You can – trust me , and it doesnt hurt.

How slowly? I instinctively land on the outside of front of my foot, cos the impact is so uncomfortable. Maybe you have springy heels or sometihng, cos I even do it when walking barefoot on a hard surface.

Obvioulsy not, but the theory is that they reduce certain injuries a lot, if you use them all the time and adapt

Compared to a flat cushioned shoe?

Using the same technique in a Vibram Fivefingers Speed 4mm Sole Vs a Saucony Virrata 12mm cushioned sole IIRC. The Saucony would be better for you, it may lack feel which is a separate argument but the extra forgiveness will help a great deal. by 2015 all the major manufactures will have ditched barefoot. (except barefoot only brands)

“Well you can’t “

You can – trust me , and it doesnt hurt.

Sorry don’t believe you for a second, unless your only running from one end to the other of a muddy football pitch.

Compared to a flat cushioned shoe?

No, compared to the common heeled kind.

Many ‘minimal’ shoes have cusioning anyway, mine certainly do. Just not loads. And the way the shoe is made doesn’t support your foot in any way, so your foot has to do the work.

if you want to quote at least quote ALL of what i said please instead of the bit that suits you.

Surfer, So am i right in thinking your issue is just with the terminology and marketing used? Forgive me but i think your possibly older than me so traditional shoes to you may be something different but to me its any shoe with an overly large heel like 90% of shoes in a running shop. I still think you know this but perhaps not

Yes I do have a problem with the terminology because I think it is false and describes something that already exists simply to sell more “stuff”
I’m not a Luddite and practical advances are to be welcomed.
I’m 48 and have been running competitively since I was a teenager. The term “traditional” means nothing.
I dont think the fact that some manufacturers design and build shoes with a large heel (although I think the size of these heels is a bit exagerated both ins size and effect) matters as the majority of runners IME dont heel strike. I think this is a red Herring. Most runners (myself included) run on the forefoot or their midfoot. Therefore the part of the shoe most in play is from the heel forward. I throw shoes out that look almost new around the heel area.

Edit: It may well be that I am one of the only runners who has done much barefoot running! I once ran a XC race in the North East and forgot my spikes. The ground was frozen solid so I ran barefoot (finished 4th) but my feet were sore as hell and limited my dancing in Newcastle that evening! We also used to run along the beach in Formby and do reps up and down the sand dunes barefoot.
Those were the days!!!

Well if the above is a minimalist shoe then minimalist has next to nothing in common with barefoot. That looks like a conventional long-distance race shoe to me.

Edit: it’s just marketing b for stuff that’s been around as long as I’ve been running.

Most runners (myself included) run on the forefoot or their midfoot.

Hmm.. most runners you see at these events? Most successful runners?

I think that anyone who runs like I used to run would end up hating it, and there are a lot of people who have tried running but hate it. This is why I’m keen to make my point to newbies especially – I suspect that many haters would actually enjoy it and do it if they corrected their gait.

Ed – it looks from those pictures like those shoes have a narrower toe than mine – the wide forefoot bit is important.

P6283538 by molgrips, on Flickr

P6283539 by molgrips, on Flickr

P6283540 by molgrips, on Flickr

As you can see they aren’t that minimal, but they aren’t cosseting your foot all around with comfy EVA support.

Minimal? There’s as much soft stuff on those as my mid-90s Adidas Catalyst.

For the first three pages of this thread I assumed minimalist meant the glove-like things I’ve seen people slapping along in trying to look trendy with gadgets all over their arms.

The ones on the right are what can fairly be described as traditional, even though they are about half the material of my original pair (which were sold to me by gait analysis in Run and Become and hurt my feet like hell).

The ones on the left are minimal compared to those type, yes, but they do have more than the Vibram 5 fingers. I should point out that the yellow layer is MUCH stiffer than the cushy padding you normally get. It’s quite hard. It’s maybe 5mm thick in the front, and there’s a few mm of rise so the heel is slightly thicker.

Oh and btw, not everyone with gadgets and VFFs is doing it to try and look cool. They may be, but they aren’t all.

I read an interesting article although for the life of me can’t remember where that showed how useless the, ‘injuries haven’t reduced over the years of shoe development argument’. It went along the lines of in the 80’s most runners doing events like marathons were good level club runners, and this was proven by the much quicker average finish times at events like the Boston marathon than now. All that has happened in the intervening years is that running has become a leisure activity and has attracted lots of crap runners that always get injured due to poor technique and pie eating. A large percentage of the higher level runners continue as ever not getting injured that much whilst massive amounts of beginers go out for a run, get injured and have found they can now blame their shoes.

I actually went from heavy heel striker to fore foot runner, concentrating on stride length and leg speed. It took 18 months of hard work to strengthen my calf and achillies enough to race a decent half like that. That is why I wouldn’t suggest a newbie goes out and buys some minimilist/racing flat shoe and try and run lots in them, it takes a long time to work up to it. I don’t think I could run a marathon purely forefoot running and I am sure not many other people can either. From experience I can assure you your form tends to drop off a bit after 20 or so miles.

it takes a long time to work up to it.

