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

asicsguy,

The H Street is sold as a fashion shoe and that's who buy it, for the most part. I'm in San Diego county right now and I've been doing allmy road running in the H Streets for some time. A guy I run with did a 30 mile run on the roads in the H Streets without incident. He got up the next day and did 10 that morning. No problems.

For the most part, people who are running in the H Street are likely committed minimalists and they've got to know about the shoe.

thanks for the responses. it's an idea that's not totally beyond my belief, but it's tough to swallow when i never see people training in those shoes in my neck of the woods. in fact, i'd say the ds trainers are the most minimal i see on others. maybe i need to find some new routes??

Well, we're going against the grain. Conventional thinking of the day says that less shoe is bad. It's everywhere. For example:

I was on Market St. not too long ago and popped my head into the Puma Store. I was looking at the new colours of H Streets and asked one clerk to make sure that they weren't going out anytime soon. I commented that they were the best running shoes I've ever had, and he responded that he didn't think they had enough "support" for running. Go figure.

as usual trackhead you're so full of shit. when you stop talking about about how everyone would be so much better off with flats (geez how many times have we heard about how the xc champ colorado teams are idiots?) then i'll stop bugging you about running barefoot. why don't you??? not interested in running faster and more efficiently? or you just don't like to give your proceptors too much of a workout?? what's the deal? oh wait, maybe cause your life is the shoe business.

I'd love if everyone ran barefoot -- people would be running better. I don't have a problem with it. As far as any financial motives behind my opinions, that's laughable. Most retailers I talk to shy away from me out of fear that they've got it all wrong and their sales will plummet. Maybe they could seel more apparell.

Keep on bugging away.

About CU -- coaches make mistakes. That's fine. Hopefully they (coaches in general) learn from them. Read Running With the Buffalos. Lots of mistakes. Footwear is one of them.

I just heard from a friend that's in Boulder that Ritzenhein is looking much better than years past (now wearing the Elites, big imporvement from the Kantara). While the Gouchers, unfortunately in their big shoes, were klomping along and looked almost strained from their terrible overstriding. Unfortunate -- so much talent.

There is no proof that any of their injuries came from running in injuries. And to bad mouth someone such as goucher is disgraceful. Trackhead you need to be careful about what you are saying. You can not prove these things. Just because a guy has gotten injuried does not mean it is from trainers. And just because "you heard from somebody" crap about Ritz does not mean that he is running better because of being in flats. Give me a break. Prove these things. Wait you can't. Don't talk about others especially saying that wetmore makes mistakes. He is better at his job then you could ever be. You need to realize that every person in the world is different and trying to say flats and barefeet would be better for everyone is BS. Just as training plans differ and indivduals gain differently from them all. I mean you can not prove that this will make people faster whatsoever. It obviously isnt helping you get any faster cause you are not improving your times that much.

I am sick and tired of you always acting like you know it all. You can say that is not how you act but it is exactly how you do act especially in person. I am fed up with you trying to be the new guru. I bet you are the same type of person who thinks you have to be talented in order to run national caliber for the U.S.? Are you the same guy who says I am not talented enough is why you don't make it?

ok until you start your own minimalist shoe guy column, or open a minimalist running shoe store, or go to work for a shoe company, it's unfair of me to accuse you of financial motive. my point is not everyone can run barefoot (including you!). likewise not everyone can train in flats. just accept it.

runninginsandiego wrote:

I am sick and tired of you always acting like you know it all. You can say that is not how you act but it is exactly how you do act especially in person. I am fed up with you trying to be the new guru. I bet you are the same type of person who thinks you have to be talented in order to run national caliber for the U.S.? Are you the same guy who says I am not talented enough is why you don't make it?

Quite the opposite. I lack athletic talent in every way possible, but still have my own hopes and aspirations. Ron Daws is my patron saint. You should read his chapter on shoes. Great stuff.

I believe that (generally) if someone has a problem running barefoot on a grass field or beach, it's because of a shoe-related problem. I don't think that we're likely to be built so poorly. At what point someone can no longer return to that sort of natural state, I don't know. The oldest I've worked with was right around 50 and had been running for 35 years and when I met him in his 40s had been suffering from just about any foot problem you could name. He's since been running in the Revolver, and is healthier and faster now than when I met him.

And I'm not trying to be some "guru." I come on this board same as everyone else and see a discussion and add my input. The only time that I become especially active is when shoe companies ruin, what I feel are, good shoes (good shoe meaning less shoe in this case). Or when someone denounces what I believe to be the truth.

Most running store people sell shoes on the basis that protection is needed because the runner is flawed and needs this device. My approach is that shoes are interference and that they are best minimized (except when injured they can be used as crutches to continue activity while the affected area heals).

Like my friend LaWoof. He runs in modified spikes and the H Street. But one day he dropped a couch on his foot and broke his toe. It hurt to move around or run. So he wore the Adrenalines for a few weeks until it was better and went back to his flimsy shoes.

1) Don't be a smart alec to me okay. I am simply having a discusion with you ( heated it may be but discussion nonetheless). I am trying to understand every direction that you can be coming from and trying to cover all the bases.

