Dan The Man

I can imagine trail running without shoes, but on pavement it seems like it would tear your skin up pretty quickly no matter how thick your pads are.

oban_kobi

It doesn't, as long as you ramp up slowly. It has a lot more to do with proper form. My skin hasn't increased in thickness at all, though it may be a bit tougher. If I were to go run with crappy form, however, my feet would be torn to hell in a matter of minutes.

clink83

So you mean now, unless you can beat this guy:

Note his shoes. https://www.newtonrunning.com/community/athletes <---some of the best professional Triathalon athletes run with a barefoot/forefoot strike. Same for marathoners. Ever wonder where (by my count) the most popular minimalist running shoes, the Kinvara, got it's name from?
I run in Newtons and VFFs a little bit, but I think most of the "minimalist" and barefoot shoes are hype. Everyone is running in them, but IMO they are for the most part less durable copyies of racing flats. Proper running form however, is not.

runner pat

I was a runner for 26 years and was never able to run "minimalist" and I started back(1976) when running shoes were nowhere near as heavily cushioned/controlled as today's.

However, I have always been a mid-foot striker at almost all my training paces. Only when going slower than 8:00/mile pace did I heel strike and even that was still close to a flat footed landing.
I do believe that not everyone is suited for minimalist running but altering footstrike to the midfoot can reap most of the benefits.

Triguy

Woah, woah, woah. There is a difference between Vibram Five Fingers, Newtons and Road Race Flats. Vibrams are meant to change the function of your foot little to nil. Newtons are meant to encourage a fore foot strike by reducing shoe "ramp" but still offer support, cushioning, stability. Road race flats usually have a lower ramp just because of their minimal nature but still give support, cushioning, etc. You can't seriously consider all three to be a reflection of "barefoot" running.

FWIW, my current flats have about 8mm of ramp(slightly more than the Kinvaras), but that does not make me a "barefoot" runner.

Elite runners are not "barefoot" runners(or at least none that I've seen and I live in a community with an amazing Elite running group and see many of the athletes out on runs on a daily basis; I've also been friends with 3 sub 2:20 marathoners and 10 or more sub 1:10 half marathoners). Yes they race in racing flats, but they train in typically 10mm or more ramped cushion/neutral running shoes, except for track workouts, then maybe flats or spikes.

Craig and I have never gone head to head, however overall he would win(I'm not dillusional), but I'm comfortable with the run times I've put down at this point in my life and have literally never been beaten by a person actually classified as a "barefoot" runner. I've run a 15k to open a duathlon in sub 50(equivalent to a 10 mile in 52:35), 10k in 32:09 and 5k in 15:16.

Triguy

By the way, my biggest beef is not so much with people expirementing with what works for them. My complaints about minimalist running are more along these lines:
1. Fanaticism - the general idea that everyone should do it. Ughhh.
2. The search for an easy solution to the question of running fast. The fastest runners are fast NOT because of how their foot strikes the ground, it's because the people are fit and run a lot. If you go to your average D3 cross country meet, you'll see a whole lot of guys who can run 5:30 miles for a 5 mile race; and not many of them will have great efficient mid foot strikes. A few people have come to me about running faster and brought up minimalist running. Typically I ask them how much weight they think they could lose and how many seasons they would be willing to dedicate to getting up to 70 miles per week. It's a way more depressing way to think about getting fast than buying a new pair of shoes.
3. The idea of injury prevention. Here is what most people do when they try minimalist shoes - they build in to it slowly. That in and of itself is such a great injury prevention mechanism.

What I like about minimalist running:
1. Strength building - building ones foot and ankle muscles makes good sense to me
2. It can only help more people like running
3. Traditional runners will probably benefit in the long run from the research and things that are learned from minimalism...

carry on...

AngrySaki

What are "support" and "stability"? I hear those terms thrown around all the time, but I've never been able to figure out what they mean.


