[Closed] How much for a reasonable pair of running shoes please?

I don't run, but my missus does. I think around £80 will get you a decent pair of running shoes. As you've intimated though, go to a proper running shop where they can analyze your run on a treadmill and give you some proper advice on a brand that suits you specifically. My wife uses New Balance which is a pretty popular make with a lot of runners.

A cheap pair of flat plimsoles will be fine for running in, a dangerous game that cushioning/support lark! Pay more attention to your running form than your shoes. Good luck. 🙂

Ps check out flea bay for some good deals on inov8 running shoes

Blah, blah, blah, barefoot is the only way, you need to asses your gait and posture and then embrace your inner athlete, blah, blah, blah.

Go to a good running shop (Runners Need, Run and Become and the Sweatshop at the top of Harrods are three which spring to mind) and get a good look at what they tell you.

🙄

There are loads of cheap proper running shoes on the net .you just need to spend time looking and about 40quid should do it

Proper running shop and be prepared for 60-100, but it's very much going to depend on your foot, running style, how often you run, terrain etc..... I never have a price in mind when getting running shoes and have spent between 50 and 95 on each pair... So..... It depends 🙂

I never spend more than 35 quid, saucony shoes fit my feet well.

Sportshoes unlimited ... or so I think its called always has good deals

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

[img] [/img]

Run like an Ethiopian scotster.

If you're using arch supports, otherwise known as orthotics, you want a neutral shoe as the support is doing the work. Asics do some great shoes, I'd say 60 to 80 quid will get you a great pair. Make sure you get something fit for purpose, don't buy a race shoe for distance training, it'll be dead in no time. A good running store is well worth a trip

Ernie, my running coach at school was not only a hugely successful athlete but also a very early and very strong advocate of barefoot running. I have tried it and to be honest, a trip to Run and Become for some good gait analysis made me realise that it was far better for me to get some shoes which worked with me.

To add, there are some bargains on the web, but unless you know exactly what you're looking for I'd try on instore.

How much running do you intend to do, over what distance. Most importantly, how long before you say "bollocks to that", and fling them into the back of the cupboard like most folk do?

To begin with, spend no more than £50 max

if you go to a shop that does gait analysis (and if you've got orthotics probably should) think i'd budget around £80 - depends on staff and store give / take £20
plenty of good shoes around for £30ish in sales but need to know what works for you if you've got problems already the extra is a lot cheaper than injuries

If you're using arch supports, otherwise known as orthotics

No they aren't , orthotics are orthotics, arch supports are arch supports and will normally aggrivate the sh1t into your feet. First thing is bin them. Go to a recommended running shop who have a look at how you run and get a shoe that fits your foot then start slowly and do 5mins of barefoot on grass 3 times a week as well, then build up to 10 and keep doing it, it stregthens the musclature in the foot and will help to avoid injuries. Watch your calves though. And stretch like a bastrd.

I'm always amazed at the people i see who pronate and are given arch supports then end up with ****d and sore feet. You don't have to be a biomechanical genius to work out why thats a bad thing. You have to start a bit further back in the foot to fix most thing like that 🙄

You only need to spend as much as you need to. Set yourself a budget but good shoes are worth the money.

a Pair of £100rrp shoes are alot better then £35rrp pair, Similar with bike £2.5krrp is going to do the same job as £500rrp one but the £2.5k will get you there easier and more comfortably.

There is alot of technology in running that can help you run faster and eaiser especially if you are recovering from an injury.

I started running after a broken leg and could manage about 3k before the pain set in (wearing a pair of cheap nikes from sports direct)

I went to a sweatshop with a lass i know who does alot of running, They did an analysis and i bought the Brooks shoes they recommended and it has made a massive difference even just walking round the shop they felt so much more comfortable. I paid around £100 for them.

a Pair of £100 shoes are alot better then £35 pair

Depends really doesn't it?

I suit Mizuno Wave Inspire shoes
The current 2010 model [V6 - I think] is ~£90, a 2007/8 V3 or 4 can be had for ~£35
Pretty much the same shoe in a different colour

Yes in some terms I should have said RRP.

Another recommendation for Saucony and Sportshoes Unlimited here. £35 - £50 should get you a good pair, IMHO.

