[Closed] A question for the STW runners

Salomon Speed Cross or XT Wings (hybrid).

No experience of Inov8 but their stuff is supposedly quite good.

muti surface, depends on gait. Could go for ASICS Torana, they are good on road / hardpack and a little bit of mud. I love mine. For full on Fell running I've got Inov8 Flyrock, take any recommendations for Inov8 with a pinch of salt, they are great for fells and mostly awful on the road I find, plus you'll need to be an experienced forefoot runner to get the most out of them.

The torana are really good for trail / road mix 'cos they are my road shoe with a more aggressive tread

I use Roclite 295s and love them to bits....they are more for [s]80/20[/s] 90/10 off road/road I would say.

Thing is if it is dry any trainer will be fine off road.....add water tho and it is a different matter.

Salomon Speed Cross for multi surface? I'll give them 2 weeks.

Sounds like XT wings are what you're after.

I use inov8 and will keep doing so - you really need to try some different brands on though to see which feel right for you.

My full on mud trail shoes are Inov8 Mudclaws which are great for their purpose. Salomon Speed Cross 2s do the job for all round trail running. Light, comfy, excellent grip but too soft for too much tarmac.

Mudclaws here too.

Personally I think XT wings are hideous off road (and on for that matter). Did less than a mile before I'd had enough of them. Bit like wearing rigid clogs with a massive wide heel seeming serving no purpose but to twist your ankles. But your mileage may vary 🙂

Thing is if it is dry any trainer will be fine off road.....add water tho and it is a different matter.

Hmm, not sure about that. Fell shoes like the Inov8 s described above tend to be 'lower slung' than 'normal' trainers and so give a bit more stability on rough ground - imagine running on high heels.

I really like Montrail Highlanders but they don't make them any more 🙁
Inov8 seem to be taking over the market and have a vast range. They've prompted Walsh to update their design but the suggestion is it's too little too late. There is a rumour of a full-on Salomon fell shoe coming which should be much better than what they've had before and a competitor for the Inov8 range - maybe more than you need though. My advice would be to avoid running on roads if you have a choice 🙂

I'm off to get my running assessed next week

Hmm...

I'm of the opinion that you don't need your running assessed. Unless it's someone entirely independent telling you that you're running wrong.

I'm possibly going to come across all conspiracy theory or hippy, but the concept of someone telling you that you need stability / motion control / cushioned, etc, benefits only the shop and the running shoe companies.

There is a gradually growing body of evidence that suggests that the less cushioning the better (eg, http://www.inov-8.com/News-Detail.asp?L=26&NID=342). Heavy cushioning in shoes is a recent (last 20-30 years or so) phenomenon. Humans were designed to run barefoot and have coped fine for millenia. The legs, when given the chance, are wonderful at absorbing the impacts of running - just don't land heel first.

To that end, first stop is to look at your running technique. First step would be to read Gordon Pirie's book (free):

There are loads of books on the subject (eg, Danny Dreyer). As a simple point, just watch the Africans run and take note. Lightweight, thin-soled shoes are the way forward.

Anyway, enough of my trying to educate and change the running world...

The answer to your question is a bit tricky.

what I should be looking for, mostly running on road but with a combination of bridleways, farmtracks and grassy hills thrown in as well.

To put it in mountain bike terms, you've just asked what tyres for mostly riding on road, oh, but they have to be good on grass and bridleways (you can run on footpaths too, you know 🙂 )?

You're going to end up with a bit of a compromise, but something along these lines would be perfect: http://www.inov-8.com/Products-Detail.asp?PG=PG1&P=5050973021&L=26

Apologies for the ramble.

i use saucony grizzly trail they suit me as I have fat feet! I had never heard of saucony but I really like them!

Nick

Trouble is, you want a shoe for hardpack (farm tracks/bridleways) and presumably on grassy hills you will on occasion be descending steep wet grass. Additionally I see no mention of the need for a full on mud shoe some have called out above.

The stuff that works well on hard pack doesn't neccesarily work well on steep grass... E.g. the Trailquesters 'favourite'; Salomon XA's are great on bridleways, hardpack etc but a bit errr, lethal on steep grass.

