Sounds like your definitely talking right to me.
Printable View
Sounds like your definitely talking right to me.
Anyone seen the article on barefoot running in the new runners world? Think it advertises it's self as "the truth about barefoot running"
Not had chance to have a proper read yet. Wondering what peoples thoughts are?
Is it written by Amby Burfoot?Quote:
Originally Posted by eavesy187
It's put together by Dan Jones who i guess is one of the regular writers for the magazine. The main person having input is Dr Reed Ferber from the Running Injury clinic at the University of Calgary. Its an interesting read that covers both the pro's and con's of barefoot/minimalist running. It's well worth reading for anyone that is interested in this style of running especially those thinking of converting.Quote:
Originally Posted by bfluc
In Crazy Canucks Land some guys from University of Calgary and University McGill are doing a good job when interviewed by journalists. From what I have read they're not biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by eavesy187
By the way I have been interviwed by Jill Barker a journalist from Montreal The Gazette (who I think run barefoot) she did an excellent article that has been reprinted in journals owned by CanWest across Canada. And please note that it has been printed before severall studies who were published since then...
You can read it here: If the shoe fits, forswear it
Another article in today's Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle7045833.ece
Right
enough
Inov-8 Insider
you started this thread in August - that is 6 months ago - you said then you'd been working on shoes for 12 months - thats 18 months.
You keep dropping in teasing posts 'coming soon' 'wait and see' etc
How long can it take ?!
Enough!
when will the shoes be out ?
(PS I'm in a mood cos I was told in the gym today that I couldn't run barefoot on the traedmill.)
(PPS. though I've since looked st the reg's, which say - appropriate footwear - so as far as I'm concerned that is None)
(PPPS - I'm in the gym, on the treadmill as I am just picking up after a 6 week post knee op. lay off).
(PPPPS - I intend to build up my running with as much barefoot as possible (cloud, silver lining, opportunity, or something) - So I want to know if Inov-8 are ever actually going to produce the shoes that you keep hooting on about.)
Yep, Get'em out soon before everyone starts running in the Evo...
http://www.terraplana.com/evo-p-1263.html?colour=76
Oh and lets have em' at the usual inov-8 price point. ie a lot less than that Evo.
I would personally like them for the 1st of June at the latest, as this is near my Birthday - its traditionally the best time to persuade the missus that I need to spend money on myself. Also there is a little race I would like to do on the 5th...
For a review on the Vivo Barefoot Evo running shoe look on http://birthdayshoes.com/
slightly off-topic, but i'm running the barcelona marathon on sunday and don't know which shoes to wear. i did most of my training, including all of my longest runs in a pair of Asics Ds Trainers. i've done a lot of my recent shorter runs in a pair of Inov-8 220s.
The Asics weren't perfect and I did get a couple of niggles (ankles mostly) after about 90 mins of running, but I know where I stand with them and could live with it for 3 and a half hours on Sunday.
I still get the same sort of aches in the Inov-8s, but I haven't done as many longer runs in them, with my longest being about 12 miles last weekend.
My head says wear the Asics, but the Inov-8s are so much lighter and I am tempted to think that if it is going to hurt, then I might as well do it in the faster shoes. Yes, the Inov-8s have less protection, but I do run 'better' in them, and I think my problems with the Asics stem from lazily slipping into a semi-heel-striking gait.
Which should I wear?
PS: I think a barefoot marathon may be a bit much for me at the moment.
;-)
Sounds to me like you've answered your own question. the Asics give the illusion of protection but you're saying you get niggly injuries wearing them! If you're used to wearing the Inov-8's on long runs, stick them on for the big one me thinks. I don't think 'slipping into a semi-heel-striking-gait' in the Asics is going to benefit you over a marathon distance!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JSBean
I agree. I've just done the Marrakech marathon (first one on road since 1982) in a pair of featherlites (220's) and wouldn't have contemplated anything else. It took me I guess about twelve months to train myself away from tradiational road shoes to using featherlites and five fingers (although have always used 330's on the fells and love X-Talons - probably my favourite shoe ever - and the featherlites give me the X-talon without a stud. Perfect.
cheers gents. it's funny, but i think the old way of thinking about shoes is going to take longer to train out of than the old way of running (if you get what i mean). it still seems as though it should be slightly illogical but only because it's contrary to the perceived wisdom.
a couple of millimetres worth of foam is going to do far less for me over 40,000 steps than running properly will.
