Hey Everybody, Minimalism WORKS!

correctly? nay.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

just fuggin wrong-ly

...I love LetsRun so much. Totally useless threads, with many rude and useless comments. Makes my whole day...

But WHY do people wear cushioned shoes?

That is what the OP is trying to get at.

toy-store wrote:

Yes minimalism works for normal runners with normal sloppy strides. When they switch to minimalistic shoes they become more efficient and learn how to strike the ground in a proper way. So we can say it's a substitute for not having run barefoot enough as a child.

For Kenyan elite runners it doesn't really matter if they do their training in minimal shoes or in ordinary bulky trainers. They run with their "minimalistic technique" in bulky trainers which means fast turnover and perfect foot-plant.

So it's not really about the shoes once you master the proper technique. When you are fully adapted you can choose any shoe you like. I like comfortable running which means bulky shoes on harder surfaces and more minimalistic on softer surfaces.

Bulky shoes shouldn't compensate for lack of proper technique ONLY for lack of natural soft surfaces.

Umm, this is pure guesswork. Running in trainers allows you to land incorrectly and weakens arch muscles through disuse. It also sends shock up your calves and tibia and promotes misuse of many muscles and tendons such as the Achilles tendon. You can't just fix it and forget about it. You can't do that with anything in life. You have to maintain it. Maybe for Kenyans it takes longer to erode their learned style of running, but that doesn't mean because they did it for a few years at the beginning of their life that bulky shoes won't have a negative impact on them. Everything in life needs maintenance and this is no different.

220112477 wrote:

What about the large persentage of people that have developed poor biomechanics in there foot, ankle and lower leg? These people need some sort corrective aspect to their footwear.

I am not saying the minimalism does not work. I'm just throwing out that it doesn't and can't work for everyone. If you look at the vast majority of runner that have success with a minimalistic approach to footwear, they will have very good biomechanics.

I have wore trainers for all 15 years of my competitive running career, and I have never developed an injury that can be attributed to my shoes.

How do you know your injuries can't be attributed to your shoes? Knee problems? Hip problems? Quad/Hamstring problems? They are all related to the shoes you wear. You don't need shoes to "correct" your stride. They just claim to do that through support, but what they are doing by cradling those muscles is weakening them, thus alleviating the symptom, not the problem, which will only get worse. People who have developed poor biomechanics can, to some extent, CORRECT that with minimalist/barefoot running. It strengthens all the right muscles and promotes running the way it was meant to be done. The key is to start out slow and build up from there. That way, you won't suffer as much from suddenly switching from supportive shoes to more minimalist shoes and even a barefoot regimen.

Subcorrectly.

hardly correct

Speaking of pure guesswork...

This was never really disputed, but the extent to which this can be done is what the militant minimalists seem to be delusional about. The problem I have with all of the people pushing minimalism is that they claim that shoes cause every running ache that ails you at or below the waist (see your excerpt above) which is complete and utter BS. I still have yet to see anything other than anecdotal evidence that minimalist runners have lower injury rates, and even that wouldn't convince me that it's for everyone since anyone who tries minimalist running and gets injured is not likely to keep doing it. Only jaguar1 has provided anything of any substance, and I can still read plenty of cons for barefoot running in the abstracts posted in his coolrunning link.

This is exactly the problem with your logic. Running was not meant to be anything. There is no "meaning" to speak of in your biomechanics. It was not designed, it just worked well enough to keep us around. No one came up with human locomotion and decided that it's "supposed" to be this way and not that. There is no perfect design. This is the same kind of unthink that enables people to peddle useless alternative medicines under the "all natural ingredients" mantra.

By the way, I have benefited from incorporating barefoot running into my training before, and still do when surfaces allow. I would recommend people try it if they're interested, but I doubt it will cure all ills. There's no way I'll agree that everyone should start training in waffles or shoeless altogether.

You didn\'t actually refute anything I said. You just responded to general comments and then went on a rant about the existence of God. Maybe I believe in God. How is this \"a problem with my logic?\"

By the way, I never said it would cure all ills. I said it would be beneficial to the strength of the muscles in your feet and lower legs. You ask for evidence, yet your post suffers a severe lack of it, and again, is just the kind of post you are getting all hot and bothered about.

haah wrote:

You didn't actually refute anything I said. You just responded to general comments and then went on a rant about the existence of God. Maybe I believe in God. How is this "a problem with my logic?"

By the way, I never said it would cure all ills. I said it would be beneficial to the strength of the muscles in your feet and lower legs. You ask for evidence, yet your post suffers a severe lack of it, and again, is just the kind of post you are getting all hot and bothered about.

I never said anything about the existence of God, maybe you read into my comment on meaning a little too much.

You only made general comments in the first place. They're all I had to respond to. Problem is, you were also making factual claims based on those general comments. True, you never said it cures all ills, that was my elaboration, however you did say that knee, hip, and lower back problems are all "related to the shoes you wear." For this you showed no evidence, only "general comments" about the way running was apparently "meant" to be.

What would you have me provide evidence for? Perhaps aside from a tangential rant which I would elaborate on if it wouldn't derail the thread, I made no unfounded claims that would require any evidence, I merely pointed out the lack of yours.

_

/_\

/___\

(^_^) <--------------- WTF???

/ \

/ \

(*_*) + (^_^) = WTF

* (*_*) + (^_^) = WTF???

* { } { }

* P U

* [ ] [ ]

I'm curious, how many of you have tried barefoot running?

To what degree and how successful(or not) was it? Perhaps I missed something but I didn't see anyone claim that they tried it and became injured as a result.

My own experience (and I'm not saying it translates to everyone) is that it greatly strengthened my feet,calf's and shins. My stride was dang near perfect. Much better than the mild pronation I always had while wearing shoes.

I wouldn't go out for barefoot runs on trails or anything like that. We had a grass track so I figured why not.

I wore elite version 2 back then for training runs and did speed/tempo/intervals barefoot.

The result? The best workouts I've ever done.

I am probably going to get flamed from the medical jackasses here but it fixed/cured/or greatly helped my plantar facitis. The trainers had told me to stop running altogether to fix it. Morons. Although I will caution people if they try it take it slow and work up to it.

undercorrectly

Good post, Runningart2004. Surprised that no one responded to either you or Jaguar1.

My own experience with minimalism has been very positive. It easily took 2 years to make the full transition, but since then I've been injury free while doing probably 90% of my running in Puma H Streets. And usually once a week I do some form of barefoot running on soft grass, especially for cooldowns and strides at the end of a longer run or track work.

I understand, to some degree, people's desire for a little more cushioning than what my shoes offer, especially if they're older and only have concrete to run on, but the one thing I've never ever been able to wrap my brain around is why shoe companies feel the need to jack up the heel. I can't think of any benefit whatsoever that this provides, but this appears to be one of the sacred axioms of shoe companies. Consequently, it's virtually impossible these days to buy a running shoe of any kind that has a zero differential between heel and forefoot.

dnixon wrote:

I understand, to some degree, people's desire for a little more cushioning than what my shoes offer, especially if they're older and only have concrete to run on, but the one thing I've never ever been able to wrap my brain around is why shoe companies feel the need to jack up the heel. I can't think of any benefit whatsoever that this provides, but this appears to be one of the sacred axioms of shoe companies. Consequently, it's virtually impossible these days to buy a running shoe of any kind that has a zero differential between heel and forefoot.

I think you hit on something very important, the high heels of trainers. Not a good thing.