Minimalist, what was your experience?

Mr. Flats wrote:

Slow down there JY, if someone is inherently efficient such as El G why do you think he needs the cushioning of a the Pegasus?

I don't think I ever said anyone needed a Pegasus. I know that I did say I'd never recommend that someone use more of a shoe than they needed.

But, if you want to argue, how do you know El G is inherently efficient? Do you mean he's economical, in which case you can determine his energy consumption just by watching him? Or do you mean that he absorbs more shock or disperses impact forces across a greater area of his foot than normal? Is this also something you can just eyeball?

There is research that correlates a runners senstation of comfort of a pair of shoes with the ability of the shoes to dampen the loading rate of impact forces. If El G thinks the Pegasus is more comfortable, maybe he can differentiate and appreciate the cushioning of that shoe? How do I know anything about his feet?

trackhead,

Yeah, she and Rob finally had a kid last year.

I didn't realize that Dave left so long ago. Now I'm sure I met you over that last year the store was open, but I can't picture you. Typical for me. I remember being in there I think twice after the gutting process had begun. Very sad.

Wow -- where is she working right now, or is she on maternity leave? Last I heard she was working in San Jose.

trackhead wrote:

I realize that every one's experience is different, and there are lots of runners who can train in one shoe and race in another without too many problems, but there are many who cannot, and I would argue that if we're going to maximize our potential on all fronts, that we should train in our racing shoes 100% of the time.

I raced in flats once and I didn't like it at all. I run all my track races in spikes. Should I train in spikes all the time then? I really don't think that would be smart. If emulating race conditions is what we're all after, then training at 6:40 pace when your race pace is 5:00 is useless according to this philosophy. I think there are times in training when you shouldn't be forced up on your toes and forced to run faster than may be necessary. I think this is why trainers are necessary.

Sorry about that I got in a bit of a hurry with my post. But yes I do believe that El G has very good efficiency as well as good economics which I can tell from is races. Not knowing him at all I would be willing to bet form is something he puts a great deal of preperation into. With drills, weights, and proper footwear that does not inhibit optimal form.

I forgot to add, I think flats and spikes have pretty different structures. I agree with you in that a flexible midsole is necessary for proper foot function. I don't see why it's necessary that it be in a flat than in a trainer. My trainers and flats flex in the midsole pretty much the same, so I don't see that flats have an advantage in that aspect.

The major problem with the thicker heeled training shoe is that it does not promote an efficient footstrike and it also takes pressure off of the muscles/facia/ligaments that are intended to perform the shock absorbing and stabilizing fuctions of the gait cycle.

Great discussion so far. Thanks for the input.

I did my second run a few hours ago in trainers....Asics 2090's. I did my afternoon run in Brooks ST Racers. Both runs were 5 miles long and fairly easy. During each run I tried to pay very close attention to how the "shock absorbtion" felt.

Personaly, I felt alot less shock in the flats. They seem to give me more mobility to "roll through" my strides (I'm a heel striker). The trainers seemed to restrict this motion. I liken it to falling forward on your bed with your arms locked. The bed absorbs more shock than the ground will, however, your locked arms disperse no shock.

In addition, I ran part of the way in the afternoon on the grass strips in between the sidewalks and the street. I had tried this in the past, but there were minor deformations in the sod that felt very uncomoftable in the trainers. It actually felt fine in the flats. My theory is that the added heel height on the trainers acts as a longer moment arm which creates more torque on the foot.

Anyway, these are just inital impressions that I've had from my first day of trying this approach. Personaly I believe that EVERYONE was designed to run this way. However, from years of sitting on our butts, many folks may not be able to handle the transition....at least not without some therapy to go along with it. I'll steal the "wheel chair" metaphor; If an able bodied person decided to use a wheel chair from the age of five, by the time he is 20 he may not be capable of moving without the wheel chair....despite the fact that he was born with the ability to walk.

