ACSM recommends "minimal shoes" - Death to the old retail model

This is pretty intriguing to me. I have long been interested in minimal shoes, but never really went that route (save a few short bursts). I might look into it more now. Anyone else have any thoughts?

I've been running fairly competitively for about 10 years now and have always been plagued by injuries. I've run in Nike and Asics for the majority of my running career and suffered plantar fasciitis on four different occasions (first time I was out for 3 months, second time for 2 weeks, then 3 weeks). Last year I was injured from February to November with a very painful heel spur in my left foot and I could not run for over a minute without throbbing and unbearable pain. After working on flexibility aggressively for 3 months straight I started running again in November. This time I said the hell with traditional shoes that added arch support and I decided to try more minimal shoes. After only getting up to 40 miles per week for the past 3 weeks I raced a 5k last weekend with the expectation of just running under 17 minutes, but I felt stronger than ever and ran just 8 seconds off my PR (when I was averaging 60-70 miles per week) and ran 16:41. I first started running in the Newton Gravity, then I went to the Newton Distance and Brooks Pure Flow. Now I run in the new Newton Distance (for uptempo runs currently) and the New Balance Freshfoam 980. I recommend the New Balance Fresh-foam's as a starter shoe while you let your body transition.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it helped.

Interesting that ACSM came out with this recommendation. Usually a very conservative organization in making recommendations.

Not that I disagree, but I think there is not a consensus on this matter at least to the specifics of a 6mm drop.

They're not actually recommending minimal shoes. They ARE recommending lightweight neutral shoes without the built-up heels and stability garbage that shoe companies make a lot of money selling.

I do train is minimal shoes, and some barefoot, but let's not read into this words that ACSM is not saying.

Hopefully this can be bumped enough so that everyone can see it.

coach d wrote:

They're not actually recommending minimal shoes. They ARE recommending lightweight neutral shoes without the built-up heels and stability garbage that shoe companies make a lot of money selling.

I do train is minimal shoes, and some barefoot, but let's not read into this words that ACSM is not saying.

Hopefully this can be bumped enough so that everyone can see it.

Second this. They're essentially saying to err towards lightweight trainers or less, or the most minimal shoes that a person can tolerate (in weight and heel height). This is huge, as textbook-type wisdom has driven the past 40 yrs in the shoe industry. The ACSM stance could have a significant impact on the future. Of course, we've seen a huge shakeup in the industry the past 5 yrs, which actually started 10+yrs ago with rumbles on the message board about runners "training in flats" and barefoot. There was huge opposition at the time, as people couldn't grasp "looking outside the shoe box". Now there's a lot of recent research to actually back it up. I see maximalism being a fad- people are going to gravitate towards lighter, balanced, neutral shoes.

Now if only shoe companies would make shoes that sit flat on the ground (no toe spring/raised toe) and the tapered toebox. Shoes should be built with a wide toebox so the toes can splay. Nike and Brooks seem to be the worse and holding on to old ideology.

The authors really seem to like to study really really fat people.

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/1488836/Heather_K_Vincent

The only thing I know is that when I run in less cushioned shoes, me feet hurt and then my legs start aching from the pounding. The rest of you sheep can do anything you want.

What is "the pounding"? Seriously, I don't get it. If you're a light runner you really should be able to train in flats without being in pain.

I've never understood the logic of the low heel-to-toe drop. Can someone explain that to me? Why does that even matter?

When I buy shoes I go for shoes that feel good for me to run in. My shoes have a huge heel-to-toe drop but that's not something I ever paid attention to until the barefoot fad started griping about it.

By minimal shoes I meant "without extra features or cushioning."But yes, you are correct in your description of what they offering.Will be curious to see how places like Fleet Feet, Running Room, etc take these recommendations.

coach d wrote:

They're not actually recommending minimal shoes. They ARE recommending lightweight neutral shoes without the built-up heels and stability garbage that shoe companies make a lot of money selling.

I do train is minimal shoes, and some barefoot, but let's not read into this words that ACSM is not saying.

Hopefully this can be bumped enough so that everyone can see it.

