hey all you idiots who think barefoot running is a "fad"

That was a great post - I understand your perspective much better now. We come from similar backgrounds and I have a kindred distaste for that magic bullet approach. Running should hurt, a lot. That's what makes it running. Having grown up and been deeply exposed to the local running store/company culture, my distaste manifests itself in people's desperate desire to accessorize, as a way to distract themselves from the reality of running. So many runners needlessly adorn themselves with things that do nothing to help them run. High tech fiber gloves, sweat wicking earmuffs, spf 9898 sunglasses, massive GPS watch, saucony super jacket, and of course, shiny white running shoes. It is often color coordinated. Usually the runners who do this are the runners who run two or three times a week at group runs, and stop at mile 3 for a beer and a chat. Sometimes real runners accessorize too, for a fashion statement, to try to be something, to look cool, to try to make running something else aside from the pure, unadulterated, beautiful war that it is.

My hatred for this commercial complication of my simple sport is entirely personal, and has nothing to do with any logical/rational argument for or against shoes. I know a lot of people use these things, like watches and headbands, for real athletic purposes, and not everyone is trying to make a fashion statement or just look the part of a runner. But that is where my original distaste for accessories to running came from. So I understand where you come from as well. I think, though, that it'd be wrong and dangerous for either of us to assume that all people who wear shoes are gutsy traditionalists, and that all barefoot runners are cuckholds looking for the magic bullet - or vice versa.

I would agree, though, that magic-bullet, quick and easy solution searching has fed a portion of the vibram craze. Just like people blindly following marketing schemes has fed a portion of the obstinance/faithfulness to traditional running shoes.

Also, your idea that PF existed, but there were just too few cases for it to be understood and diagnosed before 1960, is certainly a possibility.

This is purely anecdotal and in no way reflects any recommendation, imagined or real, for anyone else to copy my example. This is simply my experience with minimalist shoes.

In college and still trying to run for fitness, but now on a lot of concrete. Couple this with a higher load of miles and heel-striking, my knee started to go. Tried different stretches but after every run, and usually during, the knee would pain me and I'd slow, trying to keep weight off it, which played havoc with my form, which was already atrocious.

I decided, before I knew there was such a thing called minimalist running, to get a pair of flats. I am a physicist and I broke my problem down into one of kinematics; I was obviously stressing my body in some way that was causing problems and I analyzed my form to see. I realized my heel-striking tendency, evident by the wear pattern on my shoes, and wondered if a forefoot strike would be more efficient and soften the impact profile. A raised heel seemed unnecessary so I looked for the lowest heel-rise I could find.

While searching I found the VFFs and tried them out, two miles easy. After the first run I realized just how much I had been letting the heel take the brunt of my landing; for the next four days my legs were completely locked by soreness. I could barely walk. I was in pain, but I knew the cause was the same load shifting from my heel to my forefoot. After this passed I could run farther and started packing on the miles. Blisters weren't a problem calluses and tape couldn't fix. Next came stress-fractures, about five in my metatarsals spaced over a six-month period, that hobbled me for a while. After each one healed a new one popped up somewhere else. I kept at it, but gingerly, babying my feet, but keeping a good form. After the last fracture I again gradually built up miles, waiting for the next pain, but it didn't come. Adding more miles made no difference; I could not hurt my feet at all, even on concrete, though I avoided it whenever possible. Turf just feels better.

My form feels much lighter and quick, with less energy wasted on striking in front of my center of mass. I bought a pair of flats recently because I don't want to lose the ability to run in shoes should this experiment turn out to be a failure, though so far it's a rousing success. The flats feel great; I've found I can use the same stride as with the VFFs and I don't have to worry about gravel. I doubt I'll ever run in heavy shoes again.

Minimalist Experience Pros

1) My knee pain has dissipated immensely.

2) My form is much better; quick steps, increasing stride length, no heel-striking

3) No more joint pain elsewhere

4) My feet; soles are tough and the bones are unbreakable, at least running-wise.

Cons

1) Cold weather; not comfortable for the toes.

2) Wet weather; blisters!

How can you call getting five stress fractures a success?

alright, there is a lot going on here. first of all, it sounds like you managed to break most of the bones in your foot by running in vibrams. fortunately, broken bones usually end up stronger than before once they have been healed, so that may be why you haven't re-broken something. also, your improvement in stride and form, reduction of joint pain, and strong feet could very well be a result of simply running more miles. the more you run, the stronger your legs get and the more economical your running gets. it could be minimalist shoes i guess, but based on what you said i wouldn't think so

The result was not due to increased mileage because, before I switched to minimalist shoes, I tried increasing mileage with my previous model, a heavy Adidas trainer. This led to an increase rather than a decrease in my joint problems, which forced me to rethink my shoe choices. It was to be expected, adding miles while not addressing the underlying problem of bad posture, stride, and heel-striking.