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

Yes Bikila was brought up running on soft (ish) paths and was too poor to buy shoes. At that time the only options were plimsolls and runners in the 50's used to go through a pair a week. They had no cushioning to speak of and only provided protection against abrasion. In effect most runners of the day were running in footwear similar to barefoot!

I dont buy the marketing speak of the major companies but the fact of the matter will be that if you try to run in a pair of shoes that are not reasonably cushioned and flexible you will almost certainly get injured quickly. Look to spend about £50 on a pair of Asics/Nike shoes and build up slowly.

[i]I think around £80 will get you a decent pair of running shoes[/i]

[i]A cheap pair of flat plimsoles will be fine for running in[/i]

[i]I never spend more than 35 quid[/i]

[i]if you go to a shop that does gait analysis (and if you've got orthotics probably should) think i'd budget around £80[/i]

Welcome to the world of runners and their shoes...It's worse than Imelda Marcos...

😀 😆

Abebe Bikila managed to win two Olympic marathons, with his tootsies as nature intended Flash.

He ran the 2nd one in shoes actually - Asics.

Scot - might be better for your knees to run off road only. I recommend Ascis Kayanos for road and Inov8s for off road but only because they fit me.

If you have arch supports (I do) then you want to stick them in a "neutral" shoe. Kayanos have high arches for the pronator so either leave out the support or look at other shoes.

It's a bit of a minefield but worth the effort!

"Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland's University of Bern.
Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.

It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40."

Ok, its from the Daily Mail website, but I had read this else where previously.

scot - you don't mention any injuries or foot oddnesses, and i will assume that you'll be running for about 20mins, twice a week, on pavements or easy offroad trails.

i reckon you'll be fine with some cheap shoes - about £40 would probably do it.

you say

Rock n' Run are doing free running assessments

FunkyDunc makes a good point; companies like Adidas, Nike, Reebok, etc. would love to be able to show us a graph, produced by scientists, proving that we'll get few injuries if we spend more money on their shoes. Unfortunately, whenever actual scientists look at running shoes, it seems that simpler shoes really are better for you.

Well this thread really hasn't "helped" the OP very much has it?

Spend over £80, spend less than £40, etc.

My Inov8s (mudlaws for fairly extreme trail running) were around £50-60, my Asics were both £80-100 (Trail sensor 2 for light off roading, Kayanos for road) - all three do their job brilliantly but would be useless if they didn't fit.

I'd go to a decent shop with a good range and ask them - independent shops often do smaller brands like Inov8 and are staffed by enthusiasts. Big chains are the "PC World" of running shops with half witted gimps for staff that don't know running from grunting.

IMO.

*skips to the end*

I always get my trainers in the sale.....find a pair you like and buy several.

For the record I have some Inov-8 F-Lites 230s and Roclite 295s and both cost £50 each.

Jamie - how do you find the Roclites? Got some mudclaws for serious mud and like them although they are pretty brutal.

My Asics Trail Sensors are a bit heavy for Summer running though and looking at th Roclites - shame no one down here sell them!

Second the buy several pairs (assuming you are going to stick with it) as models change/stop being made, which is s bummer if it's your fav pair!

I got my gait etc looked at, and now buy my shoes from pro direct running, whichs saves approx £20ish. But I reckon for your first pair, go to the shop and buy from them with gait analysis etc. Tell them the kind of running and distance you want to do - my first pair cost £50 as I wasn't keen on spending loads and didn't think I'd run mote than 10km. But I've got the bug and run three times a week, and found that when training for a half marathon o needed more support and cushioning so I've got up three models in my asics so looking at roughly £80 now.

It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40."

There is so much to challenge in your post however even this assertion may only indicate that runners who spend more on their training shoes actually are more serious athletes with more intensive training programs which consequently may make them more risk!
It may even be argued that without the highly cushioned shoes their injury risk may even be higher! Without a control group (which is almost impossible to construct) then its all simply speculation.
There are so many variables that its almost impossible to say if this study is valid.

Second the buy several pairs (assuming you are going to stick with it) as models change/stop being made, which is s bummer if it's your fav pair!

This is what I do however I wouldnt buy too many as I suspect the EVA midsole degrades slightly with age meaning in 6-12 months when you pull on a new pair from the cuboard they have hardened a bit.