Given the above, I think I'd be inclined towards the XT Wings or Inov8 Flyroc though the latter dunt have much in the way of cushioning if you're doing mainly hardpack. Bomba may have a point about how we are 'designed' but I prefer a bit of cushioning when running on hard surfaces. I usually need a volume reducer in the Flyroc as well as they are higher volume than my feet. Helps with the cushioning.

BTW. don't get GTX lined ones. They just keep water in and take an age to dry out.

By the sounds of things you dont need "fell" shoes just go for a comfortabel trainer with a slightly more aggresive outersole like the Pegasus which cope very well with the mixed terrain you describe.

Fell shoes are normally ideal for serious climbing and decending and designed to keep your foot low to the ground to prevent sliding and twisting. This mean little cushioning compared to an Asics/Adidas/Nike trainer.

I had never heard of saucony but I really like them!

Very good quality and fantastic fit. Cant recomend them enough if they suit you.
I recall being at a Bulmers series of 5 milers years and years ago and Steve Ovett tuned up in a pair of them. It was at the end of his career (he still ran 22 mins that day to win!) and he was out of contract with Nike and he had bought them himself!!! needless to say they offered him sponsorship.

I knew everyone would recommend inov8. if you do get some, be prepared to take some time off injured or build up very slowly into getting used to them, especially if you run on the road with them!

I echo what bomba has talked about. I used to wear specialist orthotics for 10 years every day and since I have been running in minimalist shoes, have got rid of them.

If you are new to minimalist running you want to take it easy or you could end up getting injured.

My trail running shoes are inov8 f-lite 230's which are great. the heel is still built up a bit too much for my liking, but they are grippy while also being flexible.

I knew everyone would recommend inov8

It's cause they are wikid.

....plus you can get good deals on last years models. I just got another pair of 295s for £45 from Sportshoes.com.

I love my Inov-8 Mudrocs, though I'm not really a runner. They're very good on the bike too: did both Kielder 100s in mine.

Djg has a good point. Inov8s are quite brutal. Little or no padding, very minimalist. They take some getting.g used to and will cause blisters. If you are serious about running, hang in there but be wary of being put off. While my Mudclaws are great, they kill my calves for the first few runs. Once used to them, they are fine.

I went for the less hardcore Roclites for more all round trail stuff and could not get on with them. The Salomon Speedcross 2s are lighter, slightly padded and just as grippy. They also have Salomons superb speedlace system. Inov8s have crap laces. Highly recommend Lock laces from Wiggle for them. Vastly improved my Mudclaws and road shoes and very handy for triathlons.

The Salomon Speedcross 2s are lighter, slightly padded and just as grippy. They also have Salomons superb speedlace system. Inov8s have crap laces. Highly recommend Lock laces from Wiggle for them. Vastly improved my Mudclaws and road shoes and very handy for triathlons.

Blah blah blah 😉

Jamie - just balancing the Inov8 obsession a bit. They don't suit everyone...

As others have said, be realistic about what you're going to run on and what your needs are. Like tyres, if you buy something with big knobbly rubber fell running soles they will be horribly squirmy on the road (where you say most of your running will be done).

Fit will be the most important criteria in choosing a shoe, but it sounds like you're headed in the right direction already by going to a running shop. A decent shop should be able to point you in the direction of a shoe that fits well and works with your intended mix of terrain.

Jamie - just balancing the Inov8 obsession a bit. They don't suit everyone...

Not really an obsession as there has been about 3 recommendations? Anyways, ragging on the laces seems a bit much.

I'd avoid Adidas Kanadias... great off road, but on tarmac they're lethal - completely unpredictable grip. Perfect for running round the local park but I have to run very carefully to get there.

I started running earlier this year, in some Asics from Decathlon.

When I realised that I quite enjoy it, I bought some Adidas Supernovas, which are a road type shoe with a bit more off-road tread pattern.

My LRS (see what I did there?) said that unless I was doing all off-road cross country wet muddy stuff, road shoes are still the right footwear, for firmer paths, tracks etc. I try to stick to off road wherever possible and these have been good so far.

I tend to do 6 - 9 milers on tracks, bridleways, footpaths and fields with the obligatory linking road sections. With some good off-road hills too!

