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

on feedback:

your feet have thousands of proceptors whihc help muscles make minute changes as to adjust to changing surfaces. Limit the feedback and these guys can't do their job.

7) Laziness. The average runner doesn't want to do all the necessary things to be able to run in flats. (stretch, ice)

8) Removing support out of the foot after years and years in support would spell disaster (Kevin or Keith Hanson said so on Hanson's forum).

GH,

do you have a link to that post on their forum?

First link is the question asked about the nike free:

http://www.hansons-running.com/ecom/sp/

;cat=messageBoard;messageBoard=1101698876;messageNumber=1101704250

Second link is Kevin Hanson's reply:

http://www.hansons-running.com/ecom/sp/

;cat=messageBoard;messageBoard=1101698876;messageNumber=1101704250

ghost racers wrote:

Second link is Kevin Hanson's reply:

This shows the impatientness and ignorance of most people who have never tried this. Of course your feet (and most likely your legs) are going to be sore at first. But the body adapts and gets stronger, no matter how many years you've been walking/running with shoes. This general attitude and simple ignorance is a strong factor going against the evolution towards more minimalistic shoes.

If Nike decides to produce a smaller amount of shoes made of "less" and marketed towards the top 10% of the market, wouldn't their profit even out? I want to see a 4-5 oz. $40 shoe with hardly anything put into it. Flat sole (forget the waffle, or any ripples in the sole), no heel lift, thin midsole (or none at all), and just an upper with no heel counter, "arch support", or "Achilles Protector". Take out all of the crap and market a "basic" shoe towards the elite who want to get stronger and faster-- a basic white shoe with a black swoosh. Give the sole grooves like the Free if they think the uniqueness will help it sell.

Maybe most shoes, over time, will eventually get thinner and thinner so that eventually we'll find ourselves running in next to nothing without even noticing it! The thick-midsoled shoes will become a thing of the past.

If I agree that flats are the panacea to becoming a world class runner, will you kindly go away?????

How can everyone believe that changing your shoe will decrease your injuries? No one can sit here and prove that injuries are caused by running in trainers or from running in flats. In our sport there are tons of overuse injuries that occur all the time. Show me some scientific proof that this is what occurs trackhead. Your feet are not becoming less perceptive in trainers. They are not having to absorb so much of the shock. I am sure you could get away with running in flats at a slow pace for high mileage but trackhead try doing everything at 6 minute pace and faster and you will begin to see the injuries rise from less cushioning.

Now if flats are so great for your feet then you never have to but another pair until you have no bottom left on the shoe right? Give me a break if this is such a great theory of yours then why is it that trainers with cushioning need to be changed out every 600 miles or so. If what you are saying is right then when all the cushioning is flattened out of a trainer they should be perfectly compared to flats cause the feet will feel more. When does the life in shoes end then?

This flat thing is a ploy by trackhead and his running store to start making more many. Trackhead you say you train over 90 miles a week in flats. Well at what pace? Cause I think that is a factor being overlooked. I personally think this is a crock like the Atkins Diet. It may work for a while but then you get screwed in the end health wise.

I remember awhile ago someone posted a link to a rather thorough report done by a Professor or a grad student about the benefits of minimal shoes. Can someone post that link again?

1) Running in high heels? Shortening achilles/soleus/calf lengths?

2) Absorb shock? Where is it coming from? If you've read a lot of the discussion, you'll find that it's weak feet with sloppy form that are dependent on the insulation from the ground that is found in running shoes.

3) Lets see... You're right, I'm not fast enough to run my 90mi weeks at 6min a mile -- but first, what would it matter -- you're still not slamming into the ground, in fact it's more likely that all you're doing is pushoff because your footstrike will invariable be further up. But, one of my training partners -- who has had a very nice season thus far, has been running as high as 150 miles in a week, much of it from 6:30-sub6 and all of it in flats like the H Streets. And thus far, he's in better shape than ever before. More from him to come in the spring.

4) 600miles? What's magical about 600 miles? Suppose you've got two runners both running 10hrs/wk at 6:00min/mi. That's exactly 100mi per week. So both of their shoes should be dead in exactly 6 weeks right? But what if one of them has a slithly longer stride than the other? Than he is taking less steps for his 100mi weeks, right?

600mi rule is BS. Shoe usage is completely individual. You're average running store customer will come in for new shoes at around that time for two reasons: a) they have weak feet, poor form and, like many westerners, have been conditioned to that insulation and b) because they are told so. I got a lot of people that came in and asked me to check if their shoe was done. Other employees would bend the shoe back and say, "Oh yeah, cushioning's gone." I'd never say that. I'd say that I can't tell that, that they need to tell me how it feels. Do you need insulation from the ground? Because it is not required by humans, by definition.

5) A flattened out trainer is poor for a few reasons: a) uneven wear and b) still height and insulation from the ground.

6) A shoe stops working when the runner feels that it does. Or when their foot bursts out of the shoe. I'm not the only one putting 1000+ miles on H Streets. Why would a human NEED a shoe? Because they have been conditioned to it.

7) Oh yes, this flats thing is a ploy to get people in my store. Let me address that.

First, I take offense to the fact that you feel I have some financial motivation in this. I don't give a shit whether they go to Carlsbad or Encinitas or New York or Madrid for their shoes. I just want to share information, educate others and myself and try to help runners who want to help themselves.

Second, telling every customer that they don't need shoes, by definition, and that most shoes are bad doesn't seem like good selling point if you want to move $110 shoes. A better selling point seems to be that the customer needs the shoe, like you say. But I don't believe that, so I never tell anyone that.