Back to the OP's question, £80-90 in-store, but if you're really strapped, get an assessment in-store, note down the model numbers and then look on that there interwebs and you should be able to knock £10-20 off the price. Or go back and try to get them to price match, although many don't seem interested.
It's a bit cheeky given that the shop has taken the time to size you up, but sometimes a (wo)man's gotta do what a (wo)man's gotta do.

There is so much to challenge in your post however even this assertion may only indicate that runners who spend more on their training shoes actually are more serious athletes with more intensive training programs which consequently may make them more risk!
It may even be argued that without the highly cushioned shoes their injury risk may even be higher! Without a control group (which is almost impossible to construct) then its all simply speculation.
There are so many variables that its almost impossible to say if this study is valid.

I don't have the book, you could buy a copy here if you want to read the controversial bits:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shoe-Sport-B-Segesser/dp/0723415145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278341245&sr=8-1

Looking at earlier descriptions of the study that he published (they're on the pubmed database), he had taken into account all of the factors you described (being a person who studies these things professionally I guess he would). In fact the headline fact from the study was roughly what you say, that the thing that most increases your risk of injury is running a lot, and that frequent runners are much more at risk of injury than those who train less. I can't read the stuff about shoe prices, as that was in a follow up analysis, which as far as I can find is only in that book (or might be around in German somewhere), but like most peer reviewed university work, it certainly isn't completely invalid / stupid. And as for a 'control group', you're kind of missing the point here, you have two groups already - one who "does have the treatment', and one who "doesn't have the treatment".

Having said all that, I've never seen anything that argues whether or not runners are faster with or without shoes, just that they may well have less injuries. Which is an interesting question for people who are focused on running speed rather than just going for a run for fitness or fun or whatever.

Joe

And as for a 'control group', you're kind of missing the point here, you have two groups already - one who "does have the treatment', and one who "doesn't have the treatment".

Am I? I assume you mean a group who have injuries and a group who doesnt? if so then thats not a control group as there may exist 000's of potential variables! A control group should focus on changing a single variable or at least a controlled few.
Given this sample there may be 50 questions asked of 10000 runners each with a different answer.
Runner A runs 120 mpw in well cushioned shoes and runs 29:00 for 10km
Runner B runs 15 mpw in less cushioned shoes and runs 65:00 for 10km

Runner A gets injured and B doesnt. Where is the control group, what can we conclude from the above?

I assume you mean a group who have injuries and a group who doesnt? if so then thats not a control group as there may exist 000's of potential variables! A control group should focus on changing a single variable or at least a controlled few.

No, the treatment is 'wearing expensive shoes', vs 'wearing cheap shoes'.

It's an epidemiological study, not a clinical trial, for obvious reasons (for a start how do you hide the fact of how cushioned their feet are from your participants!). How they work is you get a large group of people, and you run statistical tests on your large sample. This allows you to do things like test whether the change in a single dependent variable (such as expensive vs cheap shoes), actually has an effect on a dependent variable (such as injury rate), or whether other variables in your dataset actually are responsible for the change. This is pretty basic a-level statistics, not rocket science. It's also how we find out about tons of medical things, and is the obvious way to do large population studies, which arguably have more validity than a small scale clinical trials for research in an area such as injuries during long term activites.

Also, you'll note that all the things you've suggested above might screw it up (miles per week, intensity/speed etc.), are things that they quite clearly did take account of and control for in their statistical analysis.

Joe

So we agree, on the face of it its pretty meaningless.

Jamie - how do you find the Roclites? Got some mudclaws for serious mud and like them although they are pretty brutal.

I've been using the 295 for a few months and they're becoming my favourite off road shoe. Much more versatile than the Mudclaws, sacrificing a bit of grip and gaining just the right amount of cushioning for me. Won't complain at the odd bit of hardpack or road. Wore them on the 3 Peaks, no problems.

Back to the original post - I usually buy cheap, but tend to know roughly what I want. I've moved to more lightly structured neutral road shoes (used to be a light pronator). I think running offroad helps iron out gait issues and makes you less fussy. Lightweight, non-race neutral shoes are actually fairly thin on the ground though. Race shoes don't really have the lifespan. So, err, it depends 🙂

Stever - cheers. I found my Asics a bit heavy on my last race but it had some tarmac sections so mudclaws were no good. Got 15th out of 120 but reckon I could have done better with lighter shoes and a bit more training.

Think I'll get some for the next race. Dartmoor... uh oh...

