Running Shoe Dilemma

I see where you are coming from. I went through a phase of switching to minimalist/ barefoot running after several years of injury and the hardest part was explaining to my coaches and teammates the reason for it. If I got injured in any minor way during my transition to minimal shoes then they would immediately ridicule me for wearing unsupportive shoes. I can't even imagine having a business of selling a product that you don't believe in. And the shoe companies definitely don't help your case.

If it is your store or you have a lot of authority there then I would suggest building the store around what you believe. Maybe make brochures about running correctly and the truth about footwear and then set out shoe transition plans for everyone to follow. On one side of the store have your most supportive shoes then on the opposite side have you most minimal. Which could even include the most minimal shoes such as vibram five fingers and feelmax shoes. Then take the rest of your shoes and fill them in between your supportive footwear and minimalist footwear based on heal to forefoot ratio and how supportive they are.

Get your customers to have a goal of transitioning their footwear all the way down to wearing only flats or other minimalist shoes. If they don't see things that way then just let them take their usual over supportive shoes and be on their way.

If you are not in a position of authority then help get the word out to the store owner and manager about what correct running form and footwear consist of.

Good luck.

You said in the beginning that the people who come into the store are not fast and are not looking to run fast, so they probably aren't running fast enough to be efficient.

When people are running slow, it is really hard to land on your forefoot. Let them go ahead and buy the $140 Kayano.

If somebody like yourself comes into your store. Somebody who wants to be fast, but stability shoes keep causing injury, then tell them your story.

Running companies gear products towards weekend warriors.

I'm in the same boat you are. I've been working at a running store, but have been a minimalist for a few years now. I feel like a hypocrite. Fleet Foxes is right though. Most of the customers couldn't and shouldn't wear flats. They often ask me which shoes I run in, and then I'll explain the minimalism thing. They still go with the Kayanos, etc.

Go with teh Lanangs

Fleet Foxes wrote:

You said in the beginning that the people who come into the store are not fast and are not looking to run fast, so they probably aren't running fast enough to be efficient.

When people are running slow, it is really hard to land on your forefoot. Let them go ahead and buy the $140 Kayano.

If somebody like yourself comes into your store. Somebody who wants to be fast, but stability shoes keep causing injury, then tell them your story.

Running companies gear products towards weekend warriors.

That’s not true. Check out the pose tech forum and minimalist google group. The runners there generally are not your competitive elites. Many of them at one time were also very inefficient and not able to run much at all before they got into minimalist shoes.

I can certainly empathize with you, I work at a domestic car dealership, and at least once a day I find myself being asked for recommendations on our vehicles. I would really love to say, “have you ever looked at a Subaru”, but that is not what I am paid to say. That said, I think you can balance out your beliefs. I myself am a barefoot runner, but I certainly do not think it is for everyone. If I find myself in a situation where I have to run in shoes I run in racing flats, even though most running stores would put me in a pair of beasts. When selling cars we try to look at a persons true needs, and you have to look at their psychological needs too, nobody truly NEEDS a Corvette. Sometimes what you are selling is piece of mind, and I think it is the same with some of the shoes out there. Do you think any of those overweight middle-aged ladies you fit are going to go through what it takes to switch to barefoot or minimalist shoe? You do not switch without working at it. There are runners that you are going to come across that could truly benefit from dropping down to a flat, talk to those guys or girls and tell them your opinion. Anyway what it really comes down to is any business that sells only what every customer TRULY NEEDS is not long for this world.

Sam,

The only flaw in your logic is that you feel you were injured by running in stability shoes for years in your youth. You were probably getting injuries due to overuse and over-training, but it is very easy to blame footwear.

You sound new to the running industry. I have been fitting runners at my store for over a decade. And although I am a minimalist as well, to a point, I would not be in business if I do not properly correct the biomechanical deficiencies of my customers.

Does your store in Denver perform gait analysis via Dartfish or some video? If so, after years of fittings, you would immediately see the benefit of stability shoes for those that need it.

