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

elflord,

I understand what you're saying in terms of "at what point is it enough" and to be honest, I don't have any data to compare 50% of the week in flats to 100%. I'm working under the idea that training 100% in your racing shoe will maximize your comfort and abilities in those racing shoes.

I'll see what it would take to get someone to comission a study on the subject.

trackhead wrote:

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.

I second this. My brain is always "ticking".... like mad, as I read these articles and the posts by people who question them! Such as.... what if you had shoes with no heel lift but varying thicknesses of midsole? Is it the heel lift that causes all the problems, or the instability of a thick midsole? Is there really any absorptive value to having a thicker midsole (no heel lift) as compared to a bare foot? Why would you put someone with poor biomechanics in something (such as a trainer) that further exacerbates their "issues" and keeps them weak? There is always the possibility of bias.... why should we accept the "pseudo-research" of the shoe companies (such as the video about the Free)? I even questioned the validity of several of the pro barefoot/minimal footwear articles and ended up basing my Biomechanics course Research Project on barefoot vs. shod running to see/test if what I was reading really is true! What I concluded is, yes, trainers SIGNIFICANTLY change the way we naturally run while barefoot. It's your choice if you're willing to accept this and continue to have your natural biomechanics significantly altered with built-up trainers. Furthermore, as I mentioned, you shouldn't have to "think" about "correcting" your form (such as landing on the midfoot/forefoot) in any shoe. It should just be natural. Flats seem to allow for a more natural degree of flexibility and stretch and therefore more closely simulate barefoot running. Do you really believe a shoe can do a better job absorbing/withstanding the energy and force than a functional foot?

Personally, I've read the research (pros and cons) and even tested it out myself to find what works for me and gain a better understanding on the concepts. If trainers haven't worked for someone, trying something different (such as flats) is worth a try.

Jag,

When you can, anyway to post your findings or comparisons?

Thanks.

Sure if you look only at the competive racer/elite runner who already has developed efficiency one can't see a huge need to do all of ones training in a lower profile shoe. As Trackhead, myself and others who are advocating the minimalist approach have stated a few times before we are seeing people on a daily basis that are your average runners who do not wear spikes/flats for some of the 10+ miles a week of running. These are the people that are at the greatest risk of getting injured. Why? because they don't understand the relationship between the shoe and the proper biomechanical efficiency, just like many elites do not. Until you see for your own eyes the the problems that the average runners are experiencing I don't think you can truly understand the importance of the minimalist approach.

trackhead wrote:

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.

If the esteemed Trackhead believes it is so, then it must be. From now on, I will take your word as Gospel. Whatever you say goes. I will never question you again, master. I will never ask you for independent evidence because apparently your opinion alone is sufficient.

trackhead wrote:

Jag,

When you can, anyway to post your findings or comparisons?

Thanks.

I have it in Excel spreadsheet format with the pictures for each phase. I don't think it's possible to post an Excel spreadsheet, but I'm willing to email the report to anyone interested. I'm still fine tuning it and have even had a request from "Barefoot Ken" to have it published on his barefoot website. Granted, this was just done with me as the subject, but I bet a lot can be generalized from it.

still mistaken wrote:

If the esteemed Trackhead believes it is so, then it must be. From now on, I will take your word as Gospel. Whatever you say goes. I will never question you again, master. I will never ask you for independent evidence because apparently your opinion alone is sufficient.

Did I say that my word was Gospel? Did I not offer reasoning behind my opinion?

blahblahblah wrote:

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?

I'd like to hear the answer to these questions as well. Aren't you some college soph at some dinky school in Calif?

bump

I don't know if this is worth contributing to the evolution debate here, but I recently watched a movie about the !Gwi San, some of the last true hunter-gatherers alive, who live near the Kalahari desert (which is at least on the same continent where humans evolved.) The whole community relies on the ability of hunters to outlast the running abilities of the prey that they track, often over a period of 6+ hours. If this is the state humans evolved from then it would make sense that our feet should be able to handle high mileage without shoes (although pavement might make a difference.) There simply hasn't been enough time elapsed since our hunter-gatherer days for these abilities to become vestigal.

Regardless it is a pretty awesome picture of the primal origins of running. I'd recommend it to anyone who can find it.

The Onitsuka Tiger Mexico '66. Next to nothing shoe, very similar to 1974 era Tiger Marathons, that some seem fixated with.

They are available at Zappos.com website.

Err,

I like a lot of minimalist ideas but you seem to have some misconceptions about evolution. First off, it is not perfect. Just because something appears natural, it does not mean it is the best way. Take the eye for example. An evolutionary miracle. Does that mean that no one should wear glasses because we got along just fine for along time without them? Of course not, technology can indeed improve upon evolution.

Just my thoughts.

interesting

you replied to a 4 month old thread to say interesting? Way to add to the conversation.

rocknroll wrote:

interesting

I used to always have serious calf tightness in the days following races. Eventually I developed achilles bursitis that lingered for a year. I had always ran in either ASICS 100 series (125, 130, 140, etc) or Nike Pegasus. I switched to running in flats (Mizuno Phantom, Asics DS Racer, Nike Triax TC, etc) and at first it was hard to get used to as my feet weren't ready for the shock. In fact switching from trainers to racing shoes during XC/Track there was always a noticable difference in how my calf felt and how my foot felt. Since switching to trainers my only other injury came when I switched back to trainers for a season (NB 833). Now I put in 100-120 a week during a good week in Brooks T4s. The only problem with the T4s is that the forefoot outsole is too soft and wears down too quickly. I think the podular design of the outsole adds to the wear problem.

Alan

yes

Well, some people are new and have yet to see some threads that have been here awhile

I myself have had injury issues, currently Achilles tendonitis, from training in flats. I, as some others have posted here, wish NIKE would return to the 1990-era

Air Pegs. I enjoyed those shoes immensely.

I remember trainers being a couple ounces lighter only 10 years ago before every company got into the habit of putting plastic bridges in the midfoot and juicing up the shoe with all sorts of other support devices meant to "correct" your foot. The 5-8oz flats of today were the trainers of the 80s. Today it's all about cushioning so that your wee little body doesn't absorb any impact (horror!) or enough support for a 300lb man-woman. Shoe companies want to sell shoes. They'll sell more shoes by developing products that fit the masses, which are mostly overweight men and women simply trying to lose weight. If you get hurt wearing flats it's only because you've spent eons in trainers. If you went back to 9th grade and started in flats you'd be fine. Wear flats all the time and you get used to it, your body adjusts. I wear my old flats to work in. In fact, I've got a pair of Adidias Supernova Competition's on right now.

Alan