Listen to this great podcast that explains why we dont need heavily cushioned, stiffened shoes.:D
Printable View
Listen to this great podcast that explains why we dont need heavily cushioned, stiffened shoes.:D
I've heard a rumour that inov-8 are producing "The ultimate
barefoot racer" is this true??
Weve been working on this for over 12months, its something that we have always believed in.
Its why all our shoes are neutral, flexible & lack pillars/posts.
It wont be for evryone as it takes time for muscles, tendons etc to get use to natural running.
BUT
If you want a minimalist fell racing shoe then watch this space:D
If your already into barefoot running and need a bit of protection for you feet then watch this space:D
If your looking for a minimalist shoe, a transition from heavily cushioned road shoes towards "barefoot" then watch this space:eek:
Follow my Twitter to get snippets.:)
barefoot running and the Tarahumara Indians
chris mcdougall appeared on Jon Stewart last week. Talks about a guy running barefoot for 435 miles non-stop!
book looks good. Might have a look.
video is here http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...pher-mcdougall
Isn't there a degree of 'turkeys voting for Christmas' when you promote barefoot running Insider ;)
I ran a couple of hundred yards without shoes round the car-parking field yesterday at Burnsall; it was an interesting experience :cool:
Not at all Derby, it won't be right for everyone.
I'm sure as you will of experienced in your own barefooting you will need some protection for your feet.
Can you imagine running round Borrowdale with no protection for your feet?
We believe that less is best, we believe in having neutral, very flexible, very light footwear.
We will continue to push our theory of letting the foot control the shoe not the shoe controlling the foot.
What you find with "barefooting" is that you need less cushioning, stiffners,gels, fancy air, reinforced pillars n posts as advocated by a lot of brands.
I was only pulling your leg II :) Interestingly I ran in an old pair of 290s yesterday and I was amazed how different they felt to my usual choice of 330s for fell and 315s for long traily runs. I'm portly and slow and was sceptical re: X-talons but I'm now tempted to try a pair ;)
If you believed 'less was best' then you'd be out of business because everyone would be running bare foot. What you really believe in is making shoes with the precise amount of support and cushioning to get an athlete round his/her run without them getting injured.
If you'd like to hire me send me a PM.:)
Why would we be out of business? As I said barefooting isnt for everyone.
Most people will need a transition from built up shoes to going fully barefoot.
We have believed in offering neutral, flexible shoes with varying levels of cushioning.
Cushioning = underfoot protection;)
A lot of injuries are caused by having built up shoes or high heel counters that bang or aggrevate the achilles.
I love this thread.
The whole barefoot running natural hippy type thing makes me smile.
For some people less is more,but these people have always and will always be super efficient runners,
I have read many stories about the early marathon runners running in plimsoles and the legendary Bikila winning gold barefoot ,but come on,these people are not in the majority.
I think we need to take a step back and not get taken in by all the hype.
The fact is many thousands of runners are running today because of the improvement in modern running shoes.Yes i understand people still become injured ,I speak from experience here,but i am willing to bet they would have become injured even earlier running barefoot.
To quote Tim Noakes from "The Lore of Running" "We do not understand why modern running shoes help protect against injury , but they do".
Yet in this extract from his controversial new book, Christopher McDougall
Yes i am sure Chris McDougall V Tim Noakes.
No contest
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...#ixzz0P88bK1rd
Rather than arguing which is best try running barefoot!! I try and do about 1-2 miles a week and really like it, it does make you adjust how you run. I'm really looking forward to what inov8 are planning, I have been thinking about some five Fingers but been put off first by the looks and second by the price!!
WHat sort of sole will they have ? and any ETA on when they will be available?
I think your spot on with that. I think modern running shoes tend to make your technique lazy. I started doing a bit of barefoot running and it gave me aches in muscles i never knew i had :)
Although it takes a while to get used to, i think i really helps make you aware of how you run, which can be transfered into running with shoes... i still use cushioned shoes with fairly big heels on roads/trail, but run completely differently now. Still have to think about it a bit though... and touch wood, it seems to be greatly helping ease my knee problems. I do think some people just naturally run this way though, it looks a lot smoother and seems to use the hamstrings and calves a lot more.. the usual places where runners suffer 'muscle imbalances'. blah. Still, i have never got on with Inov8's, especially the 315's.. too squishy, but then again, i'm probably too heavy ;)
Chris
Your right, I was also very sceptical to the whole barefoot thing.
