in minimalist shoes is equivalent to running barefoot, or (2) the tradeoff in shock absorption is worth the increase in efficiency when going barefoot. And yes, there is a benefit to cushioned midsoles. While you might dredge out some studies that suggest that peak loads are not reduced by cushioning in shoes, the truly important factors, such as loading rate and the frequency of the loading force. Now just because trainers provide more shock absorption than flats which provide more than unshod feet, doesn't mean that everyone is going to need that "protection". But, for some people, that absorption will be a life-saver. Individual differences. And that doesn't even get into the topic of over-pronation.

would you say that regular shoes encourage poor technique?

I would say that they enable it. I found that a few weekly sessions in flats helped my turnover, and strengthened my calves, resulting in a lighter gait -- and those changes carried through to the way I run in trainers.

interesting article by Michael Yessis

I saw it. It was a silly article, but having seen his book, I suppose I had fair warning. Without taking measurements in the lab, it's impossible to know who is more efficient (it's not always the runner who looks better). I wouldn't count on Kastor firing her coach and hiring Yessis.

2hrs of running per day, right? Do you think that is an unreasonable amount for hunter/gathers?

You'd have to ask someone more familiar with the movements of hunter-gatherers. I personally doubt that they would be so wasteful with energy -- our evolutionary instincts are tuned for scarcity, not abundance -- we tend to have good intuition for minimising energy cost, and maximising consumption.

One thing we do know is that stress fractures are an injury that only occurs in creatures who have athletic training regimes imposed on them (humans, horses and greyhounds). This is why I think it's silly for Yessis to cite the lack of injuries in some obscure tribe as "scientific evidence" of the virtue of barefoot running. It's observational/anecdotal at best.

JY,

See my example of the belly flop: running doesn't need to be synonymous with pounding -- insulation is not a necessity IF:

technique is good

the strength is there

If you had seen me a few years ago when I ran in the 2070 and put me in my H Streets I wouldn't have finished a 30min run. My technique was bad and my muscles were shortened and weak (with respect to unshod runners).

With respect to your commetn about extrapolating data on unshod running to flats -- while I realize that the majority of my case is based on observational and unscientific data, in my experience, I would liken footwear to a spectrum -- from platforms to socks and everything in between. It seems to me that steps in the direction towards just the socks have had similar results and those have been largely positive. So a "shoe" like the H Street, in my opinion, is far less restrictive than a Kayano, because of its felxibility, reduced weight, and thin midsole allowing for greater perception and less insulation from the ground.

I'm curious to hear your responses. And I should add that I appreciate this discussion, and I don't want this turned into a pissing contest -- every one here has their reasons why they have their particular side and this is just a discussion of those ideas in the hopes of learning and finding a more definitive conclusion. Had I found this topic 2 years ago, I would have been right with JY and company.