Lifting Footwear

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I lift in bright pink chuck taylors. They make me happy.

Mine are purple-ish pink. Benefit of Chucks is you can wear them casually too if you want.

contingencyplan

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

WVprankster

I lift- powerlift and Oly movements- in NB MT10's. 4mm heel rise.

tigersword

Love my old, raggedy, pretty much falling apart Chuck knockoffs. Sometimes I lift in boat shoes. While wearing jeans. I'm a lazy, lazy dresser when it comes to working out. Good thing I lift in my basement. :laugh:

JoRocka

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

if you are trying to lift the most weight you can-
There is a reason people wear oly lifting shoes. - it's certainly not for their comfort or good looks.

contingencyplan

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

if you are trying to lift the most weight you can-
There is a reason people wear oly lifting shoes. - it's certainly not for their comfort or good looks.

Yes but outside of competition purposes that in and of itself has no real benefit when you're compromising the integrity of the compound movement, and its effect on the multiple muscles involved, to do so.

jacksonpt

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

if you are trying to lift the most weight you can-
There is a reason people wear oly lifting shoes. - it's certainly not for their comfort or good looks.

Yes but outside of competition purposes that in and of itself has no real benefit when you're compromising the integrity of the compound movement, and its effect on the multiple muscles involved, to do so.

Is the difference significant enough for the average MFPer to care about? I feel like this is one of those situations where you're talking in terms of ideals... the degrees of difference are largely irrelevant to the average lifter.

jhc7324

I recently switched from lifting in my running shoes to lifting in Chucks, and have had some pretty serious stiffness in my left hamstring/glute that I've never had after lifting before.

Putting 2 and 2 together, it makes sense that this is from the extra effort my posterior chain is doing with the flatter/stiffer shoes taking some of the load off my quads. Any of you more experienced lifters have any advice for getting my backside used to the extra work faster?

I guess the only thing to be done about it is keep stretching the muscles and eventually they'll get used to their new role on squat and deadlift day.

JoRocka

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

if you are trying to lift the most weight you can-
There is a reason people wear oly lifting shoes. - it's certainly not for their comfort or good looks.

Yes but outside of competition purposes that in and of itself has no real benefit when you're compromising the integrity of the compound movement, and its effect on the multiple muscles involved, to do so.

I'm not competing- and I'm considering purchasing lifting shoes.

I think it's how seriously you take your hobby.

Is the difference significant enough for the average MFPer to care about? I feel like this is one of those situations where you're talking in terms of ideals... the degrees of difference are largely irrelevant to the average lifter.

I kind of agree- for most people it won't make any difference- but if they are at the top of their lifts and want more- why not?
did you buy clip on shoes before you started racing bikes? I mean I know a lot of people who buy clip in shoes for spinning- and they don't do ANYTHING but spin.

so what- if it works for them and they take their spinning seriously- let them have at it.

contingencyplan

When you wear shoes that have a heel that's elevated above the ball of the foot, you're shifting more of the load onto the quadriceps, so the glutes and hamstrings do MUCH less work. Lifting in running shoes is no bueno. If you want to do it right you need to do it barefoot or in shoes that have no heel elevation over the toe.

and oly lifting shoes???

The stance afforded by Oly lifting shoes which have a significantly elevated heel on an otherwise flat bottom is for competition purposes. It helps you move more weight. That is a different matter entirely when you're actually trying to train your muscles. The stance more or less is designed to allow you to "cheat" on the lift. It's an entirely different goal that people who aren't training for that specific sport shouldn't really pay much mind to.

but saying "doing it right" then you must be barefoot is incorrect.

it is neither wrong nor right to lift with a stable heel.

It removes ankle instability and allows you to move through a deeper ranger of motion you may or may not have been able to hit- it's why we train people with little 2.5 lb weights under the ankles. It's not "cheating" it's just a thing. cheating makes it sound like it's WRONG.

It's neither right nor wrong- it's just a thing.

I wouldn't quite say it's incorrect, rather it takes exercises such as the deadlift and squat which WOULD be training the entirety of the lower body pretty equally and turns them into primarily into quad-dominant exercises so the rest of the lower body is not getting hit as hard as the quads. I just don't see what positive thing could be gained by that.

if you are trying to lift the most weight you can-
There is a reason people wear oly lifting shoes. - it's certainly not for their comfort or good looks.

Yes but outside of competition purposes that in and of itself has no real benefit when you're compromising the integrity of the compound movement, and its effect on the multiple muscles involved, to do so.

I'm not competing- and I'm considering purchasing lifting shoes.

I think it's how seriously you take your hobby.

Is the difference significant enough for the average MFPer to care about? I feel like this is one of those situations where you're talking in terms of ideals... the degrees of difference are largely irrelevant to the average lifter.