Mr. Flats wrote:

Why would it be so foolish? Are you one of the only people on earth that was born with shoes on?

When and IF i aquire an injury because of my shoes then I'll be open to perhaps a radical change. I'm not jeopardizing my career on no more than a interesting supposition, however.

As for being born with shoes on? No. I was, however, born with a good helping of reason. That's why I'm not joining your dogmatic bandwagon.

Phil wrote:

Is wearing flats just for small people? I am 6'1" 185 lbs...

I'm 5'8" 154. That's not much different than you. I moved from Mizuno Creations to Riders to Precisions over the last couple of years. My current "stable" of trainers are 2pr Precisions and 1pr NB900s. Mizuno Aeros for racing, including the Columbus mary this fall, where I BQ'd. I've stayed injury-free since a tibula SF in the Creations, and PRd in every race since going to the lighter/flatter shoes. Maybe because I transitioned slowly, I've had no issues at all.

I'll be 60 in March and I only run 35-50mpw, but I'm much happier in less shoe. Looking forward to doing some barefoot grass when it warms up.

One of my best friends trains in the Kennedys. Take them to a shoe repair shop and they'll shave down the spike plate and glue on a rubber outsole for you.

Umm, no thanks. So you're saying anyone who races in spikes (i.e. basically anyone who runs track) should be training in spikes?

why not? why spend time in something you won't be racing in?

Ok, Jeremy, that's nice, but the argument by faster PR doesn't work because I went to science camp this summer and that is more relevant to the discussion at hand.

Besides, I'll concede the mile/1500, but my 5/10k PRs would crush you.

What I have to add to the topic that could be of benefit to you is that none of our experiences (mine, yours or the guy trackhead knows who does 150m/wk in flats) amounts to more than anectodal evidence on the effects of running only in flats.

I also happen to believe that super-mega-trainers result in an unnatural foot mechanics. I run barefoot. I run a goodly amount of mileage in flats. But I do not make statements like "everyone ought to do it exclusively" and "it will result in a lower injury rate" because I haven't done the scientific investigations to back it up.

I'm not a sceptic about running in flats, I'm a sceptic about everything when it comes to people making completely unsubstantiated claims. So go and grab the first experimental scientist you meet and I'll bet you a 6 pack that they will tell you that common sense has had to give way to cold hard data before.

elflord wrote:

interesting article by Michael Yessis

I saw it. It was a silly article, but having seen his book, I suppose I had fair warning.

What book was that, and how was it silly? Just curious.

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.

Aren't observational studies "scientific?" Isn't epidemiology "scientific?" I don't know how much rigor Yessis applied in making his observations, but the mere fact that they were observations rather than controlled studies doesn't necessarily mean they weren't "scientific."

JY wrote:The lessons are how strong is the connection between where you land on the foot (the Strike Index) and braking force, and how important are braking forces in performance?

Those look more like questions -- interesting ones -- than lessons. Did this study or any other that you're aware of answer them?

trackhead wrote:

why not? why spend time in something you won't be racing in?

Why spend any time running if it isn't at race pace?

bringer of news wrote:

Why spend any time running if it isn't at race pace?

Because there are many energy systems that are used in the race that are not well trained when running at single pace.

Human flight wrote:

Aren't observational studies "scientific?" Isn't epidemiology "scientific?" I don't know how much rigor Yessis applied in making his observations, but the mere fact that they were observations rather than controlled studies doesn't necessarily mean they weren't "scientific."

It's qualitative research. Although not the objective, quantitative research where you get numbers through instrumentation, it does have some merit when you're comparing two people and applying relative concepts from Physics and Kinesiology. I did the same thing for my biomechanics course; I qualitatively compared barefoot verses shod running (in trainers). Yes, trainers significantly change the way we run, naturally, while barefoot. We adapt our bodies according what's on/not on our feet and even to the surface. Unfortunately, shoes change where we were meant to absorb and withstand the energy and force (the ankle) to places such as the knees and hips.