 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Well hopefully this has put the OP off going for a run. It's serious business.
Like has been said above...
Just go and run
Find out for yourself, before spending on something that may not be right for you.
Once you know what's right for you - and whether you want to continue running, that's the time to seriously think about your 'style' of running.
I think its all a fad, as your legs strengthen you need less stability and cushioning meaning you can graduate from your big foam trainers that look like a melted coolbox, to a racing flat.
Well possibly, but one of the principles of minimal shoes is that you start off strengthening your feet and tendons in a way that's supposedly more suited to our evolution. When I started running, I couldn't run very far anyway so my feet were indeed tired, but so were the rest of my legs so it all worked out.
Re sprinting - I've always been a good sprinter but a bad distance runner. The reason I ended up thinking about gait had nothing to do with marketing - I was on a treadmill once, and I wondered what would happen if I started to run my 8m30 pace as if I were sprinting. It was instantly far easier - I believe I posted on here about it I was so excited to have discovered this.
So the point is what 'comes naturally' isn't necessarily what's best for you.
Get the shoe that suits you and the type of running you do. Its personal and takes time to find the correct one.
Mix some barefoot (on grass) with running in shoes. Be careful, listen to your body and if you calfs, achilles feet ache stop.
IMO the heel strike argument is a red herring. More important is where your foot lands in relation to your body. Watch top runners and some do heel strike/mid-foot but not with their legs extended.
FWIW, i run up to HM distance in flats. I like to have some protection but still be able to feel my feet in contact with the ground. I hate any excess cushioning - it feels weird to me. But marathon and above, there is no way I can cope without some more cushioning.
ASICS DS racer/trainer - for most running
ASICSs 2130 - or whatever latest number is for longer stuff
Slippy Salomons for trails
When I run a long way, it's my groin and outside of thigh that get tired and sore eventually. My achilles and feet never give any trouble...
KINGTUT's original post had nothing on topic and was a gratuitous insult, Trail-Rat. The edit added on-topic content. The original reason for posting was to insult. I think that's worth pointing out.
Hurtmore adds another another shoes-to-suit-the-distance-and-speed post. Has any of the minimalist/barefoot protagonists managed to run a marathon minimalist/barefoot? I ran one in Mizuno race shoes with about a 15mm cushon and regretted it.
Maybe all that running in sofa shoes has made your feet weak and feeble Ed 🙂
Has any of the minimalist/barefoot protagonists managed to run a marathon minimalist/barefoot?
yep, last year, fell race too, including rocks, roads, tricky descents, the lot.
with little or no training in the preceeding year other than a weekly 5k potter with my girlfriend.
result: legs a bit knackered, feet fine (1 minor blister that caused no pain)
shoes worn: NB 101's
5 years ago several doctors told me that i'd need bones removed from my feet if i even wanted to walk again (i didn't listen to them, and opted for the non-surgical route to recovery - ie, not wearing shoes with arch support, or raised heels)
ED, Ive done My longest race at 35 miles of trail and road in xtallon 212's. Also 3p twice in them.
Snowdon marathon in kinvaras twice, london in newtons.
In fact i started forefoot running just before doing the yorkshire off road marathon, my first marathon. So ive done all my longest races in barefoot style.
I use addidas adizero hagios for 10 mile and less. My toes grumble if i go further in them which is why i like to train in the kinvara.
Edukator - Member
KINGTUT's original post had nothing on topic and was a gratuitous insult, Trail-Rat. The edit added on-topic content. The original reason for posting was to insult. I think that's worth pointing out.
Good lord.
barefoot marathon winner >
[i]We recently interviewed Ultra Marathoner and barefoot runner, Patrick Sweeney, who, in what may be the fastest marathon ever run in Vibram Five Fingers, recorded an awesome time of 2:37:14 winning the Palos Verdes Marathon. He ran in Vibram Five Fingers Sprints.[/i]
http://birthdayshoes.com/interview-with-patrick-sweeney-winner-of-the-palos-verdes-marathon
What shoes for being pwned?