Absolutely!!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JSBean
So anyway
I ran in my Walsh PB racers today
you really don't get much less cushioning and a flatter sole than they give.
Lets face it Walshes are pre-technology shoes; straight out of the '50s.
no science, no flannel, no sell, just shoes.
(particularly with this pair - proper vintage they are, made from leather - how long has it been since they were made with leather ? They've been at the back of the cupboard a long long time. I've had several pairs of "modern ones". I've been preserving these, love 'em )
The more you go lighter (or should that be the less you go lighter?) the more you can't go back to heavy.
I've been pretty exclusively running in Vibrams and X-Talons since the last of the snow. Went for a quicky this morning in my 285's which most would class as "racers" - they felt like two huge clumps of lead strapped to my slabs of meat.:D
Now, this is not a complaint. I love the 285's. Got me round 46.6 miles of the Beacons last year with almost no complaints and after being completely immersed on a number of occasions, a surprisingly low blister count too.
I've just come to the point where they actually are noticeably heavy.
Can't wait for the new shoes II ;) Should be soon now...?
I know how you feel. I've been running a lot in my F-lite 230s and the 295's feel really clumpy in comparison.
I like them so much managed to grab another pair for £30 inc p&P!!!
what you reckon to the flites for road running?
Fancy going lightweight instead of my clumpy asics
Will marshalls got some 230s and says there great for speed work, the canal bank and odd field or two he really likes themQuote:
Originally Posted by Fleeter
Just got back from spain where I ran the Barcelona marathon (road) in 3:28 in a pair of 220s. It hurt because marathons hurt, but it didn't hurt because of the shoes. Very pleased.
Well done JSQuote:
Originally Posted by JSBean
It seems you wernt the only one wearing the 220's
below is a message I got on my Twitter from @John_Millen
@inov8uk finished in 2:58 at Barcelona Marathon wearing Inov8 F220s. Loved the natural feel.
Absolutely. I've got a pair of 'featherlight' 320's which feel like bricks, now. 220's and x-talons is the way. Could do with something this light with a mudclaw sole, though, Mr innov8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twister
The problem I'm finding with my vibrams is that if I go more than about 6 miles my calfs seize up as though I've been doing calf raises in the gym with heavy weights and gone too far. Does it ease off? Do you just run though it?
In the interests of balance
always remeber there are other options out there, such as
Walsh PB racers
Adidas
New Balance
all good old fell racing shoes (some older and more minimalist than others)
and that is all that the X-Talon is - a fell racing shoe -
though being re-badged and sold to you as a minimalist / barefoot option.
Thats because it is:DQuote:
Originally Posted by andy k
If there are other lighter, lower profile, lower differential minimalist fell shoes then I will stand corrected.:rolleyes:
The original start of this thread was Barefoot Running, contributors mentioned the X-Talon as a good minimalist Fell shoe.
Now you see thats where I can't quite square the facts,
Well, the facts according to Inov8.
If the X-Talon and the F-lites are genuine barefoot minimalist designs then why do they contain -
http://www.inov-8.com/Fascia-Band.asp?L=26
The ‘Fascia-band™’ patent pending.
The “fascia band” is a feature of the outsole of inov-8 footwear ... which replicates the anatomical position of the plantar fascia ligament and duplicates the function of the human foot’s .... the inov-8 fascia band resists elongation of the medial arch and carries the entire body weight of the runner converting the shoe into a rigid propulsive lever.
-
Which I interpret as a technical partof the shoe designed to replicate and replace the foot's natural platar fascia function.
Building in technical elements to replicate or replace the foot's function is the absolute oposite of Barefoot thinking.
Barefoot says, your foot is finely evolved for the task of running and that weakening the foot through the wearing of shoes, cushioning etc can lead to injuries. Plantar Fasciatis being a common complaint.
