Minimalist, what was your experience?

The Wave precision is comparable to the Nike Pegasus or Gel-landreth by asics. The magic racer is considered a racing flat with a small amount of medial posting.

I tried on the asics ds trainers and just didn't like them that much. They just didn't feel right, so I wanted to give the NB900's a shot. If I like them I'll make sure to buy a few pairs. If I have to I'll us the ds trainer, should the nb 900 feel worse. I'll probably end up trying both the ds trainer and 900 on and comparing.

I really like the supernova competition in terms of fit for my foot, they fit like a glove, awesome. I'm hoping that the new and improved version fits the same and allows for natural motion and function.

GS

Check out the Saucony Grid Fast twitch. You can check out there website for specs. Saucony is one of the best shoe companies out there for the flat foot individual.

Is there a difference between the speed and endurance versions?

I'm just looking for a good training shoe. Right now I am not even worried about running fast, racing, or anything that is not easy base miles.

Also, what website is the one where they actually tell you the forefoot and heel height measurments. I thought it was NB, but I was checking there site out last night and I couldn't find where they listed the measurments.

Thanks

GS

The Endurance version has a significantly thicker outsole. There may be other differences but that one I've seen more myself. Surprisingly, the weight differeence is only a couple tenths of an ounce

If going for the minimalist approach, but not overly so and at the same time trying to find something that is similar to the ghost racer, which version (speed or endurance) would I want?

Do they like tell you on the box when you buy the shoe, im going to a store hopefully, which version you are getting?

Thanks for the help everyone,

GS

Check out the Saucony Grid Fast twitch. You can check out there website for specs.

The endurance has a 12mm heel drop -- like a trainer.

Surprisingly, the weight differeence is only a couple tenths of an ounce

"Surprisingly", a lot of shoes don't make good on label claim weights.

The Wave precision is comparable to the Nike Pegasus or Gel-landreth by asics.

Ummmm ... no it isn't. I've run in the pegasus and the cumulus (similar to landreth). The precision is lighter, more flexible and less cushy. It's comparable to the Asics verdict.

The magic racer is considered a racing flat ...

No, I meant the DS Racer which is heavier and stiffer than (but the same height as) the magic racer, and has a fairly obnoxious post (not just a baby one like the magic has). I prefer the tiger paw to both of them (and, contrary to what Asics says, the tiger paw weighs about the same as the magic)

Is the Mizuno Precision AS minimal as the NB900? It looks a lot like the Wave Rider.

It's not posted, so should be more flexible. It's very flexible and breathable like a flat, but has a 12mm heel drop like most trainers. It's like a lighter, more flexible version of the wave rider.

The magic racer is about 8oz, has a low heel, and a baby post (don't know if the post does anything, though maybe the plastic under the midfoot stiffens it up). If you're using the magic, I'd recommend looking at the tiger paw also -- cheaper, and no post or midfoot plastic.

I only saw one version of the shoe on the website. As far a heel to forefoot conversions of a cut away midsole, only some shoe companies list it for some of their shoes. Mizuno is the only one I know that puts it on their spec sheets.

I do believe I said comparable and not exactly the same. And yes it is COMPARABLE to those shoes.

While you are waiting for your scientific data which anylizes every varible known to effect the body, I am going to continue giving advise which holds true to the scietific principles which have already been establish. Good luck in training!

elflord wrote:

Surprisingly, the weight differeence is only a couple tenths of an ounce

"Surprisingly", a lot of shoes don't make good on label claim weights.

Which is why, having owned both models, I weighed them myself. Which is the only reason I bothered make any comment on the subject at all.

I have no idea what Saucony claims regarding their weights.

I do believe I said comparable and not exactly the same.

