Has anyone had experience with these new shoes? They seem like they'd be good for cross country XC, but the reviews claim they shorten stride. So far the reviews claim they're great for sprints, like for track. I'm wondering if anyone had improved XC times with these over other quality XC shoes in longer runs over 3 miles? I suggested them to someone, they seem like a good running shoe, but don't have any personal experience or opinons for them. There are many reviews if you google vibram five fingers.
vibrum five fingers
- Thread starter podpal
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 45
You, as a professional medical provider, recommended that someone use a product that you read reviews about on Google but have no personal or professional experience with?
yes, I made a suggestion to a family member to try them out, knowing that a shoe he'd tried, similar in nature, had increased his run times.
Does a doctor have to try every item he/she suggests? Have you tried every medication you've prescribed to your patients? Have you worn every orthotic that you've prescribed? LOL, that's silly.
The reviews look promising. The concept of barefoot running is interesting and warrents merit. How do you feel about this? Is there another shoe that mimics barefoot running as well as the vibram five fingers? If so, please advise as I haven't found one yet. Prior competitive shoegear he wore was specific to XC, made by Nike and in an ultrathin material. Ordinary XC running shoes haven't provided him with the same run times as the ultrathin. I asked for imput here because I haven't seen these used in XC, nor did they show a place for spikes. The ultrathin Nikes do have spike holes. They do seem like a good track shoe concept, as the surface doesn't require spikes.
Soooo....what's your opinion of these new shoes? of barefoot running?
Does a doctor have to try every item he/she suggests? Have you tried every medication you've prescribed to your patients? Have you worn every orthotic that you've prescribed? LOL, that's silly.
The reviews look promising. The concept of barefoot running is interesting and warrents merit. How do you feel about this? Is there another shoe that mimics barefoot running as well as the vibram five fingers? If so, please advise as I haven't found one yet. Prior competitive shoegear he wore was specific to XC, made by Nike and in an ultrathin material. Ordinary XC running shoes haven't provided him with the same run times as the ultrathin. I asked for imput here because I haven't seen these used in XC, nor did they show a place for spikes. The ultrathin Nikes do have spike holes. They do seem like a good track shoe concept, as the surface doesn't require spikes.
Soooo....what's your opinion of these new shoes? of barefoot running?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 45
Disclaimer: I'm not a podiatrist, I will start my first year this August. However, I am a competitive runner and my undergraduate education was in an Exercise Science program heavy on biomechanics.
You just described 3 scenarios based solely on personal experience. I didn't say personal experience was mandatory hence my original question included personal or professional experience.
I would not wear these shoes personally, but I hope that I would be able to express a deeper professional understanding and knowledge base than you seem to posses before "suggesting" them to anyone else.
I would strongly suggest that these shoes/barefoot running will likely do very little good and could potentially cause a lot of harm to a large majority of runners.
It's interesting that this topic was brought up today, I just had a conversation with with of my podiatrist mentors about this very topic earlier this week.
There are plenty of peer reviewed publications covering topics related to barefoot running, the concept Vibrams are designed to mimic.
Proper running biomechanics are possible in just about every running shoe on the market. It really seems that Vibrams are a gimmick designed to cash in on a recent surge in interest by largely uneducated masses who read Born to Run and bought in.
Just my 2 pesos.
You just described 3 scenarios based solely on personal experience. I didn't say personal experience was mandatory hence my original question included personal or professional experience.
I would not wear these shoes personally, but I hope that I would be able to express a deeper professional understanding and knowledge base than you seem to posses before "suggesting" them to anyone else.
I would strongly suggest that these shoes/barefoot running will likely do very little good and could potentially cause a lot of harm to a large majority of runners.
It's interesting that this topic was brought up today, I just had a conversation with with of my podiatrist mentors about this very topic earlier this week.
There are plenty of peer reviewed publications covering topics related to barefoot running, the concept Vibrams are designed to mimic.
Proper running biomechanics are possible in just about every running shoe on the market. It really seems that Vibrams are a gimmick designed to cash in on a recent surge in interest by largely uneducated masses who read Born to Run and bought in.
Just my 2 pesos.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
Interestingly, there was recently an article in the Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine regarding injuries and running shoes, and it implicated todays' high tech motion control running shoes as causing a lot of knee and hip problems/pathology.
However, although the theory behind barefoot running/minimalist running shoes is that the body will adapt and muscles will build, etc., instead of the shoes controlling the motion, the bottom line is that some patients simply will not be able to tolerate these shoes and don't have the biomechanical ability to run in these shoes. There will be a whole new subset of injuries caused by the wrong patients running in these shoes.
However, although the theory behind barefoot running/minimalist running shoes is that the body will adapt and muscles will build, etc., instead of the shoes controlling the motion, the bottom line is that some patients simply will not be able to tolerate these shoes and don't have the biomechanical ability to run in these shoes. There will be a whole new subset of injuries caused by the wrong patients running in these shoes.
Thanks for the imput! My family member is a competitive XC runner. I was concerned when he switched to the ultrathin Nike that looked like paper with spike holes. Thought for sure he'd break an ankle, but he did gr8 and had improved times.
I first learned of the Vibram's through an article in Time Magazine then looked online for more info. I inquired here because they did mention shorter strides, and less knee/hip pathology, and was curious of others opinions.
Apparently the stide hits at the midfoot rather than the rearfoot. It must use the Mid Tarsal joint as it's shock absorption point, rather than the ankle. Hopefully we'll get more clinical info about this new running gait concept and it's long term implications in a variety of runners.
I first learned of the Vibram's through an article in Time Magazine then looked online for more info. I inquired here because they did mention shorter strides, and less knee/hip pathology, and was curious of others opinions.
Apparently the stide hits at the midfoot rather than the rearfoot. It must use the Mid Tarsal joint as it's shock absorption point, rather than the ankle. Hopefully we'll get more clinical info about this new running gait concept and it's long term implications in a variety of runners.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,995
- Reaction score
- 995
There is a good Pro and Con article in last months issue of Running World where Kevin Kirby (podiatrist) and a barefoot running guy (forgot his name) discuss the different aspects of barefoot running. Dr. Kirby talks about some of the issues you are bringing up. I believe that the article is online at the runners world website.