I have over the years had lots of different shoes, numerous injuries and several pairs of orthotics trying to right my knee, ahilles , IT Band and calf problems.
It was a physio friend who suggested that it may well be the orthotics and heavily posted road shoes that could be causing the problems.
I read lots on barefoot running on the web.
The thing to bear in mind is that it takes time to adjust to barefooting, I now run a couple of miles every day, very slow but concentrating on placing my feet and my posture.
My road runs are done in F-lite 230 which are very low profile shoes.
Fell runs are done in either X-Talon 212 minus the footbeds or Mudclaw 330.
I'm not advocating that everyone go from wearing shoes to barefoot in one swift move but there is a place for it.
Try it you may be suprised.
We are looking at a few different options
I also use F-lite 230's for quite a bit of stuff they are great on road, and most rough stuff as longs as its not too muddy as they don't have a very aggressive grip. I've been thinking of getting some xtalons for autumn and winter.
As well as adopting barefoot running I've also been doing Chi Running, both have really changed the way I run and I feel much more "natural". I used to suffer from neck pains after about 1:30 hours but haven't had anything for ages even after >5 hour runs!
The only problem about barefoot is you do need a bit of protection, running on grass, tarmac and mud is great but chippings are a nightmare!
Inov8 insider posted a good article on this thread about how we need to "feel" the ground beneath our feet and how most modern shoes have far too much cushioning which isolates us from this. I also saw an article a while ago about how gymnasts got more injuries when they used thicker mats as they had to land harder to feel ground underneath them - seems very similar to having a more minimal shoe.
Waiting with anticipation as to what Inov8 are going to bring out, the Vibram Five Fingers caused quite a stir so there are enough people out there who would like to try something more natural - me included!
Attachment 2333
So this could be a reality then :)
I'm coming round to the idea . I've have achillies tendon problems for a while .
Have got some orthotics and been given a programe of stretches and calf building exercises to do ( I pronate alot ) but am wondering why . Probably as some of you say , shoes that suport too much making my calfs become lazy . Hense the calf building exerises I have to do .
Friend of mine raving about this . He's got some Vibram five fingers( of which there is a long thread allready ) Just no good for grip .
I will probably have a go at something similar . I've got a pair of 230s that I bought last year . Didn't really suit me , but , I may try some short distances and change my style . More mid strike rather than heel strike . Not an easy task as I'm not a small bloke .
once i got used to barefoot running i found i was a lot more fluid in my movements.
I stopped for winter a couple of years ago and have not returned but this thread has inspired me to go through it again.
before when i built up i did my speed sessions and felt more "involved",if that makes sense.
i tried running through the woods too,which once used to twigs,mud and stones felt quite invigorating,that was about 3 miles but unsure if able to go much further.
If the location's condutive would like to give it a go after a race as part of warm down.
P.S,notice there was an article on vibram 5fingers shoes in the times last sunday.
I've been trying to POSE run for the last 6 months and am finally getting the hang of it. Yes, my achilles hurt for a while whilst I was getting used to it but it has certainly helped with my knee problems.
I try and work on quick feet lifting with the hamstring and leaning forward........... it does work !
check out www.crossfitendurance.com and build some of their training in to your programs. (you'll also see crossfit recommend Innov8 shoes)
Trouble with the majority of runners is that they are just runners ! They neglect other aspects of fitness. I've been running some training sessions on club nights focussing on strength, power, balance and co ordination and everyone has come back with posotive feedback saying their running has improved as a result.
I've started running more in thinner midsole shoes and even got old trainers out which have lost their bounce! Barefoot, forefoot, Chi and POSE are bascially going back to the way we used to run thousands of years ago! Its how we were designed to work.
When I ran on the roads in heavily padded supportive shoes, in the end even with othotics, I always got injured... Tore my calves several times, ITBS syndrome, achilles problems, plantar fascitis, you name it and I have had the typical tarmac runners overuse injuries several times over...
I then discovered fell running and bought a pair of Mudrocs... I even ran on the roads in them for a bit and found that I had no problems anymore whatsoever... even though I was very worried about the lack of support to begin with.
