How are soft surfaces good but soft shoes bad?

A soft surface does not return a lot of impact, with the remaining force transmitted to you via a soft or hard shoe.

A hard surfaces returns a lot of impact, with the remaining force transmitted to you via a soft or hard shoe.

Let's say you exert a force of an imaginary level 100. A soft surface returns half that energy. A hard surface returns 60% of that energy. A minimal shoe encourages you to strike with a smaller force, say, 80. A soft shoe will absorb some impact, say 20 percent. A hard, minimal shoe will absorb less impact, say 10 percent.

A person running in soft running shoes (100 force) on a hard surface (40 taken by ground, 60 left) gets some force taken by the shoes (20%) leaving an impact of 48.

A person in minimal running shoes (80 force) on a soft surface (48 taken by ground, 52 left) gets very little force absorbed by the shoes (10%) leaving an impact of 46.8, thus, less force exerted on the body than a soft shoe on a hard surface.

WRONG! All your percentages are arbitrary, they are not valid which renders the rest of your post meaningless.The real answer is the the trainer or hard shoe limits the natural movement and cushioning of the foot and renders the foot more insensitive to the strike making it potentially more damaging.There is some true to affecting strength of strike but those percentages are a joke. Soft shoes vary in percentage of shock they absorb.

They were arbitrarily chosen to illustrate a point. Some surfaces return more shock, some less. Some shoes absorb shock, some less so. Some shoes allow your foot to run naturally, other don't.

Soft shoe = big heel = altered stride

Soft surface = less impact and normal stride

Minimalist shoes on trails or grass or dirt are the perfect combo. Because your feet and ankles and calves will be handed the responsibility of doing what they were built to do, and will be much stronger and more flexible and less injury-prone because of that, and you will be a better runner if you follow that advice...

Saw some moron in silly looking minimalist shoes step on some glass the other day; his toes were a bloody mess. I just crunched on thru the glass with my Nike Air Pegasus trail shoes. Suckers!

I'm wondering what shoes he was wearing that glass went through? I can't think of too many shoes that glass would go through, no matter how minimal, unless they were large shards, in which case even fairly well padded shoes would be at risk. And why did you see his toes? And why would you run through the glass, why not avoid it? Is it because you're a liar?

In addition to minimalist shoes allowing a more natural gait as mentioned above, soft surfaces are constantly variable, giving a varying stimulus and impact to which the (minimalist-shoe clad) foot adjust, and are strengthened by. A soft shoe on an even hard surface delivers the same impact pattern over and over, resulting in overuse injury.

themanontherun,

Not to pick on you, but can you explain why the level of impact matters?

Best regards,

Carson Boddicker

www.BoddickerPerformance.com

I give you some credit. It takes a lot of imagination to be this full of sh*t.

I run feather soft trails covered in cushy pine needles in my big soft pillow cushion clunkers. What kind of injuries should I expect?

'A soft shoe on an even hard surface delivers the same impact pattern over and over, resulting in overuse injury.'

I agree with that but would stay the most important thing is to get off the roads rather than what shoe you are wearing

themanontherun wrote:

They were arbitrarily chosen to illustrate a point. Some surfaces return more shock, some less. Some shoes absorb shock, some less so. Some shoes allow your foot to run naturally, other don't.

The problem is that if you arbitrarily choose slightly different numbers, the result changes completely. You analysis is highly sensitive to small changes in the inputs, and thus largely worthless.

Not to mention, it doesn't matter why you chose them, arbitrary numbers in an "analysis" like this are worthless. Can I "prove" that shoes are better by picking arbitrary numbers that "illustrate the point"? What is the value in that?

There is a difference between 'proving' something and 'illustrating a point'. The OP already believed that softer surfaces are better than soft shoes he was just asking why. He did not ask to be convinced or to be shown proof. I think that is the engineer coming out in you.

Rolled ankles, for starters.

Mr Mountain wrote:

I run feather soft trails covered in cushy pine needles in my big soft pillow cushion clunkers. What kind of injuries should I expect?

Just my opinion, but running soft trails in soft shoes is a recipe for disaster. Ankle sprains come to mind, but there would be lots of other balance type of issues, and accompanying strains. As light a shoe as possible on trails/dirt/grass is the only way to go. Even running a bit on the roads in a light shoe is not too bad, depending on how you "hit the ground". If you are hammering out high mileage on pavement, and "hit the ground" hard, well, stress fractures, etc., are in your immediate future...So try and limit the amount of pavement running, and combine that with drills and exercises that will help you learn to move "over the ground", rather than into it...Watch videos of the Africans running...

And I'll throw out something else, to get a rise (just for fun) out of some of you... Study the principles behind the POSE method, some of them may help you run more efficiently. I only know 1 athlete who has trained extensively in the POSE method, and she still does the drills and exercises regularly. She is one of the most efficient "foot-strikers" that I have seen in over 40 years of following distance running very closely...

Have you ever had sex while you had your shoes on? That, my friend, is a good time. One time I was doing 2 girls while I was wearing racing flats. THAT KICKED ASS!!!