Running Shoe Dilemma

Fixed wheel hipsters are to biking as minimalist are to running.

Sorry meant fixed gear hipsters are to cycling as minimalist are to running

Tree Frog wrote:

The Tarahumara Indians were sandals, buddy. That is a SHOE. It has a heel and a sole. I actually ran with one a couple of months ago. You assume I am not researching the topic as a consultant in the industry.

They are minimalist shoes, which is what I've been promoting the entire damn thread. Thanks for letting us know that you are a consultant to the industry. Especially after I've seen what the industry has done to ruin runners careers, now I understand where the stupidity is coming from.

The day I lose to a minimalist runner is the day I will retire.

I say this, yet I admit I own several pairs of running shoes. I like to rotate. I develop tendinitis at times, I have pain. I am not saying I run injury free, but I feel free. Man, I could be a Nike commercial. Strap me on some livers on my feet!

Why isn't anyone mentioning when Galen Rupp switched to barefoot running he developed stress reaction and Salazar immediately pulled him from that experiment? Since then, he's been running in Pegasus, Haywards (now extinct), Moto, and the occassional Structure Triax when feeling the need for recovery.

I didn't post the last two, and since someone has taken my name and I have said all I want, I am done posting in this thread.

By the way, I havn't had ANY injuries for a few years now.

thanks to my stability shoes.

I wanted to contribute. I am from Saltillo. I have made the journey to meet the Tarahumara Indians. I made great friends with several. A few made the trip to Coahuila and actually did sustain an injury during the 21km run. The truth is they can run on their terrain, but not on civilized streets. They did not like training on streets, but they are wonderful people. Please do not capitalize on them.

Capitalize? In what way would I capitalize on them? By promoting the way we were intended to run?

Nepoks,

I find it amusing that in your speculation, you would take a personal stab at Sam, citing that he necessarily runs slower than you. And that, unlike you in all your douchebaggary, he could not be anywhere near as high level of runner as you is specious at best. Do you really think you are necessarily more efficient because you run in stability trainers? And necessarily faster? I mean at least make a cogent argument if you want to be a jerk. And you probably shouldn't make personal jabs about someone's running ability who may be faster than you.

Denver Elite,

Do you really think that more than 1% of the Runner's Roost clientele actually reads letsrun? To say that Sam's comments have hurt the reputation of Runner's Roost is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And he certainly doesn't represent the attitude of every runner's roost employee. It is nice for a store to have a bit of diversity of opinion, no?

-Eric B. (also in Denver)

no way think again wrote:

SoCalRunning DPM wrote:

I'd like to see a study with subjects at least 20% overweight and over 40 years old with at least 5 years of inactivity.

Actually many of the minimalist runners that have had a lot of success with it fit that description. Check out

http://www.barefootted.com

and Chris Mcdougal, author of "Born to Run," also had a similar experience.

Do you really think these runners are all active college kids:

http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches

I checked the link and didn't see any pics of overweight out of shape people, or even "clydesdale" runners.

There's nothing wrong with going minimalist if you're in shape, not overweight, injury free, have the proper form. Heck I train in racing flats when I feel fresh. But when my legs are dead and I know I'm going to be plodding, I'm in my trainers.

With a sprained ankle, you would wear a brace or tape it until you developed the appropriate strength, range of motion, sense of balance, etc. The same principle applies to all body parts.

SoCalRunning DPM wrote:

But what I see in my office are the overweight patients who just started an exercise program and are in the lightest and most flexible shoe they can find, believing it will be the most comfortable. Invariable they have arch strain, or joint pain of the lower extremity.

These porkers shouldn't be running, anyway, so stop enabling them! They should be swimming, cycling, and walking until they get their weight way down. Running isn't for everyone, but running shoe companies and their advertisers have to expand their customer base to make more money so instead of telling people they need to get decently fit first before starting up running they create products that allow these people to get into running without having to lose weight and isn't in the best interests of the customers and thus they wind up with all sorts of ridiculously easy-to-avoid injuries because nobody out there, certainly not anyone who is happy to take their money, is giving them sage counsel.

No. No, Tree Frog. I do not agree. At least, not completely.