I also use the Asics for shorter more road type training runs, which is apparently better than sticking to one pair of shoes.

I've realised that the running world is a lot more technical when you get into the detail, very much like bikes, and I'm sure that most of it is blarney sales talk. Sure, there have been some improvements, but "which shoes for....." struck me as a bit odd being as it's all just running.

So, I agree with what bomba says to a large extent.

as for Lock Laces....they were great in the off-road duathlon I did in October, but less good for longer xc runs as I can't get the right tension lower down my foot as the elastic tends to give a bit too much, and the shoe feels a bit loose towards the toes.

[i]mostly running on road but with a combination of bridleways, farmtracks and grassy hills[/i]

You don't specialist off road shoes for the type of running you're aiming to do. Ok, you might slip a bit on the grassy hills...mleh.

I used to be of the opinion that running assessment was rubbish, but I've changed my view on it, the ideal is running without pain, not necessarily running on a particular part of your foot, if you get a shoe that allows you to do that, then all it's all good.

Bomba, what may have been true of our prehistoric ancestors may not be true now, I doubt many would want to run barefoot on tarmac for very long.

Bomba, what may have been true of our prehistoric ancestors may not be true now, I doubt many would want to run barefoot on tarmac for very long.

"Barefoot" doesn't necessarily mean no shoes.

May I Hijack ?

Does the snow/icey pavements stop you guys running?

Or do you use trail shoes on the snow/slush/ice?

Haven't got out in the last week (having only just got into running in the past few months) and really missing it.

On sheet ice there is little that will help, trail shoes will help in snow slush though.

do you run at the moment? there are better places than stw to get advice.
do you just want another kit hungry hobby? buy the expensive ones recommended above.

Does the snow/icey pavements stop you guys running?

As soon as the snow on pavements gets compressed I don't think it's worth the risk running on it.

To keep me running I'll do hill or sprint sessions in a park or field.

Does the snow/icey pavements stop you guys running?

Nope

Mr surfer would you be so kind as to give more details.

Where d'you run the beach, fields, on the semi clear road. Or do you just take it slow and steady on the pavement

what people miss when they harp on about barefoot running is that you still need some cushioning when running on roads. Our ancestors may well have run well barefoot, but across open plains where no cushioning is needed. I use minimal cushioning on the fells, but if I'm going anywhere near the road or hardpack for most of the run then I'll thank the last 20-30 years with of developments that mean I can have my shins and knees intact.

Does the snow/icey pavements stop you guys running?

Nope. [url= http://www.inov-8.com/Products-Detail.asp?L=26&PG=PG1&P=5050973021 ]These[/url] are surprisingly grippy on the hardpacked ice.

Failing that, XC spikes if its really bad, but never bought any myself.

Where d'you run the beach, fields, on the semi clear road. Or do you just take it slow and steady on the pavement

I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere where I can get the mileage in and its sufficiently lit with streetlights for evening training. Near my house is very icy so its just a case of taking it easy for a bit then increasing the pace when its clear enough.
If its light or at weekends most of my running is a mix of rads and off road unless its a specific session so I will do intervals or hills on a road or ground that is safe.
If I cant find any then just steady running until things improve.

I use Saucony Jazz trainers for a mixture of on / off road. Cheap, and very good.

Your not actually doing much offroad from what your saying so a normal trainer would probably be better than anything resembling an off road shoe.

Just get out and run too, People worry far too much these days about their running style and which trainer they can have, maybe its just anal mountain bikers though... certainly none of the local running club people seem as bothered as half the people here.

Just get out and run too, People worry far too much these days about their running style and which trainer they can have, maybe its just anal mountain bikers though... certainly none of the local running club people seem as bothered as half the people here.

Yep

what people miss when they harp on about barefoot running is that you still need some cushioning when running on roads. Our ancestors may well have run well barefoot, but across open plains where no cushioning is needed. I use minimal cushioning on the fells, but if I'm going anywhere near the road or hardpack for most of the run then I'll thank the last 20-30 years with of developments that mean I can have my shins and knees intact.

Nope, plenty of people running marathons and long road runs barefoot and with minimalist shoes.

Nope, plenty of people running marathons and long road runs barefoot and with minimalist shoes.