Meanwhile in Inov8 News
http://www.inov-8.com/News-Detail.asp?L=26&NID=342
Whether you are an elite athlete or a recreational user, the inov-8 footwear range allows your foot the freedom to move and function as nature intended, without interference from the structure of the shoe.
and also, ironically
you’d be correct to be cynical about the mainstream running brands’ opinions about the benefits of using their products. While some brands simply deny the validity of the research, other brands are jumping on the barefoot bandwagon with a flurry of press releases claiming to offer minimalist running shoes.
Now to be clear I have inov8 shoes in my cupboard, they are well used and I like them.
I'm trying to build my barefoot running programme (though hampered by a chronic issue with my left heel)
BUT
It is that last paragraph and the exploitation of this thread that I find irritating.
So think on people,
think on,
read between the lines and understand that there are some very sophisticated marketing people out there.
Inov8 and injury advice are in cahoots I reckon: inov8 give you the injury and injury advice sorts it for you with his magic potion.
Andy K
What we offer is a range of shoes with different levels of underfoot protection( cushioning)
The arrow system currently goes from a 4 arrow ( our max) down to a 2 arrow as on the X-Talon 212 & F-lite 230.
We don't claim these 2 arrow shoes to be " barefoot" shoes but they are recognised by some runners(POSE/Minimalists) to be some of the best shoes available where flexibility, grip & lower differential allows a more natural running style.
Now that's all very well saying we have one of the best available but we want to go even closer to barefoot as possible.
So we will soon have available the X-Talon 190 & F-lite 195 both these shoes will have our new 1 arrow midsole. This will mean that these shoes will be even lower to the ground & more flexible.
We will then have a 0 arrow shoe ( I did a 10k in this at Xmas)
And finally a new product that can be classed as a minus. This will be a very thin micro material that moulds to your foot but offers some protection.
So you can hopefully see we are trying to offer a range of products.
4 arrow- lower than most of the shoe brands but offers our max underfoot protection. This maybe the first proper off- road shoe for someone who is use to wearing the big road shoe brands.
3 arrow- as on Roclite 295/315. Lower heel our medium underfoot protection.
2 arrow- as all our fell shoes( mudclaw/x-talon/mudroc) lower heel than both the above. Very flexible enables good propreception which enhances balance.
1 arrow- the 2 new shoes. Lower again, more flexible and lighter.
0 arrow- Think a very light upper & a sole. No cushioning
Minus- as I described this moulds to your foot.
It's all about offering choice, some may swear that 4 arrow is what's needed others may prefer the new 1 arrow.
We are not saying everyone should go down the barefooting route, even in our own company some prefer more underfoot protection than others.
The good news there are lots of brands on the Market all offering their take ( or not) on barefoot/ minimalist footwear. Some are jumping on the band wagon while others have opposing views( big brands who need to justify their " technologies" )
Since the birth of inov-8 in 2003 we have always promoted natural running, it's what we have always advocated.
Flexibility is an interesting point. I'd never noticed until the other day but Walshes (certainly recent PBs) have a very stiff / rigid sole compared to the Inov8s I've worn (285/290/305/315/330-originals). I'm going to have a look at PB Racers for my next fell shoes and I'm curious to see (and feel) the soles of them
DerbyQuote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Flexibility in a running shoe may not be a thing you have ever thought about,Let me explain our reasoning for having very flexible shoes.
Imagine that you have a stiff sole that doesn't " flex" laterally ( side to side)
Your running down a path which has got a steep camber to one side, your ankle is twisting un-naturally , your putting a hell of a strain on your ankle joints, muscles & tendons.
Now imagine while running down this path you then stand on a rock at the forefoot that throws your whole foot over. Because the shoe doesn't flex or is stiffer your ankle twists because your on this stiff sole.
Now imagine the same run in a very flexible shoe. If you hit the same rock the front of the shoe will get thrown to the side while the ankle/heel flexes to absorb the different movements.
