Does Training in Minimalist Shoes = Faster Racing?

I've never been there before -- hopefully next year. But if you can get out there, it should be worth it. A couple of greats will be there.

trackhead wrote:

AH,

If you\'re running fine, no injuries -- great. What do I gain by trying to change your thinking? Do I think that it is an avenue that you could explore to improve your performance? Sure -- it\'s like eating right. If you want to cover all your bases you cut out the processed stuff. That doesn\'t mean that it\'s impossible to run well if you eat Oreos, but they\'re not doing you any favours.

You just illustrated my point. You still assert that this route is not the best for me...ie I\'d do better if I just listened to YOU. Did it ever occur to you that what are Oreos for you might not be Oreos for everyone?

Shoes are not Oreos. You are really self-absorbed. What deludes you into thinking you know better than everyone else?

Actually, if you pay attention to what he is saying. he is not saying listen to me I know all. He believes that this can help some people and explains that this is an option for some. There are many options to take when trying to stay injury free. HE is simply trying to look out for our fellow brotherhood of runners and provide more options. He cares more about others than himself. hence why you have to respect the man.

For those who use trainers and move straight into flats for training, this would be the same as a person confimed to a wheelchair for 10 years, suddenly standing up and sprinting - of course they will be susceptible to injury.

I am sorry you miss understood me. I am saying have them transfer over gradually until they then can run full mileage and paces in them.

Ok. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. The advantages of high heels?

And yes, probably best to limit the oreo intake.

I think this conflict boils down to two things:

a) not enough research. For myself and everyone else that posts on here about positive experiences in transitioning to less shoe, we have our own personal stories and data a few sources that have actually done the research. But who is going to commission a study of enough length and control as to get two groups of similar ability and slowly convert one to minimal shoes and leave the other to their Kayanos and have them time trial or race?

b) the idea that incredibly fast and accomplished athletes have nothing to learn from a noname (me). I've presented this stuff to very, very fast people and you know what, they did tell me that I was stupid. They told me that it was something they hadn't considered before and were interested.

oh the irony:

that should have read:

did NOT tell me that I was stupid

I think Nike is the best shot at getting to do the study because 1) it would help their bottom line and 2)they have the equipment and evrything already. I hope they do this one day I would be very intrigued by the results. All I can say is that running is a sport where injuries will always happen and I just hope people can stay helathy and do whatevr they need to in order to do so.

jack shoes wrote:

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.

There is no sense arguing with you people, because the most infuriating aspect to this topic is the refusal of trackhead and the others to back away from or retract false assertions after they have been exposed as completely devoid of fact. So, to those folks who do not have their minds firmly made up on this topic, a complete discussion of these points made by jack shoes can be found on another thread. Some are misleading, others are just wrong.

Some basic facts:

1. In real life, not based on machines, more shock is transmitted to the body when cushioning in shoes is reduced. This will not be a problem for everyone, so this fact does not mean that everyone needs to run in cushioned trainers, but some individuals with susceptibility for impact-related injuries might be forced to abandon a minimalist approach.

2. These impact forces are generated rapidly enough that they can not be compensated for by many of the body's shock absorbing mechanisms, so a more efficient foot strike, if achieved, will not remove this issue.

3. The increased leg and foot strenghth that the minimalists discuss is due to an increased use of these muscles in shock absorption. This is likely good and bad, since an increased resistance to fatigue of these muscles can help prevent injury, but the extra work and increased likelyhood of fatigue can increase the risk of injury. Also, the energetic cost of using these muscles actully means that running without cushion can be less efficient than running in cushioned shoes, depending on weight differences in the different footwear.

4. Quoting from CW Chan and A Rudins in Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 1994, "Running barefoot normally results in increased pronation, probably from changes in biomechanics, because the musculoskeletal system must absorb some of the force that otherwise would be dissipated by the shoe. Nevertheless, some runners with excessive pronation in their shoes have neutral motion when running barefoot. This difference may be attributed to the cushioning properties of the shoe, which tend to amplify rearfoot motion..." See? There is individual variation at play here.

5. However, when quoting studies using barefoot running, minimalists ignore the fact that running in minimal shoes, such as spikes, produces different mechanics than running barefoot. In the best study to look at this issue both spikes and trainers reduced the torsion motion of the foot, leading to different motion patterns.

