Great article on barefoot/minimalist running!

Posted on another thread: A somewhat different take on the shoes vs. barefoot debate. His premise is that shoes are designed around the wrong ideas:

http://stevemagness.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-running-shoes-do-not-work-looking.html

Satoris wrote:

This is just rediculous. The assertation that there are no studies that show that traditional footware increases injuries is false.

And besides, its not difficult to see the conflict of interest going on there.

ridiculous

maximalist wrote:

Really, so explain anatomically why it is preferable to strike on a joint. This should be good. And please don't reference anything from Born to Run or Barefoot University.

This really is great. Try this(I'm dumbing this down as much as possible):

Have someone throw a baseball into your head. Then have someone throw a nerf ball into your head. Now, which one hurts more? You can make your own observation, but I am guessing you will prefer the one that can give, bend, and flex just a little. Next we can start in with subtraction and learning all about how Abraham Lincoln just couldn't tell a lie after he chopped down that cherry tree.

Now one for you: If, when running, it is either not preferable or doesn't make a difference if one strikes on a joint in the foot or not, why does the body choose to strike on the area of the foot with multiple joints when allowed to?

I am gonna need an explanation (anatomical or not) of why the body wants to strike first on the midfoot/forefoot when absorbing a lot of impact (running, jumping) if striking on the heel is a better idea.

This should be good.

BOULDERrrrunner wrote:

Satoris wrote:

This is just rediculous. The assertation that there are no studies that show that traditional footware increases injuries is false.

And besides, its not difficult to see the conflict of interest going on there.

Maybe. But just think, if everyone in Boulder suddenly went minimalist, I'm sure Mark would have an influx of folks visiting him in his clinic with all of their various ailments brought on by the sudden change.

So maybe Mark doesn't really believe what he's saying, he's just doing so to preserve his market share. Besides, people interested in barefoot or minimalist running wouldn't go to his clinic anyway because he'd just try to push them into orthotic$.

It's an increase in injury RATE, not just raw number of injuries.

a shoe guy wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that minimalists/barefooters always cite the drastic increase in running injuries over the last say 50 years, yet they never mention two other important factors.

1) The huge change in the percentage of the population that even attempts running for fitness. Prior to the first "jogging" explosion the only people that ran were ones that liked it and didn't have problems.

2) The drastic decrease in average fitness and health. We didn't used to be a sedementary society, now we are. As kids, we start healthy. Somewhere around high school (maybe even earlier) we stop moving as much and get farther and farther away from the body type/fitness level that we evolved to need. Of course it's going to be a tough task to re-create that and injuries are likely no matter what you put on your feet.

more of the same wrote:

http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2010/01/22/barefoot-running-an-open-letter-from-brooks-ceo-jim-weber/

Jim Weber of Brooks on barefoot running.

From the PDF, I totally agree that you can tell to who and how extensively Nike wants to market a shoe by how many colors it comes out in. However, number of colors isn't convincing when he tries to convince you to dismiss the Free. You say you are a function store, so talk function.

And come on, Mr. Hanson, to be logically consistent here you would have to raise the same objections to the Pegasus and Lunarglide. I can either assume you aren't consistent and therefore carry those shoes or are that you don't carry them (maintaining consistency).

Oh, I didn't know I was getting angry! Most of the anger seems to stem from barefooters who face an opposing point of view. Secondly, we actually seem to agree. The funny thing about this is that I wear very little shoe to train in. To take people I see every day, and apply barefoot/minimalism to them is irresponsible at best. Find out what works and go with it. Barefoot runners are way too black and white on this subject. They take their own experience and say, "See, it will work for everyone!" What a load of crap. Good luck with it, and I am glad it works for you. It doesn't for most, based on my experience working with people everyday. And Mark's experience too. That counts for a lot, regardless of your more narrow experience.

sunarm wrote:

Barefoot runners are way too black and white on this subject. They take their own experience and say, "See, it will work for everyone!" What a load of crap. Good luck with it, and I am glad it works for you. It doesn't for most, based on my experience working with people everyday. And Mark's experience too. That counts for a lot, regardless of your more narrow experience.

So barefoot runners should not extrapolate based on their own experiences, but it's okay for you do the same?

I am a minimalist.

If you read my posts, you will agree I am not a black-or-white evaluator on this.

Maybe they are "loud" as anyone would be more or less voluntarily when you stick out like a sore thumb (like the only runner without shoes in a field of 2000.)

But the anti-minimalists (and they seem to take issue on a personal level as often many of them say they use less-shoe themselves) would be more effective if they stopped dismissing the positive experience of barefooters and minimalists.

If they keep on doing this they will just look like contradictory extremists themselves.

sunarm wrote:

Oh, I didn't know I was getting angry! Most of the anger seems to stem from barefooters who face an opposing point of view. Secondly, we actually seem to agree. The funny thing about this is that I wear very little shoe to train in. To take people I see every day, and apply barefoot/minimalism to them is irresponsible at best. Find out what works and go with it. Barefoot runners are way too black and white on this subject. They take their own experience and say, "See, it will work for everyone!" What a load of crap. Good luck with it, and I am glad it works for you. It doesn't for most, based on my experience working with people everyday. And Mark's experience too. That counts for a lot, regardless of your more narrow experience.

In a perfect world, bad arguments with little merit would die away. This is not a perfect world, thus an argument against minimalism continues despite its proponents being unable to supply a logical, coherent, and consistent argument. This is frustrating.

