Why do the elite runners don't use zero drop shoes?

You aren’t Henry fletcher,

You’re altra rnr.

If you are Henry fletcher why don’t you post as Henry fletcher?

Huh?

And the altra thing has about 18 months remaining before it goes the way of vibrant five toes.

(Henry fletcher would know this )

Geez.

henry fletcher wrote:

You aren’t Henry fletcher,

You’re altra rnr.

If you are Henry fletcher why don’t you post as Henry fletcher?

Huh?

And the altra thing has about 18 months remaining before it goes the way of vibrant five toes.

(Henry fletcher would know this )

Geez.

WTF are you babbling about?

Zero-drop doesn't work for the very reason zero-drop people use to sell you on zero-drop.

"Run barefoot," they say, and when you can't run barefoot heelstriking, they prove you'd do better with zero drop.

But all this proves is that you'd prefer to have weight-bearing more forefoot if the shoe wasn't in the way, and not everyone can prance along like Rupp for 26+ miles. We'd prefer to have a base to run on, even though we're "landing" mid- or forefoot.

So, like Nike has proven, 8-10 is the way. Adidas knew this before, with Dennis wearing shoes that were 10-12.

ZERO! You scream. Okay, take the insoles out of Skechers and you're within 1 or 2 mm at worst. Have at it.

65gfdspo98 wrote:

Zero-drop doesn't work for the very reason zero-drop people use to sell you on zero-drop.

"Run barefoot," they say, and when you can't run barefoot heelstriking, they prove you'd do better with zero drop.

But all this proves is that you'd prefer to have weight-bearing more forefoot if the shoe wasn't in the way, and not everyone can prance along like Rupp for 26+ miles. We'd prefer to have a base to run on, even though we're "landing" mid- or forefoot.

So, like Nike has proven, 8-10 is the way. Adidas knew this before, with Dennis wearing shoes that were 10-12.

ZERO! You scream. Okay, take the insoles out of Skechers and you're within 1 or 2 mm at worst. Have at it.

8-10 because it allows you to fit mechanical springs inside

Zero drop shoes just shift the forces downward in your leg. There is no benefit, just pros and cons. You'll have Achilles and calf issues (zero drop) rather than knee and hip issues (traditional drop).

Because only slow hobby joggers obsess over little details like that. It's the same reason they don't do Maffetone training or keto diet.

I don't do keto, but I do low-carb.

And I prefer 6-8 drop.

harry "snapper" organs wrote:

OP, remember the Vibram 5 Finger? I have never seen a runner in those who was NOT running on concrete. Zero drop, Nike Free, minimalist shoes (including your Altras) should be run on soft surfaces. Trails are not soft surfaces.

The ideal place to run in zero drop and minimalist shoes are golf courses, Pre's Trail, mega soccer complexes (8 fields).

I wish you guys had been more patient with the Nike Free. And that Nike had put outersole rubber on the heel and the ball areas for more durability.

The first few models were proper running shoes. Rubber outsole. Breathable. Flexible. Cushioned. Durable. I don’t know when they changed but by 2015 they were garbage.

ethiopian wrote:

After reading "Anatomy for runners", I am kinda sold on zero drop shoes and plan to transition slowly to them (within a year). However, I don't understand why the best elite marathon runners don't use them if they were so much better?

I think some ultra dudes like Zack Bitter use zero drop, but don't remember seeing anyone winning a marathon or half wearing one. I don't think Nike/Adidas even have zero drop road running shoes.

Any thoughts?

I suspect you and several of the response comments may be conflating zero drop shoes with minimalist shoes. The drop aka heel drop refers to the difference in stack height between the heel and the forefoot. Zero drop shoes are not necessarily low stack height or less cushioned shoes as they may be well cushioned both under the heel and the forefoot. Minimalist or so-called barefoot shoes have low or zero drop but the converse is not true. Altra, Hoka, On Cloud etc. make well cushioned (non-minimalist) shoes with zero or low drop.

It is unclear based on known data if the drop by itself makes much difference to running form or speed or injury risk provided the shoes are well cushioned in the forefoot.

But minimalist shoes and their extreme counterpart, so-called barefoot shoes, or the even greater extreme of running literally barefoot will likely either injure you OR limit your speed. You will probably be fine with minimalist shoes at recreational running speeds provided you ease into them slowly. However, despite all the debate about whether we need shoes at all for recreational running, nobody advocates sprinting or even competitively running distance on track or road barefoot. Although cases of elites like Abebe Bikila exist for winning a marathon barefoot, he was probably the exception, not the norm, for competitive road running, and even he switched to shod running because of injuries. There is a reason even the Tarahumara wear sandals for protecting their feet.

The nature of our lower body physiology is such that the faster you run, the higher the vertical impact forces are on your feet even though it is the horizontal projection of that force vector that actually keeps you moving forward, i.e., in order to increase either or both of stride length or cadence — the only two ways to increase speed — you are forced to also increase vertical impact forces. Cushioned shoes help dissipate the impact forces through your posterior chain more effectively compared to the alternative of your feet beating more of the brunt.

Maniac in the 4th Dimension wrote:

Zero drop shoes just shift the forces downward in your leg. There is no benefit, just pros and cons. You'll have Achilles and calf issues (zero drop) rather than knee and hip issues (traditional drop).

I believe the tradeoff you state applies to minimalist shoes, but it’s not necessarily known to be true for well cushioned but zero drop shoes.

Most of the best runner are those adapt to traditional trsining and equipment. Not always those with the best genes but the right genes