News article about barefoot running/minimalist shoes

I don't get how people advocate running on soft surfaces but not running in supportive shoes.

So if you strap the cushion to the ground it is good for you, but if you strap the cushion to your foot, it is bad for you?

i speculate it is for the same reason supportive shoes are not called HARD.

Beyond the idea that soft surfaces are mostly those of grass, sand, earth, wood, some synthetic tracks, ect i speculate the concept of sof also includes irregular.

When you run barefoot, a small twig, gravel, roots, thicker patches of grass, ect., will all contribute to the strengthening effect because the foot can feel even the most minimal of surface alterations.

So i speculate that for "soft" minimalists mean also irregular: a charcteristic which in turn leads to run "softly" or gently if you will - which ironically can be a very muscular activity. Which makes it hard...Just like "supportive" i suspect also includes the sense of constriction associated with some shoes.

But you are right, if it was just about softness the reciprocity is intuitive.

In fact would it not be a bad idea if shoe companies and city governments teamed up to work also on making surfaces rather than just shoes. Now, if you see it solely as trying to put a barefooting/minimalist lane - NOW - in the middle of NYC it just seems liek a really stupid idea. But elsewhere? Gradual implemetation?

Barefooting parks already exist in Germany.

And while i can, i would just like to add that i find my excessive use of "speculate" absolutely deplorable.

Please try to ignore it.

when I read about barefoot runners why do I get a mental picture of the same type of wacko, hippieish, people that run ultras?

777 wrote:

Sounds about right. Minimalism has some value to its message (like including some barefoot running every week or so), but is ultimately a fad. It's the same as it has always been: everybody wants to find "the secret." We saw it in the 80s with low-mileage, high-intensity training, we saw it in the 90s with high-tech shoes and cross-training maniacs, and now we're seeing it in the 00s with this minimalism. Oh, how we wish we could just wear some magical shoes and train however we wanted!

I'd argue that cushioned trainers are really the fad. Think about runners throughout human history. Minimalism has been the norm for hundreds of thousands of years. When looking for the most efficient way to move, I trust evolution more than shoe designers, it's done pretty well so far.

However, it was also evolution that led to the brain capacity of all those shoe designers.

And just for kicks, what % of our world records have been set since the advent of modern shoe design?

Um, but... wrote:

However, it was also evolution that led to the brain capacity of all those shoe designers.

And just for kicks, what % of our world records have been set since the advent of modern shoe design?

Running fast is just a fad, our ancestors never ran this fast. It will blow over in a few years and everyone will be shoeless and persistence hunting.

No matter WHAT he concluded this study does not come close to proving anything. Why? It is a correlative observational study not an experiment. Why does that matter? Correlation never implies causation. It seems to me that the more likely explanation is self-selection. That is the runners who buy the more expensive shoes do so for a reason and that reason is why they are more injury prone. Statistically correcting for past injuries or weight is fraught with problems and does not solve the issue. Even if those two possibilities are eliminated there are still thousands of other confounding variables they may explain this result. So thank you for your effort but please come back when you have something convincing.

http://tomjech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/asking_the_right_questions_jech_7.gif

Stout wrote:

I don't get how people advocate running on soft surfaces but not running in supportive shoes.

So if you strap the cushion to the ground it is good for you, but if you strap the cushion to your foot, it is bad for you?

Great point. I've been wondering that for years, especially since I'm a big fan of both barefoot running and running on soft surfaces.

I have some thoughts, but nothing I'm ready to stand behind and say "this is the reason no doubt." Here are the ideas though.

1) Soft surfaces are "natural" and "what our body adapted to" as opposed to manmade things like concrete, asphalt. But I just read something by Barefoot Ken Bob claiming that we are just as well adapted to running on solid granite and pavement as dirt.

2) Say that you have an average stride style you usually tend to run with, developed as your own unique step from thousands of miles of training. If you run with this same, developed step on concrete and grass you will have two different shock types, even if you alter your stride a little bit to match. But after years of running exclusively on either surface, your stride would change itself to absorb the right amount of shock, on average.

3) Could be that soft surfaces are still pretty stable -- the difference between grass and concrete isn't nearly as big as the difference between barefoot and wearing shoes. So you'd get the benefits of the soft surface without the downfall of the instability, which is the real problem. Plus, shoes fundamentally alter your stride by raising the heel and putting a chunk of rubber under it, making you land farther back on your foot and roll in less. A softer surface doesn't do either of these. So, it's not the softness that's the problem, but the general design.

