ATTN: Everyone who disagrees with me: Arguements against training in racing flats -- help please

EndurRunner wrote:

I don't know, it minus 22 degrees celcius where I am and I am thankful I have an inch or so of protectiveness between me and the ground when I run.

With all due respect, could you please read earlier posts. This discussion has very little to due with whether our ancestors needed warmth on their feet.

Trackhead,Jaguar,myself,and others that have put much time and thought behind the importance of how much and why someone could benefit from really looking at how their choice in footwear can effect their body. Whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not our choice of wearing a shoe can have a significant effect on our bodies sometimes positive and many times negatively. If you have read earlier post you can see that we are helping people on a daily basis that have poor biomechanics along with one or many walking/running related injuries. And yes there are many factors involved in why and how to fix them, due to the vast majority of problems people are experiencing I, like others who see injuries daily think that it is time to start figuring out what we can do differently to help prevent the many injuries that are out there, if possible.

If that means that we question all of the myths that are out there then so be it. People need to start thinking for themselves and not just trusting all the so called professionals that claim to be helping them.

P.s. Trackhead, let me know if I could be of any assistance.

Quick poll: How many of you minimalists eat 5-10 serving of fruit and veggies a day, get 8-10 hours of sleep, stretch for 30 min/day, massage once a week, drink 2 litres of water a day, etc.

Until you are doing all of the above, and training like a bat out of hell, I think you are wasting your time thinking a shoe is going to help you run faster.

But could a shoe impede your running?

I do all of the above. I avoid shoes with too high a heel, because I want to be more bio-mechanically efficient and avoid injury.

If you can't come up with a more intelligent post than that then don't bother posting on this thread, you are adding nothing to the debate.

Do you have any controlled, interventional studies to cite when you claim that running in flats or barefoot, and not the 6 miles of daily drills that you claim elite Africans do, are responsible for their efficiency? I must remind you that CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. Because you can't say for sure whether the drills or the earlier barefoot running produced the efficiency, you cannot logically claim that "El Guerrouj is incredibly efficient in spite of wearing the Pegs," unless you are operating in a parallel universe where the rules of logic do not apply.

Why can't you grasp the fact that not everyone can run barefoot or in flats injury free? As a species, we were certainly designed to do this, but a significant number of people have anatomical quirks that prevent them from running injury free in flats. Just as you'll never be an interior lineman in the NFL because you aren't built for it, many people could never run barefoot due to their unique anatomy. There are simply some anatomical and genetic constraints that cannot be overcome. Even though evolution applied selective pressures that favored our ability to run, it did not completely eliminate those who couldn't. As a result, inferior genes have been passed down and are present in the population today.

Also, you never answered the contention that not everyone in hunter/gatherer civilizations was required to run extreme distances on a daily basis. If everyone left to hunt, who was left to tend to the seasonal camps or caves and who made the tools necessary for survival and who cared for the young, etc? Even in these societies, there clearly had to be a division of labor; each person performed the function he was best suited for.

A fluid stride and nice form is a plus for runners, but economy is much more important. No matter how things look on the outside, the efficiency of what goes on inside is what really matters. If you have the ugliest form in the world, but you require less energy to run at a given pace, you will invariably beat your opponent. I realize that improving form will decrease the amount of energy consumed, but the limiting factors are still enzymatic in nature. This is why the next generation of performance enhanced athletes, who will be genetically engineered, will perform at an unfathomable level.

hmmmm. tell that to paul tergat. running a WR in the marathon. in a shoe with a 'high' heel.

EndurRunner wrote:

Quick poll: How many of you minimalists eat 5-10 serving of fruit and veggies a day, get 8-10 hours of sleep, stretch for 30 min/day, massage once a week, drink 2 litres of water a day, etc.

Until you are doing all of the above, and training like a bat out of hell, I think you are wasting your time thinking a shoe is going to help you run faster.

I am quite certain that I did not mention anything in my post about people running faster in a certain shoe.

What are you talking about?

I've consistently stated that these are my conclusions based upon these observations.

I feel I can say that "El G is efficient in spite of wearing the Pegs" because it is my belief that shoes, such as the Pegs, encourage inefficiency. El G is extremely smooth despite the fact that he uses the Pegs for some of his mileage.