Other than Bikila can you point to any competitive marathon runners competing barefoot?

[i]I use minimal cushioning on the fells, but if I'm going anywhere near the road or hardpack for most of the run then I'll thank the last 20-30 years with of developments that mean I can have my shins and knees intact.[/i]

One wonders how on earth people managed to run before the 70s 🙂
Oh and try finding a manufacturer who will actually claim their shoes will do anything to keep your knees and shins intact 🙂

One wonders how on earth people managed to run before the 70s

In the same way that people cycled. However I suspect your bike looks more like a 21st C one than a 1960's model.
The fact that people ran in the 60's (and in many cases quicker than they do now but thats a different story) doesnt mean the changes in equipment since then havent been largely for the good.

[i]The fact that people ran in the 60's (and in many cases quicker than they do now but thats a different story) doesnt mean the changes in equipment since then havent been largely for the good.[/i]

Quite true, However it doesn't mean they have been largely for the good.
It does means it's very difficult to draw conclusions either way. Of course the first problem being even deciding on a common meaning of the word good 🙂

However it doesn't mean they have been largely for the good.

Maybe its best if you identify a "bad" one?

but the concept of someone telling you that you need stability / motion control / cushioned, etc, benefits only the shop and the running shoe companies.

Except they don't make any more money - if you go in for shoes you'll leave with a pair regardless of what kind they've sold you.

Running analysis is definitely good, but it depends what advice they are going to give you. Seems to me they just tell you if you over pronate or not, and tell you to choose support shoes appropriately. There's a lot more to it than that though as I've discovered. We tend to think running is completely natural, but you may have been running wrongly all this time. Or at least inefficiently.

[i]Maybe its best if you identify a "bad" one?[/i]
Maybe it's best if you quote the sentence after that.:)

But if you want -
[url] http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2010/06/26/bjsm.2009.069849.abstract [/url]

Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.

The co-authors work for Nike, and Nike funded it.

Why does every running thread on this forum have to end up as an argument about the merits of barefoot running? It's one option; some people like it, others don't. Each to their own.

I'm still running on snow-packed pavements and trails. Mudclaws do their stuff in the snow as well as the mud, although I am a little slower of late.

Why does every running thread on this forum have to end up as an argument about the merits of barefoot running?

Cos trolling them into this mess is soooo easy 😆

Cos trolling them into this mess is soooo easy

Oh, well in that case can I just say "I love God and think he's real". That should open up another load of typical STW arguments.

Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.

Given the tiny relative sample and the almost limitless potential for variables I suspect the study, and conclusion is really quite meaningless. Far be it from me to side with shoe manufacturers as I donr feel strongly one way or the other but this is a bit spurious.

However it doesn't mean they have been largely for the good.

Maybe its best if you identify a "bad" one?

Can you identify a "bad one"?

So what about Nike Frees then? I almost bought some on holiday.

Seems to me that I should work to correct whatever's wrong with my gait not just cater for it..?

Other than Bikila can you point to any competitive marathon runners competing barefoot?

My point was that there are plenty of people running long distances on hard roads either barefoot or in minimalist shoes. Whether there are many competitive marathon runners is not the issue, its about running without getting injured, not how fast you can go. Prior to the 1970's when the modern cushioned running shoe was invented, everyone ran in thin soled minimalist shoes.

Surfer, I just have. It's not my problem if you choose to dismiss it.

But I'm pretty happy that if the Nike researchers on it thought it was spurious they wouldn't have put their name to it as it doesn't do their company any favours. Can you really see them signing off on

This study is unable to provide support for the convention that highly pronated runners should wear motion control shoes. Current conventions for assigning stability categories for women's running shoes do not appear appropriate based on the risk of experiencing pain when training for a half marathon.

But if you want a bigger sample size
[url] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA523392 [/url]

No doubt that won't meet your exacting standards either 🙂

Whether there are many competitive marathon runners is not the issue,

I think it is (and you mentioned marathon runners) if it works and is an alternative to the shoes that the majority of runners wear then why are competitive runners not picking up on this? I suspect if it were effective that would translate into competitive advantage as more running means better results (within reason) so competitive athletes at all levels from the 55 min 10 mile club runners to the 45 min runners.
I'm not dismissing the concept as that would be luddite I just think its a marketing gimmick, happy to be proved wrong.

