Why are Minmalist Shoes bad for your health?

The issue that alot of people overlook/don't know anything about is loading rate. People are seeing alot less injuries or overcoming previous injuries via barefoot running/minimalism because those tend to "force" people into a more efficient midfoot/forefoot strike pattern, which, consequently, smoothes out the loading rate on the body.

Heel striking/"Traditional" trainers have the potential to cause alot of problems becuase people in this category have irregular loading rates. Most of this is caused by the fact that, subconsciously, when the body senses that impact will be cushioned or protected then it can overextend and reach further out from the center of gravity.

But here's the thing, heel strikers can have efficient/smooth loading rates like minimalists! A heel striker that contacts the ground closer to the center of gravity has the same smooth loading rates as a minimalist who, also, contacts the ground closer to their center of gravity. Those professionals that you see staying injury free aren't doing so my some magic that thier shoes impart to them, its due to the fact that they have high-cadence, close-to-their-center-of-gravity gaits.

Moral of the story, it's not the shoes that make the difference. It's where you're contacting the ground. Minimalism reinforces/makes close to the CoG contact (i.e. mid/forefoot striking) easier, Traditional shoes reinforce/makes further from the CoG contact (i.e. heel striking) easier. BUT, A PERSON CAN HEEL STRIKE IN TRADITIONAL SHOES AS LONG AS THE CONTACT WITH THE GROUND IS CLOSE TO THE CENTER OF GRAVITY.

http://uvaendurosport.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/loading-rate-part-2-forefoot-midfoot-rearfoot%e2%80%a6%e2%80%a6-who-cares/

Geb wears Adidas´heavist trainers and orthotics during his distance runs. Hasn´t messed up his form a lot...

Minimalist shoes are a combination of the the good old American attempt to buy success/happiness/accomplishment and businesses only too willing to sell a product. If you want natural conditions, run barefoot. It's free. Quit worrying about broken glass and go run laps in the local park or on the infield of your usual track or in your backyard or in your living room.

Why don't you strap some brains in your noggin?

To the OP,

If you have poor biomechanics or rush into wearing minimalist shoes too quickly, they can cause achilles problems. Achilles tendonitis occurs if you are wearing a shoe that is not supportive enough, and for the most part minimalist shoes are low in stability, except for shoes such as the saucony mirage.

The saucony mirage has stability posting but is technically still a minimalist shoe because of its low heal to toe ratio. Taking some of the volume from underneath the heal can also put more of a strain on your achilles.

Another issue is that with minimalist shoes, you aren't getting the same levels of cushioning that you do with more "traditional" trainers. This would make it bad for people who are overweight, have knee issues, or even some supinators who do not absorb shock correctly, as some pronation helps in shock absorption.

That being said, minimalism can definitely work for some people, but it isn't a cure all. IMHO.

I looked at a bunch of minimalist shoes the other day in a store...it seems like such a FAD.

Great for fashion or walking around the house.

Can't imagine them for any serious running that isn't like wearing a racing flat.

Of course if you are 14, your body can handle a ton of pounding...which these shoes would most likely give...

I think those that use these shoes faddishly under the illusion that they will help you run more naturally or more healthily are in for a sad awakening in injuries and a possible ability to run later in their lives.

Before I read this post, I just thought that barefoot runners and those who wear Vibrams have a Hippie bent to them. For example, the only guy I know who wears them grew up in a family whose father kept an entire wall in the kitchen reserved for various nutrition supplements and his sister began a nutritionist. Not ordinary here in my opinion.

I have an almost undetectable flaw in my form that I think makes me susceptible to achilles pain. I LOVE my highly-cushioned Nike Zoom Vomeros. If I supplemented my training with a small amount of barefoot running to work on form, could it really help me?

finally! People see Vibrams for what they are. I am getting so much heat for this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GM5MSzXe-II'm not against minimalism (just the Vibrams). The Brooks Pure Project shoes (and lots of racing flats like the Green Silence) strike a happy medium.We were "Born to Run"...some just more than others though...

Get Real ReaI wrote:

I looked at a bunch of minimalist shoes the other day in a store...it seems like such a FAD.

Great for fashion or walking around the house.

Can't imagine them for any serious running that isn't like wearing a racing flat.

Of course if you are 14, your body can handle a ton of pounding...which these shoes would most likely give...

I think those that use these shoes faddishly under the illusion that they will help you run more naturally or more healthily are in for a sad awakening in injuries and a possible ability to run later in their lives.

