OK buddy, this is me, telling you to change the way you run.
---
Anyway, if we could move past the ego trips, it's hilarious that people who denounce barefoot running get trounced by Kenyans who grew up running barefoot.
If you read the article, you'll know that what's important isn't what's on your feet, it's *how* you run. Barefoot running is a good way to learn good mechanics, but it's not the only way and that doesn't mean you should run barefoot full time.
I understand the science behind it and admittedly I know i'm far from the cream of the crop on here. I actually do barefoot strides and some grass repeats barefoot stuff during the warmer months.
Coming from a heavier competitive guy, and as someone doing longer races like the 8k to half, I honestly don't if attaining that super-light stride is a possibility without me having to take a ton of time to completely retool something that has already given me a decent amount of success.
i mean changing up everything and getting magically better sounds good and all, but it means leaving behind the ''me'' that has taken me to where i am. is anyone else here caught in that conundrum...
Back in the day wrote:
Some human bodies were almost certainly doing 100-mile weeks barefoot back in the day. So there.
Any proof that people were hunting down prey every single day, day in and day out? How far does one have to run to be successful with this method of hunting? How FAST does one have to run to be successful?
Well since I don't have a time machine, let's switch from prehistoric days to 'back in the day' when an East African kid was running 100 miles weeks BF. Oh yeah, that day is today, and that kid could smoke you tomorrow.
They did a study on feet health from different population groups all over the world.
The winners were rickshaw runners in Bangkok.
All day in bare feet on uneven cobble stones and they have the best feet on the planet.
They should have checked out the Tamahumarans too i reckon.
Honestly I don't see how someone who has spent all of their life in padded, comfortable shoes can make a safe transition into barefoot running without taking serious time to devote to changing mechanics and slowly building up. If they do they run the risk of losing fitness that they've built for years, not to mention highly increasing the chance of injury if transitioning to quick.
does the east african kid run on cement and black top? also does the east african kid wear shoes to school? does the non-east african have a primordial diet? does the noneast african get to be born and live at 6-8000 feet? ok. get back to us with those answers.
Serious Time is what good training, coaching and education is all about.Running should be taken seriously.All the pundits arguing against transitioning from a cost/benefit perspective are missing the benefits opportunities offered by medium/long term approaches.Learning is good.Risks are inherent in any learning process.
dites wrote:
Honestly I don't see how someone who has spent all of their life in padded, comfortable shoes can make a safe transition into barefoot running without taking serious time to devote to changing mechanics and slowly building up. If they do they run the risk of losing fitness that they've built for years, not to mention highly increasing the chance of injury if transitioning to quick.
Back in the day wrote:
Some human bodies were almost certainly doing 100-mile weeks barefoot back in the day. So there.
not on asphalt and concrete. So there.
I guess it all boils down to whether or not barefoot running/minimalism is worth it. If I was older or in a position where I wouldn't be able to achieve new pr's and run faster I might consider it. But taking a huge chunk of time and devoting it to a form of running that is not guaranteed to eliminate or reduce injuries doesn't seem worth it IMO.
Why? Because there is a form of running that is GUARANTEED to eliminate or reduce injuries?IMO, learning new behaviour equips you to better deal with the unpredictability of life.I cant think of anything that i learned which ended up being useless.Learning is worth it in itself.It is the reality of trial and error.
dites wrote:
I guess it all boils down to whether or not barefoot running/minimalism is worth it. If I was older or in a position where I wouldn't be able to achieve new pr's and run faster I might consider it. But taking a huge chunk of time and devoting it to a form of running that is not guaranteed to eliminate or reduce injuries doesn't seem worth it IMO.
Unless you are getting paid to run you can take the time to better your form. It's real simple and requires focusing on a few aspects and changing footwear.
I am a post collegiate D1 runner that try'd barefoot running and for me it was not sustainable, but running in firm flat shoes works for me. My half PR before flat shoes and more natural running form was 71:26. Six months later, same mileage, different footwear and form, 67:43. For me that is significant change and worth the time. just my opinion
Also, on a side not I had a chronic calf pain (tightness) that slowly faded with the form change and now i am pain free!
itssoeasyacavemancoulddoit wrote:
I am a post collegiate D1 runner that try'd barefoot running
wow, your school seriously failed at educating you.
[quote]dites-moi wrote:
Why?