Prior to the 1970's when the modern cushioned running shoe was invented, everyone ran in thin soled minimalist shoes.

Yes they did, some even ran in boots! What is your point?

Ian I understood your point to be that people were apparently missold shoes? Bit like a mountainbiker being sold a skateboard? MTB ing isnt bad due to people being sold a product and the shoes themselves arent wrong but are just wrong for that user. That would probably explain why Nike put their name to it?
Again I am not defending Nike they are a (like all big companies) out to make a buck, they are not benevolent!
In many ways it is an argument FOR the development of equipment over the years that now there is a choice (for people to get wrong!)

Does the snow/icey pavements stop you guys running?

Horrible out there in the freezing fog, pavements would be grim for road or trail shoes. Just back some 1k reps on the frozen footy fields. Lots of water ice. Absolutely no problem in xc spikes though. Best session for ages 🙂

I don't like running in ice but it's a lot safer than cycling on it - so upped the running until the ice has started to clear a bit.

I road run in fairly padded Asics Kayanos - I just think tarmac kills knees. Whether it does or not, I find them comfy on roads.

For off road, little padding (the ground gives more) and a nice grippy light sole.

Jamie - you are hurt that I don't rate Inov8s too short laces?! The ones that comes undone all the time?! Stick some locklaces on (as I have done on my Mudclaws) and you can't get them on an off ten times quicker and they never come undone. A no brainer for £6. Stuck them on my Kayanos too for quicker transitions.

These are surprisingly grippy on the hardpacked ice.

Are you sure you don't mean hardpacked snow, or hardpacked dirt with a bit of ice on it, or anything else on which normal rubber provides a bit of grip? No way do normal rubber soled shoes - no matter how sticky - work on proper ice.

Unless of course you meant [url= http://www.inov-8.com/Products-Detail.asp?PG=PG1&P=5050973079&L=26 ]these[/url], which is what I use to run on ice - they work very well (no slipping at all on Saturday night with lots of ice about, both on path and off). Highly recommended if you really do want to run on ice - there are several other brands of orienteering shoes with small metal studs like this if you're not into Inov8s, it's just that contrary to the comments above I find Inov8s far more comfy than any other orienteering shoe I've tried - they're the only ones I don't get blisters in, even wearing them for over an hour straight out of the box. Far more practical for all-round use than XC spikes (not sure I'd want to try tarmac with those).

FWIW I really like Inov8s, what with their low to the ground feel, flexibility and lack of support which lets you run like you're supposed to. Doesn't mean I buy into the whole barefoot thing - I use orthotics in mine, which correct my structural misalignment - most of us aren't actually perfect running machines.

@Aracer.

They look good shoes but a bit specific! Can the studs be replaced when they wear?

I run indoors when the weather turns like this. I'm Lucky that there's a rec centre with a treadmill literally across the street from me. S'easy and the view's nice.

Studs are non-replaceable, but then they're tungsten and don't tend to wear that much provided you don't do lots of tarmac bashing (that wouldn't be much fun in those anyway). Previous ones I've had from other companies I've worn out the uppers before the studs - I've also had studs pull out of the rubber when they got old on one pair, but I understand this is something the Inov8s shouldn't suffer from as they've specfically worked on it, after it being a big problem on their previous version.

For sure they're specific - not really worth it just to run on ice once or twice a year - but then they're really designed for running off-track through forests, where the studs provide grip on wet wood (roots, fallen trees, brashings etc.).

Hmm - they look handy.

Mudclaws are good on slightly "rough" ice and snow but as you say, no rubber grips well on sheet ice.

Whether there are many competitive marathon runners is not the issue,

I think it is (and you mentioned marathon runners) if it works and is an alternative to the shoes that the majority of runners wear then why are competitive runners not picking up on this?

The whole point of the barefoot/minimalist thing is reduce running injuries not how to run faster.

Prior to the 1970's when the modern cushioned running shoe was invented, everyone ran in thin soled minimalist shoes.

Yes they did, some even ran in boots! What is your point?

Modern running shoes have done NOTHING to reduce running injuries and in some cases have made them worse.

