question for engineers out there re foot/shoe remark from 'barefoot Ted'

It is really a bio-engineering issue. Bone and muscle do strengthen with stress. So, there is an intuitive basis to the statement. However, there is also a functional mechanics issue. Someone who has an arch that is low or flat may not get any benefit from barefoot or minimalist running because they will make deleterious mechanical adjustments to deal with the mechanical flaw (low/flat arch). And there is also a chiropractor-esque assumption that a "weak arch" (whatever that may be) is the cause of all running injuries.

Personally, I have had my training saved by stability shoes and orthotics on a number of occasion and had bad injuries as the result of minimalism. I have friends who are the exact opposite. But, Vibrams are hot now. I see them all the time on the running trail. What I do not see is the people who train in Vibrams running fast times at my local races. And that is about as valid a scientific analysis as the "weak arches" idea.

Barefoot Ted is fat and slow. Who cares what his dumb @ss says.

Precious Roy's post is an excellent synopsis of the issue.

An arch, in architecture, is incredibly strong. But it's only strong in one direcion. Further, the shallower the arch is, the weaker it becomes.

The amount of misused or misapplied marketing regarding minimalism far exceeds the amount from "traditional" shoe manufacturers who made the market.

He's right if he means a constant arch support without strengthening the foot will help create a weak arch.

You can run with arched supported shoes, but you need to also ensure your foot is strong.

The foot doesn't have an arch. Its designed to open like a hinge, not remain stationary. The decision to race and train exclusively barefoot is one made by people with no competitive ambition.

The 'arch' of your foot is not a static structure. It does not function by merely withstanding the stresses placed upon it. It flexes to absorb the stress. Any claim made about the properties of a rigid structural arch would not apply to your foot.

If your shoes provide constant support to your arch, you will end up having weaker connective tissue in that area, as a result of having less stress applied. However, if you only ever run in running shoes, why does that matter?

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that you should do a certain amount of training in whatever shoes you plan to race in, so that you arch is strong enough to deal with that level of support. After all, the whole point of running to prepare our bodies for a task - for some, that task is racing. For others, it is simply more running.

My foot has an arch and strengthening it through barefoot running and/or minimalist running will only help your running. I have no idea if barefoot runners are competitive, but that is pretty irrelevant to what the barefoot guy stated - which is true.

minimalist North wrote:

that is pretty irrelevant to what the barefoot guy stated - which is true.

No, it's not true. Did you even read the thread?

If this were true, wouldn't my shoes last much longer than 600 miles (since they have built in arch supports)?

Agreed. The irony is that, in people whose foot muscles atrophy, the arch actually becomes HIGHER, not lower as many minimalists claim. The arch of the foot is much more complicated than a stone arch bridge. It's a dynamic structure that both absorbs and transmits force (see: windlass mechanism). To claim that arch support is bad because it "weakens the arch" is overly simplistic.

Is Barefoot Ted update?

I would assume it's the similar in concept to wearing shoes with high ankles (boots) versus wearing shoes with low ankles (tennis shoes). With the high shoes, you are more protected against sprains/injury, but you don't build as much strength in your ankle/lower leg. With the low shoes, you build more strength in your ankle/lower leg, but you are more exposed to sprains/injury.

I dunno.