3
347932
Anecdotally, I saw a navicular fracture in one runner and a 2nd met fracture in another at the last half marathon I worked at. Both trained and ran the race with those "shoes".
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 3
I got a pair of Vibrams a few weeks ago. First off, I am more of a beginner when it comes to running so I am not sure about all of the technical ins and outs of this shoe. I just read the reviews and decided to try it. I started out slow and experienced the expected calf soreness. I really liked them. They were light, comfortable, and I felt like my legs were getting a better workout. When I went up in distance (probably too much too soon) one foot started hurting towards the end of the run. Two days later I still can't put all my weight on it. It hurts around the anterior portion of the 3rd metatarsal. Hopefully it heals quickly and isn't a stress fracture. I plan to start using them again eventually, but work my way up very modestly.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't understand why professionals have such an aversion to barefoot running and minimalist shoes. It seems to come more from a knee-jerk conservatism rather than any scientific background.
To me it just makes sense. Why would humans evolve long powerful legs, an upright stance, excellent long distance efficiency with naked skin and extensive sweat glands, but fundamentally flawed feet that need expensive cushioned shoes (first developed in the 1970s) to run in? It's silly.
Humans are fantastic distance runners among mammals. We can outrun horses if the race is long enough. We can practice persistence hunting, where our prey overheats and collapses after some hours of being chased. Why then should anyone insist that our feet are fundamentally flawed? Shoes are great for protection, but should they also restrict the natural motion of the foot?
Of course if you spent your entire life in shoes you'll need some time and exercise to adapt, and of course it doesn't make you invincible. I spent 6 months walking around in minimal work shoes before graduating to minimal running shoes. My experience so far has been positive, and I'm getting none of the regular injuries I used to get in my huge cushioned shoes.
My personal anecdotal evidence shouldn't count for much though. There is however mounting scientific evidence in favor of minimalist shoes for runners. I'm not aware of any science that favors cushioned motion-restriction shoes for runners.
To me it just makes sense. Why would humans evolve long powerful legs, an upright stance, excellent long distance efficiency with naked skin and extensive sweat glands, but fundamentally flawed feet that need expensive cushioned shoes (first developed in the 1970s) to run in? It's silly.
Humans are fantastic distance runners among mammals. We can outrun horses if the race is long enough. We can practice persistence hunting, where our prey overheats and collapses after some hours of being chased. Why then should anyone insist that our feet are fundamentally flawed? Shoes are great for protection, but should they also restrict the natural motion of the foot?
Of course if you spent your entire life in shoes you'll need some time and exercise to adapt, and of course it doesn't make you invincible. I spent 6 months walking around in minimal work shoes before graduating to minimal running shoes. My experience so far has been positive, and I'm getting none of the regular injuries I used to get in my huge cushioned shoes.
My personal anecdotal evidence shouldn't count for much though. There is however mounting scientific evidence in favor of minimalist shoes for runners. I'm not aware of any science that favors cushioned motion-restriction shoes for runners.
In my opinion (take it for what it's worth), there are two concerns with these shoes and the barefoot/minimalist notion. I think where problems occur (from what I have heard) is when people use these shoes to run on concrete or other hard surfaces. When used on natural surfaces or rubber-topped tracks, injuries seem to be at a minimum. Think about it- you spend all of your life in shoes and all of a sudden decide to run barefoot on a hard surface... that is a substantial amount of abuse you are throwing at your feet in a short amount of time and sometimes the bones and soft tissues just can't take it- hence the multiple reports of stress fractures and the like.
The other problem is that these shoes somewhat force your foot into a position to fit the shoe. Biomechanically, this can't be a good thing. Normal running shoes (ASICS, Nike, etc) allow your foot room and some freedom to do their thing and adapt to maintain whatever position is natural for them.
My response obviously has no scientific backing but just seems logical.
The other problem is that these shoes somewhat force your foot into a position to fit the shoe. Biomechanically, this can't be a good thing. Normal running shoes (ASICS, Nike, etc) allow your foot room and some freedom to do their thing and adapt to maintain whatever position is natural for them.
My response obviously has no scientific backing but just seems logical.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
In response to Ankle-Breaker:
Firstly, for those concerned with impact forces, I would like to steer you to this article, which made the cover of Nature recently:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08723.html
Basically, cushioning causes greater impact-forces on the runner than running barefoot (and assumed by extension, with vibrams). Your foot is a big natural cushion all on its own.
My personal experience is that asphalt and concrete are the easiest surfaces to run on barefoot; it's flat, and predictable. There tend to be no thorns or sharp objects hidden under debris. I would argue that wild and unpaved surfaces are more dangerous, but this is just my impression from the barefoot community, and my personal experience.
As for learning to run, I think it's mostly natural. There are some important pointers, but running in these shoes will mostly force you to run in an approximately correct way, or else they will hurt. You need to land on your forefoot instead of your heel.
In response to Zane870:
Minimal shoes are supposed to mimic the motion of your bare feet while offering protection. My understanding is that Nikes, and other modern running shoes offer "arch support," and padding that restricts the motion of the foot. My vibrams don't really force my foot into any position. They're very flexible and thin.
Firstly, for those concerned with impact forces, I would like to steer you to this article, which made the cover of Nature recently:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08723.html
Basically, cushioning causes greater impact-forces on the runner than running barefoot (and assumed by extension, with vibrams). Your foot is a big natural cushion all on its own.
My personal experience is that asphalt and concrete are the easiest surfaces to run on barefoot; it's flat, and predictable. There tend to be no thorns or sharp objects hidden under debris. I would argue that wild and unpaved surfaces are more dangerous, but this is just my impression from the barefoot community, and my personal experience.
As for learning to run, I think it's mostly natural. There are some important pointers, but running in these shoes will mostly force you to run in an approximately correct way, or else they will hurt. You need to land on your forefoot instead of your heel.
In response to Zane870:
Minimal shoes are supposed to mimic the motion of your bare feet while offering protection. My understanding is that Nikes, and other modern running shoes offer "arch support," and padding that restricts the motion of the foot. My vibrams don't really force my foot into any position. They're very flexible and thin.
3
347932
That depends entirely on your foot type.
After spending some time discussing these shoes with a company rep, it seems that these shoes are designed for the "neutral" foot type, and those individuals that are midfoot strikers. This is a very small minority of people I see in private practice.