I realize the anthropologic arguments make you uncomfortable, but no I think you are incorrect. A lot of folks mentioned "Born to Run," the book by Christopher McDougall, the author of the article I originally cited. So, curious yesterday, I went and bought it at a local Barnes and Noble and stayed up late last night to read it. I would not consider it confirmation that my skepticism is correct, but it is certainly a hearty affirmation. I think it would be a great book for you to check out. If nothing else, it is a great read about a number of interesting personalities and runners, such as Scott Jurek, the Tarahumara tribe (who have been mentioned maybe 8 times in this thread), Jenn Shelton, Ann Trason, and a number of folks mainly from the ultra community. You can go ahead and bash ultrarunners if you would like, I'm not one, but the story is entertaining, incisive, and critical.

I'll paraphrase one of the scientific interludes in the book, which basically revolves around McDougall's curiosity about why his feet were always hurting. He cites a couple dozen anthropologists in his description of human beings as essentially running people. Apparently homo sapiens sapiens went through a period of dramatic brain tissue growth a couple million years ago. Biologists and anthropologists know that the only way you can put on such extensive brain tissue growth is through the consumption of relatively massive amounts of protein. So, we must have been able to catch some really large game such as elk, antelopes, and the like. But, if you look at the human body it does not really have many obvious advantages for hunting. We lack sharp teeth or extensive fast-twitch muscle fibers. Unlike Neanderthals, the non-humans we typically think of as hunting mastadons and tigers, we were relatively puny and weak. We only started to develop tools (and weapons) hundreds of thousands of years later, but that only happened once our brains got bigger. The only real advantage we had over other quicker animals was that homo sapiens were aerobic beasts.

Most animals are very quick, but over long distances they actually cannot match human beings. We sweat. So we are not reliant on breathing (panting) to cool down our bodies. So as long as we keep drinking fluids and grazing calories, we can go for a great long long while. The same reason why Hal Koerner can run a 100 miles in a single day and then run another race a week or so later. Other animals, such as elk and antelopes and their predecessors can not do this. Have you ever run with a dog on a hot day? Eventually my dog just stops after a couple miles even though he can dart past me playing frisbee and I will never catch him. Over longer distances, he is forced to stop, pant and cool down or he will die. Not so for humans. If you got a group of dedicated homo sapiens together you could keep an animal moving for miles and eventually it would overheat and collapse. Thus our larger brain sizes developed because, appropriately enough, we were born to run. So, no I won't drop my baloney theory because I think it makes sense. We'd never have caught the baloney if we could not run in the first place!

Check out McDougall's book. I'm just abridging things. It is a fun read if nothing else, but it should raise some real questions for the professional shoe fitter.

Are we meant to run for endurance? Of course. Why would thousands of people feel compelled to run marathons if there was not something wired deep inside of us? There are certainly easier forms of exercise and things to do on a weekend morning. Why would my friends and I feel compelled to occasionally go for a run at midnight after drinking a few beers? It is part of who we are.

But, I think you might be right to the extent that human bodies were probably never developed to try and run say... sub 2 hours for a marathon. This is not to say that we cannot or should not strive to achieve this, but that we are probably starting to test our limits. This is likely the reason why Gebrelassie still gets hurt even though he is insanely efficient (and also a guy who was likely never fitted for shoes until he was a pro). Is the body designed to train for intense record beating efforts that push the thresholds of human tolerance and pain? No, maybe not. But that does not mean that we are not designed to run. Few people are trying to set records or qualify for the Olympic trials like Nepoks and I (no, I don't run 8 minute miles, I run at or below six like he does, and I do tempo runs, intervals and hills like you). But does this necessarily imply that we are biomechanically "flawed," ambitious animals who are trying to do something we were never meant to do? Can you honestly tell me that amidst all 140 miles a week that you run, it does not at some point feel natural!?

Look, I am not some freshly-minted undergrad finishing up a part-time summer gig at a running store. I have been doing this full-time for three years. So, I know how the game works. I know how feet function. I can fit people in shoes and do it exactly as the shoe companies, my boss, and the running community at large would like me to. And this is what I do because it's not my store.

But, if a customer asks me if these shoes are going to keep him injury free what can I tell him? If the shoes are so effective why will none of the companies claim they will prevent injuries? Why are thousands of people making a living off of running injuries when you and I are putting them in shoes that cost the equivalent of an entire day of my wages? Can you look one of your customers in the eye and honestly tell them that they are less likely to get hurt because of the shoes? Looking at the data, I am really starting to wonder whether I can anymore.