FWIW, I just switched to vibrams from racing flats (Nike Zoom Forever) and running in them feels the same. I only bought the vibrams because they were cheaper than most shoes and could find them in a store (I would have been just as happy with a pair of racing flats).

clink83

You should run exactly the same in all 3, assuming you don't heel strike. Again, as I've said in several threads the whole "minimalist/barefoot" craze thing is more about running technique, not what you run in. Alot of people just get caught up in the exciting marketing that's just selling more shoes. I ran for years in traditional running shoes with a midfoot stride, so I'm not claiming they are bad, they just make it harder to run well.

It's simple though, if you're a heel striker, your running wrong. Period. I'll be honest and say it. You look at human anatomy, and your designed to land on your midfoot. Your feet have arches for a reason, you have calves for a reason, and you have glutes for a reason. No other primate has the physiology to run like we do. Your whole body is designed as a giant shock absorber, landing on your heels short circuts the whole system. There is a reason all the kids in undeveloped countries who run shoesless run with a high cadence, forefoot strike.

There is more to Newtons than just having a low heel though, they are the only cushioned shoe really designed to allow your foot to flex naturally.

runner pat

Stability shoes are for runners who under/over-pronate slightly as well as those with a neutral foot. Some pronation is normal.(neutral foot) Severe over-pronators generally use shoes that are termed motion-control.

As you're happy running in racing flats and Vibrams, you most likely under-pronate. You probably also are a natural mid-foot striker.

clink83

If you're a forefoot striker, Newton is the only company that makes stability shoes that work for that running style FYI. Most overpronation is caused by landing on your heels, in which case the shoes are causing the problem they are supposed to prevent.

runner pat

I ran midfoot all my life and still over-pronated. Trying to run barefoot/racing flats was always a disaster.
Heel striking is a major problem only if the runner is over-striding.

clink83

Maby if you like Plantar Fascitis, shin splints, ect, and over pronation. If' you're heel striking with a high turnover, short stride you probably won't get hurt as much or as fast, but it's still bad news. There is not a single "ok" thing about heel striking. If you think a shoe with 1-2inches of rubber cushioning in your heel that breaks down is going to protect you from 1800lbs of force(since I'm 200lbs x9) with each foot strike going straight up your heels into your legs and back you're on crack.

I also have a bit more pronation, but I'm able to run in most shoes with little support. Funny how that work. That's why I pointed out that Newtons are the only company that makes stability shoes for nonheelstrikers. Oddly enough, I can run in VFFs with no issues as long as I run slow, but Kinvaras messed up my ankle in one run.

runner pat

I ran(and raced) for 26 years clocking between 40-70 miles/week with very few injuries, the most severe being a twisted ankle. I often went several years with no injuries at all.

This series of videos shows impact forces of around 2.5 times body weight shod or barefoot.
Cite for your figure of 9X ?

I'm just not convinced that minimalist is for everyone. I think most of the benefits come from the altered stride/footplant.

robb.

is this the point where we should talk about natural talent re: speed, injuries, etc.? some people are naturally fast and run with good form without thinking too much. i am not fast, and i will never be fast, but i'm almost as fast running minimally as i was in shoes. the difference for me is that i no longer have sore hips during and after long runs (10+ miles) in minimal shoes that i did in conventional shoes. my running partner has eliminated his chronic knee pain by converting to minimal running.

i hardly think speed should be the criterion for changing. in fact, even injuries shouldn't necessarily be the reason to switch. unless they're chronic injuries due to poor form. i was unable to run properly in conventional shoes. couple that with the desire to run deep into old age, and i switched to minimal. i'm 33, and i want to be able to run when i'm 93. that is a different goal than speed now, while i can.

the hardest part to change for me was cadence. i land hard unless i run at a much higher cadence that what came naturally with shoes. it is a constant process to make sure that every single stride is quick, and that every single footstrike is soft and in the right place. for others, it doesn't require much effort at all to do that.

robb.