The company itself does not recommend these shoes for pes planus or cavus individuals, or those that require wearing orthotics of any kind, as the shoes are not designed to accommodate these foot types and can in fact cause harm to those that chose to use the product without knowing the effect it may have on their feet. You also can not put a custom molded device in the "shoe" as there isn't room for one in there, regardless of size or construction.
3
347932
Actually, that is not the case. Read up on motion control, neutral, and shock absorptive shoe types and you'll see that your statement is inaccurate. The problem with the Vibram shoes is that they are designed for a specific running style and foot type of which the majority of individuals do not possess.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
In my regular running shoes, I tend to strike with my heel. When I'm barefoot or wearing minimal footwear, I have to strike with my mid-foot or else it hurts. The naked human heel is not made for that impact. If someone has a type other than mid-foot striker, does that mean they simply can't run barefoot at all and that this was the case since their childhood (implied by their "type")?
I wouldn't recommend the shoes to people with advanced diseases either. For me, switching to minimal footwear took months of cautioned exercise, and a lot of patience. I could do it because I am a young and healthy athletic person. It's like rehabilitation, because you're using the foot in a different way, and using different muscles, and stressing other parts of the foot. There is definitely a transitional period where you can hurt yourself. The advantage is that this is how the foot evolved to be used, as should be evident.
I wouldn't recommend the shoes to people with advanced diseases either. For me, switching to minimal footwear took months of cautioned exercise, and a lot of patience. I could do it because I am a young and healthy athletic person. It's like rehabilitation, because you're using the foot in a different way, and using different muscles, and stressing other parts of the foot. There is definitely a transitional period where you can hurt yourself. The advantage is that this is how the foot evolved to be used, as should be evident.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 973
- Reaction score
- 76
I own a pair of five finger shoes and I gotta agree with you on this one. Growing up I always ran outside barefoot cause it was easier/more natural for me then wearing sneakers. I also STRONGLY agree with it being easier to run on a flat/hard surface barefoot then with shoes. For someone who's worn shoes all their life with minimal exercise then of course switching to a new way of walking/running will be foreign thus the high risk of soreness/injury.
To me sneakers are more of a hindrance then anything else, and for those who will argue back that our feet need protection from sharps/debris, they have thicker walled vibrums specifically made for rougher terrains. =)
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
The answer is really quite simple. It works for some and it doesn't work for many.
I agree, and recent studies will confirm that many of the motion control and "cushion" shoes may actually increase injuries, though there is still a portion of the population who needs these types of shoes.
There are a lot of factors that go into who can and can't run successfully in a minimalist shoe and there is no right or wrong answer. Anecdotally, many are now saying they are treating a lot of stress fractures due to the Vibram 5 fingers, but I've been treating stress fractures from traditional running shoes on runners for years.
There is a great book on a "different" running style called the POSE method that really addresses the METHOD of running which really is at least as important as the type of shoe worn.
The bottom line is that there is definitely a population who can wear these shoes and a population who can't. But it's definitely not a fashion trend that should be used by novice runners.
I agree, and recent studies will confirm that many of the motion control and "cushion" shoes may actually increase injuries, though there is still a portion of the population who needs these types of shoes.
There are a lot of factors that go into who can and can't run successfully in a minimalist shoe and there is no right or wrong answer. Anecdotally, many are now saying they are treating a lot of stress fractures due to the Vibram 5 fingers, but I've been treating stress fractures from traditional running shoes on runners for years.
There is a great book on a "different" running style called the POSE method that really addresses the METHOD of running which really is at least as important as the type of shoe worn.
The bottom line is that there is definitely a population who can wear these shoes and a population who can't. But it's definitely not a fashion trend that should be used by novice runners.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm convinced that it will work for anyone who is healthy. They just need a lengthy (perhaps years-long) transition time, preferably by walking around in the more normal-looking options without toes. You need to strengthen your feet after all the supports and padding are removed.
A runner who adopts minimal footwear quickly, for example slipping them on for the first time and running 5 miles (a short run for experienced runners); will be at a huge risk for injury. I was barely doing 1 mile after 4 months, for comparison.
There's probably a population unwilling to make the transition with caution, even with professional supervision. And there are probably people with diseases that make the transition dangerous. However, I don't think there's anyone born with feet that are incapable of barefoot-style running.
A runner who adopts minimal footwear quickly, for example slipping them on for the first time and running 5 miles (a short run for experienced runners); will be at a huge risk for injury. I was barely doing 1 mile after 4 months, for comparison.
There's probably a population unwilling to make the transition with caution, even with professional supervision. And there are probably people with diseases that make the transition dangerous. However, I don't think there's anyone born with feet that are incapable of barefoot-style running.
3
347932
I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning. Why would someone want to spend up to a year transitioning to something like that? There have been no empiric studies that suggest these shoes are BETTER. What are the benefits? How exactly does strengthening your feet occur? Do the intrinsic and extrinsic musculature of the foot adapt to improve foot function while wearing these shoes and adopting this style? I haven't seen any data to suggest this. If you have it, I'd love to see it.
What do you base your belief that no one is born with feet incompatible to this running style?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
Sorry, but that's just a statement lacking any significant knowledge of the human foot or pathology that impacts the human foot.
After many years in a very busy practice, I will continue to state that minimalist running will work for some and it wont' work for many.
I know, I've been treating those who have failed.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
There have actually been studies showing that minimal shoes cause the runner fewer injuries, although it's admittedly sparse. You might be aware of the study that found that more expensive shoes with more protective features caused athletes more injuries. A recent study that made the cover of Nature showed barefoot-style running reduces impact on the runner. This is the main reason why someone might want to transition; to reduce running injuries. Someone might also be curious about using their body in a way that they evolved to be used, instead of running with highly cushioned shoes that encourage heel striking and restrict motion.
How does the strengthening of the foot occur? By using the muscles of the foot differently, and by stressing different parts of the foot. If you don't believe me, you can test it yourself by walking in minimal shoes for a few days, or walking strictly barefoot outdoors for a few days on your vacation. You'll feel a lot of muscle soreness in your feet and ankles. I'm not aware of any formal scientific studies on this kind of transition, but it should be obvious to anyone who tries it themselves that something is happening to their feet.