TBH, I've just ordered a new pair of conventional running shoes but am increasingly interested in the whole barefoot running philosophy and the effect that excessive cushioning has on foot strike and running style. Surfer, do innov8 do a road running shoe, as those look interesting? Also has anyone else tried a "barefoot shoe" for an extended period?
sorry for the hijack!!

hitman - they do several "urban" running shoes.

Like this one:

[url= http://www.inov-8.com/Products-Detail.asp?PG=PG1&L=26&P=5050973134 ]Inov8[/url]

Bit of a sucker for lots of padding for the road though.

hitman - they do several "urban" running shoes.

Like this one:

Inov8

Bit of a sucker for lots of padding for the road though.

do you reckon these would be ok for trainig for a road 10k?

hitman - I have to admit that I'm not sure.

The Inov8s I have (Mudclaws) are extremely minimalist - no padding and very flexy yet super light and drain water quickly. Took me quite a while to get used to them - they are quite harsh on your calves for example and often rub your heels until they are worn in.

I imagine these are more padded and forgiving. Most road/marathon runners I know use more conventional shoes like Asics Kayanos and the like.

Definitely worth looking for in a shop though - they'll be nice and light as breathe well.

I've worn a pair of those 320PKs enough to wear them out, and they work just fine for running on tarmac (eg training for a 10k). Not as cushioned or supportive as a standard pair of Nikes etc., but then that's kind of the whole point.

Regarding Roclites, I've not used 295s, but have had a couple of pairs of 315s, which are still my favourite shoes. IMHO they're a wonderful compromise, being almost as grippy as Mudclaws, but far more versatile - have also run extensively on tarmac in them. For off-road hardpack and rock up mountains they're the best thing you can get. The 295s should be similar but a bit lighter and less durable - I'll stick with the 315s as they're minimal enough for me.

I must caveat my opinions by pointing out that I didn't used to pay for my Inov8 shoes, and the 320PKs were I think a pre-production model. Have since spent my own money on them though.

Oh, and I've also been injured for over a year - can't really fault the shoes directly for that, but I'm also fairly sure that lack of support isn't doing me any favours at the moment - won't be going barefoot running any time soon.

cheers, there's a number of shoes including vibram 5 fingers, nike free and vivo barefoot shoes which I'd like to try, so will keep hunting 🙂

Oh, and I've also been injured for over a year - can't really fault the shoes directly for that, but I'm also fairly sure that lack of support isn't doing me any favours at the moment - won't be going barefoot running any time soon.

one of the factors which attracts me to barefoot running is the reduction in injury rate - what happened to cause the injury?

Probably being thick but surely barefeet + tarmac = a lot of shock to the feet and knees?

While we have possibly evolved to run cross country in barefeet, surely tarmac wasn't factored into our evolutionary makeup?

I got my gait looked at, and found some great shoes.

Then I figured out that my gait was rubbish and changed it. I was putting my foot far too far infront of me and hitting with my heel. All I did was start running on my toes as if I was sprinting, and it changed everything. Now I simply favour my toes, but it's brought in a load of muscles around my hips, tightened up the muscles in my foot, made everything much smoother and impact is far less. I reckon I could run barefoot now reasonably well.

Mat - running this way I found my tendons took up all the shock, so no impacts to speak of.

My point therefore is that you can start towards barefoot running without needing to take your shoes off or by some weird gimp-wear.

Hmm - interesting.

Always run barefoot on the beach (obviously!) but not elsewhere - brambles, dog turds and stuff like broken glass would worry me.

Used to end up with natural "shoes" after a Summer due to constant barefoot walking but these days they don't get the chance to toughen up.

Probably being thick but surely barefeet + tarmac = a lot of shock to the feet and knees?