What did you do? or what would others recommend to strengthen and get the necessary flexibility to get out of a traditional trainers? I think this is a topic to many push aside, people just either jump to a new shoe or refuse to try something new.

Right now I end every run with half mile barefoot in the grass and do some heel walking to strengthen the front of my shins.

What would others recommend to get out of a traditional shoe? It's hard to give generic advice because feet are like snowflakes... no two are exactly alike... but here is what I'd recommend.

I've been running for 40 years and the first 30 destroyed my feet, ankles, and knees. I was even told by doctors at the Mayo Clinic I could never run again in 1999. I converted to forefoot strike about 10 years ago and to lighter, neutral shoes 5 years ago, and to low heel lift shoes about three years ago. I'm now competitive at the national level in my event (when I can stay healthy).

Here is what I would suggest based on 10 years of trial and error and helping other runners.

1. Run in a neutral shoe that promotes forefoot strike.

Skechers, ONs, and Newtons do this. Other companies make good forefoot running shoes, but I have not personally run in them. Basically, this is a shoe with good forefoot cushioning and very little heel cushioning and a low heel to toe lift.

2. Add as much arch support as you need.

I do this by taping a piece of felt under the insert in the arch area. In some shoes, I also replace the factory insert with a SuperFeet Black insert and then add some additional felt under the arch, if necessary.

3. Cant the shoe/insert to prevent pronation, if necessary.

Step 2 prevents pronation in most cases, but my right foot pronates badly. To prevent this, I add a strip of Shoe Goo to the inside edge of the heel outsole. Alternately, I tape a strip of felt on the underside of the insole along the inside edge of the heel. It only takes a tiny amount of Shoe Goo or maybe one layer of felt to do this. I did this because when I looked at my professional orthotics, they were higher on the inside of the heel than the outside.

4. Avoid overstriding, landing with the knee fully extended, running with the knees almost locked (the 5-hour marathoner's shuffle), and bouncing.

Few LetsRunners would run this way, but I'd adding this step because this is the typical footstrike for the vast majority of runners who run 11 minute miles or slower.

They are basically urging runners to wear shoes similar to those of the 1990's. Back in 1997, I recall wearing a pair of Nike running shoes that could now be compared to the Nike Free's but then they were just a standard pair of running footwear.

xenonscreams wrote:

I've never understood the logic of the low heel-to-toe drop. Can someone explain that to me? Why does that even matter?

When I buy shoes I go for shoes that feel good for me to run in. My shoes have a huge heel-to-toe drop but that's not something I ever paid attention to until the barefoot fad started griping about it.

Because it allows your lower leg to have more of a spring effect and provide free energy return via elastic rebound.

Your body does not come with a heel lift so there is no reason to put one on a shoe.

THis is why I like Saucony......they list the heel to toe drop inside of each shoe.

I had a heel spur for along time and fixed it by stretching more and running in a 4mm heel to toe drop shoe.

I train in a 8mm saucony and do workouts and race in a 4mm drop.

xenonscreams wrote:I've never understood the logic of the low heel-to-toe drop. Can someone explain that to me? Why does that even matter?

Homo Sapiens and our predecessors have likely been making 'shoes' for about (ballpark) a million years+, but they have always been flat (animal skin or other type of simple wrap, then eventually sandals). As such our sensory and proprioceptive feedback mechanisms evolved with an environmental pressure of flat shoes. The recent ~50 year old fad of making 'functional' shoes with a heel drop can confuse the sensory feedback mechanism and lead to altered biomechanics although this doesn't necessarily happen with everyone. Some people can slap a brick onto their feet yet still run with the mechanically-correct kinematics.

[NB: Non-functional/decorative shoes with heel drops have a history deeper than 50 years, but these were never intended for running.]

Lee Saxby did a great summary of this in a short youtube clip that I'd recommend if you are interested. Manages to sum up the whole issue in a little over 10 minutes. Regards.

SMJO wrote:

Because it allows your lower leg to have more of a spring effect and provide free energy return via elastic rebound.

Also this, good summary (never noticed your post at first).

What is ACSM?

HRE wrote:

What is ACSM?

Here is a pretty thorough explanation: