:D Barefoot Running

[nightingale]

Coming soon ?

[Inov-8 Insider]

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.

We are on with it

and I want some flexibilty as well...

Thanks to Inov-8 for showing open mindness!

Ultralightweight, very flexible,underfoot protection, no raised heel
Were on with it

This whole barefoot/natural running wont be for everyone as it goes against everything that the marketing Bull S*** that the big brands tell you about.
They may convince people that heel striking, motion control, fancy air, gels,pillars and postings is what is needed, but we are adamant that having neutral, unrestrictive, flexible footwear is the way to go.
As someone recently said to me " If you want to compete with the big boys ( Nike, Adidas, Mizuno, Saucony, New Balance, Brooks & Salomon) then you really should have more supportive & cushioned shoes" When I explained that we were sticking with our brand philosophy of neutral shoes, low profile, natural running. They then commented that "you will never have their market share"
I dont want to sound all angelical but its not just a question of making a fast buck for us, we are passionate about our sport and what we do.
So we may not be one of the biggest, flashiest brands in the market.... But hey thats not what its about unless were missing something.

Long may it remain that way.

[southernsoftie]

This whole barefoot/natural running wont be for everyone as it goes against everything that the marketing Bull S*** that the big brands tell you about.
They may convince people that heel striking, motion control, fancy air, gels,pillars and postings is what is needed, but we are adamant that having neutral, unrestrictive, flexible footwear is the way to go.
As someone recently said to me " If you want to compete with the big boys ( Nike, Adidas, Mizuno, Saucony, New Balance, Brooks & Salomon) then you really should have more supportive & cushioned shoes" When I explained that we were sticking with our brand philosophy of neutral shoes, low profile, natural running. They then commented that "you will never have their market share"
I dont want to sound all angelical but its not just a question of making a fast buck for us, we are passionate about our sport and what we do.
So we may not be one of the biggest, flashiest brands in the market.... But hey thats not what its about unless were missing something.

Long may it remain that way.

Whatever the opinion on the shoes, you can only applaud this attitude.
Holla.

[CL]

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.

(Run the Lydiard way, Arthur Lydiard 1978) 'injuries to joints and bone wear are invariably caused by poor buffers and jaring on hard surfaces. Without plenty of reasonably soft rubber between you and the ground, the shock of each stride is felt over a wide area of the body and problems arise in unexpected places.

You need padding which gives you a recoil from the ground. Shoes which achieve this will not be cheap to buy but they will be cheap in the long run because the damage you can suffer is difficult to eliminate, particularly in the big man. Consider the loss of training and competing time-and get good shoes.'

I don't always agree with Lydiard but he's right here. My opinion is shoes should have single width mid-soles and should provide recoil from the ground in the plane of motion. They should flex easily with the foot and the upper should be minimized to that which is needed for protection.

By the way I've watched videos of gymnasts landing after the vault and I've yet to see one land without a floor pad.

Another point. Evolution intended us to use our minds, to make things better. If it's wrong to run with springs in our shoes if they reduce injury, then it's wrong to jump out of a plane without a parachute.

" My parachute won't open."
" Or don't worry there's less force when landing without one."

AARRRGGGG

[nikalas]

(Run the Lydiard way, Arthur Lydiard 1978) 'injuries to joints and bone wear are invariably caused by poor buffers and jaring on hard surfaces. Without plenty of reasonably soft rubber between you and the ground, the shock of each stride is felt over a wide area of the body and problems arise in unexpected places.

You need padding which gives you a recoil from the ground. Shoes which achieve this will not be cheap to buy but they will be cheap in the long run because the damage you can suffer is difficult to eliminate, particularly in the big man. Consider the loss of training and competing time-and get good shoes.'

I don't always agree with Lydiard but he's right here. My opinion is shoes should have single width mid-soles and should provide recoil from the ground in the plane of motion. They should flex easily with the foot and the upper should be minimized to that which is needed for protection.

By the way I've watched videos of gymnasts landing after the vault and I've yet to see one land without a floor pad.

Another point. Evolution intended us to use our minds, to make things better. If it's wrong to run with springs in our shoes if they reduce injury, then it's wrong to jump out of a plane without a parachute.

" My parachute won't open."
" Or don't worry there's less force when landing without one."

AARRRGGGG

My quotes from Lydiard were from the 1980's so he obviously changed his mind.

Your gymnast comment is irrelevant as I was citing a specific study not speaking about gymnastics in general.

I repeat IT HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN THAT CUSHIONING AND SUPPORT PREVENT INJURY DESPITE A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO DO SO BEING ISSUED TO RUNNING SHOE MANUFACTURERS. Therefore we haven't made things better, by overly cushioning and supporting our shoes for the last 40 years we've thoroughly screwed things up.

Also, on a slightly different note, evolution never intended us, or any other species, to do anything as it's a blind process.

I think I've put enough scientific/informed evidence into this discussion now to win the day and, if there's anyone left reading it, I'm happy for them to make up their own minds now.

[cockermouth?]

really enjoying this thread

I'm not taking sides but CL, I'm sorry but that stuff about parachutes and trampolines is just really lame, try harder....

[Pilgrim]

really enjoying this thread

I'm not taking sides but CL, I'm sorry but that stuff about parachutes and trampolines is just really lame, try harder....

Agree with your first comment. I assumed CL was just being a wind up merchant as his arguments are just too flawed to be taken seriously.

[bfluc]

and I'm still waiting for the answer to my question that was addressed to CL...

[Inov-8 Insider]

Ok for those who advocate heel striking and cushioning.

Maybe these are the answer HERE

Even got good TESTIMONIALS

[sjedwardz]

Ok for those who advocate heel striking and cushioning.

Maybe these are the answer HERE

Even got good TESTIMONIALS

they look like something from Inspector Gadget!!