It's a new field of inquiry. The wikipedia page on barefoot running has a few links that give an idea of the state of things. It's admittedly sparse, but I expect the scientific vindication of barefoot running soon as more studies are made, now that it's becoming popular.
What do I base my belief that no one is born with feet incompatible to this running style?
Because we didn't evolve to run in shoes that were developed in the 1970s, shoes that drastically change the way we run. It just makes sense to me. Nikes aren't part of our anatomy. We spent millions of years walking and running barefoot. As modern humans, if we're born healthy, we should be able to do the same. Why shouldn't we?
How does the strengthening of the foot occur? By using the muscles of the foot differently, and by stressing different parts of the foot. If you don't believe me, you can test it yourself by walking in minimal shoes for a few days, or walking strictly barefoot outdoors for a few days on your vacation. You'll feel a lot of muscle soreness in your feet and ankles. I'm not aware of any formal scientific studies on this kind of transition, but it should be obvious to anyone who tries it themselves that something is happening to their feet.
It's a new field of inquiry. The wikipedia page on barefoot running has a few links that give an idea of the state of things. It's admittedly sparse, but I expect the scientific vindication of barefoot running soon as more studies are made, now that it's becoming popular.
What do I base my belief that no one is born with feet incompatible to this running style?
Because we didn't evolve to run in shoes that were developed in the 1970s, shoes that drastically change the way we run. It just makes sense to me. Nikes aren't part of our anatomy. We spent millions of years walking and running barefoot. As modern humans, if we're born healthy, we should be able to do the same. Why shouldn't we?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
PADPM: Can you say whether the foot injuries are caused by foot type incompatibility? Or from transitioning too quickly from padded shoes?
Why are there entire populations that can run barefoot or in thin sandals without constant major injuries?
Why are there entire populations that can run barefoot or in thin sandals without constant major injuries?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
I think you're missing my point. If you read my first post, I'm not opposed to minimalist shoes or barefoot running. I am opposed to your blanket statement that anyone can utilize this running style.
There are many foot types, body types, etc., and not every body type is built or meant to be a "runner". Similarly, not everyone is built to be a power lifter.
Although many Kenyans or similar type of athletes may have been raised and trained without motion control shoes, there are also many in their same population who wouldn't be able to tolerate the same shoe.
I'm afraid you're generalizing a bit too much. Therefore, I will continue to state that although it may be great for many, it's not for others. It's no different than any item. There is NO one size fits all.
There are many foot types, body types, etc., and not every body type is built or meant to be a "runner". Similarly, not everyone is built to be a power lifter.
Although many Kenyans or similar type of athletes may have been raised and trained without motion control shoes, there are also many in their same population who wouldn't be able to tolerate the same shoe.
I'm afraid you're generalizing a bit too much. Therefore, I will continue to state that although it may be great for many, it's not for others. It's no different than any item. There is NO one size fits all.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 45
The expression "it's not what you know, it's what you can prove" comes to mind.
It's obvious you believe there are benefits to minimalist running shoes however, as you stated, at this point there simply is not enough peer reviewed clinical research supporting your assertions.
It may "be obvious to anyone who tries it themselves that something is happening" but it's unrealistic to expect medical professionals to accept that type of anecdotal evidence with the same readiness as published research.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
Once again, there are many potential benefits associated with barefoot running/minimalist shoe running. There is the potential for increased strength, increased muscle tone, increased proprioception, etc. But once again, it will not be tolerated by everyone, similar to any form of exercise, even with a prolonged "break in" period.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe there isn't enough research for the APMA to adopt a pro-barefoot recommendation, however, what research is available appears to support my position.
Peer reviewed studies show:
*barefoot runners experiences a reduced impact force on the foot compared to runners with shoes. (see Daniel Lieberman)
*more expensive, feature-ridden shoes cause runners more injuries. Two studies have shown this. (see Dr Bernard Marti)
*running with conventional shoes causes more stress to the knees and hips: http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100107/running-shoes-hazardous-may-be-to-your-joints
And what evidence is there promoting the health and safety of conventional running shoes?
PADPM: I understand what you're saying. I just don't believe it. Is there any evidence that there are foot types that hinder people's running experience, and that there are healthy people in barefoot/minimal foot-ware populations who simply can't run because of their foot type? Or is this from your experience in the United States, where we all wear shoes?
I don't want to confuse "foot types--that you are born with, with diseases that come from a certain lifestyle.
Peer reviewed studies show:
*barefoot runners experiences a reduced impact force on the foot compared to runners with shoes. (see Daniel Lieberman)
*more expensive, feature-ridden shoes cause runners more injuries. Two studies have shown this. (see Dr Bernard Marti)
*running with conventional shoes causes more stress to the knees and hips: http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100107/running-shoes-hazardous-may-be-to-your-joints
And what evidence is there promoting the health and safety of conventional running shoes?
PADPM: I understand what you're saying. I just don't believe it. Is there any evidence that there are foot types that hinder people's running experience, and that there are healthy people in barefoot/minimal foot-ware populations who simply can't run because of their foot type? Or is this from your experience in the United States, where we all wear shoes?
I don't want to confuse "foot types--that you are born with, with diseases that come from a certain lifestyle.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
You are tunnel visioned into one thought, and you keep missing my point. You made a blanket statement that anyone can run barefoot. I'm not disputing the possible merits of barefoot running or the possible detrimental effects of motion control shoes/cushioned shoes.
I am saying that not everyone can run barefoot for a myriad of reasons, just as not everyone can be a power-lifter. There are different body morphologies in addition to foot types. Some people aren't ever going to be fast, some people aren't ever going to be able to jump high and some people aren't going to be able to run barefoot.
I'm done with this discussion.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't make a blanket statement. I used the qualifiers: If they are healthy, and if they make a lengthy transition if they've worn shoes their entire lives.
If they have a disease or are deformed, maybe they can't. If they are unwilling to patiently rehabilitate their feet, then they can't.
What I take issue with is that there are somehow common "foot types" that render a person unable to run barefoot if they're unfortunate enough to be born with said foot types. I'd love to see the science supporting that claim.
Yes, not everyone can be a power lifter, but almost everyone who is healthy can lift. Likewise, I think the same should be true with running barefoot. Running isn't an extreme sport, it's something basic to our biology.