I have since gone more minimal and all my running is either done on Flite 230's or the f-lite 230 PK on road and trail, and the X-talon and Mudclaw 270 for off road stuff... All used without socks... I especially love the X-talon, as it feels like you have nothing on and the sole of your foot has converted itself into something grippy and just protective enough not to cut you up on rough ground...
This change of shoes and running terrain has resulted in me going from being an unnatural, overpronating heel striker to a natural and neutral mid to forefoot runner... Never have any problems with injury anymore, unless I slip and fall and dislocate my shoulder :D
I did not even have to work on the conversion in running style, it just happend naturally by giving my body the chance to run in a more natural way.
I have to ad to this that a friend, who teaches people how to run naturally, did observe that, when running barefoot on grass I had a perfectly natural and neutral style, but as soon as I put the so called ideal running shoes on and ran on the road, I started heel striking and over pronating!!!
If someone asked me how to lose weight, and I said less is best the person carrying out this advice would die of starvation. If less is best then lets all run without shoes. Injuries can be caused by all sorts of things, but some injuries are caused by poor running shoe design.
Inov 8 like other manufacturers slope their mid-soles. In one of their shoes it can be so many degrees, in another it can be different again. So when an athlete changes shoes,I.e. to race, he/she experiences a lesser or greater degree of stretch, that they're not accustomed to.
If manufacturers wanted to mimic the foot then they'd make shoes with mid-soles of the same width front to back, in all their shoes. They don't do this for reasons known to them, so we all suffer more injuries as a result.
Them pesky barefooters at it again:D
Just tried this on a short (2-3 miles) multi-terrain route and was amazed at the difference - particularly on the short tarmac section. It's surprising just how much difference removing the footbeds makes. Don't think there was any heel striking all the way round except for the steepest descents. Looking forward to seeing what Inov-8 bring out.:)
Do fell ponies need farriers to fit their shoes?:)
I would not like to imagine the scene where Merrylegs gets his new shoes hot fitted and nailed onto his feet:D
I'm afraid you're missing the key point Mr Knot. Modern cushioned/supported running shoes allow people to run badly. Without them you're forced develop a natural, more efficient and body friendly running style because you can't heel strike.
I can understand you citing Tim Noakes and The Lore of Running is rightly viewed as a classic but, like many classics, some of the thinking and ideas are out-dated.
Food for thought below:
1) There’s no evidence that running shoes are any help at all in injury prevention: Dr Craig Richards published a research paper in 2008 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that revealed that there have been no evidence based studies that demonstrate that running shoes make you less prone to injury. He went so far as to issue an open challenge to running shoe manufacturers to back-up their claims with peer reviewed data and is still waiting for any replies.
2) The more you pay the more you’re likely to get injured: Dr Bernard Marti of the University of Bern analyzed 4358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6 mile road race. He studied every aspect of their training in the year building up to the race and found that 45% had been injured. The most common variable for the injured runners was the amount they’d spent on their running shoes. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.
3) A half inch of rubber isn’t going to do jot: When you run, you can generate up to twelve times your body weight of force. A half inch of rubber, gel pad or air pocket isn’t going to absorb a significant amount of that energy. Also, studies have shown, that impact forces actually increase the more cushioning you have. Our feet instinctively seek stability so, if you put something soft and squishy underneath them, they’ll come down harder.
4) Pronation isn’t bad: Pronation has been demonized but it is just the natural movement of the foot. The foot is supposed to pronate. To see correct pronation in action kick off your shoes and run over a hard surface such as concrete. You’ll find yourself landing on the outside edge of your foot, then gently rolling from little toe over to big. That pronation is a natural shock absorbing twist that allows your arch to compress. The arch of our foot is a wonderful dynamic shock absorber so why cripple it’s natural movement by underpinning it with chocks of rubber? Dangerous over-pronation only occurs when you heel strike (see next point).
5) Heel striking is the problem: Imagine standing on a high bench in your bare feet and jumping off onto a hard surface. How would you land? Certainly not on your heels, yet this is what the majority of modern runners do every time they stride. Modern cushioned shoes allow us to heel strike and that is not how, from a biomechanical perspective, our bodies evolved to run. Heel-toe running was "invented" by Bill Bowerman out of a mis-thought notion that it was a more energy efficient running technique for the masses. He developed shoes to facilitate it and the rest is a painful history.