Yes, there are over six billion people and you certainly get a few for which something didn't go right in the building process, but those are the exceptions and not the majority. Your comparison to the NFL lineman doesn't hold water with me because I don't see the need to be an NFL lineman as means of survival as a species. Check out that evolution/running article. It would seem more likely that a fragile person would have a harder time running in a high heel than a more level shoe. Consistently, when someone has come to me with a knee problem, they've noticed a difference between shoes with 12mm drops and those with 10mm drops. More than not, those with less drop feel less painful on their knees.

In terms of distance covered, I answered that a few times already. Two hours a day of moving on your feet is not a lot, especially when you don't have cars or electricity. Remember Geb and his mom walking 3hrs to get water? That was a regular activity. Herding goats, playing tag: two hours is easy to get in. We think two hours of running is a lot because we've got school or work from 8-5 and then have some TV to watch -- we have to fit the running into our lives; for those without those activities, it's simply a function of life.

Even those who are not "hunting" or going out of there way to get water, if they've going to get from point A to poin B, they need to use there feet. Again, the evolution article was great.

EndurRunner wrote:

hmmmm. tell that to paul tergat. running a WR in the marathon. in a shoe with a 'high' heel.

I know.

trackhead wrote:

I've consistently stated that these are my conclusions based upon these observations.

I feel I can say that "El G is efficient in spite of wearing the Pegs" because it is my belief that shoes, such as the Pegs, encourage inefficiency. El G is extremely smooth despite the fact that he uses the Pegs for some of his mileage.

Observations, my belief, etc. trackhead, for as smart as you sound spouting off about flats, you are still using very subjective phrases to support your thoughts. What is your educational background? Do you have a higher level degree in physics, biomechanics or a similar field? Or do you just work in a shoe store?

You say the same thing over and over again without backing it up, using evolutionary "evidence" that people were meant to be barefoot. There are many reasons that people aren't barefoot anymore, including climate, terrain, etc.

Accept the fact that a small percentage of people are going to be able to train in flats. More power to them, though when I dust them in races I hope they don't come back with a comment like "my lower legs are less prone to injury than yours" or "my stride is more efficient b/c I'm not wearing high heels". I still beat them after training in my "moon boots".

I feel I can say that "El G is efficient in spite of wearing the Pegs" because it is my belief that shoes, such as the Pegs, encourage inefficiency.

Well , you can say it, but unless you provide better justification for that statement than your belief, that assertion is little more than a statement of your beliefs.

In terms of distance covered, I answered that a few times already. Two hours a day of moving on your feet is not a lot, especially when you don't have cars or electricity. Remember Geb and his mom walking 3hrs to get water?

No, you haven't answered this satisfactorily. Two hours of walking is not comparable to 2 hours of running. And again, the old legends about Geb are unverifiable anecdotes. You have not shown that what Geb did was comparable to marathon training.

It happens that consistently across different species, the only creatures who get stress fractures are those who are performing exercise regimens (including greyhounds who do not wear high heeled trainers). Hunter-gatherers did not train for marathons.

So the only thing you can reasonably conclude about hunter gatherers is that "hunter-gathering" can be performed safely barefoot. You have not demonstrated that "hunter-gathering" is comparable to distance training.

Thanks to everyone who jumped in to this thread with enough outrage to make look like less of an ass.

The internet exists, of course, as a balance of exhibitionists and voyeurs. And this is the only way it could work. Without folks eager to throw their shit on display there'd be nothing to look at here, and without voyeurs the fascination of tossing out naked pictures of your ex-girlfriends or rants against George Bush would quickly die out. There is a similar yin/yang relationship that betweens those that ask questions and those that answer them on internet message boards. All too often, those that are used to providing answers to questions such a "what is the best way to improve my lactate threshold?" or "how can I improve my performance by simply switching shoes?" are really not used to, or have no interest in, stepping into the other role of someone who is GETTING, rather than SUPPLYING, information. That's just the way it is.

It is interesting that this whole thread, unlike the previous 300-post behemoth on minimal running, started with a simple request from trackhead:

"I'd appreciate everyone who thinks training in flats is a bad idea to post their arguments here, so that I may improve my own argument and broaden my thinking. Things I know have been brought up include the hardness of artificial surfaces, what humans are built for, etc."