How about this, Sam? Why don't you spend a month just fitting runners in completely neutral racing flats, and let me know if you still have a job, if runners are healthy and satisfied, and if your theory is correct when client after client enters with issues.

One major experiement you can do is one that I did with Newton: those interested, I would fit and if it fit their biomechanical needs, sold it to them. Had a guy come back and wanted verfication that his "gait" had changed. Videotaped him and he was still heel-striking. My curiosity, brought in the 17 others that had purchased these shoes and they all were still heel striking and the shoe was "not working." Yes, we don't carry Newton anymore. Talk about "bullshit lying underneath."

My theory is: wear the lightest shoe possible for your biomechanical needs. Currently, the Brooks Ravenna fits that mold for my foot and needs.

I can certainly commiserate with the OP's feelings. The clunkiest shoes I am comfortable wearing are Wave Riders, and those are heavy on me. Most of my training occurs in lighweight trainers, racing flats, and Free 3.0s.

On the other hand, most people out there are not me. They're typically much heavier, have a much shorter stride and awkward form to say the least. I've been running competitively for over a decade, they're doing 10-20mpw to do the occasional 5k and keep the Lbs off. Different feet and, more importantly, different people have different needs. Your average runner isn't going to want to take the time to change their stride, to start from scratch and slowly build their way back up to where they used to be. For most, it would be more a question of motivation than aptitude.

That being said, there is one gentleman who frequents our store's group training sessions who does all of his workouts totally barefoot. We're in a heavily commercial area, but out he goes 3 or 4 times a week, barefooted on the sidewalks and parking lots. I've seen this guy running barefoot in 6" of snow when its 20 degrees out- we all think he is bonkers. Nice guy though, just doing it for the fun of it. He started running barefoot when the whole Nike Free thing happened. It took him several years but he's now doing his standard 20-25mpw without need for shoes at all. It just works for some people.

Excellent post, Sam. After decades of running, I came to the same conclusion seven years ago - although throughout the decades of occasional injuries, the "less is more" philosophy was always staring me in the face. For example, when the first air shoe (Tailwind) gave me knee injuries, I went back to the waffle trainer; when the highly posted x-caliber GT gave me severe ITBS, I went back to the old school Asics Explorer. I gradually figured it out. But, I worked part-time in a running store and had no problem selling the NB 900 and the $80 Air Odyssey, etc. You are not going to convince most people, Sam. Like Dr. Sheehan said, "...I'm an experiment of one..." People will discover for themselves. Do your job. Sell the shoes; and if, by chance, customers ask why you're wearing waffle racers - tell them why they work for you. By the way, your answer is in your last sentence.

Maybe I'll forward this thread to J.D. Denton of RT mag - it's obvious from his latest article he refuses to believe or even acknowledge any of the research relating to minimal footwear.

Hi Tree Frog,

Thanks for the post. Relative to you, I am a bit of a newbie. I've been working full-time in two specialty running stores, with a six month interlude at a triathlon bike shop. All of these shops including the one I am in now relied on a similar fitting process. We use Protrainer at the store in Denver, a video computer program that is actually designed for golf swing analysis. It lets us go frame by frame to examine how people's feet are functioning in a particular shoe.

I honestly don't have any real angst against Brooks, New Balance, and Asics for creating the running shoes that hurt my feet and legs for so long. I was the idiot who should have realized that maybe "support" and "cushion" were the last things my foot needed. I mean c'mon, it took me nearly a decade to figure this out. Yes, I would probably lose my job if I just pulled out Asics Hyperspeeds for every customer with a ten minute lecture on forefoot running, but does this prove that I am wrong or that bad habits take time to improve and that the running store owners also believe the shoe company line?

My problem is that I am forced to play the fitting game on these companies' terms.

Are the people I am fitting really bio-mechanically inefficient or have you and I just made them inefficient by putting them in bloated, clunky, and stable shoes? Have we created a system of footwear which inclines them to run on their heels and weakens their arches through support? With all of this amazing technology, including dual density systems, gel, foam weight-dispersion grids, and plastic trustic systems, why do most people still experience an injury every year? Why do their feet hurt when they are paying over 100 dollars now for shoes? This makes absolutely no sense.

