recommend a 'minimalist' shoe for me.

brooks dyad

Vibram Five Fingers,but you'll definitely look gay.

Minimalist shoes have no cushion to break down, so they don't break down as fast. Altra, Newton...I love New Balance. They fit me well.

towhee26 wrote:

I want a shoe that is close to barefoot as possible, since my only purpose is to keep my feet strong. But I don't want the separate toes (i.e. VFF) and I want something that is fairly durable. I don't care about price too much but, I don't want to buy a new pair every 200 miles.

Any recommendations?

Barefoot fits all of those requirements. But it does get cold.

Any pair of racing flats should do fine. Not sure which are the most durable.

Asics Piranha is the closest to barefoot flat I've found. They last me a good 800 miles.

I've run in Newtons & NB this year & just bought a pair of Altra trail shoes. The NB were great, the Newtons not so much. So far I really like the Altras.

Minimalist shoe companies are preying on your fear of cold weather, rocks and glass. Those are the easiest things to deal with when running barefoot.

Much more important is bone and muscle development, which takes a long time, and which can go wrong if your form is bad, which, with minimalist shoes, it very often is. You need to be able to feel the ground. So you'll not only be wasting money, you might injure yourself too.

Old Coyote wrote:

Minimalist shoes have no cushion to break down, so they don't break down as fast. Altra, Newton...I love New Balance. They fit me well.

I'll ask the guy at my club which ones he was wearing when he got a stress fracture

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

ukathleticscoach wrote:

[quote]Old Coyote wrote:

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

It's "designed" to run on anything, including hard surfaces. The difference between a hard surface like concrete and a soft surface like dirt is trivial.

What injures people is transient spikes of shock from bad form such as heel striking. These may be dulled by soft surfaces, but they're completely eliminated by good form, even on concrete.

I love my Newtons and my Altras, but they're not minimalist by any standard (except for my Altra Samsons). People mix up shoes designed for forefoot running and light weight shoes. That's not necessarily the same thing. If you want to practice forefoot running, start with a well cushioned "forefoot shoe", Newtons or whatever. When your running form is good you can slowly convert to so called "minimalist" shoes.

Oh, and don't listen to couch runners who tell you there's no difference between running on concrete and trails. You don't want a metatarsal stress fracture because some not so clever guy keeps parroting some not-so-clever written article.

Bad Wigins wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

[quote]Old Coyote wrote:

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

It's "designed" to run on anything, including hard surfaces. The difference between a hard surface like concrete and a soft surface like dirt is trivial.

What injures people is transient spikes of shock from bad form such as heel striking. These may be dulled by soft surfaces, but they're completely eliminated by good form, even on concrete.

I can't believe you're serious. ALL injuries are ELIMINATED by good form? You are a very, very ignorant person. I guess you just read Born To Run...?

A repetitive stress injury occurs when the stress applied to a tissue exceeds its tolerance. You can have the most perfect form and still get injured when you push the limits of your muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones. Running will ALWAYS cause stress to those tissues, and during recovery they will get stronger. But if you run more than those tissues are able to handle at the moment, you will get injured.

Injuries associated with forefoot striking are a bit different from injuries associated with heel striking. Forefoot strikers a more prone to foot, ankle and calf injuries, and heel strikers tend to get more shin, knee, hip and lower back injuries.

If you suddenly start running on a hard surface with no cushioning, your metatarsal bones WILL be stressed more than what they are used to, even if you run with a short forefoot strike. That's why metatarsal stress fractures are so common in VFF runners.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against minimalist shoes of barefoot running and I've overcome some nasty chronic injuries by switching to minimalist shoes myself, so I definitely believe that a more natural way of running has benefits. But at the same time I get so frustrated in these stupid barefoot runners who make irrational claims like "you can't get injuried if you have a good form". WAKE UP!

You're ignorant to the reality of WHY these stress fractures occur. Most often than not is because the minimalist runner is an over enthusiastic retard who does too much too soon.

But technically, form DOES make all the difference between injury and non-injury. The only reason people get stress fractures is because they have not developed the appropriate proprioception to activate the correct muscle tuning.

Your feet are the most proprioceptive organs in your body. And we have completely rendered that sense useless by thick, cushioned shoes. It takes a while to regain the full ability of that sense.

It's absolutely absurd to believe that concrete and barefoot running work. The harder the surface the EASIER it is to run and therefore the less injury prone you'll be.

Think of how hard you have to work on that smushy grass as opposed to smooth asphalt. This is because your stretch reflex in your tendons work better on hard surfaces.

Doesn't make sense to say that you will be injured LESS when you are working HARDER (on soft surfaces).

Oops typo. I meant its "absolutely absurd to believe that concrete and barefoot running DON'T work."

Bad Wigins wrote:

The difference between a hard surface like concrete and a soft surface like dirt is trivial.

You are either a troll or a complete idiot or running 15mpw thus havn't had the chance to feel the difference between hard and soft surfaces when running high mileage.

There is absolutely no reason to think that forefoot running is the best way to go. It is a good way to hurt yourself after reading a pop-science book, though.

I'm convinced that only a few people are really natural forefoot runners, and the rest of us should land midfoot.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Old Coyote wrote:

Minimalist shoes have no cushion to break down, so they don't break down as fast. Altra, Newton...I love New Balance. They fit me well.

I'll ask the guy at my club which ones he was wearing when he got a stress fracture

Your foot is not designed to run on concrete

Then don't run on concrete.

I like NB so the new MR10v2 when it comes out or the current MT00.

I have a very wide forefoot so I'm very particular about fit of shoes. The NB Minimus has worked well for me, as have the Inov8 F-lite 230. If I had to choose one I'd go with NB.

This may have been said already, but shoes like this don't need to be replaced very often. There's nothing to break down and replace. I've done a lot more taxing activities than running in my Minimus and they're like new after a couple years.

If you want a low-profile shoe that encourages midfoot striking that still has a bit of cushioning, check out the Altra Instinct. The toebox is very wide too, which lets your toes splay out naturally. If you want not a lot of cushioning, try the New Balance Minimus Trail.