Have a lookie here for info on why this is not the case if one alters the way in which they run:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

I try and strike with my forefeet when running - probably from hours of running on the beach.

hitman - Member

TBH, I've just ordered a new pair of conventional running shoes but am increasingly interested in the whole barefoot running philosophy and the effect that excessive cushioning has on foot strike and running style. Surfer, do innov8 do a road running shoe, as those look interesting? Also has anyone else tried a "barefoot shoe" for an extended period?
sorry for the hijack!!

yes, i was practically crippled by sesamoiditis in both feet, surgery was recommended...

i fixed it by wearing flip flops. i now run in innov8 terrocs - with so little heel cushioning that i'm forced to run properly.

and in April i ran my best ever half marathon - in my terrocs, landing on my forefoot.

i'm trying not to be evangelical about this, wear whatever you want, but many people find that heel-striking and complicated (expensive) shoes cause them all sorts of problems.

i wouldn't suggest that anyone starts running without shoes - the world is full of dog poo, gravel and broken glass, but there's a lot to be said for avoiding the heel-strike.

there's no shock absorbtion built into your heel, and 3/4" of rubber can only do so much. land on your forefoot and you access the 4" flex in your foot+ankle

Just ordered some Inov8 Roclite 295s - partly thanks to this thread...

one of the factors which attracts me to barefoot running is the reduction in injury rate - what happened to cause the injury?

[i]with so little heel cushioning that i'm forced to run properly.[/i]

An article in Running world suggested that up to 75% of runners are 'natural' heel strikers, and that the rest are divided into 24% forefoot strikers and just a teeny 1% are 'natural' toe strikers.

There's nothing inherently wrong with heel striking if that's how you run. the best advice is always find the gait that works for you, and gives you injury free miles.

There's a lot of sh*t talked about running.

There's a lot of sh*t talked about running.

Then I figured out that my gait was rubbish and changed it. I was putting my foot far too far infront of me and hitting with my heel. All I did was start running on my toes as if I was sprinting, and it changed everything. Now I simply favour my toes, but it's brought in a load of muscles around my hips, tightened up the muscles in my foot, made everything much smoother and impact is far less. I reckon I could run barefoot now reasonably well.

molgrips this is exactly what I did. Like you it changed everything about my running. I was immediately 30% faster and the sore back and legs I was suffering from every time I ran just went. Only issue I had was that my achillies took about a couple of months before it was strong enough not to ache after a run- not surprising really as because I'd been heel striking it had never been used properly. For running shoes I just buy anything cheap that's on sale that fits and let my tendons absorb the shock. There's nothing even approaching a scientific study that shows expensive running shoes work.

I also gained about 25% in speed. I was not really a runner at all though so I didn't have any particular gait ingrained in me. Basically, all my running muscles were weak.. so I didn't have much pain in tendons or calves. Although my lower back got a bit tired for the first few runs. My new gait uses a lot of core muscles that were idle before.

There's nothing inherently wrong with heel striking if that's how you run

I can't imagine how there would be nothing wrong with heel striking. When I do it, I can hear the shock of my heel strikes inside my head. That much pounding can't be good for your body or even your brain.

And as for 'how you run' - well that was how I'd always ran since childhood, and it was terrible for me. So your intuition is not necessarily any good.

On another subject tho, what about running off-road? I find on singletrack paths through woods that I am naturally on my toes all the time as I am having to negotiate corners, obstacles, ups and downs and all. It's almost a completely different activity from a physical point of view, it seems.

90% of my running is off road - I only do road running when the routes I run are so muddy/wet I fall off the edge (has happened!) - always believed it's better for your joints and IMO, it's much more interesting.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas, etc - I'd be interested to here how these people do in races?

I think it also involves a lot more of your core to.

Two pages on running shoes and as far as i can see not one mention of a conventional racing flat like most decent club runners would race and do workouts in.

Asics hyperspeed:

[img] [/img]

Two pages on running shoes and as far as i can see not one mention of a conventional racing flat like most decent club runners would race and maybe do workouts in.

Ahem.

For the record I have some [b]Inov-8 F-Lites 230s[/b] and Roclite 295s and both cost £50 each.

Them be racing flats.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/run/8/Inov-8_F-Lite_230_Shoes/5360045959/

Oh, my bad - sorry. I thought Inov8 were purely a fell shoe brand.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas,

What's wrong with slating a theory that you must have expensive shoes in order to go running especially when that theory isn't backed up by any evidence?

If you are happy to continue believing you need your expensive running shoes to protect your body then fine. I'll continue to believe they have no benefit until someone can prove otherwise- and save myself a load of cash in the meantime

Oh, my bad - sorry. I thought Inov8 were purely a fell shoe brand.

To be fair the F-lites are the only ones in their range that are not.

Surf-Mat I'll take that as aimed at me and you have made a reference to race performances which moves from the OP, so here goes:

I have no issue with "new theories" per se however over recent years male athletic performance in the UK have deteriorated significantly. The decline in aggregate has beem masked by a small number of individuals such as Mo Farah.