A huge proportion of runners have nagging injuries every year and running shoe companies have been feeding the public bollocks since the 70's about injury prevention.

Most runners I meet have suffered injuries in some form or another and would like to find something that works to help them get back to running. Minimalist/barefoot running is something that is proven to help in a lot of cases and is not just a load of marketing guff cooked up by nike and other shoe companies.

[i]The whole point of the barefoot/minimalist thing is reduce running injuries not how to run faster. [/i]

surely the whole point is to find a shoe that makes running [b]for you[/b] pain free? rather than just say; barefoot: good. Running shoes: bad?

I suspect that there are loads more people running recreationally now there then ever were in the 70's, hence there are loads more injuries.

Ok so what do people think of Nike Frees?

Nike's take on the barefoot running shoe?

If it works for you...

They were very comfortable indeed running up and down the shop...

The whole point of the barefoot/minimalist thing is reduce running injuries not how to run faster.

surely the whole point is to find a shoe that makes running for you pain free? rather than just say; barefoot: good. Running shoes: bad?

I suspect that there are loads more people running recreationally now there then ever were in the 70's, hence there are loads more injuries.

Whether it's a shoe, a slipper or running barefeet, whatever works and allows you to run injury free is the main thing. The problem is that running shoe companies have been preaching Cushioned running shoes = good, everything else = bad, which is total bollox.

Some people can happily go their whole lives running with terrible running form and not get injured, but the majority will suffer sooner or later. Cushioned running shoes allow people to run with awful technique.

[i]Cushioned running shoes allow people to run with awful technique.[/i]

so what? As long as their pain free who cares what their technique looks like.

[i]The problem is that running shoe companies have been preaching Cushioned running shoes = good, everything else = bad, which is total ******.[/i]

Really? I've never seen anything from any running shoe company to that effect, in fact some are embracing it and doing their own take on eh whole idea (that'll be Nike Free, for example) Remember running shoe companies want to sell trainers, to the most people they can, and loads of folk will use these to jog ever-so-slowly round the park, mostly on their heels, shuffling along, and y'know what? Really cushioned shoes are dead comfy for that, and that's cool.

FWIW I've done the whole barefoot thing on training runs, along beaches, across grassy fields, and it's great. but for my regular pavement/road 10k a good pair of cushioned soles works great...for me.

BTW, you might want to edit your sweary post, the mods are being ruthless about it...

so what? As long as their pain free who cares what their technique looks like.

I'll say it again: Some people can happily go their whole lives running with terrible running form and not get injured, but [i]the majority[/i] will suffer sooner or later. Cushioned running shoes allow people to run with awful technique.

Really? I've never seen anything from any running shoe company to that effect

Really? Never heard that you should replace your running shoes after 400-500 miles because of the cushioning? I wonder where that came from?

Remember running shoe companies want to sell trainers, to the most people they can

More technological mumbo jumbo = more sales, bit like mountain biking 😉

No way do normal rubber soled shoes - no matter how sticky - work on proper ice.

I just got in from a 7 miler in my [url= http://www.inov-8.com/Products-Detail.asp?L=26&PG=PG1&P=5050973021 ]F-Lite 230s [/url]which have a really sticky sole and are nice and grippy usually.

Was on my arse several times so I can confirm the above 😉

The whole point of the barefoot/minimalist thing is reduce running injuries not how to run faster.

I fully understand that however my point is that to be a fast runner, as well as training hard you need to remain injury free. If running barefoot reduced injuries then competitive athletes would soon adopt this method not because they want to run barefoot but because they want to run fast. Consistent periods of training make runners fast. If this correlation existed we would see competitive runners training and competing in races in their bare feet. I see none so I suspect the correlation doesnt exist.

Modern running shoes have done NOTHING to reduce running injuries and in some cases have made them worse.

You cant say this with any degree of certainty and the studies I have seen dont bear this out. It is impossible to know that if a runner hadnt run in built up shoes they would have been injured less.

As I said above Nike et all are out to fleece us all but that doesnt mean the latest shoes are bad or that a few people getting results (of which you cant give examples of) from barefoot running substantiate your hypothesis.