And if our feet are really so reliant on supportive shoes, shouldn't there be mountains of data in the historical record of people's feet hurting terribly until running shoe companies came along in the seventies and saved us from even worse cases of tendonitis and plantar fasciitis? Hominids ran along barefoot for millennia without shoe categories of "stability," "neutral," or "motion control" dictating how they ran. Shouldn't there be letters by Thomas Jefferson complaining about how his heels constantly hurt instead of his rambling homilies to the greatness of the pedestrian lifestyle? Wouldn't more mundane folks have constantly been complaining about their feet well into the 1960s?

Also, I struggle with some of the posts suggesting that somehow I am special, an efficient exception. I ran heel-to-toe until a couple years ago when I realized my poor form was probably the root of many of my problems. So, I ditched the Mizuno Wave Creations I was running in (a shoe someone suggested as a good transition from the Brooks Adrenaline) and went for a run in a pair of Ronins. My feet and legs have only felt better since then even though I am training more then I ever did in college.

Here is the logical extension which I think worries both you and I. If I am right (and sure, I may be wrong), but if I am right, then there is absolutely no reason for specialty running stores to exist. At least, not in their current form. Today was Saturday, our busiest day of the week, and I was literally sick to my stomach that I would have to fit some twelve year-old in a pair of Saucony Stabils because he might have flatter feet and that was the category of support the shoe companies have pigeonholed him into. All I could think of was the shoes that put me through hell... hundreds of ice baths, needles being stuck behind my kneecap, enough ibuprofen to eventually put me in an emergency room vomiting up parts of my stomach lining, and an endless parade of aches and pains. I would never wish those experiences on anyone, especially not some kid excited about his first year of high school cross-country.

I'm moving next week across the country for graduate school. I had planned on getting part-time work at a running store in the area, but like I said, I think I have reached a tipping point. The realization that I might actually be hurting people instead of helping them is just too heavy a weight for my conscience. I think my time in running retail might be done after this week. Tree Frog, it sounds like you have a real passion for placing people in good shoes, I just hope you don't let shoe ideas turn into dogma.

I can assure you that Newtons have a higher injury rate than any other running shoe brand. Their theory doesn't make sense nor does it work. What's natural about having pods under your metatarsals? That's right, nothing. All the pods do is cause added stress to the foot structure and achilles.

Minimalist trainers are, by and large, a joke. They are just another red herring for runners who would rather find a quick fix to running fast other than training hard and being patient. Injuries are part of the sport. Accept this. Can running in a pair of shoes that is not accommodating to one's archtype and leg-intersect angles cause injuries? Absolutely. But, just as some runners respond well to low-mileage, high-intensity training, whereas others respond well to high-mileage, lower-intensity, some can get away with training in lightweight, neutral shoes. Some need stability. I have worked at a running store for almost six years now and very, very rarely do I have someone bring a shoe back citing an injury as the reason. Blisters? Sure. But hardly ever, if not never, because wearing a stability shoe plagued them with injuries. If you are developing chronic injuries and are training smartly, then it is possible you are not running in a shoe designed for your foot-type. I personally know people who had been training in neutral shoes and developed recurring shin issues. Then, once they switched to a mild-moderate stability shoe, the issues disappeared. It's totally individual-based. Would you mimic the training regimen of Bekele just because he's the best? Does there exist a single, platonic-ideal of a training program to which any person could adhere and become the very best they possibly could be? Of course not. Similarly, lightweight, neutral shoes are not for everyone.

You my friend have no clue what you are talking about. so instead of spouting off your opinion please back up your claims.

Here is support for barefoot running and minimalist footwear:

I have many more links for you but letsrun marks post with too many links as spam. So if you want them I would be glad to post.

If you can give me any support other than your opinion for your last post I will be impressed.