When I was running in the 80' and 90's the overall depth in races was significantly higher. I recall running 25:50 in a 5 mile road race and finishing 49th! A quick google of more recent results would likely put me in the top handful of many races and even winning a few.

This is not a good thing for the sport and my point being that competitive running is largely the most simple of sports (possibly similar to cycling) in the sense that to go from a slow runner to a fastish runner (say 34 mins for 10k) can be achieved by following a relatively simple plan with a few basic components.
In the UK (and also the US) we have allowed ourselves to complicate this in an attempt to make running more accesible and popular (no bad thing) and more of a cash cow for large companies looking to increase the market, hence a disproportinate emphasis on equipment and shoe design. Creating trivial differentiation in shoe design to extend the market (Inov8 seem to be doing this although i am a fan of their competitive fell shoes)
As a result in my opinion we have erred to far towards the "run a fast 10km off 10 miles a week" "train less and run faster" "avoid injuries" etc mentality.
I am not being elitist in my approach as I take my hat off to anyone who gets off their *rse and goes for a run (at whatever speed) but I do worry when people expect to find a "silver bullet" by discovering a new way to circumvent the hard training required to compete at a reasonable level.
To be competitive requires sacrifice and hard training and in the UK we seem to have lost that mindset.

To turn your question on its head.

How many elite athletes run/race in their bare feet?
How many race winners (at any level) win in bare feet (I came 4th in a regional XC race some years ago in bare feet but it was necessity as oppose to planning and I never repeated it)
How many attendees of the "learn to run" lessons have improved in terms of performance and how can that be attributed and quantified?

I have heard several stories about people who've grabbed a pair of any old shoes and gone for a run with poor technique and given themselves bad injuries. Selling someone a well-cushioned shoe is way easier than teaching them about toe striking. So you could argue that shoe technology is at least protecting people from their own poor style.

How many race winners (at any level) win in bare feet (I came 4th in a regional XC race some years ago in bare feet but it was necessity as oppose to planning and I never repeated it)

I abandoned my spikes halfway round the southern XC champs once because the ground was so hard they weren't working at all. Bloody silly to wear them in the first place really. I didn't come fourth though - maybe 184th 8)

Anton Krupicka does a fair bit of training barefoot and he's pretty elite (ultradistance). Also there's a thread on letsrun about a 1-2 marathon victory for a couple of barefoot runners here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2721400&page=0

Surfer - honestly not aimed at you - quite the opposite. You and Mol have written some very interesting posts in fact.

It's those that just rubbish an entire thread with no basis or backup.

Placed 5th (actually 4th - the guy in front took a short cut!) in a fairly big regional race (part of a National series) and apart from my first race (top 1/3 - was a bit unprepared), always been well in the top 10% or even 0.4% in one race. However this is all fairly regional (Devon and Cornwall) and all off road so direct comparisons are tricky. But it's not about that - it's about people dismissing interesting discussions while offering no indication of being half decent themselves. It's a bit like me advising on extreme DH MTBing!

I certainly wouldn't dismiss barefoot running (having done a fair bit of it on beaches) at all - just can't see it on tarmac.

Just run my usual route (very off road) and had it been in barefeet, my feet would now be shredded from sharp rocks, brambles, sticks, etc - so I'm just slightly struggling to see how it's practical in trail runs? I did REALLY concentrate on toe striking though... 😉

Flipping hot here - my keyboard is now a pool of sweat.

I abandoned my spikes halfway round the southern XC champs once because the ground was so hard they weren't working at all. Bloody silly to wear them in the first place really. I didn't come fourth though - maybe 184th

184th is a great placing, The Southern is a very competitive race. My training partner won it in 96 and he trained like an animal!!!

I think that most of the research on unpadded shoes / barefoot / toe running etc. has been relating to sports injuries, not performance. Obviously reducing injuries has a massive effect on actual performance, allowing you to do more races, and finish more of them, but I'm not clear if it has an effect on top end speed, and which way it does.

I've certainly improved in terms of injuries/pain by changing my running style. I feel that I have improved in terms of performance, but not being a very competitive type (I enter about 1 race a year or so, and only run offroad, so courses are very different) I have no real evidence of that.