Worst twisted ankle I've had was in Roclite 315 :p A big part of my deciding to move to 285s and Walshes ;)
Am sorry to hear that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Im sure most folks( no let's say everyone) will have experienced a twisted ankle when they start off-road/fellrunning.I don't know anyone who runs regular off-road who has never twisted their ankle at some point in their running career.
Weak ankles & built up shoes are part of the problem.
All our fell shoes are our lower 2 arrow midsole.
That's why lower & flexible is a better bet.
Think you're spot on with the built up shoes, weak ankles point there Insider ;)
Lower, yes, but not sure about flexibility yet :)
For anyone interested in trying barefoot running or looking for the perfect shoe, hunt down Running Fast and Injury Free by Gordon Pirie. Here's a little 'taster'.
"Unfortunately, the ideal running shoe is not offered by most major manufacturers. Your best hope is to get the lightest, most economically constructed shoes you can find, then machine them to the correct specifications. The perfect running shoe should be something like a heavy-duty ballet slipper - simply an extra layer of protective material around the foot, like a glove. If you run correctly, you will be able to wear such a shoe and never be injured. I once advised a 58-year-old marathon runner, Ed Schaeffer, whose best time had been 3:28, to change his technique and shoes, with the result that his time immediately dropped to 2:58. He told me later it had been “easy” to run 30 minutes faster! Another example was a 4:12.8 miler I retrained; he dropped his time to 4:02 in just three weeks. Now that you know what to do with your feet and legs, and understand how poorly designed running shoes contribute to both injury and slower running, how may we produce a shoe to fit your feet?
We shall do this by taking a typical pair of running shoes, and reconstructing them to the correct specifications. Firstly, the shoe should fit properly; the foot will slip and slide in a shoe that is not close-fitting, resulting in a loss of performance as well as friction-related injuries such as blisters, which can lead to subtle changes in the way you run, and predispose to more serious injuries. Ideally, the shoe should fit snugly “like a glove”. Secondly, it is essential to prevent the most common injury directly related to poor shoe design, namely that to the Achilles tendon. A very quick way to guarantee yourself an injury to this very vulnerable part of your body is to allow any part of your shoe to impinge on the tendon – all running shoes have a piece of material (either plastic or leather) that jams into the tendon when the foot is plantar-flexed (i.e. the toe is pointed down). Clearly, if you run many miles, you will put a great deal of jabbing pressure on the soft Achilles tendon on every step, mile after mile. With an Achilles “protector” on your shoe, discomfort or injury is guaranteed. The quickest remedy to this problem is to take a knife to the curved piece of shoe material and cut it off, so that the top of the shoe heel is level with the rest of the upper, and below the level of the soft tissue of the Achilles tendon. The top of the shoe heel must not be higher than the bony heel. Runners who come to me limping with very sore Achilles tendons are able to run away with their pain relieved after this surgery is performed on the shoe (with the shoe removed, of course). This “operation” will make the shoe about half a size larger than it was originally, so bear this in mind when purchasing shoes. Thus, if you buy your shoes a bit snug and remove the heel tag before you wear them, Achilles tendon problems should become a thing of the past. Another problem related to shoe design is the shape of the inside of the heel of the typical running shoe, which is different from that of the normal human heel, such that it only contacts the top of the heel bone. As a result, there is too much empty space around the base of the heel bone. This space needs to be filled in to provide a close fit around the entire heel. If left unfilled, the upper portion of the heel bone will receive excessive pressure because the shoe presses on the foot only on an area directly below the junction of the Achilles tendon with the heel bone. The result is severe blistering in the short term, and heel spurs and Achilles tendonitis in the long
term. To make the shoe conform to the shape of your heel, fill in the space with surgical padding, being very careful to ensure that the padding conforms exactly to the shape of your heel.
Clearly, this should be the job of the shoe manufacturers, and I discussed this problem with Adi Dassler, the late founder of Adidas, as early as 1959. He agreed with my evaluation of the shape of running shoe heels (but, sadly, I still find it necessary to customise Adidas shoes).
