it would be a very, very slow process for you. The woman whose feet I posted -- she was in MC shoes with orthotics when I first met her but now can run w/o the ortho and in the 900.
Once you have everything under control, I would try just walking BF on grass for about 10min, waiting 72hrs and then going again, and being very slow in terms of progression.
In terms of docs, I've met one, very successful podiatrist that was on my side.
There is a not a great deal of time as the track season is in full spring now in April.
The podiatrist said do what is comfortable, so I have been walking without the orthotics. The shoe without the orthotics is very roomy and the heel counter does not constrict the heel, so already there is improvement.
I will begin training without the orthotics because I have no hope of training in a shoe with lots of devices stuffed into it.
E -
I know exactly what you're talking about. The h streets are not "on the ground" so to speak. I wish the heel were wider and even flatter. I haven't run in them yet, but I feel like I'm on a wobble board or something just walking around in them.
It seems a lot of these "flats" have heels far too built up. The RC150 was a rare breed. Hopefully they'll bring it back.
Once again you come back to evolution having selected for barefoot long-distance running.
Evolution is survival of the fittest. The benefits of evolution apply to populations, NOT to individuals. There can be many individuals with poor characteristics within a population...it is just the trend for the less fit to be weeded out.
This means that there are plenty of people around with poor mechanics that CANNOT run minimalist without getting injured...especially since getting injured no longer means they won't get food or get eaten by a lion.
The notion that evolution gives every person in a population the same advtantages is ludicrous. Evolution gave us superior intelligence but we still have retarded people with very low intelligence.
"The benefits of evolution apply to populations, NOT to individuals."
this is true.
so follwing your logic that as a POPULATION, we have adapted to locomotion sans shoes.
then the majority(read norm) of shoes should be minimal, No?
there is, however a bit of character release in the human population, i dont know if its significant.
and neither do you.
Does anyone have any suggestions for the most minimal shoes besides the H-streets for those of us who'se fit were made differently than the cut of the h street? Basically for me, my feet are just too wide for that particular cut, the outsole presses up into my arch, and it is just not that comfortable.
Thanks
..and yet we're not all retarded. A minute percentage of the populationi is retarded. And yet with feet, it's as if most in the running industry treat the majority as if they were retarded.
Post it all you want, I don't care what you claim, WHO SAYS THAT YOU'RE RIGHT? Just because you want to put something in quotes doesn't mean that it's automatically correct or instantly attains credibility. You ARE educated enough to have heard of the concept of citing supporting evidence from credible sources, aren't you? Oh, and Alison Roe wasn't constantly injured, she had to be healthy enough to win races.
Madein_82 wrote:
Ok ill post this again.
"As the weight of the runner's body rides over the foot, THE ENTIRE SOLE WILL REST FLAT ON THE GROUND - DO NOT REMAIN LIKE A BALLET DANCER ON YOUR TOES throughout the weight bearing phase. Alison Roe did this, and was constantly injured."
ok the entire sole WILL include your heel.
AND, when your heel comes down IT WILL pronate.
Someone had argued that it is best to run, without EVER leting your heel come down at anypoint during the stride.
which is of course wrong.
need some l.w. training shoes wrote:"not the one winning races."
Hmm, well, Alison Roe must have won at least one race since she set a WR in the marathon.
I tend to agree that not letting your heels touch down is not considered good form, but if it works, it works.
Don't even bother with this idiot. Madein 82 has obviously suffered some sort of cerebral injury that has caused his paltry intelligence to decrease still further. He is clearly only about 20% literate, and his ability to communicate falls slightly below that of a mechnical horse.
lol...did i insult your mother or something.
"(Science: zoology) Walking on the sole of the foot; pertaining to the plantigrades.
Having the foot so formed that the heel touches the ground when the leg is upright.
Origin: L. Planta sole of the foot _ gradi to walk: cf. F. Plantigrade.
(Science: zoology) A plantigrade animal, or one that walks or steps on the sole of the foot, as man, and the bears."
Link#1
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/plantigrade
heres something prehaps a bit more at your level.
"Did you know that you are a plantigrade creature, as are such animals as porcupines and bears? Or that a bobcat is digitigrade and a horse unguligrade? No, these words aren't commenting on moral status or astrological sign. These are biological terms referring to the construction of feet and how they meet the turf.
Plantigrade means that the whole foot--heel to toes--meets the ground. Digitigrade refers to toes and fingers--the digits. Thus digitigrade animals, like our desert foxes and rodents, walk on their toes, with the heel of the foot well off the ground. This lengthens the legs, giving them four segments to each limb instead of our three. Our Pronghorn and deer carry things yet further. They are unguligrade, referring to walking on the very tip of the toes, giving them what some people think is a backwards-facing knee--actually the heel, far up the leg. The knee is much higher and almost concealed. The extreme lengthening helps adapt these animals for fast running--for a cursorial way of life"
and the link
Damn, talk about specious arguments. Neither source should be considered as any sort of authority over the mechanics of human running. If that's the best you can do, then you're incapable of removing doubt from your position.
To a previous poster, I've noticed that it's the heel-strikers who have the bounciest gaits and those who tend to land on their forefoot are usually much smoother. Go figure.
ghost racers wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions for the most minimal shoes besides the H-streets for those of us who'se fit were made differently than the cut of the h street? Basically for me, my feet are just too wide for that particular cut, the outsole presses up into my arch, and it is just not that comfortable.
Thanks
I've been very happy with the Onitsuka Moscow Limber Up. Recently, I've gotten the Adidas Dragon, you can get a nylon uppered version from Eastbay for $49.99 or a leather version from Classicsportshoes.com for I forget how much. I really like the Dragon as well. I'm also a fan of the Onitsuka Ultimate 81. None of these is as light as the H Street. My other suggestion would be to get a spikeless racer, like the Adidas Neptune or the Asics 15-50. If you find that a bit too minimalist, I'd suggest going a half size bigger than you normally get and put in a Spenco.