OK so where does 2:37 rank him?
That is a pretty mediocre time and really proves nothing. Particulaly as his shoes probably differ not that much to the majority of the 000's of men and women who are running considerably quicker.
Edit: I have skimmed a bit of the article which for me begs the question could he run faster if he wasnt so trendy?
We recently interviewed Ultra Marathoner and barefoot runner, Patrick Sweeney, who, in what may be the fastest marathon ever run in Vibram Five Fingers, recorded an awesome time of 2:37:14 winning the Palos Verdes Marathon. He ran in Vibram Five Fingers Sprints
Which is excellent for him, but irrelevant in giving advice to a beginner in what shoes to buy.
Yes, but it's posted to answer Ed's question about whether it's possible to run a long way in minimal shoes. The guy in that article may or may not be a knob, but he's reporting that his injuries have gone way down in minimal shoes, rather than up as Ed is suggesting would happen.
ah right, 😳
I dont think the link is aimed at the beginner but answering ED q regarding distance and forefoot. Fair play to the guy thats a decent run after 3 years. A time Most of us will never get to as amateur athletes. Not record breaking by any stretch.
I think the shoes you wear create the style not the speed or the distance and as a beginner I would have appreciated someone telling me there was another way before lacing up my huge heel trainers.
So I would suggest to a beginner to take the shoes off and run in a sports hall, run fast run slow. That how you naturally run. Now find a shoe that helps that style or stay completely barefoot if you feel the need.
Is it the same people that get hung up on shoe type/wheel size while the rest of us just get on with running/riding bikes and enjoying ourselves?
Yes, but it's posted to answer Ed's question about whether it's possible to run a long way in minimal shoes. The guy in that article may or may not be a knob, but he's reporting that his injuries have gone way down in minimal shoes, rather than up as Ed is suggesting would happen.
Hang on are we talking about "minimal shoes" or "barefoot running" you cant have it both ways. Minimal shoes have been around forever and I have raced longish distances in shoes you would probably call "minimal" so nothing new here.
Look at the top guys running sub 2:10 and they are running in "minimal" shoes in that they have a very low or zero lift between forefoot and rear. This seemed to be a criteria previously?
Also there is no way to be sure if his incidence of injuries has reduced as a result of running in these shoes given the very large number of variables involved. He (and the website) want it to be the case but thats not the same thing.
If I reduced my mileage to match yours I could probably run in Wellington boots and not get injured. Does that mean Wellington boots are better than the shoes I run 50+ miles in now?
On a related note my mates Dad saw both Ron Hill and Gordon Pirie many years ago all running in shoes I suspect you would call minimal so theres nothing new her. Difference is both trained like animals and didnt look for snake oil.
I agree with Surfer's comment above.
Any of those finger things are snake oil through and through.
Well there's low or zero heel, and there's barefoot style, a slight difference. Barefoot style are intended to not support your foot and let it work as if you were running barefoot - from what I've seen, racing flats aren't quite the same - the toe is much narrower than it is on my 'barefoot style' shoes.
Is it the same people that get hung up on shoe type/wheel size
No. I've got three 26" mtbs from 6 years ago and I'm not changing them, I couldn't give a crap if they are 'out of date'. However, sorting out my gait helped me enjoy running, where I used to hate it. It's far more fundamental for me than simply tweaking kit. If I hadn't gone through this process I would not be running at all. It's not snake oil either, any more than setting your saddle the right height is snake oil.
I think the shoes you wear create the style
Yes, this is part of the theory that says traditional shoes let you do it wrong, whereas barefoot shoes make you do it properly. You would injure yourself if you heel strike heavily in minimal shoes, but the point is they encourage you not to do it - as does running in no shoes at all.
Yes, this is part of the theory that says traditional shoes let you do it wrong, whereas barefoot shoes make you do it properly
What are these "traditional shoes" of which you speak? Pirie ran in traditional shoes and so did Zatopek. This is a straw man.
