If flats are so much better, why don't we see elites training in them?

i agree completely... however you will never see a pro running in a stabilty shoe eiter... its usually just cushioned shoes... so although they don't train in flats they do train in the next cloest thing.

the kantara is a stability shoe, no?

said to be stability, but practically motion control.

legsahevrrrre wrote:

i agree completely... however you will never see a pro running in a stabilty shoe eiter... its usually just cushioned shoes... so although they don't train in flats they do train in the next cloest thing.

I have seen pictures of Bob Kennedy running in the Structure. That is a stability shoe.

You do see tons of elites training in very minimalist shoes. However, most of them live in east africa and do not train on roads like elite Americans.

the shoes are one reason (of many) offered as to why Americans suck as next to Africans at worlds.

Spending most of your development running w/o shoes (as most east Africans do) builds for superior running economy. Remember hearing Torres say that his calves were destroyed following is NCAA victory?

Yeah, I was figuring and assuming that that's where they are used. Any americans though?

ed moses. he said he couldn't run in any of the current shoes and threw them out and brought out some old ones from the 80s he had in his attic.

+ all the guys from the 70s and before and quite a few triatheletes.

I think there's more than one reason for this. One is that our elite US runners grew up in the same culture as the rest of us, so they've "learned" the same things about shoes as most everyone else has.

I also think that if they do have some "natural abiltity," i.e. better physical structure, they may be able to get away with running in inferior/damaging shoes, at least for a while. For me, the matter of running in minimalist shoes isn't a matter of being able to get away with it, it's a matter of necessity. If I wear a conventional trainer I feel lots of little aches and pains much of the time that I don't feel in a minimalist shoe. On the rare occasions that I've run in a really high tech shoe it's been awful, pains, aches, legs with no life, etc. I think that if I were more "talented" I might be able to overcome the handicaps of a conventional trainer and maybe better runners can do that.

As to seeing them in photographs, I expect that they might be persuaded by the company with whom they have a contract to be photoed in models the company wants to sell. Someone who's had a contract may be able to speak more knowledgeably here.

And finally, as others have pointed out, non-US elites often do train in flats or really light shoes. Jack Foster ran in the old Tiger Marthon for most of his life and tells me he still does for the running he does now. I've also seen a photo of him running in the Ultimate 81. Anne Audain always trained in her racers. Gordon Pirie was always in light shoes. Virtually every serious Japanese runner trains in racers or extremely light trainers.

I remember reading something about the shoes in the 60's and 70's being like 6-8 ounces? is this true?

also, just an example, why does salazar have galen running in structure triax trainers, instead of flats? just wondering.

How about weldon johnson? does he train in flats at the mileage he does? weldon, what is your take on training in flats? if you do it, do you suggest it? if you don't, do you not suggest it and why?

I read something about how the Japanese do most of their training in flats. In fact Nike has started to produce similar trainers in Asia due to the demand.

The Japanese have done pretty well at the longer distances.

Our buddy Jason in Thailand might be able to shed some light on the latest in running shoe technology in the East.

because he buys into the technology that nike tells him. same with mark plaatjes in colorado.

looking at most shoes, they have so many devices in them to contral your footstike, you have to strike as they want you to. cushioning became the mantra, so they built shoes up and then had to had all kinds of devices to re-stabilize the foot. all that crap + all that cushioning mean $$$. they cost more $$$ to make and they can sell it for more $$$ because they can point to all these gadgets in the shoe.

extra schock absorbsion made our muscles/ligaments weak. how many guys did you of in the 70s and before with plantar faciitis? or how many east africans or people of any other country where shoes are not in use by everyone?

there is this one shoe, from nike.jp called the ventulus trainer. it has the green/mesh ventulus upper (same as the spike) and a think phylite midsole, like the streak vapor iv. but it is designated a "training shoe."

here is the ventulus trainer:

http://www.rakuten.co.jp/icefield/432380/453328/511657/

Elite Japanese marathoners train in racing flats... and they are much better than elite US runners (KK excepted).

I know some 27/28 minute 10k runners from SA that train in flats all the time. One of the flats they trained in was the NB 330.

That's because top highschool runners are not exactly considered "elite" in my book. They buy what the salesman peddles to them or their parents because they simply don't know better yet.

so trackhead, how would you suggest someone with completely flat arches, that's been training in something like the pegasus w/ heavy duty orthotics his whole life to make the transfer? would you consider something like the zoom elite before going to something like flats?

also, flats cost just about the same as trainers, some even more, but they last a lot less don't they? isn't that a pretty big investment? correct me if i'm wrong.