Most "runners" suffer injuries because they are always pushing the envelope in terms of both volume and intensity. Whatever they wear they will likely injur themselves at some point simply because they will continue to try to do more.

Making "joggers" (by that I mean recreational runners who have no intention of improving performance or speed) less injury prone is hardly a big win. A bit like my GP curing my running injuries by telling me never to run.

More technological mumbo jumbo = more sales, bit like mountain biking

I agree however barefoot running is the latest gimmick I think.

Cushioned running shoes allow people to run with awful technique.

But youve just made that up!

I suspect that there are loads more people running recreationally now there then ever were in the 70's, hence there are loads more injuries.

+1. Running/jogging is mainstream and years ago the injury rate was very high.

'Nike Free' have as much cushioning as anything else out there - i had a close look at them cos i like thin-soled shoes, and the adverts suggested they were simple and minimalist.

(they've got dirty great wedges of rubber under the heels)

a bit more research (youtube) digs up something about the way that the front of the sole flexes more easily than other shoes.

maybe the idea is so that your foot has to adapt to lumps and bumps like you were running barefoot, but still with loads of heel cushioning.

if you like heel cushioning, but don't need 'support' - then maybe Nike Free shoes might be worth a look at?

only the crustiest of hippies would suggest that running literally barefoot is a good idea, but there's a lot to be said for running with a fore-foot strike in simple cheap shoes.

but there's a lot to be said for running with a fore-foot strike.

+1

The whole point of the barefoot/minimalist thing is reduce running injuries not how to run faster.

I fully understand that however my point is that to be a fast runner, as well as training hard you need to remain injury free. If running barefoot reduced injuries then competitive athletes would soon adopt this method not because they want to run barefoot but because they want to run fast. Consistent periods of training make runners fast. If this correlation existed we would see competitive runners training and competing in races in their bare feet. I see none so I suspect the correlation doesnt exist.

Modern running shoes have done NOTHING to reduce running injuries and in some cases have made them worse.

You cant say this with any degree of certainty and the studies I have seen dont bear this out. It is impossible to know that if a runner hadnt run in built up shoes they would have been injured less.

As I said above Nike et all are out to fleece us all but that doesnt mean the latest shoes are bad or that a few people getting results (of which you cant give examples of) from barefoot running substantiate your hypothesis.

Most "runners" suffer injuries because they are always pushing the envelope in terms of both volume and intensity. Whatever they wear they will likely injur themselves at some point simply because they will continue to try to do more.

Making "joggers" (by that I mean recreational runners who have no intention of improving performance or speed) less injury prone is hardly a big win. A bit like my GP curing my running injuries by telling me never to run.

More technological mumbo jumbo = more sales, bit like mountain biking

I agree however barefoot running is the latest gimmick I think.

Cushioned running shoes allow people to run with awful technique.

But youve just made that up!

I suspect that there are loads more people running recreationally now there then ever were in the 70's, hence there are loads more injuries.

+1. Running/jogging is mainstream and years ago the injury rate was very high.

I cannot be arsed to argue about it. Good luck with your cushioned shoes, if they work for you great, keep going with them.

We had this discussion a while ago.

Here is a link to the thread: http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/any-runners-on-here-why-do-my-legs-hurt

I'm not going to get involved in another internet debate, I stand by what I said on the thread and will merely say if you are new to running then start out minimalist because you'll be starting from scratch anyway. So starting slowly won't be anything other than what you should be doing anyway.

If you are not and you are prone to injury (Which it sounds like you might be, why else are you getting your running assessed?) reign it in start slowly, with every step think about how your foot is striking the ground. Consider the forces your body is experiencing with every foot strike and whether the route of transmission of those forces through your body is the best.

Dom

Has any of this cobblers helped the OP?

surfer
I'm not dismissing the concept as that would be luddite I just think its a marketing gimmick

why would encouraging people to try barefoot running be a marketing gimmick? you cant sell people new feet 😯

nohands - HAHA!

To be fair the "bare foot" shoes are horrendously expensive! I paid over a hundred quid for mine for some reason.

However you don't need them, it depends how hardy you are, I am a southern softie and I like my tootsies!

To be fair the "bare foot" shoes are horrendously expensive! I paid over a hundred quid for mine for some reason.

😯