4) Running in shoes with a heel-to-toe motion makes the softness of the landing surface paramount, so shoe-wearing heelstrikers (almost everyone) are the main ones who say soft surfaces are better.

5) There really isn't much if any difference in the surface, if you are absorbing shock naturally. I have run barefoot a little on different kinds of surfaces, and the main advantage I see in grass/dirt over pavement is that it's less abrasive, not that it's softer (though I like the softness too).

Um, but... wrote:

However, it was also evolution that led to the brain capacity of all those shoe designers.

And just for kicks, what % of our world records have been set since the advent of modern shoe design?

I'd assume that quite a bit of world records have been set since then. However, if you had lived in 1950, the percentage of world records set since forty years earlier would probably be similar to the percentage of our current world records that have been set since 1968. Furthermore, just because running has become a higher profile sport since the modern shoe was designed does not mean that shoes are responsible. There are so many factors involved. It could be argued that the entrance of East Africans (many of whom grew up barefoot, some of whom ran barefoot) onto the running scene played a larger role in setting world records.

Peer Review wrote:

No matter WHAT he concluded this study does not come close to proving anything. Why? It is a correlative observational study not an experiment. Why does that matter? Correlation never implies causation. It seems to me that the more likely explanation is self-selection. That is the runners who buy the more expensive shoes do so for a reason and that reason is why they are more injury prone. Statistically correcting for past injuries or weight is fraught with problems and does not solve the issue. Even if those two possibilities are eliminated there are still thousands of other confounding variables they may explain this result. So thank you for your effort but please come back when you have something convincing.

http://tomjech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/asking_the_right_questions_jech_7.gif

The HUGE amount of success stories of people who have switched to minimalism and the nonexistent overuse injuries in unshod populations are convincing enough for me.

Along with the fact that I wore orthotics at one time and had every injury you can think of before I switched to minimalism. I've researched and experimented with this subject for years and I know that it works.

Lydiard, who experimented with distance running more than anyone, was a big minimalism promoter.

I had severe IT-band syndrome and couldn't run any longer without throbbing pain and inflammation. Every now and then I give running another try but always with the same sore outcome. Recently I decided to see what happened if I switched to running in huaraches (minimalist sandals), but was very pessimistic. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I am now comfortably running on pavement in tiny sandals with not even a hint of pain returning! Maybe it depends on one's type of chronic injury, but it's working for me!

Well, what you'll notice is that the trainers with the higher price on them have more gizmos slapped onto them to market them as being more technologically advanced to somehow justify charging customers more for them. The best advancement in shoe design to come out of Nike, with all their Air and Shox marketing technologies, in the past 30 years has been the Lunar foam, which rather than plastic pieces and airbags and shock columns and whatnot is simply a couple types of foam sandwiched together. It's incredibly simple and works better than all of the other flashy junk they throw out there to draw in customers.

nonsense wrote:

just lower the price of the trainers, problem solved right?

Very few studies on minimalist shoes exist, right? There are thousands of amazing studies going on in an area near you. The people performing these studies observe data every single day regarding the success and failures of minimalist shoes, and success and failures of supportive trainers. These people are your local shoe guys. Ask them to tell you what they see. Don't ask the owners of the store (biased data), but talk to the guys and girls selling the shoes. They get daily feedback from customers wearing every type of shoe. This board is another great place to get ideas (although lots of bias here, too-people have to be right here, too competitive, etc.). Minimalism is not for everyone, motion-control shoes aren't for everyone. Your local shoe guy isn't going to sell you minimalist shoes if it isn't appropriate, and they won't try to sell you motion control shoes if they aren't appropriate (unless they don't give a shit about their customers, that is). The stores are where the data is, not some 4-week long study in a lab.

Meb wears trainers.

End of thread.

jorvack wrote:

Meb wears trainers.

End of thread.

but he also incorparates barefoot running into his training regime. In the movie "Showdown" Meb does a bunch of barefoot drills and strides. He does not run exclusively barefoot but that is not the point. He does not neglect foot strengthening via barefoot running!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In a sense the thread has just begun

Indeed, there are at least two sequences (including the opening) in this trailer of Meb doing barefoot drills.

The anonymous reliability of Letsrun.com strikes again.

Awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VJtMb_I5U

Go Meb. Go Runners.