To be honest, like probably 90% of people who go for a run though, I give much more of a shit that I'm not breaking myself by doing so, than I do about being 1 minute faster in a 10k. I think there is a very narrow PB focused mindset that says that injuring yourself is fine if you manage 34 minutes or whatever, which personally I think is quite sad, and really misses the point of what should be an enjoyable activity - going for a run isn't a job (at least for non-professionals), it is a fun activity*.

In terms of highly successful athletes who run with shoes with a very small amount of cushioning, the only people I can think of are fell runners, but there pretty much everyone good wears inov8 or similar not very supportive shoes, so there isn't much comparison in the other direction.

There is a problem generally in terms of quantifying performance that the current population of fast runners overwhelmingly wear what running shops / companies sell or give them, so only a very small percentage of runners will be wearing barefoot style footwear, meaning that the extremes of low and high fitness in those people will be less pronounced. It'll be interesting to see what happens now mainstream shoe companies are producing 'barefoot style' shoes, whether new athletes will come up who have learnt to run that way, and how their times are.

do worry when people expect to find a "silver bullet" by discovering a new way to circumvent the hard training required to compete at a reasonable level.
To be competitive requires sacrifice and hard training and in the UK we seem to have lost that mindset.

I don't think there is anyone who claims that there is a silver bullet that lets you go super fast. Some people are claiming that there is a silver bullet that means the sacrifice involved in going fast and training hard might include fewer serious foot or leg injuries. And they have research evidence to back them up on this particular claim, with no one yet having provided any evidence to rubbish their claims. This is despite research aimed to support the use of fancy trainers being obviously in the interests of several of the largest sportswear companies in the world, and almost certainly funded very very well (for example several US universities have many millions of dollars in Nike funding). Given how many people you meet who say 'I tried running, but it was bad for my knees / ankles / shins / achilles etc.' then surely anyone who runs, even the most insanely personal best time focused club runner, should be interested in ways that might help their sport stop breaking people?

Joe
*and don't get me started about lap counting types at the swimming pool!

I also gained about 25% in speed. I was not really a runner at all though

Nobody is suggesting that you must have expensive shoes to run in - simply that very cheap shoes, or those with no support or cushioning are likely to be a bad idea for a lot of people. You can get something perfectly decent without spending a lot though.

To be honest, like probably 90% of people who go for a run though, I give much more of a shit that I'm not breaking myself by doing so, than I do about being 1 minute faster in a 10k.

Well true. But modifying my style made it stacks easier to run along nicely, and made the whole experience about a million times more enjoyable. I think the improvement in my times was because of this.

I think there is a very narrow PB focused mindset that says that injuring yourself is fine if you manage 34 minutes or whatever, which personally I think is quite sad

I am not aware of a single incidence of this mindset. Athletes cant really forsee injuries so the tradeoff you refer to doesnt really exist. I have ran through minor injuries and pain however never with a view to making a sacrifice just with the (sometimes mistaken) view that the injuries are trivial and will clear up if I reduce my training.

There is a problem generally in terms of quantifying performance that the current population of fast runners overwhelmingly wear what running shops / companies sell or give them

Its not that straightforward. Un sponsored runners dont run in their bare feet then switch to cushioned shoes when they are given a shoe contract. They run in cushioned shoes and then simply change brands! Steve Ovett was sponsored by Saucony when they noticed he was wearing their shoes to race in, he was at the end of his career but still entering (and winning) the occasional race.

Running faster with fewer injuries is the holy grail and finding a correlation between those running fast and incidences of injury is hardly groundbreaking!!
However my point is (and it may allign a little with your experience) is that if you want to avoid running related injuries then dont run. By running you increase the risk and as a (past) competitive athlete the trick is to increase the amount of training (structured and sensible performance focused training) to increase the benefit.
At the higher end of that training we increase the risk. Athletes tipping over into the injured catergory do so not because they are foolish (although some are) but because many causes of injury are unforseen. Its irrational to continue to train knowing a injury may end your season!

Given how many people you meet who say 'I tried running, but it was bad for my knees / ankles / shins / achilles etc.' then surely anyone who runs, even the most insanely personal best time focused club runner, should be interested in ways that might help their sport stop breaking people?