This is not some "hippy craze" but an awakening to the fact that for 40 years the sports shoe industry have been trying to solve a problem of it's own making and selling an awful lot of shoes in the process. Feet cannot function as nature intended in shoes with inflexible soles and so, by trying to correct the problems caused by wearing these shoes with more cushioning/support etc, you're just chasing shadows.
Barefooting is not the answer as, for most people, it's impractical due to road/trail surfaces but shoes with minimal cushioning and flexible soles etc are.
1) Watch that glass Mr Craig Richards, "what gla...aahhhh." Come on Nicklas there is no research because not many are insane enough to run down the road without shoes on.
2) Maybe the athletes paying the most for their shoes ran more and as a result got injured more.
3)If I drop a bouncy ball (it's about half an inch)and a ball of stone, which will return the most energy? If there is something soft and squidgy under my feet I won't land harder I'll land softer. I'll tell you what Nicklas we'll both jump from a 30ft tower, you can land on the nice soft concrete floor and I'll land on a nice hard bouncy castle. Oh and what flowers would you like at the hospital?
5) Jumping off a high bench and running are two different movements. Forcing one to run against nature's design is wrong whether heel strikes, mid-foot plants or forefoot strikes.
Been following the Five Fingers thread and this one with interest.
Trashed both heels at Skiddaw this year. Bad blisters.
A few weeks later, taking Mrs BGSec round leg 1 of the BG, clockwise, I did the damage again, and before the top of Skiddaw. (Can't believe this after last year's super longs and ultras when the feet were in great nick.)
It was so bad I removed both shoes and socks at the fence posts and went from there down to Hare Crag in bare feet.
Amazing feeling for sure and I was impressed with the amount of grip bare feet give, even on the wet bit in the bottom. The toes just spread out so quickly.
Should have carried in that way up Calva, but felt that was enough of an experiment for 1 day.
I am an orthotic wearer, but am close to deciding to race in PB Racers (in which I can't get my orthos) for shorts and mediums and sticking with Mudclaw 270s for everything longer than that.
Looking forward to seeing what Inov8 produce. :D
Here we go again.......
1) Dr Richard's research paper wasn't about barefoot running. He was simply stating that there has been no data supporting the hypothesis that modern cushioned/supportive shoes help to prevent injury. This is surprising as, considering the budget and research facilities of Nike etc, if their shoes do perform this miracle then you'd have thought they'd have put the work in to show it. Also, as I said, he put out an open invitation to the running shoe manufacturers to back up their claim and no-one, as yet, has. Finally, you don't tend to get something published in BJSM unless it is valid (in strict scientific sense) and has been subjected to extensive peer review... it's not a mickey mouse journal.
2) Sorry, didn't feel I could write a summary of the whole paper but all other variables such as volume, speed, terrain etc were put into the analysis and cost of running shoes came out with the strongest correlation to injury. Again, I think the American Journal of Sports Medicine where his paper was published would have checked for such simplistic flaws in his analysis.
3) CL, I'm sorry but impact force studies have been done and the data all points to the fact that a barefoot/lightly shod runner will strike with less force than one in heavily cushioned shoes. Your ball/rock analogy is one of your typical "irrelevance granades" as energy returned is not the issue but actual impact force. As is your jumping from a tower analogy, spectacular, showy but total BS. I back-up my arguments with sound scientific studies you seem to prefer dreamt up analogies , gossip on the web or the Daily Mail. At McGill University in Montreal, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked performed a series of tests on the landings of gymnasts. They found that the thicker the mat, the harder the gymnasts stuck their landings. Instinctively the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance.
4) This example simply illustrates that the heel has not evolved as a landing/striking surface (whether jumping or running) and only by artificially cushioning it have we allowed it to become one. None of us should be heel-strikers, it's not natural for anyone but conditioned by a lifetime wearing inflexible soles.
AARRRGGGG take that glass out of my foot, AARRRGGGG quickly.:) Ear we go again said the earwig:D
'Sound scientific studies.' There is no such thing nowadays. What we have today is statistics which is mostly what you're relying on. Statistics have ruined the world we live in because it is very easy to fiddle the data to 'prove' anything one wants to, and then demand action to force people to comply with the new research I.e. global warming.
It's got to the point now where researchers can't even make simple deductions because of their almost religious belief in the figures.