And you're still wrong. All those shoes (pegasus, landreth) are marketed as, and truly are, regular trainers. A comparable shoe would be the wave rider. The precision is marketed as, and is, a lightweight trainer. It is comparable to other lightweight trainers, such as the Nike skylon/miler/spiridon or the asics verdict/ds trainer/flash

While you are waiting for your scientific data which anylizes every varible known to effect the body, I am going to continue giving advise which holds true to the scietific principles

feel free to do so, but you're just wrong when you say that no scientific evidence would convince me. Perhaps you're just not honest enough to admit that the scientific evidence really is rather spotty. When people like Jack Daniels start saying you should do all your training in flats, I'll consider it. But I'm not going to switch just because some guy called "Mr Flats", "Trackhead" or "La Woof" says that I should.

I'm sick of minimalist posters presenting their views as "science" and "common sense."

In the Warburton article that is wheeled out in every minimalist post -- an article on "barefoot running" -- not training in flats, the author himself writes, "well-designed studies of the effects of barefoot and shod running on injury are lacking." Those about to "transition" please actually read these articles in full!

Caroline Burge in a review of that article further points out:

"As acknowledged in the present review, evidence that barefoot running reduces risk of injury appears to be entirely observational. As such, it is premature to recommend barefoot running for reducing the incidence of running-related injuries."

I observe that "minimalists" are not so careful.

Burge further points out that:

"Also not addressed in this review is the issue of the role of shoes in the etiology of stress fractures, a common injury in distance runners...."

And

"Not wearing shoes may also accelerate development of other injuries in vulnerable runners. Some of the common and most difficult injuries of the foot to diagnose and treat, particularly if the injury becomes chronic, are presented below."

VERY IMPORTANT POINT: Google is not a reliable search engine for refereed scholarly work. For example, in a brief search using a scholarly search engine, I found the following article in BIOMECHANICS May , 2004 by Ben Patritti, which like nearly all scholarly articles, is not available to non-journal subscribers on the internet.

This article claims that cushioning HELPS to reduce injury and improve economy in distance runners:

Some quotations from Patritti's article:

"When there is no cushioning layer at the foot-ground interface, as in barefoot running, the severity of impact is much greater than during shod running. This is typified by higher rates of loading11-13 (Figure 1) and greater peak shock to the lower leg.11,14 Although mechanical impact tests and simulations of foot-ground impact in running have predicted that more cushioning will result in reduced peak impact forces,6,12 this has not always been demonstrated experimentally.11,15 Researchers have suggested that adjustments in lower limb kinematics at foot strike may affect the expected reduction of peak loads.16 In fact, it has recently been suggested that peak impact force is not an appropriate index for characterizing the cushioning performance of running shoes.17,18

By comparison, the cushioning effects of athletic shoes and sports surfaces are well differentiated by the rate of change and frequency characteristics of impact loads.11,12,15,19,20 The observed changes are generally consistent with the mechanical force-deformation properties of the midsole materials.11 Similar findings have been reported for simulations of ground contact21 and impacts under controlled conditions using a "human pendulum" apparatus.22,23 Rate of pressure increases, rather than peak pressures, under the heel on impact are also sensitive to differences in cushioning.24,25 Relative differences in impact severity of up to 25% may be shown by the rate of loading depending on the level of cushioning in question.22 These findings further support the observation that shoe cushioning does influence the loading of the body and can provide a protective function. "

And

"The adaptation of leg stiffness to cushioning at the foot-ground interface likely explains the influence of shoe midsoles and sports surfaces on running economy, as measured by oxygen consumption at a given running speed.33,42-44 The greater knee flexion velocities and accompanying decreases in leg stiffness associated with running in harder midsole shoes necessitate increased eccentric muscle action and impose a greater metabolic demand on the body. Running in soft-soled shoes can reduce oxygen consumption by 1% to 2% compared to running in hard-soled shoes,42 and it has been shown that a greater leg stiffness when running on softer surfaces can reduce the metabolic cost to the runner by up to 12%.43 "

There are good databases for finding research in this area. Google isn't one of them.

