I am very prone to ankle injuries (especially "rolling" my ankles and doing some damage) and was wondering, would training in a minimalistic flat help reduce this? I figure it's a more stable platform. I currently run in the Nike Pegasus which has a really high heel.
Well this is just my gut feel/experience, and not scientific, but yeah.... I used to roll my ankles a lot and I've found training in shoes w/lower heels (lightweight trainers will do the trick) has helped me a lot. Nikes almost all have taller heels (goes with the wedge/push off your toe theory). So, yes.
yes.
You're actually more unstable in cushioned trainers verses flats, where you sit lower to the ground and can better sense where you step. I used to train in Pegasus and was constantly stepping funny, although I never truly sprained my ankle. You strengthen your feet and legs running in flats. I even run a few miles barefoot each week, which helped cure my foot pain from stepping in a hole a few week ago.
running barefoot is the answer to over- or under-pronation. When running barefoot, you land on your balls of the feet. This is stable. When running with training shoes, you land on the heel. The heel is like a ball, which is obviosly unstable. That is the cause for pronation problems.
running barefoot is the answer to over- and under-pronation problems. Running barefoot means landing on the balls of your feet. This is stable against lateral movement. Running in training shoes means landing on the heel. This is unstable and prone to lateral movement. Therefore, running shoes are the cause of pronation problems.
Is there a heightened risk of stress fractures in the foot when running barefoot or in minimalist shoes?
.... wrote:
Is there a heightened risk of stress fractures in the foot when running barefoot or in minimalist shoes?
It's actually theorized to be the other way around.
When you train in cushy trainers, you tend to have "sloppy" landing mechanics, and you often land with your leg out in front of you as well. A runner will think they are letting the shoe absorb all the shock, when in reality, their joints are absorbing it all. When barefoot or in flats, you run with more efficient, and natural mechanics, which causes you to land more carefully and "preserves" your bones better.
Such is the theory, and it sounds like a good one to me. But maybe it's wrong, who knows.
Your first problem is that you're running in Nikes. I have found that Nike running shoes are the least friendly in terms of ankle support due to their narrow heel and high arch. You might as well run in stiletto's. Try Adidas or Asics. Both are a much more stable shoe. Your second problem is that your ankles are weak. You need to strengthen your weak ankles in order to prevent rolling them again. Try tying one end of an elastic cord to your weak foot and one end to a solid structure mounted on a wall. With your back toward the wall outline the alphabet with your injured foot using the elastic cord as resistence to strengthen it.
.... wrote:
Is there a heightened risk of stress fractures in the foot when running barefoot or in minimalist shoes?
Read this (http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm):
"Wearers of expensive running shoes that were promoted as correcting pronation or providing more cushioning experienced a greater prevalence of these running-related injuries than wearers of less expensive shoes (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). In another study, expensive athletic shoes accounted for more than twice as many injuries as cheaper shoes, a fact that prompted Robbins and Waked (1997) to suggest that deceptive advertising of athletic footwear (e.g., "cushioning impact") may represent a public health hazard. Anthony (1987) reported that running shoes should be considered protective devices (from dangerous or painful objects) rather than corrective devices, as their capacity for shock absorption and control of over-pronation is limited. The modern running shoe and footwear generally reduce sensory feedback, apparently without diminishing injury-inducing impact?a process Robbins and Gouw (1991) described as the "perceptual illusion" of athletic footwear. A resulting false sense of security may contribute to the risk of injury (Robbins and Gouw, 1991). Yessis (2000, p.122) reasoned that once the natural foot structures are weakened by long-term footwear use, people have to rely on the external support of the footwear, but the support does not match that provided by a well functioning foot.
Measurements of the vertical component of ground-reaction force during running provide no support for the notion that running shoes reduce shock. Robbins and Gouw (1990) reported that running shoes did not reduce shock during running at 14 km/h on a treadmill. Bergmann et al. (1995) found that the forces acting on the hip joint were lower for barefoot jogging than for jogging in various kinds of shoe. Clarke et al. (1983) observed no substantial change in impact force when they increased the amount of heel cushioning by 50% in the shoes of well-trained runners. Robbins and Gouw (1990) argued that plantar sensation induces a plantar surface protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock. The less-cushioned shoe permitted increases in plantar discomfort to be sensed and moderated, a phenomenon that they termed "shock setting". Footwear with greater cushioning apparently provokes a sharp reduction in shock-moderating behaviour, thus increasing impact force (Robbins and Hanna, 1987; Robbins et al., 1989; Robbins and Gouw, 1990). However, in these studies the subjects ran on treadmills or force platforms. Further studies are needed to establish how shoes affect impact force and shock-moderating behavior on natural surfaces such as road or grass."
I'm someone who suffered 7 stress fractures (3 in my left foot and 4 in my femurs), and I've been the healthiest I've ever been while training in flats the past 6 months. I'm totally convinced that flats are the way to go.