Barefoot/Minimalist Running

stanmann571

DX2JX2 wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

The following is my major issue with "running shoes". While running minimalist or barefoot may not be for everyone, there is no evidence that the expensive shoes that retailers are selling you do anything either.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/3/159

I'm personally not a minimalist runner. I have low profile shoes but am considering moving in to minimalist shoes to see if they help with a constant issue I have with knee and hip over distance of 15 miles or more.

First, it's paywalled.

Second, Identifying that there's no peer reviewed articles doesn't mean that it's not been studied. Just that it hasn't been published.

Finally, The following is significant.

Studies that only measured surrogate outcomes such as impact forces, rather than injury rates directly, were excluded.

If you are building a multi million pound industry on the basis that all the various supports, cushioning etc and you have evidence that what you are claiming provides the benefits you claim then why wouldn't those studies be published?

Just to confirm, I'm not for or against one type of running. I have cushioned road shoes, 4 mm drop trail shoes and shoes in between. But when it comes down to it, you have an industry which tells you you have a problem. You under pronate or over pronate, then tells you they have the solution, with the added bonus that you should replace them every 300 - 500 miles.

If this was any other business people would be highly skeptical of the claims coming from those who are 100% invested in you continuing to use their product.

I'm very much a fan of healthy skepticism when it comes to marketers and such.

That said, I do have to disagree with your take on this one. One of the ways that I monitor when my shoes need replacing is by watching out for increased soreness/fatigue or the like during/after my runs (I have a rotation of two pairs of the same shoes of staggered aged so I can do direct A to B comparisons).

Without fail, I can tell you when I need to think about replacing a pair of shoes and when the shoes actually have to be replaced and it's always according to shoe age/mileage. I don't discount those who run barefoot or in minimalist shoes but there's definitely a benefit of cushioning to me. It's not scientific evidence, but it's pretty convincing and airtight in my mind.

Could I adjust to less cushioning over time? Probably, but why bother? Last I checked, minimalist and cushioned shoes were pretty much priced the same.

That's my experience as well, as well as the experience of every serious runner I've ever talked to.

Finding and replacing the right shoes makes a difference.... And contrary to popular opinion, the plural of anecdote is in fact data.

heybales

Wen2Run wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

The following is my major issue with "running shoes". While running minimalist or barefoot may not be for everyone, there is no evidence that the expensive shoes that retailers are selling you do anything either.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/3/159

I'm personally not a minimalist runner. I have low profile shoes but am considering moving in to minimalist shoes to see if they help with a constant issue I have with knee and hip over distance of 15 miles or more.

First, it's paywalled.

Second, Identifying that there's no peer reviewed articles doesn't mean that it's not been studied. Just that it hasn't been published.

Finally, The following is significant.

Studies that only measured surrogate outcomes such as impact forces, rather than injury rates directly, were excluded.

If this was any other business people would be highly skeptical of the claims coming from those who are 100% invested in you continuing to use their product.

I'd think the only caveat to that (which would be true) is the fact the shoe store that is actually helping you get into something that appears will help, not hurt. Shoe ads may get you there though.

I've been there many times when they suggest a cheaper shoe than what person came in hearing about. Or among potential options it's the cheaper they recommend.

They know if they send a person out and they continue to have issues, or start having them - they easily could have lost a customer.
Are they prone to saying replace every 300 miles even if shoes could make it 500? I'm sure they would, that is in their best interest.

But they don't care which shoe helps them obtain that goal of happy customer, but they will use those differences in shoe matching to differences in running style.

Now, I can only recall one time I heard a comment about taking shorter strides faster to someone testing on treadmill, but I heard them from across the store pounding into it, so knew it was bad.
Not there all the time, so no idea if they might offer some common advice to assist ones - or just try to find the best shoes to match current running style.

jjpptt2

never mind.

stanmann571

heybales wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

Wen2Run wrote: »

The following is my major issue with "running shoes". While running minimalist or barefoot may not be for everyone, there is no evidence that the expensive shoes that retailers are selling you do anything either.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/3/159

I'm personally not a minimalist runner. I have low profile shoes but am considering moving in to minimalist shoes to see if they help with a constant issue I have with knee and hip over distance of 15 miles or more.

First, it's paywalled.

Second, Identifying that there's no peer reviewed articles doesn't mean that it's not been studied. Just that it hasn't been published.

Finally, The following is significant.

Studies that only measured surrogate outcomes such as impact forces, rather than injury rates directly, were excluded.

If this was any other business people would be highly skeptical of the claims coming from those who are 100% invested in you continuing to use their product.

I'd think the only caveat to that (which would be true) is the fact the shoe store that is actually helping you get into something that appears will help, not hurt. Shoe ads may get you there though.

I've been there many times when they suggest a cheaper shoe than what person came in hearing about. Or among potential options it's the cheaper they recommend.

They know if they send a person out and they continue to have issues, or start having them - they easily could have lost a customer.
Are they prone to saying replace every 300 miles even if shoes could make it 500? I'm sure they would, that is in their best interest.

The good ones will also offer a 2-4 week 50 mile warranty refund/exchange/replace guarantee.

And Probably so, but so what. I don't religiously track my mileage, but I know when I'm over(my knees, feet, and ankles let me know) , and when I check it's between 3-500.

OldAssDude

I am so glad I started this thread because I have learned a lot from it, and want to thank you all for your posts.

Things I have learned...

barefoot/minimalist running
Yes, humans have evolved to run over a couple million years barefoot. But, one thing I have not heard much mention of is that "man" invented cement and asphalt, which are not the surfaces that we evolved to run on. That being said, I think running shoes should be flexible enough to allow your foot to do the work, but also be cushioned enough to make up for man made hard surfaces, still allow for some ground feel, and have little to no arch support to allow the arch in the foot to do it's job. The shoe should flex every way the foot flexes easily. Also, the shoe should have little to no heel to toe offset (0 to 4 mm) to allow for normal posture.

I think there are a lot of shoes out there that do not fit this category, and could weaken feet over time.

improving pace
I thought I could improve my pace by doing intervals before building a good aerobic base first. I worked my way up to being able to run 5 miles at a slow pace, and started replacing most of my steady state workouts with intervals. Now, my aerobic base has taken a hit. Last week I had trouble doing a 3 mile slow paced run, and I probably would not be able to do 5 miles now.

Now, my plan is to make 80% of my runs long steady state slow (walking pace) runs, and my recovery will be power walks. Once I get to the point that I can run about 10 miles, then i can do a little speed work on shorter runs.

running form
I think running form is pretty important, but not in terms on weather a person heel strikes, midfoot strikes, or forefoot strikes. But more in terms of posture, breathing, arm swing, and impacting under center mass.

As far as cadence goes, I think cadence should be based on speed rather than a set number. If I am doing a slow (walking pace) long run, my cadence is comfortable at about 150 spm, but if I am doing intervals and doing the run intervals at 8:00 min/mi or faster, my cadence is comfortable at 180+ spm.

In other words, I think the cadence should be comfortable at whatever pace you are running. Also, shorter stride is less impact and higher cadence as well.

in summary
I am "not" a runner by any means, but I do want to learn how to do it without injuring this OldAssDude, so thank you all for your helpful input.