Also are you know introducing "barefoot style" into the vernacular?
Blatant c an p
Running Fast and Injury Free
In his book Running Fast and Injury Free[3] Gordon Pirie advocates running with stepping on toes (as opposed to the usual style of long steps with landing on heels), 3-5 steps per second to reduce fatigue, damage to feet, and wasting of energy on vertical movement of body. He also describes his collaboration with Adolf Dassler on designing running shoes with stronger toes (instead of the usual design with stronger heels) for better durability with his advocated running style.
Surfer i think your looking for an argument, you know the difference between What most are calling traditional shoes, which generally have a heel. Also how barefoot running emulates the style piere and other used which involved running in this barefoot style using minamalist or racing flat style shoes.. 🙂
Weather you take your shoes off altogether creates no real difference except i prefer not to get dirty cut feet so i wear shoes.
surfer - MemberWhat are these "traditional shoes" of which you speak?
the kind of shoe that you get pointed at in 'traditional' running shops if you ask for 'running shoes'.
think: thick squishy soles - rising at the heel, arch support, etc.
they may stock shoes like a minimus, or even walshes, but you'll have to ask for them specifially.
I thought Pirie's shoes were basically plimpsoles (is that how you spell it?)
When I was at school a friend ran B'ham marathon in dunlop green flash and lived to tell the tale.
IMO, there is a lot of truth mixed with copious amounts of marketing BS in the whole area of shoes/minimalist/barefoot running. The one thing that isn't BS is to fell what your body is telling you. In which shoes does that happen best?
To be honest I didnt mention Pirie for any other reason than he popped into my head he was possibly a little "odd" in terms of some of his ideas although a great athlete. Any distance runner of the day would be a good exmaple.
I am looking for an argument however you are wrong to say I know the difference. When these threads appear they tend to be the same advocates trying to reinvent the wheel. The same protaganists talk about "barefoot" running yet who really does it? Its all straw men and rubbish about "built up" shoes and "traditional" style etc when the truth is low profile or "minimalist" shoes are all around us and always have been.
It is a marketing gimmick and that 2:37 time really makes my point
do you want a hug?
It is a marketing gimmick and that 2:37 time really makes my point
That guy's marathon time isn't important, no-one's saying minimal shoes make you faster. The fact that he became injury free after switching is much more significant, since reduced injuries is exactly what the theorists are saying.
And there IS a difference besides the heel. Have you ever used anything branded as minimal?
Have you ever used anything branded as minimal?
Nothing "branded" no 🙄
The fact that he became injury free after switching is much more significant, since reduced injuries is exactly what the theorists are saying.
That would be fine if it where true, see my previous posts. Is it possible to keep every other aspect of his training and lifestyle identical and simply change his shoes? Would he be on that website if he ran in the old "Borstal breakouts" we had as kids? I suspect not.
do you want a hug?
😕
Its important stuff running! you guys treat it as a bit of fun 😉
That guy's marathon time isn't important, no-one's saying minimal shoes make you faster. The fact that he became injury free after switching is much more significant, since reduced injuries is exactly what the theorists are saying
It is important when in talking in a context of injuries and suggesting the shoes help reduce them.
Surfer, So am i right in thinking your issue is just with the terminology and marketing used? Forgive me but i think your possibly older than me so traditional shoes to you may be something different but to me its any shoe with an overly large heel like 90% of shoes in a running shop. I still think you know this but perhaps not.
i agree barefoot minimalist shoes are not new, just re branded same old racing flats that you raced in. Perhaps with some new fangled add ons to make them sound cool, but essentially a racing flat.
Anyway i need a new shoe for my next fell race, im thinking do i need a gnarlite fell shoe or an allmountain trail shoe.. decisions decisions..
It is a marketing gimmick and that 2:37 time really makes my point
To an extent I agree, its his technique that has improved. Had he run the same in a racing flats he probably would have knocked a few seconds off that time.