Adam C wrote:

Before the early 1970's didn't all runners use "minimalist" running shoes? Every time I see Derek's Clayton's running shoes it blows my mind!

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitions/competition/05/07/74/50774_full-prt.jpghttp://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/06/03/1225720/601771-derek-clayton-marathon-fukuoka.jpg

Those were the Tiger Marathons. They weighed about 6-7 oz. and had a suede-no kidding!-insole. I got my first pair at age 13 & trained (including 20+ milers) & raced in them until my senior year @ 18. I am a forefoot striker so the minimal heel didn't matter. Very flexible and light, extremely comfortable for the 1970's. Then in 1976, I bought a pair of the adidas "Runner" training shoes. It was similar to the protective crap we see today with motion control, huge midsoles, etc. Within weeks I was injured and have had nothing but problems ever since. I wear shoes with cushioning in the forefoot, but I should have stayed with the minimal.

This is a silly post. I am 47, run 100 mile weeks in minimalist shoes. I have run in "minimalist" shoes since I started in the late 70's - no support, minimal cushioning, solid outsole, you can feel the pavement. It's not a FAD, it's simply returning to what serious runners ran in before the jogging boom and realizing that many runners do not need cushioning or support. It's an alternative that was not available for many years and I welcome it.

I don't get injuries - I once had some Achilles soreness in the early 90's, but that passed with some rest and has never returned.

Adam C wrote:

Before the early 1970's didn't all runners use "minimalist" running shoes? Every time I see Derek's Clayton's running shoes it blows my mind!

Abebe Bikila's:

yeah, but as a kid he ran 12 miles a day barefoot to get to school and back home.

well. wrote:

Geb wears Adidas´heavist trainers and orthotics during his distance runs. Hasn´t messed up his form a lot...

yeah, but as a kid he ran 12 miles a day barefoot to get to school and back home.

Talk with a physical therapist and they'll freely tell you that they are seeing a whole new wave of injured runners due to minimalist shoes. The general recreational runner is not physically gifted enough to mess around with this type of trainer. In fact, what's going on right now is akin to the onset of injuries PTs saw in the 80s as oversized racket heads became the rage on tennis courts.

I don't know how any given person will benefit or suffer from minimalist running. But there is a prevalent assumption that cushioning in a shoe is good, or at least not as bad as a simple 4mm rubber sole. This assumption is proven wrong by Hooke's Law, a mechanical principle in physics.

The force on an object (in this instance, the force on the foot, ankle, and leg) is related to the spring constant of the material (the rubber sole) and how much the rubber is compressed with each foot strike.

F=-kx

k=spring constant

x=compression

The k is negative because it is acting opposite in direction to the force being applied. Simply put, if you push down on a rubber sole it rebounds back upward with a force multiplied by the spring constant and compression. The rubber multiplies the force of impact; it doesn't reduce it at all.

This is the reason why car bumpers are not made of rubber, because if they were the force of, say, a 30mph impact would be multiplied by the spring constant of the rubber. Instead, cars have "crumple zones", which collapse over time, spreading out the impact and not rebounding like rubber would, reducing shock on the driver. This happens when forefoot and mid-foot striking, the foot, ankle and leg gradually absorbing the impact over time, except after every step, when weight is taken off, the foot returns to its uncompressed state.

This is not anecdotal or opinion or propaganda; this is empirical and verifiable fact. Shoe companies may claim to do many things, but they cannot counteract the laws of nature.

lolno

There are so many things I could say here, but I'll limit myself to this. Show me one peer-reviewed study that validates any of the assumptions on which standard (i.e., pronation-control / elevated cushioned heel) running shoes are based. Anything out there - other than press releases, ad campaigns, and joint statements between a shoe company and some professional organization like ACSM - that scientifically concludes "Yes, runners need to have X mechanism to correct Y deficiency, and Z shoe can accomplish this."

DemandProof wrote:

There are so many things I could say here, but I'll limit myself to this. Show me one peer-reviewed study that validates any of the assumptions on which MINIMALIST (i.e., BAREFOOT / VFF) running shoes are based. Anything out there - other than press releases, A SOMEWHAT FICTIONALIZED BOOK BY AN OFTEN INJURED RUNNER, ad campaigns, and joint statements between a shoe company and some professOR WHO WAS FUNDED BY VIBRAM - that scientifically concludes "Yes, runners CAN BE GUARANTEED THEY WILL BE LESS INJURY PRONE IF THE RUN BAREFOOT/MINIMALLY SHOD."