What all this means is not that anyone should get the biggest bulkiest trainers they can find, but that everyone should find the solution tht will allow them to stay healthy, train, and race in the manner they want. That solution will likely be different for everyone depending on the architecture of their feet and even the rest of their body. Just don't let anyone tell you that it is a cut and dry issue that cushioned shoes or orthotics are inherently evil. Even if it is the ghost of Lydiard. These will be the best solutions for some percentage of the population out there.

"What all this means is not that anyone should get the biggest bulkiest trainers they can find, but that everyone should find the solution tht will allow them to stay healthy, train, and race in the manner they want. That solution will likely be different for everyone depending on the architecture of their feet and even the rest of their body. Just don't let anyone tell you that it is a cut and dry issue that cushioned shoes or orthotics are inherently evil. Even if it is the ghost of Lydiard. These will be the best solutions for some percentage of the population out there."

I think this is well put and the point that needs to stand out. I will continue to stress that everyone is different so there will never be just one set solution. I mean what if someone has Osgood Schlatter's (sorry if this is spelled incorrectly). Those individuals need cushion and soft surfaces to run on to decrease pain. You can not expect them to train full time in trainers.

JY wrote:

the most infuriating aspect to this topic is the refusal of trackhead and the others to back away from or retract false assertions after they have been exposed as completely devoid of fact.

Perhaps someone will indeed make a post to "expose" trackhead's assertions as "devoid of fact".

Yours is not that post. It merely makes assertions to the contrary.

Go back to the previous threads that examined these arguments in detail. The back and forth concerning specific publications cited by jaguar1 and trackhead\'s biomechanical and evolutionary theories were beyond endless and can not be rehashed here.

Average Joe, unlike Trackhead, is a self absorbed know it all. He even knows that God doesn't exist. Imagine that.

Trackhead -

I respect your opinion and theories. However I am curious about something. Over the years, many Kenyans and Ethiopians have transitioned from running barefoot to running in sneakers. Have they experienced a lot of injuries as a result of shortened achilles tendons, shorten plantar fascia etc..etc..?

Have you done some research in this direction?

Just observational -- I haven't set out to get numbers. But guys like Geb and Abera are habitual reminders to me. And it comes to mind when I hear a top level track athlete has gone down with an achilles problem, or PF, etc.

Fact? Many studies have previously been cited on here illustrating contrasting results. What seems to be most prevalent is that shoes change WHERE the stress is distributed due to the change in biomechanics (ex. knee vs. ankle). As someone who has a susceptibility for impact-related injuries (7 stress fractures wearing cushioned trainers and/or orthotics), taking up the minimalist approach has worked, but as you mentioned below there's individual variability. Feet need to be flexible and function as they are intended. Thick, cushioned, inflexible shoes creates too much imbalance, and their ability to absorb shock better than a bare, fleixlbe foot is questionable.

Agree.:)

Hector Matos wrote:

Trackhead -

I respect your opinion and theories. However I am curious about something. Over the years, many Kenyans and Ethiopians have transitioned from running barefoot to running in sneakers. Have they experienced a lot of injuries as a result of shortened achilles tendons, shorten plantar fascia etc..etc..?

Have you done some research in this direction?

Hi Hector, one of my subjects in a study I did this past year (not running related) is a collegiate runner from Zimbabwe. He was complaining about shin problems and had been wearing Nike Pegasus since arriving in the US back in Jan.. I asked him if he ran barefoot back home, and he said yes. He said some of the runners have started wearing shoes but prefer running barefoot. I found this quite interesting.

runningingsandiego wrote:

I think Nike is the best shot at getting to do the study....

Hi runningsandiego, for my biomechanics project last fall I did qualitative video analysis comparing barefoot and shod running (with trainers) using myself as the example. The results were quite interesting. I have ideas for the future such as looking at the injury incidence and performance improvements with the supplementation of barefoot running. Nike would lose a lot of credibility if they come out and say they have been wrong all these years and instantly change their shoes. At least they are being innovative with the arrival of the Nike Free, and who knows there may be a gradual trend towards shoes with thinner, more flexible midsoles.

I have no clue who trackhead is, but the idea that he is self-promoting is absurd. He comes across as knowledgable and wanting to help people be happy and healthy with their running.

jag,

Nike is doing some back tracking with the Free.

http://www.davidreviews.com/playmovie.asp?ID=2005042005