Assuming much? Minimalism DOES work for most, based on my experience, because I WORK WITH PEOPLE EVERYDAY TOO!! And as you said, that counts for a lot. So that fact collapses your whole post. You avoided my questions and STILL ended up looking foolish.

So now your anecdotal evidence vs. my anecdotal evidence leaves us with nothing (so maybe doesn't count for as much?). So now we must return to which side of the argument has the most merit...

Nike and all the other brands who jumped in bed with them and their shoe design have NOT improved human biomechanics and function. Thank god this is finally moving towards being a black and white issue, despite those like you trying to keep it in the gray.

[q

So barefoot runners should not extrapolate based on their own experiences, but it's okay for you do the same?[/quote]\

Right back at ya. That's what you bitter barefooters do. That was my point. I don't claim my way works for everyone, like you seem to promote (and your buddies, too.

[

Nike and all the other brands who jumped in bed with them and their shoe design have NOT improved human biomechanics and function. Thank god this is finally moving towards being a black and white issue, despite those like you trying to keep it in the gray.[/quote]

No, it's still gray. They haven't claimed to improve biomechanics. Only people can improve biomechanics. Shoes can help people with injuries, like I have found. Again, telling people they "look silly" doesn't help you look better. Just helps you look like a turd. The fact you would say it promotes barefooters as being too bitter. I haven't taken things personally, just you. Frankly, I am so happy for you that you have found success with your footwear! Keep it up!

By the way, so far your arguments have consisted of:

1-Shoe companies make money off their shoes. And:

2-Minimalism works for a lot of people!

So while you are consistent, it really hasn't proven shit for the average runner. Not much merit. In my opinion.

Lat question: Who are the people you work with?

Not too sure we should take the footwear advice from someone who is constantly hurt.

racingman wrote:

Posted on another thread: A somewhat different take on the shoes vs. barefoot debate. His premise is that shoes are designed around the wrong ideas:

http://stevemagness.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-running-shoes-do-not-work-looking.html

I heard barefooters are all left handed

He did make a comment about this "fat pad," but what I got out of that observation is that it would be obviously beneficial to have a fat pad there regardless of running form. If you accidentally banged your heel, or just walk normally, much more impact would be absorbed if that fat pad had been less substantial because the heel is directly underneath the tibia and basically the whole body. The metatarsals are on the ends of the feet, so they don't need as much of a "pad" to absorb impact. The impact is spread out and taken by the muscles doing the work, i.e. the calves. When you land on your heel, it is absorbed directly up through your body and the bulk of the impact goes right to the tibia. There's a good reason for that fat pad, but it doesn't indicate that heel striking is naturally better than forefoot striking by any means.

??? cuz it just happened

ROBBINS, S. E. and G. J. GOUW. Athletic footwear: unsafe due to perceptual illusions. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 217-224, 1991

Modern athletic footwear provides remarkable plantar comfort when walking, running, or jumping. However, when injurious plantar loads elicit negligible perceived plantar discomfort, a perceptual illusion is created whereby perceived impact is lower than actual impact, which results in inadequate impact-moderating behavior and consequent injury.

However, until this standard is adhered to, it might be more appropriate to classify athletic footwear as "safety hazards'' rather than "protective devices''.

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/1991/02000/Athletic_footwear__unsafe_due_to_perceptual.12.aspx

sunarm wrote:

[

Nike and all the other brands who jumped in bed with them and their shoe design have NOT improved human biomechanics and function. Thank god this is finally moving towards being a black and white issue, despite those like you trying to keep it in the gray.

No, it's still gray. They haven't claimed to improve biomechanics. Only people can improve biomechanics. Shoes can help people with injuries, like I have found. Again, telling people they "look silly" doesn't help you look better. Just helps you look like a turd. The fact you would say it promotes barefooters as being too bitter. I haven't taken things personally, just you. Frankly, I am so happy for you that you have found success with your footwear! Keep it up!

By the way, so far your arguments have consisted of:

1-Shoe companies make money off their shoes. And:

2-Minimalism works for a lot of people!

So while you are consistent, it really hasn't proven shit for the average runner. Not much merit. In my opinion.

Lat question: Who are the people you work with?[/quote]

Sigh. Telling you that your arguments suck isn't to make me look better, it is to make your arguments look bad...because they are. I was thinking maybe you might actually try to, you know, make a good one instead. But you just try to keep telling me it doesn't help my argument at all instead of actually making a good argument.

And I actually didn't even make the argument "1-Shoe companies make money off their shoes", but thanks for actually reading the posts before you responded to them. And "2-Minimalism works for a lot of people!" wasn't even my main point. My main point has been that all the counter arguments to philosophy behind minimalist/barefoot running aren't good. And you have done nothing to prove me wrong. Except telling me it doesn't make my argument stronger to tell you yours sucks. Not much merit. In my opinion.

I work in a specialty store.

One thing I notice about minimalists and bf runners: they speak with the same fervor, advertisement, and delivery style as the shoe companies they seem to be against. It's the same shit, only Vibram (or the cult) is the company! The shoe companies' claims that their footwear can correct injuries (and supposedly proven wrong by barefooters) is the same one used by barefooters! Awesome. I went back and read all their posts, and it sounds like the EXACT same thing Nike, Brooks, etc. professes. I won't be running barefoot anytime soon...SOS! I am healthy in my Beasts! And I am faster than barefooters! All of them. HA HA!

Anyone who believes that big expensive running shoes aren't necessary is a Flat-earther. The science is settled, and the debate is over!!!!!

Manbearpig!!!!!!ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!