Sam, those companies you mention, the Brooks, Asics, and Nikes of the world have spent millions of dollars researching footwear and biomechanics. Their solutions, the Adrenaline, the Structure Triax, the Gel-Kayano, is the result of that research.

Do you think they aimlessly just make shoes? You need to learn more about the industry, visit with the biomechanic labs of these respective companies, meet the Ph.D's that work behind the scenes devoting their lives to developing technologies that help us run faster.

Here's a thought: Abebe Bikila ran the Olympic Marathon barefoot and ran 2:15. Four years later, in shoes, he ran 2:12. Paula Radcliffe ran 2:15 as a female, in shoes, and ran 2:15... mostly heel-striking.

Wanjiru would not finish the Olympic Marathon barefoot. That's what you fail to realize. Humans were not meant to run on concrete. Why don't you purchase the latest Running Times Magazine and read the articel by J.D. Denton. He addresses the ignorance of store associates such as yourself that think minimalism is for everyone.

And, please, stop being so dramatic. You were literally sick to your stomach addressing a biomechanic flaw in a runner? Please... And "tipping point", Mr. Malcolm, thanks.

I have a solution for you: why don't you train up to 140-miles/week as me and my peers do, with intervals, hills, and long runs, and do that on minimalistic shoes. You will end up like Anton Krupicka, a complete cripple who espoused minimalism and helped contribute to this uneducated craze. 22 year olds thinking they know everything there is to know about running shoes after working part-time in a store with no biomechanical background.

Best wishes, Sam, but in grad school why don't you take some classes on biomechanics and footwear? It will be enlightening for you.

Actually there are several ultra-marathoners who run in very minimal footwear. You need to go pick up a copy of "Born to Run" if you want to learn about the running shoes made by Nike and other big shoe companies. And are you really trying make a point by to comparing times of two completely different marathons that were ran four years apart from each other?

I overpronate. shoes without a post exacerbate my weaknesses. I've watched my gait analysis on video, and I've compared the way my feet land with neutral shoes to the way they land with stability shoes. the pronation is much more pronounced with the stability shoes.

also, running barefoot may be "natural" but running on concrete is not. my legs feel beat up running on concrete with flats, if I do it for a long enough time, and I don't think this is something I could ever simply "adapt" to if I did it long enough.

these are some of the simple reasons that minimalism is not for everybody. it's common sense.

Oh and your boy J.D. Denton wrote this a few years ago about shoe companies:

http://www.runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4994

What makes it common since that minimalism isn't for everybody? We did fine without shoes for millions of years. Where is the common since that makes us all of the sudden need cushioned shoes?

You could argue that the concrete and asphalt are too hard for our legs. However, the sun baked trails that the sandal wearing Tarahumara Indians have been running on for years are just as rock hard as any surface that we run on.

Running shoe companies are in the business of selling running shoes, not helping people run faster. You are extremely naive to think the PHds are "devoting their lives to developing technologies that help us run faster."

Let's take cushion for example. It's a known fact in the industry that foam absorbs shock the best. It's also a known fact that foam midsoles don't look as cool as gel, air etc. So instead of manufacturing product that performs the best they make product that looks really cool.

See how that works?

Also interesting that nobody can provide a single study showing high heeled pronation control shoes prevent injury.

Also interesting footwear companies have brainwashed people to think there are inherent flaws in their feet hence creating the need for a

fix.

Create problem + provide solution = capitalism

Brainwashed. I love it.

Look, "traditional" running shoes work for most people. It's as simple as that. I'm pretty involved with the running community in my town, and maybe one in two hundred runners would be classified as a minimalist.

What the original poster is presupposing (incorrectly) is that there is one correct way to run. That there is one completely efficient method of running and that all other method are wrong. That notion in and of itself is wrong. Your job is to sell running shoes for your boss. It's not to give running advice, and it's not to be an expert on biomechanics. It would be like a checkout person at a supermarket giving nutrition advice.

Can minimalism work for some runners? Of course. Are some runners only able to run in Brooks Beast? Of course. I'm very happy that minimalism works for some of you. But you can't fit everyone in the same box.