In terms of shoes, ones with 4mm ish thick sole are barefoot/minimal. A lot of racing flats or shoes branded as "natural" running shoes have more than that.
The fact that he became injury free after switching is much more significant
Barefoot shoes DON'T prevent injury.
Barefoot shoes DON'T prevent injury.
Exactly.
[img] 
[/img]
i'd be interested to see 'shoes* forefoot' on that chart...
(*something skimpy like a minimus)
Out of interest who runs barefoot heal?
Well you can't unless you are very bloody minded and think pain is good.
Barefoot shoes DON'T prevent injury.
Obvioulsy not, but the theory is that they reduce certain injuries a lot, if you use them all the time and adapt. I've no idea of the stats.
Out of interest who runs barefoot heal?
probably 95% of the new runners picking up vibrams, minimus vivo etc, believing its the shoes that make the difference.
"Well you can't "
You can - trust me , and it doesnt hurt.
what you cant do is slap your feet down.
footflaps - Member
Out of interest who runs barefoot heal?
A masochist?
Phil: Pretty useless chart really. It doesn't have any information regarding injury rate which you seem to be equating to the loading rate.
One of the pro arguments for barefoot is that progressively more/better cushioning has not done anything over the years to reduce the frequency of injuries. Any shoe company worth their laces would have published any vaguely defensible study?
Better cushioning should have progressively reduced the loading rate and reduced injuries if we are to follow the 'logic' of your chart?
Matt
You can - trust me , and it doesnt hurt.
How slowly? I instinctively land on the outside of front of my foot, cos the impact is so uncomfortable. Maybe you have springy heels or sometihng, cos I even do it when walking barefoot on a hard surface.
Obvioulsy not, but the theory is that they reduce certain injuries a lot, if you use them all the time and adapt
Compared to a flat cushioned shoe?
Using the same technique in a Vibram Fivefingers Speed 4mm Sole Vs a Saucony Virrata 12mm cushioned sole IIRC. The Saucony would be better for you, it may lack feel which is a separate argument but the extra forgiveness will help a great deal. by 2015 all the major manufactures will have ditched barefoot. (except barefoot only brands)
"Well you can't "You can - trust me , and it doesnt hurt.
Sorry don't believe you for a second, unless your only running from one end to the other of a muddy football pitch.
Compared to a flat cushioned shoe?
No, compared to the common heeled kind.
Many 'minimal' shoes have cusioning anyway, mine certainly do. Just not loads. And the way the shoe is made doesn't support your foot in any way, so your foot has to do the work.
if you want to quote at least quote ALL of what i said please instead of the bit that suits you.
Surfer, So am i right in thinking your issue is just with the terminology and marketing used? Forgive me but i think your possibly older than me so traditional shoes to you may be something different but to me its any shoe with an overly large heel like 90% of shoes in a running shop. I still think you know this but perhaps not
Yes I do have a problem with the terminology because I think it is false and describes something that already exists simply to sell more "stuff"
I'm not a Luddite and practical advances are to be welcomed.
I'm 48 and have been running competitively since I was a teenager. The term "traditional" means nothing.
I dont think the fact that some manufacturers design and build shoes with a large heel (although I think the size of these heels is a bit exagerated both ins size and effect) matters as the majority of runners IME dont heel strike. I think this is a red Herring. Most runners (myself included) run on the forefoot or their midfoot. Therefore the part of the shoe most in play is from the heel forward. I throw shoes out that look almost new around the heel area.
Edit: It may well be that I am one of the only runners who has done much barefoot running! I once ran a XC race in the North East and forgot my spikes. The ground was frozen solid so I ran barefoot (finished 4th) but my feet were sore as hell and limited my dancing in Newcastle that evening! We also used to run along the beach in Formby and do reps up and down the sand dunes barefoot.
Those were the days!!!
[img] 
[/img]
Well if the above is a minimalist shoe then minimalist has next to nothing in common with barefoot. That looks like a conventional long-distance race shoe to me.