Because there is a form of running that is GUARANTEED to eliminate or reduce injuries?
IMO, learning new behaviour equips you to better deal with the unpredictability of life.
I cant think of anything that i learned which ended up being useless.
Learning is worth it in itself.
It is the reality of trial and error.
Did you even read the article? I'll help you out:
Lieberman, who spoke at the conference after an early-morning barefoot run along the banks of London's Thames, is keen to stress that the scientific evidence on whether barefoot running is better in terms of injuries is still very unclear.
"A lot of people are arguing on the basis of passion, anecdote, emotion or financial gain - but what's quite true is there are no good data saying whether it's better for you or worse for you," he said.
To all you people who keep saying "but it's not concrete & asphalt": have you ever actually run barefoot, or in really minimalist shoes?
Asphalt and concrete are actually some of the EASIEST surfaces to run on barefoot. No, it's not a manicured golf course, but it's smooth and safe without much to trip on, hazards like glass, nails and thorns are relatively easy to see and it allows you to get a good, consistent foot strike.
Running on rocky, rooty trails, or across fields of tall grass with sticks, thorns, holes etc, isn't the walk in the park that you seem to think it is. And something tells me that the savannah or woods that our ancestors ran on was probably a lot tougher on the feet than the local sidewalk/bike path (discounting broken beer bottles and crack pipes, anyhow).
In any event, most of the sharp-object problems are solved by wearing a minimalist pair of shoes. Just like many of our ancestors did, to protect their feet from the pointy rocks.
otg wrote:
To all you people who keep saying "but it's not concrete & asphalt": have you ever actually run barefoot, or in really minimalist shoes?
Asphalt and concrete are actually some of the EASIEST surfaces to run on barefoot. No, it's not a manicured golf course, but it's smooth and safe without much to trip on, hazards like glass, nails and thorns are relatively easy to see and it allows you to get a good, consistent foot strike.
Running on rocky, rooty trails, or across fields of tall grass with sticks, thorns, holes etc, isn't the walk in the park that you seem to think it is. And something tells me that the savannah or woods that our ancestors ran on was probably a lot tougher on the feet than the local sidewalk/bike path (discounting broken beer bottles and crack pipes, anyhow).
In any event, most of the sharp-object problems are solved by wearing a minimalist pair of shoes. Just like many of our ancestors did, to protect their feet from the pointy rocks.
what you seemed to have missed is that this evolution argument that people are using to justify this stupidity is tossed out the window due to the new environment we live in.
another shoe guy wrote:
That article used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing new or useful.
I second that. Same sh-t different day.
Who the hell cares?
If you refuse to run barefoot, refuse.
If you can run a 12:45 barefoot or with shoes, its still an impressive time.
The only facts that remain are, barefoot runners get slower when they move over to shoes and runners who wear shoes all the time wont gain anything from suddenly running barefoot.
joho wrote:
Back in the day wrote:Some human bodies were almost certainly doing 100-mile weeks barefoot back in the day. So there.
Any proof that people were hunting down prey every single day, day in and day out? How far does one have to run to be successful with this method of hunting? How FAST does one have to run to be successful?
Probably not everyday.
How far? About 4-6 hours, some say around a marathon distance. That demands a certain level of endurance.
Did you even read my post.Let me help you with the summary:It is the reality of trial and error (as for the D1 runner who posted earlier)SUMMARY: You try. It can work for you. Or maybe not.Very simple.It was the whole idea of what is worth and what isnt worth, that was being argued. Not if it works or not.For Lieberman it obviously works as a runner. He went running in the morning and it worked.And yes, i did obviously read the article before posting.
joalturn wrote:
[quote]dites-moi wrote:
Why?
Because there is a form of running that is GUARANTEED to eliminate or reduce injuries?
IMO, learning new behaviour equips you to better deal with the unpredictability of life.
I cant think of anything that i learned which ended up being useless.
Learning is worth it in itself.
It is the reality of trial and error.
Did you even read the article? I'll help you out:
Lieberman, who spoke at the conference after an early-morning barefoot run along the banks of London's Thames, is keen to stress that the scientific evidence on whether barefoot running is better in terms of injuries is still very unclear.
"A lot of people are arguing on the basis of passion, anecdote, emotion or financial gain - but what's quite true is there are no good data saying whether it's better for you or worse for you," he said.