2) I am not saying that only very few people can critique things. I am simply saying that it is not anybody elses business to do so except for that coach and his athletes. I would hope that people would respoect me enough as a coach to do so on my own. I believe that great coaches are those willing to adapt. That is where alot of people go wrong by thinking that the same goes for everyone whiich is wrong. everyone is different. Some people can not handle doing longer VO2max intervals, where others can best gain benefit from those type of workouts. Adapting for each individual is important. Maybe try them with shorter intervals, more rest, or the etc. You can understand where I am going with this. This is a point that too many coaches do not want to do for time reasons or are too stuborn. Too many prideful coaches out there.

I am a full hearted believer that birth Genes do not play a role in sports. Just because you are born Kenyan does not mean you will run faster then americans. They simply have a different environment in which they are more active in running growing up. They simply have a larger base. Too many people try raising their mileage too fast before they are used to it. Americans are playing catch up in mileage but it doesn't mean it is time to hurry up and jump from 60 to 120 miles a week. Results now are meaningless if the future results include the olympics. It comes down to a persons desire and dedication. I am sure there are plenty of college athletes who could end up on the national scene if they continued after college for some they give up or it is a money issue. Perfect example is Wejo. Look what he has done post collegiatly. I greatly admire him.

Matt all I am asking is to not push people to flats cause they could be damaging for some. Everything depends on the indivdual. Every case is different. So everytime you hear about an injury or pain do not automatically tell them it is because of trainers.

UNSHOD horses???????

barebonz wrote:

trackhead, why the need for shoes? unless it's cold there's no reason. why don't you do 100 mpw barefoot? surely it's been done. if you tell me it's cause your feet will get cuts and blisters on the road then i'll say that's cause your lower leg/feet muscles are too weak and inflexible and you're not hitting the ground correctly. pavement isn't a natural surface but horses do ok on it. if you have another reason please share, cause there are huge efficiency gains in going from flats to barefoot. my point about the lack of lower leg strength/flexibility is the same reason many can't just run mileage in flats. some can. very few can run barefoot all the time. we're not horses, the human body sucks.

Are you doing this to BRAND NEW, UNWORN shoes?

BFG wrote:

The norm for training shoes is 12mm with some as low as 10. Flats are more like 8-10mm. However, I just measured a Brooks Hyperion Racer at 12mm. You can't get a true measurement by looking at the outside since most midsole wrap up onto the upper. I cut the shoe down the center from toe to heel using a bandsaw.

U R A DOLT: Read the thread before you start bashing. We've already been through this.

1) No attitude at all -- I was being sincere. I prefere person-to-person communication.

2) I disagree with your point about critiques for a few reasons: a) a book was put out detailing their season. That opens it up to the masses and b) if it was bad for us to look at what other people are doing and give commentary, how are we supposed to share ideas? I'm not saying there should be personal attacks (as are found so frequently on this board), but information is used to support or oppose an opinion or case. Example: I don't like how the American collegiate system is set up. I think there are way too many meaningless races. Case in point: Tiffany McWilliams. I don't believe that Al Schmidt should have had her/let her race at SECs when she was borderline stress fracture and she was the odds on favourite for the Oly Trials. That's not a personal attack on either, that's simply saying, "They did this, and I think it was a bad idea."

3) I completely agree with taking everyone's individual background and abilities into account when devising their training. I think another problem with the many coaches out there is that when practice starts in Aug., everyone must be able to run x amount of miles per week and this pace, and do these workouts. That is one of the reasons why so many freshman athletes aren't around three years later.

4) I think that genes do factor in, however, they are not the only factor, nor are they exclusive to certain populations. Jim Ryun had fantastic genes. Additionally, you probably won't find too many Inuits running fast times because that group of people has, over time, become specialized to living in cold weather (ie shorter, stouter bodies to conserve heat). Likewise, generations of getting around on two feet have made for populations in E Africa that are more likely to be good at moving around on two feet. This is then compounded by all the running/activity they have in their youth. By that reasoning, the average American would be much better and fitter if we had similar levels of activity, particularly in youth.

5) I completely agree in being progressive in mileage and have never said anything to the contrary. I've consistently laid out plans of starting where ever is reasonable (ie a 1000 or 1500 mile first year) and bumping gradually, 500mi/yr until optimum levels are reached.

6) I also agree on putting long term goals ahead of short term.

7) Let me make clear, I never push someone into anything. Most of the shoes I sell are Adrenalines and 2100s... as well as Frees and 900s. I bring the shoes out, watch them run and if it looks bad, I pull it. Of all the shoes that look good, I check for fit and they decide what feels best. Oftentimes it's the Free or 900 and I get nothing but positive feedback. I never tell someone, "This shoe will last this long and you need to come back for new ones." I say that typically people get 500 miles, but there are many that get much more, and that you are the best judge of when the shoe is done. When you put it on and run and don't like the feel of it or feeling any discomfort, then bring it in.

I never push anyone into anything -- I just bring out the choices and let them decide.

I've actually given thought to doing just that, and that was well before I'd ever heard of "trackhead" or any of his ideas.

barebonz wrote:

starting your own minimalist shoe store

I forgot to add: I don't assume that it's the shoes that are causing problem (I myself had an injury competely unrelated) but I think they cause far more problems than they are credited with.

More to that point, many times when people have come in with an injury in a big shoe (Brett Campfield of Tem Val High had terrible knee problems in Kayanos+orthotics) I try the lower profile shoes and often they've done the job (he's been running in the 900s since the summer and has been able to break 40 mile weeks for the first time in his career).

you have flat out told me personally and I have heard you tell others it is because we are wearing trainers that we recieve injuries. That we need to get out of those shoes. Without any questions being asked before hand. So dont say never.