The metatarsals I would not call outright breaks since, if they had been, I would have been laid up for months which each one. As it was, it took two weeks at the most to recover and I was back on the roads.

day of rest wrote:

How can you call getting five stress fractures a success?

The fact that now my feet are stronger than ever.

Johnny: You sound like a very angry and bitter man. I feel sorry for you. And you are full of shite.

vox cursor wrote:

day of rest wrote:

How can you call getting five stress fractures a success?

The fact that now my feet are stronger than ever.

Man are you stooooopid.

SniperNoSniping wrote:

If you think that world class athletes spend a lot of time being educated on the running shoes they use, your an idiot. World class athletes are the best advertising aids that these companies have.

There is research about this stuff, I don't get why people argue. Even Al Sal and Ritz are starting to realize it.

Funny how Ritz is constantly hurt. Maybe he should go back to his bulky trainers and stop worrying about where his heel strikes? Moron.

SniperNoSniping wrote:

Yea, so then it comes down to common sense. Why are shoes not shaped like feet?

Because it's all a big conspiracy to by the shoe companies to get us injured. It's not paranoia if everyone is actually out to get you...

no shoes here wrote:The "pro-barefoot" research is published and subject to peer review. You or I could get our hands on the data.

And it's funded by minimalist shoe companies and conducted by barefoot wackjobs. You sir, are a moron.

johnny langenwanker wrote:The reason I write all this is not to preach a Barefoot Boom, as cool as that would be. I'm just sick and tired of hearing how one guy got injured from wearing vibrams and his one drinking buddy heard about it at a bar and decided to post it on letsrun as proof that the barefoot movement is all a sham. I'm also sick and tired of people listening to elites, as though their race times indicated some sort of innate understanding of the sport. And perhaps most clearly, I'm sick and tired of shoe companies and running stores having such a powerful hold over their customers.

All three of those things discourage the kind of rational thinking people need in order to determine what is truly best for them.

If only it was just one guy who got hurt wearing Vibrams Johnny you might have an argument. Unfortunately it's not.

But the truly funny part is how you are argue regular running shoes cause injuries. But if someone gets hurt running in minimalist shoes or barefoot, then it's not the minimalist shoes, it must be the runners bad form. There is no logic or sense to your arguments but the rest of us aren't surprised. You're another barefoot wackjob preaching to the rest of us how we are so are wrong running around in our shoes when really you're just jealous and bitter because you train really hard but when it comes race time you're pussy.

Oh yes, running shoes are the cause of all injuries. For sure, that seems reasonable...

You are aware that Bikila ran faster with shoes on right?

johnny langenwanker wrote:

Vin Lannanna has also weighed in pro-minimalism:

"I believe that when my runners train barefoot they run faster and suffer fewer injuries."

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html#ixzz1Cr9ZV3Za

Way to take Vin Lananna's quote out of context for your "cause".

Vin is referring to doing some training barefoot like drills, wind sprints, etc. NOT barefoot running. This training was pretty common when Vin was in Stanford in the 90's. Pattisue Plumer did the same sort of barefoot drills and wind sprints but ran in shoes.

johnny langenwanker wrote:

I'm not saying all elites wear shoes only because they are sponsored by that company. I'm saying I think it's a rational possibility that SOME elites SAY they wear certain shoes because they are paid to do so. I am not saying that the rest of us are sheep to these elites. I'm saying there are a lot of people - especially young - who are influenced by marketing schemes.[/quote]

To clarify, you believe that people who are paid to be in adverts may not actually prefer the product, but are willing to say they do for money? Your are also being critical of shoe companies advertising the benefits of shoes.

With all due respect, this is not especially ground-breaking.

I have never seen a shoe company advising not to run barefoot, nor even say thet their brand is better than another.

You started the thread calling those who believe barefoot is a fad, idiots. You have now diluted this to say that some people can consider gently introducing barefoot running providing they have an appropriate surface. This is likely to exclude the majority; therefore, for the majority, barefoot running is a fad.

RH

This thread is annoying and needs to go away. I run with shoes on, I don't care which way is better for me because I'm healthy as an ox at all times running 120-140 miles a week. I have no aches or pains, just a little tired. I used to run 20 miles a week barefoot and all it did was make my calves look smaller.

To the OP I think you misunderstood what I have been saying. I said that barefoot running was for fags not for a fad