If they have a disease or are deformed, maybe they can't. If they are unwilling to patiently rehabilitate their feet, then they can't.
What I take issue with is that there are somehow common "foot types" that render a person unable to run barefoot if they're unfortunate enough to be born with said foot types. I'd love to see the science supporting that claim.
Yes, not everyone can be a power lifter, but almost everyone who is healthy can lift. Likewise, I think the same should be true with running barefoot. Running isn't an extreme sport, it's something basic to our biology.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
I've read that the latest surveys are finding that barefoot running (BFR) doesn't cause fewer injuries, but rather different types of injuries. With shoes runners are suffering more knee injuries and barefoot more foot injuries.
http://peakperformance.runnersworld...nds-no-link-to-running-form-or-shoe-type.html
A quick peruse of any online messageboard for BFR will reveal a huge number of threads asking about top-of-foot-pain (TOFP), blisters, contusions, foreign object penetration, stress fractures, and pain from doing too-much-too-soon (TMTS).
One problem I see with the idea that "we evolved to run barefoot so therefore we should all now run barefoot" is that natural selection doesn't really select out imperfect foot traits any longer. A million years ago someone born with a foot deformity might not have been able to survive long enough to pass on that trait. The abnormality may have hindered locomotion to the point that he might have succumbed to a predator or got left behind by a nomadic tribe. Other people in his group may have seen that something was "abnormal" and avoided mating with him. In contrast, imperfect foot morphological traits nowadays get passed down to offspring. In addition, concrete, asphalt, and other hard surfaces were not around a million years ago.
Another consideration is that the BFR movement is carried primarily by avid runners; people who have already been running for awhile before switching. That means we are looking at a group of people who were already in at least somewhat decent physical condition. Any clinician will tell you that not all patients are athletic. In fact, most patients are on the sedentary end of the spectrum. Take for example a "typical" 50 year-old lady who has worked in an office for 30 years, doesn't exercise regularly, is overweight, and has osteopenia. This is a more likely patient encounter than a marathoner who trains five days per week interspersed with cross training. Besides the lack of overwhelming scientific evidence, I think this is from where at least some of the reluctance of clinicians to embrace minimalist footwear and BFR comes. It's hard enough to get people to exercise regularly at all, much less become "a runner" and even more unlikely to get them to transition slowly to BF running. Our typical overweight, sedentary patient with heel pain isn't likely to fare well with an exercise prescription to spend the next year slowly adding miles BFR. It would work for some patients but not the majority. If we were to start telling all of our patients to start running barefoot it would result in an epidemic of foot injuries related to our advice. A dedicated athletic patient might be a different story.
FWIW I've been trail running 3-4 days per week, in minimalist shoes 90% of the time, BFR 5% of the time, and "regular" trail shoes 5% of the time. My minimalist shoes are not VFF but Merrell Trail Gloves. I have to say that I LOVE the feel of running in minimalist shoes. I love how light they are, and I love how supple they are. My feet wrap over undulations on the ground and I can feel the imperfections on the trail. I love the neutral heel without any added height, which makes me land with a midfoot strike without even trying. My knees feel great afterwards but I can tell it stresses my feet (but in a good way). I pay close attention for any signs of TOFP and doing TMTS. It would be hard for me to go back to strictly using "regular" running shoes.
http://peakperformance.runnersworld...nds-no-link-to-running-form-or-shoe-type.html
A quick peruse of any online messageboard for BFR will reveal a huge number of threads asking about top-of-foot-pain (TOFP), blisters, contusions, foreign object penetration, stress fractures, and pain from doing too-much-too-soon (TMTS).
One problem I see with the idea that "we evolved to run barefoot so therefore we should all now run barefoot" is that natural selection doesn't really select out imperfect foot traits any longer. A million years ago someone born with a foot deformity might not have been able to survive long enough to pass on that trait. The abnormality may have hindered locomotion to the point that he might have succumbed to a predator or got left behind by a nomadic tribe. Other people in his group may have seen that something was "abnormal" and avoided mating with him. In contrast, imperfect foot morphological traits nowadays get passed down to offspring. In addition, concrete, asphalt, and other hard surfaces were not around a million years ago.
Another consideration is that the BFR movement is carried primarily by avid runners; people who have already been running for awhile before switching. That means we are looking at a group of people who were already in at least somewhat decent physical condition. Any clinician will tell you that not all patients are athletic. In fact, most patients are on the sedentary end of the spectrum. Take for example a "typical" 50 year-old lady who has worked in an office for 30 years, doesn't exercise regularly, is overweight, and has osteopenia. This is a more likely patient encounter than a marathoner who trains five days per week interspersed with cross training. Besides the lack of overwhelming scientific evidence, I think this is from where at least some of the reluctance of clinicians to embrace minimalist footwear and BFR comes. It's hard enough to get people to exercise regularly at all, much less become "a runner" and even more unlikely to get them to transition slowly to BF running. Our typical overweight, sedentary patient with heel pain isn't likely to fare well with an exercise prescription to spend the next year slowly adding miles BFR. It would work for some patients but not the majority. If we were to start telling all of our patients to start running barefoot it would result in an epidemic of foot injuries related to our advice. A dedicated athletic patient might be a different story.
FWIW I've been trail running 3-4 days per week, in minimalist shoes 90% of the time, BFR 5% of the time, and "regular" trail shoes 5% of the time. My minimalist shoes are not VFF but Merrell Trail Gloves. I have to say that I LOVE the feel of running in minimalist shoes. I love how light they are, and I love how supple they are. My feet wrap over undulations on the ground and I can feel the imperfections on the trail. I love the neutral heel without any added height, which makes me land with a midfoot strike without even trying. My knees feel great afterwards but I can tell it stresses my feet (but in a good way). I pay close attention for any signs of TOFP and doing TMTS. It would be hard for me to go back to strictly using "regular" running shoes.
Last edited:
D
dyk343
Yahoo News is officially soliciting minimalist shoes the the masses... this link popped up on the main yahoo page.