Here's a simple deduction. The kids down the road jump up and down on a trampoline. I can see their little faces as they rise above the hedge. Up and down for 30 minutes at a time, bawng,bawng,bawng. Now are you telling me if I removed the trampoline when they're at the highest point they'll appreciate the lower force of the landing on the concrete floor?
Shoes should be flexible and the mid-sole/sole should be the same width all along, with cushioning that gives rebound to the runner. A bit like a trampoline.
Christopher,
On what basis can you write there is no research because not many are insane enough to run down the road without shoes on? There is really no research? Nothing at Harvard University? 8;-)
http://barefootrunner.org/reports/07.../07harvard.htm
Since Inov-8 seems to be watching this thread, I decided to register and chime in.
We need minimal shoes that have the same thickness in the sole from toe to heel that also provide shielding from bruising on really technical trails.
I run in both shoes and barefoot, switching to shoes when the terrain will slow me down too much on the downhills or when I'm faced with miles of gravel roads. A built up heel on the shoes alters your form and efficiency, not by encouraging heel-strike, but by restricting the range of motion in your feet. It's the heel touch after striking with your midfoot that loads your achilles and calves with free energy for the next stride.
CL, I've studied statistics, been involved in research and been a part of published papers. Yes, manipulation of statistics does occur but I can assure you to get something published in journals such as the AJSM, BJSM and Nature, your methodology including your statistical analysis of data has to be 100% valid.
The problem is with your "simple deduction" is that it is irrelevant to running as we don't run on trampolines and you're missing the point.
Read this slowly and carefully:
Research carried out by EC Frederick of the Nike Sports Research Lab (so if anything they'd want to find out the opposite) stated the following at the 1986 meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics in 1986:
"When subjects were tested with cushioned vs hard shoes, no difference in impact force was found. In fact, the second propulsive peak in the vertical ground reaction force was actually higher with soft shoes"
No complicated or manipulated stats just a simple objective comparison of two sets of data by an unbiased (or some would say potentially hostile to his findings) observer.
We don't need cushioning, let alone springs, in our shoes as;
1) With the forces produced during a running foot strike (up to 12 times body mass), unless the springy surface was ridiculously thick it's going to do absolutely nothing.
2) Evolution has provided us with a gloriously efficient set of shock absorbers and an in-built protective mechanism. The arch of the foot (compressing to absorb shock and then recoiling), a wonderfully nerve rich sole ("Ow, that's sharp best tread a bit lighter") , the achilles tendon (providing "trampoline" like recoil much more effectively than anything designed by man) and further shock absorption through the knees. All of this is controlled by the brain via a constant feedback loop. Unfortunately, all of this breaks down if you dull our contact with the ground with a massive thick chunk of rubber.
Flexible flat sole: yes
Cushioning/rebound: no
If you want real world examples then some of the most respected coaches of all time advocate barefoot/minimal footwear for running.
Stanford Track Coach Vin Lananna (Wiki his CV!):
"I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries."
"I once ordered high-end shoes for the team, and within two weeks, we had more plantar fasciitis and achilles problems than I'd ever seen. So, I sent them back and told them to send me my cheap shoes. Ever since then, I've ordered the low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy."
and Arthur Lydiard (I assume you know who he is?)
"If you told the average person of any age to take off his shoes and run down the hallway, you would almost always discover the foot action of over-pronation or supination. Those sideways flexings of the ankle begin only when people lace themselves into running shoes because the construction of many shoes immediately alters the natural movement of the feet."
"We ran in canvas shoes. We didn't get plantar fasciitis. We might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons but, generally speaking, we didn't have foot problems. Paying several hundred dollars for the latest high-tech running shoe is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another."
I've never advocated throwing away your shoes as, you're right, there are too many rocks, thorns and bits of glass for our pampered 21st century feet but minimal support, cushioning and a flexible sole allows our feet to behave in as close a way as possible to what evolution intended. Evolution did not intend us to try and put springs on our feet.
We evolved as a running species perfectly adapted, from the foot up, to cover long distances in the pursuit of prey and have over 26 anatomical markers that point to this (see Bramble and Lieberman 2004). If we did evolve to run, then why do so many runners get injured? (Don't say it's because we run on roads as baked savannah is hardly soft). It's because since Bill Bowerman started playing around with his waffle iron and, by sticking cushioning on our heel, caused us start running in a way that evolution never intended we've been sucked into trying to correct something that was entirely of our own making and never broken in the first place.