Of course, read back over this thread and you'll see no evidence that trackhead or any other supporter of minimal training has adjusted their arguments or broadened their thinking. There have been some excellent points raised with varying levels of pent up rage that have been dismissed as the most trivial issues. I can not believe that it is a failure of comprehension, as trackhead, jaguar and others certainly have the mental acuity to read analyze and synthesize into their world view all the arguments that support their position. I have to believe that it is just more of the dichotomy between expert and disciple that exists here in the electronic ethers.

I've studied biomechanics, I've written about biomechanics, and when presented with articles and arguments that go against beliefs that I held on this matter, I gave a serious critique of both the information sources that supported and refuted by beliefs. That is why, jaguar, I can look at a review article and state that the author is biased. I do not have to know his motivation, but I can see which sources he uses and which he chooses to ignore. And I can look up references he sites and see that some of those citations are used incorrectly, in one case that I brought up, the anti-shoe author actually used an article to support an argument that was the complete opposite of the conclusion of the study's author.

Although a few folks suggested that my posts had degraded into personal attacks, in fact, I had stopped taking the whole topic seriously by that point, and decided to care as little as possible about the whole proceedings. I adpoted a suitable irreverent tone, hence the insertion of the term ‘nutsack’ into every post. At that point i realized that the arguments would go no where. That no one person with a dog in this fight was going to give an inch. So, while I appreciate folks like "you're still mistaken" taking up the charge by making excellent points about variation in human populations, I can not believe that you have any faith that you will score one debating point. By the way, using eyeglasses as an example of individual deficiencis of an organ obviously designed to work with no external assistance was much better than my testicular cancer analogy, but it did lack the use of the term nutsack. But even that excellent point did not get addressed in the debate, did it? Frustrating, right?

This whole thing would have a different dynamic if it still seemed that the fight was not to convince the opponent in the fight, but as in the presidential debate, the minds and opinions of the general populace were at stake. Does it really seem that way? Are we really providing new information for the inappropriately shod masses to make informed decisions about footwear? I don't think so.

Anyway, to the experts out there. Ask yourself to what extent you really know what you're talking about before you take such an incredibly strident stance. If you're citing an article, do you know enough such that you could have written that article? If no, do you know enough so that you could really critique it and judge its merits? If not, it's no problem to presnet it to others for them to analyze, but make sure you're still coming into the fray with an open enough mind that you can learn as well as teach.

trackhead, next time I'm in San Diego I'll try to find you at one of your stores. I'll buy you a beer.

As kilgore says,

Out.

blahblahblah wrote:

Accept the fact that a small percentage of people are going to be able to train in flats.

Why? What about them makes them so special?

Read: make ME look like less of an ass.

1) Re: El G and the Pegs

The studies which I have read and posted, though many here question their validity, claim that the foot is most efficient when flat on the ground. Furthermore, I think that we can all agree that a big cushy heel of a trainer will allow for a runner to overextend and use their heel as a crashpad, while that is not true for someone in a thin flat or unshod. The big cushy shoe allows for greater inefficiency, while minimalism encourages/requires efficiency. Of course that is not to say that someone cannot be highly efficient in a big cushy shoe.

2) I'm going to have to call my favourite anthropologist for some concrete data in terms of time spent on the feet, because I say that their time on the feet is comparable, you say no (and I don't you're wrong to question it) so I'll give a ring and see what info I can get from a PhD.

JY,

I'm hurt -- my comprehension is find, and yes, this thread has challenged me to think about my own position and answer the opposition. I feel that it's brought several points that made me stop and consider my broad application of minimalism, and as you can see from the last post, I am going to contact an anthropologist for her professional opinion.

Don't think that I don't consider the points brought up: I do, and they force me to think about all the stuff I say.

You, among others, have challenged my thinking and i appreciate that very sincerely.

that of course, should ahve said "comprehension is finE", ironically enough

EndurRunner wrote:

hmmmm. tell that to paul tergat. running a WR in the marathon. in a shoe with a 'high' heel.

trackhead wrote:

I know.

um......so?

EndurRunner wrote:

um......so?

so what.