Hey! Thanks for the link! BTW my relative who runs competitively has changed his running style from heel running to more midfoot and FF running. He's gone through a couple of running shoe changes the past few months and will be easing into VFF's or similar gear prior to competition Fall XC season! These are more for experienced runners and for those who use more FF rather than heel cushion dependency.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2008
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 45
Barefoot Running Claims and Controversies: A Review of the Literature
David W. Jenkins, DPM
David J. Cauthon, RPh
JAPMA May/June 2011
(JAPMA 101(3): 231-246, 2011)
From the Conclusions section:
"Although numerous studies support the claimed advantages of the barefoot condition, such as reduced ground reaction force at impact and improved sensory feel, the is no evidence that these changes result in reduced injuries or improved performance in barefoot runners. It seems that these claims are extrapolated or speculative.
Some other touted benefits of the barefoot condition, such as increased strength of the intrinsic musculature and a more efficient utilization of energy, have some supporting evidence, but again, there is no evidence to show that these changes result in fewer injuries or improved performance."
"We contend that many of the purported claims may have merit, but much more research on the barefoot running is needed, especially regarding comparative biomechanics and injury rates as well as surveys of runners' opinions about barefoot running."
David W. Jenkins, DPM
David J. Cauthon, RPh
JAPMA May/June 2011
(JAPMA 101(3): 231-246, 2011)
From the Conclusions section:
"Although numerous studies support the claimed advantages of the barefoot condition, such as reduced ground reaction force at impact and improved sensory feel, the is no evidence that these changes result in reduced injuries or improved performance in barefoot runners. It seems that these claims are extrapolated or speculative.
Some other touted benefits of the barefoot condition, such as increased strength of the intrinsic musculature and a more efficient utilization of energy, have some supporting evidence, but again, there is no evidence to show that these changes result in fewer injuries or improved performance."
"We contend that many of the purported claims may have merit, but much more research on the barefoot running is needed, especially regarding comparative biomechanics and injury rates as well as surveys of runners' opinions about barefoot running."
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,669
- Reaction score
- 16
I'm loving this barefoot running "fad". I'm getting a lot of new patients because of it. I highly recommend vibrum 
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,143
- Reaction score
- 4,499
I could not agree more: these are a passing fad. You summed it up well, so this is basically where I quit reading this thread.
The "early world" that the minimalist shoe marketing campaigns consistently refer to didn't have broken glass, rusty metal litter, hard asphalt and concrete, and all kinds of other stuff around. To underestimate that fact can end pretty badly. I hate the anecdotal stuff as much as anyone, but I will say that I played disc golf (rocks, roots, concrete tees, etc) with a friend last summer who was giving the Vibrams a try... his weekend ended early with what I think was a sesamoid fracture (no XR out on rural campsites, but I rec he wear stiff soled hiking boots, limit activity, and see a foot/ankle specialist ASAP when he got back home).
The Vibrams (much like Earth Shoes, ShapeUps, etc) are a simple trend which I would be extremely suprised to see last more than ~15yrs...
I think stilettos, spike boots, etc which cause all kinds of problems have persisted for many decades in womens' fashion is because they were a trend... which has achieved longevity since it looks very nice + sexy when done properly. "Bunions are very common, especially in females, who, using their feet primarily for sex appeal, locomotor function being given only secondary consideration, succumb to the dictates of fashion and develop the deformity" (PW Lapidus, CORR 1960). Steel toe, non-slip work boots are the other extreme: not for looks, but very, very functional and protective... they have persisted also (and will continue to).
...The Vibrams are a trend which not only cause all kinds of foot problems... but also look fairly rediculous. Not only do they risk injury IMO, but anyone who wants to go pick up girls at the Tiki bar in Vibrams... good luck to you
In the end, footwear is a personal choice. If they want professional advice, that's a choice also. If they want to take that advice or ignore it, that's ther perogative. If a family member (avg person, ie rearfoot striker and not a highly experienced runner) asked me about minimalist shoes, I'd say if people wanna sometimes run on a safe rubber jogging track with the Vibrams (or even barefoot), go right ahead (but I'd probably walk one lap first to look for any debris on the track). If you want to run trails, pavement, beach boardwalks, etc in those glove shoes, then I'd discourage it. If you ignore the advice and do it anyways, we'll see you in the office... and I hope you find a way to enjoy your time off from your sport while you heal your fracture, laceration, stress fx, overuse tendon injury, etc.
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
Runners have actually been running barefoot and in minimalist shoes for decades (think collegiate runners training barefoot and using track flats). It's just now catching on with recreational runners. Even if minimalist shoes turn out to be a fad, I don't think it's one that's going away any time soon (as in it might last the duration of our careers). The entire running shoe industry is moving away from super-thick motion control shoes and in the direction of deconstructed shoes. Not just Vibram but pretty much every major manufacturer is making minimalist shoes because runners want it. You may not have noticed the prevalence of minimalist shoes because other than the Vibram Five Fingers, most minimalist shoes look like regular running shoes to the untrained eye. In the past runners had more knee and hip injuries as a result of running but now we may see more foot injuries, so I think we as a profession should be ready for it and learn about it from an academic perspective rather than taking a knee-jerk prohibitive reaction to it based on anecdote or what we see as common sense. Runners are going to do it whether we tell them to or not.
Have you ever been an enthusiast in a given sport and had a doctor try to give you advice about that sport without being very knowledgeable about that sport? It discredits the doctor pretty much instantly. I see the same thing going on now. Podiatrists are giving running advice without knowing much about running and it's causing a rising tide of anti-podiatry sentiment in the running world. It's tough for me as an avid runner and podiatrist to see our profession losing credibility in the eyes of the general public. Right now runners are turning to PTs instead since they'll help them work through their injuries rather than chastising them for getting injured in the first place. Everyone knows someone who got injured doing some kind of sport but if you tell them to stop doing that sport then they just go see someone else. "Doc, it hurts when I do this." "So don't do that." never goes over well. I think we as a profession need to be aware of the different types of shoes and how people are using them, so we can advise them accurately without just simply defaulting to "It's baaaad! Don't do it!" Because of the athletic population where I live, I get asked about BFR/MR a few times each week. So far I've been telling people that there's not enough evidence for or against it at this point.