But you were already a competent runner before, it sounds like..? If you’re a rank beginner you’ve got a lot of conditioning to do anyway.

Anyway – when I get tired, which takes a touch less than 20 miles 🙂 I still forefoot strike but I end up lowering onto my heels more. I still don’t heel strike tho, and my strike is still under my body.

nothing to do with the main part of the op’s original question, but he says ‘motivation’… if you want motivation join your local club.

i joined mine just after xmas to prepare for a tri in april, i’m pretty much hooked now. did’nt see that coming… at 47! believe me i was no runner at all, swimming was my thing, but i’m shedding time like mad now, need to lose 1 minute on a 2 mile race in a month – the run preceded by a 200m swim, want 5 secs off my swim – and loving the training (3 times a week + 1 swim training session. indeed just been moved up into the fast run group which is intimidadting, but hell i’m not last in the group!).

There is a lot of good info on running styles and impact forces in this book:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13645495-anatomy-for-runners

My 2p is if you run with whatever feels natural, and make sure you are not overstriding, you can’t go far wrong. People with a massive overstride and heel strike, and people with a really forced “running on tip toes” forefoot strike, look equally awkward and inefficient.

That looks like a conventional long-distance race shoe to me.

if a ‘conventional long-distance race shoe’ has a thin flexible sole, is wider than a wide thing, has a knobbly sole that copes well in horrible mud, and has no arch support, then yes.

101’s are quite popular in the local fell races, they’re light, grippy, cheap, and don’t seem to fall apart very quickly.

if shoes like this have been around for ages, then i’m not surprised, they’re great.

(but not perfect, i find the heel a bit too thick, the search for the perfect fell shoe continues)

molgrips – member

Ed – it looks from those pictures like those shoes have a narrower toe than mine – the wide forefoot bit is important.

those green shoes are NB 101’s, i’ve got a pair, and a pair of minimus, they’re both a similar ‘shape’

I can’t stop clicking on this thread, it’s like deja vu all over again. Finally something I can add non-controversially.

The NB 101s are indeed a fine shoe – great crossover/trail shoe. And as we all know fell shoes are necessarily close to the ground and, well, fairly minimal. Like they always have been. They do have a heal to toe drop, but not a very big one. I’ve done loads in mine, up to 34 miles, they just struggle in out and out fell conditions.

…have to disagree with the longevity though. I’m on my third pair now, all that minimalism plus acidic local winter conditions means they haven’t weathered that well.

Since we’re doing that ‘sample of one, my experience so it must be true’ thing, I went out lunchtime in my most built up shoes (Roclite 295s) and smashed my hill rep session. I’m not sure what it proves though.

I’ve done it and I think running barefoot not on the heal without those barefoot shoe things is really good, your feet get toughened up pretty quick. Start off with small distances as your legs will not be used to striking on the forefront.

I’v just seen this fantastic piece of documentary film making about what happens if you try to run with traditional padded shoes. I think we can all agree it’s persuasive stuff.

To me, a minimalist shoe like most of the vivo range, is one that you can roll up and pocket. 2mm to 4mm puncture resistant sole with zero heal to toe drop and a wide toe box.

If you wore big padded mittens on your hands from a young age then suddenly started doing heavy labour with your hands, they would be wrecked. The same applies to feet. Your average shoe is a padded foot mitten.

If you try running in minimalist shoes, after years wearing padded shoes there will probably be injury and pain because your feet are weak sauce. I would advocate learning to run barefoot before trying vibram etc.

Arch support is the craziest thing, I have support already, the arch in my foot. It’s marketing on both sides. Do what works for you, try all styles of shoe or no shoe, just have fun and be sensible.

The only way to settle this debate is with a race. The winner will scientifically prove their running shoe is the best and all others are useless.

would that not just prove who was the quicker runner rather than what shoe or no shoe is preferred by the individual?

Surfer – what were you wearing when you won the vets at the Tattenhall Tough Team last week (stalker alert!)? Can you measure the heal-toe drop and then we can all settle down to a Friday night beer?

Really, I thought a sample of 1 would be indisputable scientific shoe based fact. We would all then be happy knowing we were going to buy the right shoes.

Tired, didnt sniff out the sarcasm 🙂

My shoes with wheels on are teh best!

I’ve just come in from another 22k’s trail running in and along my local river/woods.
I’d never in OneHundredMillionYears do that barefoot nor with minimal soled “shoes”

SportCross 3’s for me each and every time.

As you were 😆

Good going on the 22k bikebouy, sounds like you have the right footwear for you 🙂 that’s what it’s all about, running in what you feel comfy in. I probably run barefoot because I’m from yorkshire and my genes are repulsed by the very idea of paying to be able to walk / run.

I’d never in OneHundredMillionYears do that barefoot nor with minimal soled “shoes”

Ironically, had you been doing it 100m years ago, you’d have been barefoot. On all four feet. If you’d been doing it 500,000 years ago you’d have been barefoot tho 🙂

But for the last 40,000 years humans have realised that shoes are a good thing.

Why are they such a good thing? Don’t like them at all myself, pretty pointless for most of the year.

I’m not running today so most of the day will be barefoot or in flip flops on the beach 😆