To summarise, therefore, friction interference of running shoes with the soft tissue of the Achilles tendon and bursae of the heel bone/Achilles tendon junction causes injury. Consequently, all parts of the shoe that impinge on this area should be removed. Contrary to what the shoe companies would have you believe, the foot is supposed to twist and roll as it goes through each contact phase with the ground, and yet they continue to come up with new ways to prevent the foot from moving in this way. The amount of movement varies from person to person, and depends on the strength and development of the intrinsic muscles of the foot and foreleg, and whether you land correctly with each foot. Putting all sorts of excess materials and supposed clever ideas into running shoes (i.e. soles and uppers) has practically nothing to do with these foot movements. When the shoe is on the ground, it becomes a part of
the ground and the foot does its necessary rolling and twisting within the shoe. If a shoe is made to become a straight jacket to prevent the natural movement of the foot - for example a ski boot, or a stiff rubber gumboot - you cannot run, you hobble. You will only be able to carry out part of the physical movements, and apply only a fraction of the physical forces, that are essential to drive yourself forward at a fast running pace. This is easy to prove - go out and run in bare feet, then start adding material onto your feet. You will slow down. The same applies to shoes which interfere with the undersurface of the foot. Any change in the curvature of the sole of the foot caused by a shoe - for example, nylon pylons across the sole at the rear of the ball of the foot, lifted nylon rings around the spikes, and lumpy soles caused by
the cut-away under the toes of most jogger's shoes (thus presenting a ridge under the padded ball of the foot) - will interfere with your ability to run. The rolled up toes common to most jogging shoes are the cause of the sharp pains in and around the joints between the toes and the metatarsals familiar to most runners. Any departure from the natural shape of the foot will interfere with your ability to run, and lead to injury."
Terry
Thanks for this info I will look for the book.
Our thinking at inov-8 is very much along these lines.
What you currently see from us is going someway towards our ultimate "Barefoot" range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry the Tortoise
I just don't see how the fascia Band fits into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inov-8 Insider
On flexibility - it depends on the terrain you are running in.
Orienteering shoes are pretty stiff, and the terrain is the roughest form of running you'll encounter. I think the stiffness of O' shoes allows you to gain purchase on a very small piece of the ground / shoe when predicting contact point is almost impossible.
O' shoes are pretty unsophisticated but very robust, they have next to no cushioning - its not really needed, a low to the ground sole and good "feel" to the ground.
I always found walshes too flexible for orienteering and not enough protection from rocks, branches etc. knocking holes in your feet or bruising.
Twisted ankles is mainly to do with age, about 20, 21 - thats when it starts.
You can get the online version of Gordon Piries book here http://nwrunner.reachby.com/g2vds/go...free-free-book
Its says its free so I guess its out of copyright or was free in the first place. I have nothing to do with it so don't blame me just pointing people in the right direction ;)
I disagree flexibilty depends on the terrain.Quote:
Originally Posted by andy k
Your right about orienteering shoes being pretty unsophisticated but that doesn't mean they are right.
It's the case that all the O brands having been following the same model, no need to change or innovate if customers will put up with the same old because there is no competition.
But that is about to change:D
We have many orienteers wearing Mudclaws & X-Talons with some great results.
Having worked with some of the best orienteers in the World including Daniel Hubmann we have developed the Oroc range of shoes.
One of the main features being lightweight & flexible.
So as with most things there will be plenty of choice on the Market.
The GB Orienteering squad who we have been working with will be wearing the new inov-8 Oroc shoes:)
Interesting arguments. The only problem I have with the "scientists, doctors, podiatrist etc" who have joined the bf/minimalist debate and write these papers is that they don’t actually try it themselves. They base most of their arguments using data from scientific tests and current “understanding” of human biomechanics/biology etc. But history proves that scientific views change and that science isn’t always correct. Science cannot always prove everything. And why do we need “evidence” to say that bf/minimalist running is better or worse than shod running? There’s no real evidence to prove that running in shods prevents injury but they still sell in the millions.
So, everyone stop worrying about all this crap and go out and try it. Make your own decision. Wear shods, go barefoot, whatever! How cares. Just run happy and run free :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Scott