What about the tremendous transformations experienced by some "minimalists?" Here are some possibilities that seem plausible to me.

For all we know, it may turn out that:

1) population level variation leads to different individual thresholds. For some, running (say) three times a week in a thick soles may foster recovery and strength, but not to the point where they can run in flats everyday without risk of injury. For others like Dewoof, Huffmans, Jag1 and Trackhead et al, 100 miles a week in zero midsole H-streets may be optimal. You may not know which group you are in until/unless injury strikes.

2) Perhaps there are critical developmental windows, such that if you did not go through childhood and adolescence in minimal shoes, you'll always suffer from weakness, unless you are especially strong or anatomically blessed. Or perhaps, persistent deformities can be corrected, but through techniques other than minimal shoe running (say by physiotherapy or surgury, etc...)

3) Perhaps running in flats only works for midfoot strikers, but is disastrous for heel strikers. Maybe there is no single natural running gait, but stable variation in populations, and so variation in optimal shoe construction.

4) Perhaps their are tradeoffs: flats reduce the risk of achilles injury and stregthen the soleus, but at an increased risk for stress fracture.

5) Perhaps ordinary trainers are nearly optimal for everyone in our sport, much like hockey gloves or football helmuts are in those sports (even if their are trade-offs in using this gear: reduced sensation, impaired performance in some domains, etc).

6) Maybe to strengthen our feet, we should all walk bare-footed but running much of the time in thick cushioned shoes... etc.

There seem to be many possiblities, and the peer reviewed research states that there are no well controlled experiments in this area. So in the absence of real certainty, I'm sticking to what works for me. A mix of trainers/flats for tempos/ and spikes for trackwork.

I will agree with minimalists that there isn't enough selection out there for people who benefit from a minimal shoe. I also agree that it is worth exploring options other than those being sold to us by shoe companies in their mass marketing campaigns. And a point many will miss, but which all "minimalists" will agree to, all transitions should be introduced VERY SLOWLY.

Don't break your feet (like I did).

Johnston

Lets anylize them:

Wave® Precision™ 5

Overview

Designed for the competitive runner who has high, rigid arches and seeks the best in cushioning to improve the quality of each workout.

Wave Technology®

Parallel Wave™ made of translucent rubber allows for optimal cushioning for a runner with a neutral gait cycle and high-arched, rigid feet. The Parallel Wave™ is made of rubber and uniformly absorbs shock and cushions the foot during heel strike.

Product Details

Midsole:

23mm / 11mm (Heel to forefoot ratio)

54C (Durometer target)

Heel width is 82mm

Outsole:

X-10™ in the heel for durability

Blown rubber in the forefoot for cushioning and flexibility.

Weight: 10.9 oz.

Specifications

7-13,14

White-Yellow

Men's

Rubine/Liquid Silver/Titanium White/Lightning/Twilight

Sizes: 6-13,14,15

Weight: 10.4 oz.

U.S. sugg. retail: $90

*legal

ABOUT

The GEL-Landreth™ incorporates the I.G.S.® design philosophy tailored to the neutral runner, providing a well-cushioned, yet responsive ride for high mileage training. Limited availability in running specialty stores only.

FEATURES

BENEFITS

I.G.S.® (Impact Guidance System)

Combines all ASICS® components to enhance the foot's natural gait from heel-to-toe

SpEVA® Midsole Material (SpEVA™)

Increased shock attenuation and midsole durability

Personalized Heel Fit (PHF®)

Memory foam lined heel collar molds to the athlete's heel, creating a personalized fit

Fore and Rearfoot GEL® Cushioning System

Maximum fore and rearfoot shock attenuation in all planes of motion

Again, based on the stats listed above and how each of these shoes effect the footstrike I will disagree with you and say they are more comparable than they are different. No I am not saying they are identical, but I don't think there are any huge advantages in one vs the other.

Until you understand why I would actually recommend you not switch to flats. Good luck with your search!