Edit: it's just marketing b for stuff that's been around as long as I've been running.
Most runners (myself included) run on the forefoot or their midfoot.
Hmm.. most runners you see at these events? Most successful runners?
I think that anyone who runs like I used to run would end up hating it, and there are a lot of people who have tried running but hate it. This is why I'm keen to make my point to newbies especially - I suspect that many haters would actually enjoy it and do it if they corrected their gait.
Ed - it looks from those pictures like those shoes have a narrower toe than mine - the wide forefoot bit is important.
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3780/9159530240_a3c7b0cff4_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/9159530240/ ]P6283538[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3812/9159529772_82aa1c72ca_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/9159529772/ ]P6283539[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5466/9157304303_d5e1d6e4cb_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/11569254@N06/9157304303/ ]P6283540[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/11569254@N06/ ]molgrips[/url], on Flickr
As you can see they aren't that minimal, but they aren't cosseting your foot all around with comfy EVA support.
Minimal? There's as much soft stuff on those as my mid-90s Adidas Catalyst.
For the first three pages of this thread I assumed minimalist meant the glove-like things I've seen people slapping along in trying to look trendy with gadgets all over their arms.
The ones on the right are what can fairly be described as traditional, even though they are about half the material of my original pair (which were sold to me by gait analysis in Run and Become and hurt my feet like hell).
The ones on the left are minimal compared to those type, yes, but they do have more than the Vibram 5 fingers. I should point out that the yellow layer is MUCH stiffer than the cushy padding you normally get. It's quite hard. It's maybe 5mm thick in the front, and there's a few mm of rise so the heel is slightly thicker.
Oh and btw, not everyone with gadgets and VFFs is doing it to try and look cool. They may be, but they aren't all.
I read an interesting article although for the life of me can't remember where that showed how useless the, 'injuries haven't reduced over the years of shoe development argument'. It went along the lines of in the 80's most runners doing events like marathons were good level club runners, and this was proven by the much quicker average finish times at events like the Boston marathon than now. All that has happened in the intervening years is that running has become a leisure activity and has attracted lots of crap runners that always get injured due to poor technique and pie eating. A large percentage of the higher level runners continue as ever not getting injured that much whilst massive amounts of beginers go out for a run, get injured and have found they can now blame their shoes.
I actually went from heavy heel striker to fore foot runner, concentrating on stride length and leg speed. It took 18 months of hard work to strengthen my calf and achillies enough to race a decent half like that. That is why I wouldn't suggest a newbie goes out and buys some minimilist/racing flat shoe and try and run lots in them, it takes a long time to work up to it. I don't think I could run a marathon purely forefoot running and I am sure not many other people can either. From experience I can assure you your form tends to drop off a bit after 20 or so miles.
it takes a long time to work up to it.
But you were already a competent runner before, it sounds like..? If you're a rank beginner you've got a lot of conditioning to do anyway.
Anyway - when I get tired, which takes a touch less than 20 miles 🙂 I still forefoot strike but I end up lowering onto my heels more. I still don't heel strike tho, and my strike is still under my body.
nothing to do with the main part of the op's original question, but he says 'motivation'... if you want motivation join your local club.
i joined mine just after xmas to prepare for a tri in april, i'm pretty much hooked now. did'nt see that coming... at 47! believe me i was no runner at all, swimming was my thing, but i'm shedding time like mad now, need to lose 1 minute on a 2 mile race in a month - the run preceded by a 200m swim, want 5 secs off my swim - and loving the training (3 times a week + 1 swim training session. indeed just been moved up into the fast run group which is intimidadting, but hell i'm not last in the group!).
There is a lot of good info on running styles and impact forces in this book:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13645495-anatomy-for-runners
My 2p is if you run with whatever feels natural, and make sure you are not overstriding, you can't go far wrong. People with a massive overstride and heel strike, and people with a really forced "running on tip toes" forefoot strike, look equally awkward and inefficient.