I kind of agree- for most people it won't make any difference- but if they are at the top of their lifts and want more- why not?
did you buy clip on shoes before you started racing bikes? I mean I know a lot of people who buy clip in shoes for spinning- and they don't do ANYTHING but spin.

so what- if it works for them and they take their spinning seriously- let them have at it.

But what is the benefit to the body? The stance the shoes put you in allow you to put up higher numbers without actually growing stronger. You're putting up higher numbers, sure, but in the end your body isn't benefiting any more from it. In fact, it could be said the body benefits less from it. The shoes accomplish nothing other than allow you to pad your stats. Which is why I'm curious as to why they would even be a consideration for anyone other than a competing lifter, since they hold absolutely no benefit to anyone else.

JoRocka

You yourself said- you can either accomplish the task or you can't.

you can either lift 500 lbs- or you can't.

jacksonpt

But what is the benefit to the body? The stance the shoes put you in allow you to put up higher numbers without actually growing stronger. You're putting up higher numbers, sure, but in the end your body isn't benefiting any more from it. In fact, it could be said the body benefits less from it. The shoes accomplish nothing other than allow you to pad your stats. Which is why I'm curious as to why they would even be a consideration for anyone other than a competing lifter, since they hold absolutely no benefit to anyone else.

You're either talking yourself in circles or you're talking me in circles...

If someone can squat 400lbs in only shoes, then progresses to 450, that's progress... the body is adapting and getting stronger. Same thing if they are doing it in chucks or barefoot or whatever else. You're still getting stronger. So what if one shoe puts more focus on 1 muscle group than another... maybe someone is doing GHRs for their posterior chain.

If you can squat 400 barefoot but 425 in oly shoes, then yes... that's not a true comparison because the muscles are stressed differently. But that's not really what this thread is about, and its an isolated comparison.

You're splitting a hair that about 2% of people care about.

All this talk about "better" or "worse" is stupid. You know what's better, at least in terms MFP? Getting people to bust their *kitten* in the gym. If they are more apt to do that in dress shoes, then they should be doing it in dress shoes. Intensity and consistency matter far more to the masses than does these smaller degrees of difference.

contingencyplan

You yourself said- you can either accomplish the task or you can't.

you can either lift 500 lbs- or you can't.

Although it's not quite to the same degree, IMO lifting shoes like that provide the same manner of "assistance" as a smith machine by removing stabilizer muscles (to some degree) from the equation. So if you need that "assistance" to lift 500 lbs, then you can't really lift 500 lbs.

Maybe it's just because I'm an all or nothing kind of person who's obsessed with efficiency and maximizing effectiveness, but really, if you're gonna use assistance, why bother with free weights at all? Maximizing output (in terms of benefit to your body) for minimal input will yield the best results, in pretty much anything. I just don't understand why you would want to work with assistance when you can get by without it.

But what is the benefit to the body? The stance the shoes put you in allow you to put up higher numbers without actually growing stronger. You're putting up higher numbers, sure, but in the end your body isn't benefiting any more from it. In fact, it could be said the body benefits less from it. The shoes accomplish nothing other than allow you to pad your stats. Which is why I'm curious as to why they would even be a consideration for anyone other than a competing lifter, since they hold absolutely no benefit to anyone else.

You're either talking yourself in circles or you're talking me in circles...

If someone can squat 400lbs in only shoes, then progresses to 450, that's progress... the body is adapting and getting stronger. Same thing if they are doing it in chucks or barefoot or whatever else. You're still getting stronger. So what if one shoe puts more focus on 1 muscle group than another... maybe someone is doing GHRs for their posterior chain.

If you can squat 400 barefoot but 425 in oly shoes, then yes... that's not a true comparison because the muscles are stressed differently. But that's not really what this thread is about, and its an isolated comparison.

You're splitting a hair that about 2% of people care about.

All this talk about "better" or "worse" is stupid. You know what's better, at least in terms MFP? Getting people to bust their *kitten* in the gym. If they are more apt to do that in dress shoes, then they should be doing it in dress shoes. Intensity and consistency matter far more to the masses than does these smaller degrees of difference.

I can agree with that, I just don't understand why people wouldn't want to get maximum benefit from minimal effort. And based on what I can see, working with lifting shoes means having to incorporate a greater focus on otherwise potentially unnecessary accessory work to compensate for the fact that glutes and hams are not being worked as much.

christianteach

I lift in bright pink chuck taylors. They make me happy.

Mine are purple-ish pink. Benefit of Chucks is you can wear them casually too if you want.

Mine are hot pink and black.

Hadabetter

I lift in bright pink chuck taylors. They make me happy.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

CyberEd312

I lift in Vibram Komodosports LS