Have you ever been an enthusiast in a given sport and had a doctor try to give you advice about that sport without being very knowledgeable about that sport? It discredits the doctor pretty much instantly. I see the same thing going on now. Podiatrists are giving running advice without knowing much about running and it's causing a rising tide of anti-podiatry sentiment in the running world. It's tough for me as an avid runner and podiatrist to see our profession losing credibility in the eyes of the general public. Right now runners are turning to PTs instead since they'll help them work through their injuries rather than chastising them for getting injured in the first place. Everyone knows someone who got injured doing some kind of sport but if you tell them to stop doing that sport then they just go see someone else. "Doc, it hurts when I do this." "So don't do that." never goes over well. I think we as a profession need to be aware of the different types of shoes and how people are using them, so we can advise them accurately without just simply defaulting to "It's baaaad! Don't do it!" Because of the athletic population where I live, I get asked about BFR/MR a few times each week. So far I've been telling people that there's not enough evidence for or against it at this point.
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
I think you're right. College athletes were searching for performance gains. I don't know if many (any?) of them ran barefoot during events but only during training sessions, and probably on grass. I think the idea was to strengthen the feet. I didn't run at that level so I don't know firsthand. Here's a viewpoint from one of our colleagues who did run at that level:
http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=210698&postcount=20
Regardless, people will be doing this whether or not podiatrists like it. The running world is much larger than the podiatry world. We need more data.
3
347932
How is running on sand optimal?
Also if memory serves, the reason that flimsy shoes with forefoot spikes were used, was mostly for very short distance sprint competitions. In sprinting there is no or very little heel strike therefore the "support" needed was minimal. Other than the Kenyan teams, I can't recall a team of long distance runners running barefoot or in minimal shoes for competition running. I would venture to say that the Kenyans being the fastest has hardly anything to do with shoes they did or didn't wear
Also if memory serves, the reason that flimsy shoes with forefoot spikes were used, was mostly for very short distance sprint competitions. In sprinting there is no or very little heel strike therefore the "support" needed was minimal. Other than the Kenyan teams, I can't recall a team of long distance runners running barefoot or in minimal shoes for competition running. I would venture to say that the Kenyans being the fastest has hardly anything to do with shoes they did or didn't wear
3
347932
Forgive me. When I said "flimsy" I was referring to the Vibram type. Not shoes specifically made for long distance running. I didn't know that even long distance shoes have spikes on them.
I live by the beach. I've seen countless injuries from runners who run on sand. I was not able to find anything in my Pubmed search to suggest that running on sand is beneficial. Even in my google search, there are just as many hits advocating running on sand as there are warning of the dangers of running on this surface. I don't advocate running on sand to patients, family or friends.
I live by the beach. I've seen countless injuries from runners who run on sand. I was not able to find anything in my Pubmed search to suggest that running on sand is beneficial. Even in my google search, there are just as many hits advocating running on sand as there are warning of the dangers of running on this surface. I don't advocate running on sand to patients, family or friends.
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
You paraphrased me a bit there, but the point I was trying to make was that general principles don't always transfer to specific applications. If you're a DPM who knows a lot about a certain sport then by all means extend that knowledge to your patients. They will benefit from it.
On the other hand, if you don't have intimate knowledge of that sport and you try to speak authoritatively on the subject based on general podiatric principles then any enthusiast of that sport will see through you in an instant.
Edit: I can think of one colleague who even a couple of years ago was still advising cyclists to avoid foot numbness by not cinching up the toe straps too tight. Who has even used toe straps since 1989?
BTW Feli, those rubberized running tracks are murder on bare skin. Although they're even and relatively soft, they're really abrasive and I'd rather go bare on pavement. I understand what you were trying to say though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,381
- Reaction score
- 4,530
I personally would consider "Barefoot running" a fad, only because it is mostly a hype machine that is touting some very basic running principles to the masses and calling it revolutionary. The general population will realize quickly that they either a) are way too unhealthy and unmotivated to train with minimalist shoes consistently b) get injured when they attempt a couple miles a day, for the first week or c) you can actually run correctly without Vibrams (who'd a thunk??). Once that happens, a new shoe design/craze will have taken over...think Reebok pumps, Nike Shox, http://www.athleticpropulsionlabs.com/ ... you get the idea
Any XC/TF athlete or coach will tell you the exact same thing as Leiberman does. In order to run faster you need to do two things: increase stride length (which is directly related to the force you can apply to the ground with each stride) and decrease ground contact time.
(Peter Weyand, Ph.D. published a study from Harvard in the Journal of Applied Physiology regarding this)
They would also tell you that striking with your midfoot or forefoot is much more efficient than striking with your heel as it helps decrease contact time (hopefully increasing frequency). Of course, any shoe with a substantial heel (see: any of your typical "cross trainer" and/or traditional "running shoes") will lend itself to heel striking by the person wearing it.
There is nothing revolutionary about "barefoot running". College and elite runners of any length (100m up to 10k and marathoners) have been using minimalist shoes forever. Shoes, where the sole is just thick enough to protect the foot from debris and hazards. They also don't heel strike. But they have the strength and stamina to do so. Your average recreational runner does not, couple that with traditional motion control shoes and you've got the infamous "heelstriker".
Like Natch and that1guy mentioned earlier. Running will cause injuries. Wether you are barefoot or not. They'll just be different injuries.
All that being said, I'm all for anything that motivates people to get off their butts and participate in any sort of physical activity. If that is barefoot running then so be it. But I would definitely caution a friend, family member, or patient that they need to start incredibly slow (depending on their fitness level). Either start with some Nike Free's that have offer some support and work your way down to Vibrams or start walking around in the vibrams and then progress to running over a period of time.
Kidsfeet,
Here's an example of a "distance" track shoe. Nothing like the New Balance's you'd see Joe Blow running around in. Elite marathoners will wear something similar only without the "spikes" (or rough surface you can see on these). I would call them "minimalist".
Any XC/TF athlete or coach will tell you the exact same thing as Leiberman does. In order to run faster you need to do two things: increase stride length (which is directly related to the force you can apply to the ground with each stride) and decrease ground contact time.
(Peter Weyand, Ph.D. published a study from Harvard in the Journal of Applied Physiology regarding this)
They would also tell you that striking with your midfoot or forefoot is much more efficient than striking with your heel as it helps decrease contact time (hopefully increasing frequency). Of course, any shoe with a substantial heel (see: any of your typical "cross trainer" and/or traditional "running shoes") will lend itself to heel striking by the person wearing it.
