TRACKHEAD, MR FLATS, LAWOOF, ELLFORD, J Y, JEREMY HUFFMAN, JAGUAR1, ET AL?

At a glance, a cursory one at that, one thing caught my eye: "...the shoes were identical in mass..." I gather that aside from midsole durometer (hardness) the shoes were the same. They were elevated trainers from what I gather. This precludes the whole argument of racers vs. trainers; in other words, the study applies to trainers only.

if you are going to believe studies that show trainers may be good, why not believe the numerous studies that say minimalist is the way to go. seems like skewed logic to me.

Actually, it is not clear to me that minimalist flats are the way to go. A lot of the research (Warburton, etc.) concerns running barefoot, rather than running large amounts of mileage in flats. Some barefoot running strengthens the muscaulature of the foot that is weakened by too much running in trainers with too high of a heel. The result of the barefoot running is improved performance and lower injury rate. I fully believe in this, and I have seen injury rates in high school runners go down after doing some barefoot running (warmups and drills on sand and grass only).

It is not clear to me, however, that:

(a) Running in flats is as good as running barefoot; or

(b) Running a large amount of mileage in flats is a wise choice (compared to a smaller amount barefoot).

a thought. wrote:

if you are going to believe studies that show trainers may be good, why not believe the numerous studies that say minimalist is the way to go. seems like skewed logic to me.

List the references please.

The main thing I got out of that article was a renewed fear for running too many miles on hard surfaces.

Please leave me out of these thread titles. I am soooooo not interested in this argument any more.

Most "minimalists" are idiots and have no idea what they are talking about. I am not a minimalist. I am a runner, I am an athlete, but I am not a minimalist. I run in the shoes that work for me and help people who have running shoe problems. I have a 100% success rate and I intend to keep it that way.

Argue away kids; I have better things to do with my time.

First, they selected only "heel-toe runners" as subjects. What does "heel-toe runners" mean? Heel-toe runners when shod? Unshod?

Furthermore, these "runners" were averaging only 12-13 miles/week.

Do these results apply to serious runners who are forefoot or midfoot strikers?

In addition, the investigators don't actually measure impact force. They seem to infer it from "joint velocity?" Is it safe to assume that joint velocity accurately reflects impact force?

Finally, the study doesn't attempt to determine the effects of surface stiffness and midsole hardness on the risk of injury. They authors merely surmise that the tendency to minimize O2 consumption by increasing impact force (through less hip and knee flexion on impact), as was seen in their subjects, *might* increase the risk of injury.

In a nutshell, this study contributes nothing to the discussion of whether minimal shoes decrease or increase the risk of injury in serious runners.

LaWoof , Welcome to the Hotel California, many a room at the hotel California.. such a lovely place..such a lovely place.. you can check out , but you can never leave...

a thought. wrote:

if you are going to believe studies that show trainers may be good, why not believe the numerous studies that say minimalist is the way to go. seems like skewed logic to me.

a thought:

"Numerous studies" -- there are no such studies.

Be careful with your feet.

-- Johnston

There's plenty of studies that have demonstrated that a degree of cushioning is an injury preventer (see the works cited in the above study). There's also plenty of studies that demonstrate that orthotics prevent injuries. There's only one, dubious PAPER, constantly referred to here that supports the minimalist/unshod dogma. I found the study quite interesting and germane to the the endless topic of minimalism around here.

Expiriment 2: 30 minutes with a -12% downgrade, but "...the grade was not so steep that the nature of the task changed."

What kind of idiot would do a 1/2 hour run down hill, especially that steep?

reed smith wrote:

There's plenty of studies that have demonstrated that a degree of cushioning is an injury preventer (see the works cited in the above study). There's also plenty of studies that demonstrate that orthotics prevent injuries.

I think that was Johnston's point. There aren't any credible "minimalist" studies.