8) No, the Atkins comparison isn't very good. This is more like most running shops are butcher shops and I'm saying, you know, you could probably do without all that red meat.

Why would a human be incapable of running 2hrs a day? Why would a high heel be necessary?

Pienso que este sitio es que usted quiera:

http://nhscc.home.comcast.net/l3_paper.htm

That's probably it. I thought I remembered the cover page having a generic foot (sort of like the foot with wings you always see with track stuff), but maybe I'm just imagining that.

trackhead-- thanks for generating this discussion. Just an annecdote in support of your idea that trainers aren't the godsend the corporate world would like us to think:

In my own very low level running (50 miles a week, 20-something minute 5k)I've found that my tendency to run on the outside of my feet (under probation?)causes my shoes (Mizuno or Saucony light-weight trainers) to wear on the outside only, becoming increasingly lopsided, eventually falling outward slightly (or significantly in the case of my Saucony Grid's Swerve LSs) after not more than 200 miles. Running in uneven shoes has lead to pain on the inside of my ankles (probably tendonitis).

I first figured I need more shoe to help keep me from running on only the outside of my shoes- which worked- but I hated how the heavy shoes feel. In heavy trainers I feel like I'm running completely differently; more on my heel and midfoot than in less substantial shoes. Not to mention the percieved strain of swinging around that much weight on the bottom of my feet.

Then I took a look at my racing flats, they're a little more worn on the outside (the entire length of the shoe), but they've withstood 400 miles without becoming as deformed as my trainers do after many less miles on the same surfaces. Running in flats, especially if I do a lot of my running off-road, has alleviated all of the problems I was having with soreness. And considering that I'm nowhere near elite or biomechanically ideal, I think this means that many people could potentially benefit from the same.

ey, make that pronation... my probation is another issue altogether

Thanks for the info Natalie.

Can you shoot me your email so I could ask you some questions regarding Trainers Vs Flats!

Hey folks, I suggest some of you take a look at the report trackhead linked above. You will see that this is not just a one-man crusade; there is significant scientific evidence in favor of what trackhead has been stating.

For the record, I've done most of my recent training in the Nike Pegasus and the Ascics GT 2090s. However, I seem to keep getting hurt, so I'm looking into trying shoes with less heel height. I'm admittedly scared after being so accustomed to having a lot underneath my feet so I'm not sure what shoe I'll begin with.

For the love of all things sacred and profane, haven't you been following along? No, trackhead is not alone in this, there are a whole group of folks who are willing to dismiss all evidence that does not conform to their preconceived notions and promote a minimal only approach.

The article linked to above is not a serious review of the field, it is a propoganda piece that selectivley chooses articles that support the authors agenda, ignores contradictory articles, and misrepresents the findings of at least one paper to come to the OPPOSITE conclusion of the study's authors. The superior shock absorption of the heel in barefoot running this guy presents was actually indicative of a LOSS of shock absorption capacity by the heel pad when running barefoot.

Beyond that, for the 1 millionth time, running barefoot has nothing to do with running in trainers vs flats.

In addition to this thread, go back to the other thread on this topic and read all 200 posts. You'll see that the minimalist crew don't really address the serious questions concerning their approach. The default answer is that humans evolved without shoes, and this population is barefoot, and those runners all run in minimal shoes, and these people switched over....all that is fine, but it really doesn't help you, as a unique individual, if it does not work for you. The argument that humans would have died out if they could not run 2 hrs per day is pretty ridiculous as evidence for why I might need to wear shoes. Imagine Lance Armstrong walking into his doctors office with a huge tumor hanging in his sack, and his doctor tells him, "Shit Lance, humans wouldn't have gotten very far if they couldn't live without huge tumors growing in their nuts. I'm sure it's nothing". trackhead acts as if everyone incapable of turning out 100 mile weeks on hard ground has been weeded out of the gene pool.

The minimalists say you need proprioceptive feedback in order to adopt a maximally effective gait, but the one shoe that closely mimics the feel and footstrike pattern of running barefoot is the Nike Free, which has too much cushioning and too much of a heel lift to give the feedback. That built up and cushioned and it feels more natural than a minimal?

Another main issue concerns strengthening all the unnamed support muscles that supposedly occurs when running in minimal shoes. There is no real evidence for this, although common sense suggests it does occur. After all, several scentific studies have demonstrated that there is a higher energy cost of running barefoot, presumably due to the increased use of support muscles that are doing more work to absorb the increased impact shock. What is not common sense is why, unlike for other strengthening work, one would need to do it on 100% of their runs. It is also not clear whether you do not get the same strengthening work in trainers on uneven running surfaces.

There is no scientific evidence that running in flats will produce fewer injuries. There is some evidence that shoe cushioning will decrease injury risk, but I'm not sure those results can be applied to the issues we're dealing with here. I am pretty sure that the injury risk for every individual will be different, and so the cushioning, stability, needs are going to vary between different runners. I don't think any runner should be in more shoe than they need, but know what your foot needs. There is no one answer for everyone. Experiment if you will, but be careful. If you are running fine in 100% trainers, you will need to put in some percentage of your miles in flats to prepare for racing. If you are running 70/30 or something, and it works, why change? There is no evidence aside that suggests you'll have any benefit.

I think I should just stop reading these threads. People will do what they want to do, and personally I do not care what anyone wears on their feet. Just please stop saying that you have science on your side. Instead, just claim that Jesus is on your side. You don't need any evidence for that.

He was a minimalist, though. I've seen the sandals.

This is one of the coolest things I've read on this website.

I think trackhead needs to stop trying to convert the masses and work on sending out those DVDs he promised everyone.