There is nothing revolutionary about "barefoot running". College and elite runners of any length (100m up to 10k and marathoners) have been using minimalist shoes forever. Shoes, where the sole is just thick enough to protect the foot from debris and hazards. They also don't heel strike. But they have the strength and stamina to do so. Your average recreational runner does not, couple that with traditional motion control shoes and you've got the infamous "heelstriker".
Like Natch and that1guy mentioned earlier. Running will cause injuries. Wether you are barefoot or not. They'll just be different injuries.
All that being said, I'm all for anything that motivates people to get off their butts and participate in any sort of physical activity. If that is barefoot running then so be it. But I would definitely caution a friend, family member, or patient that they need to start incredibly slow (depending on their fitness level). Either start with some Nike Free's that have offer some support and work your way down to Vibrams or start walking around in the vibrams and then progress to running over a period of time.
Kidsfeet,
Here's an example of a "distance" track shoe. Nothing like the New Balance's you'd see Joe Blow running around in. Elite marathoners will wear something similar only without the "spikes" (or rough surface you can see on these). I would call them "minimalist".
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
Based on this premise, with which I agree, I am looking forward to getting my hands on the shoe in the following link. They have a mildly cushioned outsole with a 1:1 ratio of thickness from toe to heel (plus a big toe box). Hopefully by the end of the summer I can try them out. Either that or I can line a couple of tissue boxes with EVA and put them on my feet.
http://shop.altrarunning.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_-1_15151_18952_69006_176903
I predict that over the next few years running shoe design will find a happy medium between highly-built motion-control trainers and the uber-minimal VFFs, with reduction of heel height being the biggest change.
I also think that the more shock absorption between ourselves and the ground, the more impact with which we subconsciously strike the ground. This idea comes from my own observation; I don't know if it's been tested or not. I see this concept in mountain biking too. The more suspension one has the harder the rider will impact the ground (i.e., use the suspension). The less suspension one has the more precisely and delicately one rides. It just happens subconsciously as the body adapts. Translating to shoes, the more cushion one has the more firmly one impacts the ground (sending shock up the kinetic chain to the knees and up).
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,381
- Reaction score
- 4,530
I have a buddy who works at Nike so that's pretty much all I wear. I think they have the right idea. First with the original Free series (7.0, 5.0, 3.0) and now with the Run+ 2's. The originals were great because they ranged in stiffness and support and you could go as "traditional" or as "minimal" as you wanted. They all have a very minimal heel (very close if not 1:1), little ankle support, flexible sole, no stupid cutouts for individual toes like vibrams, plenty of protection for any running surface. They even have a pair with a little thicker sole and gore-tex shell for trail running in central Oregon
I do everything except for play basketball in the 3.0's which are the least supportive shoe they make. Run+ 2's are supposedly on their way...
I do everything except for play basketball in the 3.0's which are the least supportive shoe they make. Run+ 2's are supposedly on their way...
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 1,835
- Reaction score
- 1,352
Very nice!I have a buddy who works at Nike so that's pretty much all I wear. I think they have the right idea. First with the original Free series (7.0, 5.0, 3.0) and now with the Run+ 2's. The originals were great because they ranged in stiffness and support and you could go as "traditional" or as "minimal" as you wanted. They all have a very minimal heel (very close if not 1:1), little ankle support, flexible sole, no stupid cutouts for individual toes like vibrams, plenty of protection for any running surface. They even have a pair with a little thicker sole and gore-tex shell for trail running in central Oregon
I do everything except for play basketball in the 3.0's which are the least supportive shoe they make. Run+ 2's are supposedly on their way...
OK you just threw logic out the window, and here's why:
Yes, we are designed to walk (and run) barefoot. But we aren't designed to do it on the surfaces we are on. Early man didn't walk on concrete, hardwood, or the rubberized surfaces. So unless you plan on doing some long distance running in the wilderness, it makes sense to compensate for the surface you're running on.
I love it when I get a hipster extremist douchbag come into my office, act like they know more than me about the foot, and argue that barefoot running is superior. Once I give them that argument, you can almost see their pretentious egos deflate.
D
dyk343
Mighty harsh words there Dr.
I have a friend who suffered multiple stress fractures wearing these shoes. I have another friend that swears by them and claims that they are the best thing he has ever run in. Both of them are avid runners.
I think PADPM nailed it... they work for some and not for others.
Ill stick with my regular motion control running shoes. I pronate way to much to be running around in these babies.
I have a friend who suffered multiple stress fractures wearing these shoes. I have another friend that swears by them and claims that they are the best thing he has ever run in. Both of them are avid runners.
I think PADPM nailed it... they work for some and not for others.
Ill stick with my regular motion control running shoes. I pronate way to much to be running around in these babies.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
Neemer: When telling someone they're throwing logic out the window, it's best not to follow it with a non sequitur. Yes, we did not evolve on man made surfaces. It doesn't by necessity follow that walking barefoot on them is unhealthy. It doesn't necessarily follow that we must compensate with a particular type of shoe.
dyk343: I think PADPM is missing the concept of rehabilitation. The shoes can only "work" if you rehabilitate your feet. Someone who adopts the shoe abruptly is at a huge risk for injury--you can feel the strain in your feet if you try. It's not as simple as people being born with feet that can't use minimal shoes.
dyk343: I think PADPM is missing the concept of rehabilitation. The shoes can only "work" if you rehabilitate your feet. Someone who adopts the shoe abruptly is at a huge risk for injury--you can feel the strain in your feet if you try. It's not as simple as people being born with feet that can't use minimal shoes.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 18
I don't believe I'm missing any concept, including that of rehabilitation. I understand that even for those who can tolerate many of the minimalist shoes, there is a break in period to adapt to these shoes and for the muscles to adapt and strengthen.
However, that still does not change my opinion that they will work for some and not for others. I really don't believe that there is any "one size fits all solution" that is ideal or that will work for every individual. This includes high tech motion control running shoes and includes minimalist running shoes and/or barefoot running.
My point remains relatively simple. Even with all factors taken into consideration, including adaptation, muscle strengthening, etc., I still don't believe it's for "everyone", though I believe it can be beneficial for many.