I don't know about you, but when I fit someone well for shoes, look at their gait standing, walking, and running, view it in slow motion make several recommendations, graph the angles of their arch and ankles on a computer, let them try on shoes, watch them run in all of the shoes, provide guidance as to which might fit their foot better and they still come back with an injury two months later, I am tired of handing out evasive reasons for injury: "Maybe you trained too much... or too little and then too much... maybe you ran on a sloped road... or a too flat road... or not enough trails... have you checked your diet?... have you tried yoga?... or yogurt?... have you gotten enough vitamin D? massage? calcium? cortisone?... well, gosh, have you considered cycling?"

God forbid that we consider the expensive heel-padding shoes you and I sold today as having anything to do with the injuries. Banish the thought. That would be unreasonable.

Sam, here is where your theory is debunked. Sure, you can run 1:08 downhill and a mid-30 10,000m, but Anton Krupicka is a pioneer in regards to minimalistic footwear and actually lives the life, unlike yourself.

http://antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/

And guess what? No one has been more injured than Krupicka over the last couple of years. I know I haven't and I know you haven't and we don't employ to the extent his minimalistic techniques and footwear selection over the 200+ miles/week he trains.

Try all you like, Sam, to rationalize, but I have spent over a decade fitting people in the shoes you hate and changing lives. I have been ELIMINATING injuries, not causing them. No plantar fasciitis, no ITBS, no runners' knee... nothing. Most come to me with these injuries and I solve them through footwear and gait analysis. Let's just say the local podiatrists and foot doctors don't appreciate my CPed expertise and I don't sell orthotics.

You must be doing something wrong or not understanding biomechanics in relation to footwear correction for you not to be solving your client's concerns and/or injuries.

I wish you the best in your graduate studies, but when you build a $1.5 million practice from sound biomechanics, customer service, and absolutely no marketing other than word of mouth, I think I will take the words of a part-time associate a bit more seriously, other than one that reads a book (which I have) that is written by an over-weight author and why his feet hurt and still hurt to this day.

Can't say I agree with the vast majority of what you’re writing here at all... Injuries are not part of the sport... running is part of the sport and I take no pride in the times I have been injured nor would I consider it a necessary evil. Sure it may happen, but the formula to running fast and improving is to run consistently day after day and not get sidelined with injuries.

Back to the OP;

I have the same problem when a family member asks about what kind of shoe they should get or how they should run. I have had so many injury problems when I was forced into antipronation shoes and orthotics that I really do hate these products because of all the damage I suspect they did to me and the lost time they represented. That being said I think those shoes are well designed for the general public not going much more than 20-30km per week. Lets be honest most people, even the people looking to do a marathon will likely run every 2nd day for a hour at a time and if they are overweight than these kind of shoes seem perfect for them. Minimalism is not a panacea for everyone, its something you work up to because in our modern world we never train are lower leg muscles to work on their own without support or cushioning.

I see no hypocrisy in what you are doing because as much as I think minimalist running shoes have helped me I am fully aware that for others they might require something different so long as it works. You got stay humble and admit that otherwise you become one of those selfrighteous Mac using Prius driving Smug emitting jerks! Although it is hard to not want to spread the gospel of barefoot.

very interesting thread... I would love to here what tree frog, Sam in denver or anyone else from here would have to say about my situation. check out this thread.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3132719

incidentally for at least the last 12 years I have been training in the Asics 20 series, started with the 2010's now up to 2140's ( always trying to find the cheapest year or two old models) and racing in flats that feel good lately he Asics gel racers...This bout with PF came after a winter of good base building then some races in old racing flats.

Wow, I just read this entire thread, a lot of long post.

Its funny, there is a bunch of good information on this thread about "minimalist" runners with many examples and explanation of their running concept. The OP even went out and bought/read a book to attempt to grasp a better understanding on the issue.

Then you have this Tree Frog guy that refuses to listen to the minimalist arguements and instead claims he is an all knowing expert. So in a strong quest to declare that minimalism doesn't work, Tree Frog finds ONE guy that didn't have much success with it, then almost kills his own argument by telling us that this guy is running over 200 miles a week. Then he proudly declares that the minimalist theory has been debunked forever!

Classic Letsrun.

SoCalRunning DPM wrote:

Finally as for all this barefoot running "research". Nearly all the studies were conducted with university student subjects or athletes.

Fair enough, of sorts.

But since you are an educated expert. Why don't you present a single peer reviewed research paper showing us that there is a correlation between cushioned shoes and a downwards trend in injuries?

I mean, for "a practicing podiatrist and a semi-competitive runner" that should be as simple as finding one of 1,000 links in your favorites and posting it here.

Do that before you dismiss the articles you just happen to dislike for poor reasons.