But you are assuming these people are telling the truth! Running is none of these things but what it is is "hard" I have met many people who tell me they cant run because they tried it and it ruined/injured their knees/ankes etc etc. I question this. What I suspect is that people try to run, with the best intentions, then realise it is not as easy as it looks! By taking this approach its not running per se that "breaks people" it is intencive training that sometimes does this which means we should spend less time encouraging people to "take up" running (although the more the merrier because its great!) and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

I avoided "proper" running for many years due to fear of injury. It's also why I run mostly off road - right or wrong, in my mind it puts less stress on your knees.

I have always prefered running off road but do both. I would get the odd Achilles problem and lower back pain. Out of interest I started to wear some vivo barefoot shoes for knocking about in to see if the change in posture would help my back. I think it has but also my Achilles is ok too. I would still run in my salomons or montrails though and on longer or harder runs sometimes get a twitch in my Achilles.
I started to do the odd jog in my vivo barefoot and like it but so bought some five fingers and do really like them. It's too early to say if I run much better over a longer period, injury free, but I run for my own fun and as they give me better grip and stability and can do more on the trail.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas, etc - I'd be interested to here how these people do in races?

I was skeptical and dislike the "buzz" which goes with the barefoot craze but there is something too it. I would say give it a go and then see if you think it's just another trend/marketing ploy or there might be more to it.

Just run my usual route (very off road) and had it been in bare feet, my feet would now be shredded from sharp rocks, brambles, sticks, etc - so I'm just slightly struggling to see how it's practical in trail runs?

Apologies for the bike picture but it does show the type of trails I've been running in barefoot shoes.
[img] ?t=1278415102[/img]
Roads are really quite gentle in comparison with far less gravel, rocks and thorns.

and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

Which is surely exactly what the people doing academic research into styles of running, styles of shoes etc. are up to? So why are 'proper running' types so anti all this research?

By taking this approach its not running per se that "breaks people" it is intencive training that sometimes does this which means we should spend less time encouraging people to "take up" running (although the more the merrier because its great!) and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

Right, the evidence certainly suggests that the more you run, the more you are likely to hurt yourself, but not that injuries are in any way restricted to good or bad runners, or people who train intensively, just that people who train longer tend to hurt more. If we can reduce the underlying "probability of hurting yourself per hour" with such simple things as using much less cushioned shoes, then what a result that would be, no matter whether or not people's personal bests drop off by 10 seconds or whatever.

Joe

Roper - so your only race was a 100km mountain one? Flippin eck - that's quite a feat (and result)!

One thing with these barefoot shoes - toe lengths and shape vary an awful lots - surely that has an impact on fit?

Right, the evidence certainly suggests that the more you run, the more you are likely to hurt yourself, but not that injuries are in any way restricted to good or bad runners,

But there is a natural relationship here. There may be exceptions but I would bet money that those that get injured most are those that do most and probably (when they are not injured ) run fastest!!!

with such simple things as using much less cushioned shoes

But you are assuming the latter provides the former, why would one assume that less cushioned shoes are better? The goal is admirable but we should have an evidence based approach not simply trying to reinforce a conclusion you have already drawn.

no matter whether or not people's personal bests drop off by 10 seconds or whatever.

Again thats your goal, many would continue to take the chance. I recall a throwaway remark by Pete Whitehead who represented GB at a major games at the Marathon. I am paraphrasing and he may have been joking but he said something along the lines of "if I could win Gold I would be happy to drop down dead the next day!

Interesting stuff. If anyone finds that silver bullet, can they let me know?
On falling standards, I'm just coming to the end of Charlie Spedding's book (recommended by the way, http://www.charliespedding.com/). Still the English marathon record holder, 2:08.33 ...from 1985. Good read and some interesting thoughts on injury, positive thinking and workload.

Surf-Mat, just [u]over[/u] 100km thank you 🙂 but to be fair to the other runners the conditions were so unexpectedly bad ony the stubborn and foolish completed the race.

There are issues with toe length with VFF so I spent a good hour or two [s]annoying the assistant[/s] trying them on and switching them round. I also took my own running shoes so I could compare with what I know. I ended up with the VFF Bikila, they are stupidly over the top in colour and price but so far I have to say I like them. I don't really want to but I do.

They look utterly bonkers but actually pretty good.

Just bought (from Wiggle) some Roclites which are a sort of halfway house. Might check those out when I wear them out - this will be my 4th pair of running shoes (other three for different conditions) so I think I need to stop buying more!