Velo Gator

I just bought these Merrells. They are pretty neat so far. VFF's don't work for me; my toes are too long. These are really light and have a Vibram sole.

kenji666

Your legs are huge.

Velo Gator

I_Like_Bike

Agreed, I loved it.

I_Like_Bike

I know running shoes are such a fad.

I_Like_Bike

Kenyan are fast no? They run barefoot until they are 16 or so in many cases. It is not until the nike money comes that they run with shoes.

Triguy

Hahahahaha. It's more like, it's not until someone offers them a free pair of half used up shoes from a shoe drive. Those guys/ladies take them and never look back. Your point proves nothing, those guys are dying to get running shoes. Nike puts most of their sponsorship money in to developed running programs like the Portland project, OTC, etc NOT developing countries young runners.

Dirtbagfitness

This debate is never going away. Personally, I love my VFFs and never run in anything else, including racing. Got tired of knee pain, switched to the minimalist VFFs (only barefoot is barefoot, "barefoot shoes" is just marketing-speak for minimal. The difference between nothing and VFFs is not huge, but marked), and now no more pain. I did have to start from Mile One to get my form right, but it was worth it.
As for the idea that people switch to minimal shoes for speed, that's a Not So Much. It's a comfort and/or lifestyle choice.
Another aspect of barefoot running that isn't mentioned much is that it really is fun. Once your stride is right and your feet have toughened enough to handle the trails or roads you run, going naked makes you feel like a kid. The amount of sensory input is ridiculous in its awesomeness.
But you run in your shoes, and I'll run in mine.
Also, Born to Run made me want to do triathlons (because swim/bike/run sounded more fun than marathons, but its still in the endurance family).

I_Like_Bike

So tell me what is Kenya like? Clearly you have been there no?

900aero

Interesting thread. I've been focussed on my running for a year or two now and here is what I've learned (FWIW......)

Running barefoot on a regular basis is good for you and many, many elite runners do it. It does help your overall orthopedics and biomechanics
Having a sedentary lifestyle (ie commute to work in a car/bus/train, sit at a desk, commute home in a car/bus/train) is a hidden killer and very hard to overcome.
Whole body fitness and flexibility is very important. Your hips can have a huge influence on your calves for instance. Do some yoga.
Shoes matter but not as much as you'd think.
Newton make great shoes - for people who don't know how to run "up" on their forefoot/midfoot
If you're already running with good form, don't freak out about shoes, spend the money with a running coach instead
Pronation is a problem but its not the devil. Your feet can flex and move while running and thats fine if they're used to it
Being overweight is a cause of more issues that you'd ever think. Get into shape and many injuries evaporate
Frequency is a very important factor in training. You can't make up in one two hour run what you could have gained in 5 thirty minute runs.
Born to Run is an interesting read but it represents a very particular point of view
I run in New Balance but thats due to having wide feet more than anything else.

Just my thoughts.

andyJC

I'll start by saying - Run however you are comfortable, if you don't have pain and are never injured then don't change anything...

That said, I gave up running years ago when my knees finally gave out following years of heavy heel strikes. The Nike Free shoes came out and I looked into forefoot strike running. It just made sense to me. I've been forefoot running for a few years and can now knock out 10k without a hitch. It does take a long time for the calves and ankles to accept it, but go slow.

I have no doubt that this is how we are supposed to run and heel striking is inherently bad. Ever seen a toddler learn to run? It's all forefoot strike. Why do we cushion our heels and try to land differently? Landing on the heel prevents the calves from doing what they are supposed to do which is absorb shock and align the knee.

I no longer need shoes to run, but still choose the Frees simply to protect my feet.

I don't see how it's even a debate, it's the right way to run. I can't stand when people call it a fad. If you had to run without shoes, would you land on your heel? No way. It would hurt too much, you would immediately go to a forefoot strike. You don't even need special shoes, you can forefoot strike in anything - but it does allow you to go to a lighter shoe because the shock absorption is not needed.

Anyways, run on...