That looks like a conventional long-distance race shoe to me.
if a 'conventional long-distance race shoe' has a thin flexible sole, is wider than a wide thing, has a knobbly sole that copes well in horrible mud, and has no arch support, then yes.
101's are quite popular in the local fell races, they're light, grippy, cheap, and don't seem to fall apart very quickly.
if shoes like this have been around for ages, then i'm not surprised, they're great.
(but not perfect, i find the heel a bit too thick, the search for the perfect fell shoe continues)
molgrips - memberEd - it looks from those pictures like those shoes have a narrower toe than mine - the wide forefoot bit is important.
those green shoes are NB 101's, i've got a pair, and a pair of minimus, they're both a similar 'shape'
I can't stop clicking on this thread, it's like deja vu all over again. Finally something I can add non-controversially.
The NB 101s are indeed a fine shoe - great crossover/trail shoe. And as we all know fell shoes are necessarily close to the ground and, well, fairly minimal. Like they always have been. They do have a heal to toe drop, but not a very big one. I've done loads in mine, up to 34 miles, they just struggle in out and out fell conditions.
...have to disagree with the longevity though. I'm on my third pair now, all that minimalism plus acidic local winter conditions means they haven't weathered that well.
Since we're doing that 'sample of one, my experience so it must be true' thing, I went out lunchtime in my most built up shoes (Roclite 295s) and smashed my hill rep session. I'm not sure what it proves though.
I've done it and I think running barefoot not on the heal without those barefoot shoe things is really good, your feet get toughened up pretty quick. Start off with small distances as your legs will not be used to striking on the forefront.
I'v just seen this fantastic piece of documentary film making about what happens if you try to run with traditional padded shoes. I think we can all agree it's persuasive stuff.
[img] 
[/img]
To me, a minimalist shoe like most of the vivo range, is one that you can roll up and pocket. 2mm to 4mm puncture resistant sole with zero heal to toe drop and a wide toe box.
If you wore big padded mittens on your hands from a young age then suddenly started doing heavy labour with your hands, they would be wrecked. The same applies to feet. Your average shoe is a padded foot mitten.
If you try running in minimalist shoes, after years wearing padded shoes there will probably be injury and pain because your feet are weak sauce. I would advocate learning to run barefoot before trying vibram etc.
Arch support is the craziest thing, I have support already, the arch in my foot. It's marketing on both sides. Do what works for you, try all styles of shoe or no shoe, just have fun and be sensible.
The only way to settle this debate is with a race. The winner will scientifically prove their running shoe is the best and all others are useless.
would that not just prove who was the quicker runner rather than what shoe or no shoe is preferred by the individual?
Surfer - what were you wearing when you won the vets at the Tattenhall Tough Team last week (stalker alert!)? Can you measure the heal-toe drop and then we can all settle down to a Friday night beer?
Really, I thought a sample of 1 would be indisputable scientific shoe based fact. We would all then be happy knowing we were going to buy the right shoes.
Tired, didnt sniff out the sarcasm 🙂
My shoes with wheels on are teh best!
I've just come in from another 22k's trail running in and along my local river/woods.
I'd never in OneHundredMillionYears do that barefoot nor with minimal soled "shoes"
SportCross 3's for me each and every time.
As you were 😆
Good going on the 22k bikebouy, sounds like you have the right footwear for you 🙂 that's what it's all about, running in what you feel comfy in. I probably run barefoot because I'm from yorkshire and my genes are repulsed by the very idea of paying to be able to walk / run.
I'd never in OneHundredMillionYears do that barefoot nor with minimal soled "shoes"
Ironically, had you been doing it 100m years ago, you'd have been barefoot. On all four feet. If you'd been doing it 500,000 years ago you'd have been barefoot tho 🙂
But for the last 40,000 years humans have realised that shoes are a good thing.
Why are they such a good thing? Don't like them at all myself, pretty pointless for most of the year.
I'm not running today so most of the day will be barefoot or in flip flops on the beach 😆