What have you seen?
What have you seen?
My kid was running on the beach yesterday in flip flops. I think that spelled the end of the movement. Ne're shall fleshy feet toucheth the ground a'gin.
Has the barefoot running fad finally faded?
Yes, we're now on to the minimalist shoe fad, which of course, is how it was meant to be.
Shoe company ads: "We recognise the great feeling from running barefoot but also recognise it's not practical most of the time which is why we've introduced our new minimalist running shoe, it's just like running bare foot. Start by wearing your usual (insert brand name) and transitioning to your new (insert brand name) etc, etc."
Get it?, you're buying an extra pair of shoes you don't need and, hopefully for the shoe companies, a few more before you realise it's all a con, then it'll be something else, these perhaps?
Reebok. Doing big things.
Moronic wrote:
Has the barefoot running fad finally faded?
Yes, we're now on to the minimalist shoe fad, which of course, is how it was meant to be.
Shoe company ads: "We recognise the great feeling from running barefoot but also recognise it's not practical most of the time which is why we've introduced our new minimalist running shoe, it's just like running bare foot. Start by wearing your usual (insert brand name) and transitioning to your new (insert brand name) etc, etc."
Get it?, you're buying an extra pair of shoes you don't need and, hopefully for the shoe companies, a few more before you realise it's all a con, then it'll be something else, these perhaps?
Reebok. Doing big things.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5029286
Nonsense. If you're an old clunker, then, sure, don't launch yourself straight into a 'minimalist' shoe. I coach a 14yo kid who has run on trails in the Brooks PureConnect for 18/12 now with no problems at all. He thinks they are great-feel light but sufficiently cushioned. Could transition to the even lighter, PureDrift, which you can convert to zero drop by taking out the inbuilt sockliner, if they suit him. Has likely strengthened his feet/ankles/calves and promoted correct foot strike. Will probably help reduce chance of shin splints etc.
Lydiard is God wrote:
Could transition to...
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
Lydiard is God wrote:
Will probably help reduce chance of shin splints etc.
Will it?
I would never run in barefoot shoes apart from maybe the odd warm up jog before a workout. But what do people think about using them in the gym? Or just for walking around in?
Thinking about picking up these since they going cheap
http://www.sportsdirect.com/vivo-evo-iii-m-dual-mens-running-shoes-189166
Any use?
Lydiard is God wrote:
Nonsense.
I wonder what Arthur would say if he was still around?
you mean for lifting? no way, no lateral support & so thin that you might as well be barefoot--what do you do if you drop a weight on your toe?
i like barefoot shoes for a barefoot grassy run once a week.good to keep your feet strong, and protects you from all the needles the hippies leave around.
Moronic wrote:
Lydiard is God wrote:Could transition to...
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
When he needs a new pair of shoes, it would be logical to continue the experiment. It makes sense to think that your feet will be strengthened if they are forced to do more work from a young age.
I suggest to you that the shoes Snell and co wore on their long runs on the road were pretty 'minimalist' compared to the overpadded monstrosities full of gimmicks-exemplified by the Asics Kayano.
I'm just happy that Asics finally offers kicks with a drop lower than 10mm somewhere other than racing flats. Call it whatever you like, it's nice having a shoe with a lower profile but enough cushioning for the roads.
Lydiard is God wrote:
I suggest to you that the shoes Snell and co wore on their long runs on the road were pretty 'minimalist' compared to the overpadded monstrosities full of gimmicks-exemplified by the Asics Kayano.
Way to go from one extreme to another... How many high-mileage serious runners wear the Kayanos? Or the Mizuno Wave Prophecys? Or the Brooks Beast?
Let's review your argument: "Hey, these minimalist shoes work for ONE of my runners who runs mostly on trails and soft surfaces. Besides, Snell and Coe (two of the most efficient runners ever) ran in kinda minimalist shoes and were just fine!"
Seems legit... What does Tegenkamp or Evan Jager or Asbel Kiprop or Gebresalassie wear? "Clunky" trainers to protect their body.
I wear what works best for me which happens to be neutral, minimal shoes. I do a lot of my running in what are by definition, flats. I still run in more bulked up shoes sometimes for recovery runs or just because I feel like it. Sometimes I run hills in bulkier shoes to take some pressure off my achilles. i usually do long runs in flats. The more cushiony and soft a shoe is the more likely I'm going to get hurt. Any kind if motion control blows my ankles up. Maybe I'm one of the few, but minimal works best for me.
I also avoid socks and shirts. "Hey, ladies, check me out!"
Around here it generally dies down in the winter. People don't seem to like running on snow and ice in barefeet. However, I predict a comeback in about May.
Thanks wrote:
I'm just happy that Asics finally offers kicks with a drop lower than 10mm somewhere other than racing flats. Call it whatever you like, it's nice having a shoe with a lower profile but enough cushioning for the roads.
Which models are you talking about?
llamarunner wrote:
what do you do if you drop a weight on your toe?
What happens if you drop a weight on your toes with shoes other than hiking boots on?
The exact same thing.
all shoes do is spread the force over an area, but because they are more cushioned you have to push even harder to run? so do they help sure but if you are used to barefoot than its probably just as good...can't do any sudden transitions
SMNRunner wrote:
Lydiard is God wrote:I suggest to you that the shoes Snell and co wore on their long runs on the road were pretty 'minimalist' compared to the overpadded monstrosities full of gimmicks-exemplified by the Asics Kayano.
Way to go from one extreme to another... How many high-mileage serious runners wear the Kayanos? Or the Mizuno Wave Prophecys? Or the Brooks Beast?
Let's review your argument: "Hey, these minimalist shoes work for ONE of my runners who runs mostly on trails and soft surfaces. Besides, Snell and Coe (two of the most efficient runners ever) ran in kinda minimalist shoes and were just fine!"
Seems legit... What does Tegenkamp or Evan Jager or Asbel Kiprop or Gebresalassie wear? "Clunky" trainers to protect their body.
Why are you guys from TrackTalk.net so uptight? I did say 'exemplified by', implying it was the other extreme. I was making an observation based on a sample of n=1, not an 'argument'. I also meant co as in 'company'-I don't know what sort of shoes Coe ran in. Anyone?
I believe that a lot of people will get benefits from shoes that attempt to get our feet more in touch with the natural contours of the ground beneath them, get them working more, and keep them strong. Sure, if all you can run on is concrete, asphalt etc, then more protection, but maybe not so many 'control' gimmicks will be needed.
Actually, in Running to the Top, Lydiard does talk about how most shoes were overly complicated and that a simple flat shoe was the best, in his opinion. I imagine he would be disgusted by how much people charge for extremely non-durable minimalist shoes (ahem... NEW BALANCE...), but I don't think his own ideas were all that far off of basic flats.
What fad? I've done it for years and I've never seen anyone else do it, not even once.
It's always been about the minimalist shoes. That's the fad. There are dumb people willing to waste money. No different from traditional shoes, which are also for idiots.