Forum menu
Anyone who runs unless it's being employed as a method of survival (i.e. escaping kidnap, large carnivores, kids, wife, etc.,) should be summarily executed. They're all miserable bar-stewards.
Really? I find it more social than mountain biking.
stretch properly to aid recovery and alleviate instances of DOMS.
As stated earlier - very little evidence to support this.
Again very little evidence to support stretching or fancy shoes - wouldnt say that there was no evidence though.To the OP don't bother with fancy shoes or stretching. There is no evidence either do any good despite the anecdotal evidence you might get on here.
If you are a regular cyclist you will probably have an aerobic engine that will carry you much further and faster than your legs will cope with as they will not be used to the impact so even more reason to watch how much you do to start with.
Depends on what your regular cyclist does - couple of hours at a trail centre on a weekend morning, most of which is spent in th cafe will not provide and aerobic engine.
I'd say that is mostly nonsense. Impact is needed to help build bones.Dont bother, not trolling, but its too high impact and will bugger your knees.
[img] 
[/img]
my 'anecdotal' advise of stretching is that unless i a) walk for a few mins to cool down and b) stretch my legs are solid the next day.
similarly, i once did a wet foot test to choose shoes, i read thats what you do on the internet, and within weeks i could'nt run for knee pain. went to a specialist shop, sorted no issues.
Bare foot running: http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/
Some people think it is snake oil.
I think it makes perfect sense.
Read this through and make up your own mind!!!
Some people think it is snake oil.
Yup and there's one born every minute.
Again very little evidence to support stretching or fancy shoes - wouldnt say that there was no evidence though.
There may be little evidence but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it if it works for you. In the face of little "evidence" surely anecdotal and personal experience actually tell you more.
Having just taken up running after years of cycling, I can promise you that stretching my calves has helped, as has general stretching of those specific muscles used in running. So you are telling me I shouldn't be doing this, even though I have found it works for me?
I can promise you that stretching my calves has helped, as has general stretching of those specific muscles used in running.
How do you know?
How do you know?
Because I can feel it.
Because I can feel it.
Maybe but there is little or no evidence that it increases mobility or reduces injury. There is a similar amount of evidence to show it may be harmful.
[url= http://sock-doc.com/2011/04/stop-stretching/ ]Stop Stretching[/url]
Maybe but there is little or no evidence that it increases mobility or reduces injury. There is a similar amount of evidence to show it may be harmful.
As with wearing or not training shoes?!
So you are telling me I shouldn't be doing this, even though I have found it works for me?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm merely pointing out that there is very little evidence to support the idea that stretching is of benefit. If it works for you that's fantastic keep doing it.
As with wearing or not training shoes?!
The evidence for wearing or not wearing shoes is anecdotal and not really scientific. Its not practical to be a runner and not wear shoes simply because we cant all train and compete on soft grass.
When this is is discussed its never really what it seems. Proponents of barefoot running dont mean "bare foot" running they mean running in shoes which have reduced lift.
These shoes have been around for years so the "built" up shoes are really a straw man. "Barefoot" then just becomes a marketing tool to replace the one you are trying to debunk.
As an aside can you name me a competitive distance runner that competes shoeless?
re: stretching - I find it helps me to relax my muscles more which makes running more enjoyable and (I think) makes me run more efficiently. YMMV
re: "barefoot" shoes - yes I would agree that it is a bandwagon which has been jumped on lately. However, as mentioned zero (or minimal) drop shoes have been around for years. Aren't proper racing shoes (like wot Mo Farah or Bolt would wear) not like this? Hence are not all these artificially padded shoes not the "snake oil"?
Zola Budd
Hence are not all these artificially padded shoes not the "snake oil"?
Discount Bolt as he is a sprinter and probably doesnt run "distance" as we would describe it.
Farah races on the track in the shoes you describe which would have almost no cushioning. On the road he would wear a flatish racing shoe with a noticeable midsole and for the remaining 96% of his running I assume he would wear a traditional training shoe given to him by his sponsors
Don't do it! Look what's happening to me... http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/pee-in-my-blood
You should know better Glupton 😉 She raced on the track barefoot but she trained in shoes and also raced on the road and country shod (although she ran some XC races barefoot on occasion)
Farah uses spikes on the track.
As an aside can you name me a competitive distance runner that competes shoeless?
That was the question you asked - she is still competing on the US masters circuit.
I'm liking the shoes like the Saucony kinvara, pretty low heel but with some cushioning for my toes.. 6mm i think but could be 4mm drop.
Barefoot is the style that i do whilst wearing shoes! It can be any shoe that has a low heel although i changed my running style with the help of newton shoes as they do help place your foot and encourage forefoot strike.
At around 200gm the Kinvara has racing flat weight but with a bit of protection. Great for the miles im doing and easy to swap to a dedicated flat for 10k race day!
Not sure about the stretching, i do it in karate with everyone else in class but that's about it. I find i try and stretch when im injured to but have more success with strengthening exercises with injuries.
but not barefoot
I find i try and stretch when im injured to but have more success with strengthening exercises with injuries.
That would probably be because when you have injured a muscle just about the last thing you should be doing is stretching that muscle...
Surfer - I need evidence man.
I was going to use Zola as an example, but in Surfers defense he said competes.
And actually I agree with most of what is says in the above post, as with Zilog's post.
I don't run bare foot, but I do run in Vibram Five Fingers (VFF's) I am happily running 5 - 10kms in them and as long as I am doing it regularly my calves don't get too hammered. I used to be plagued with shin related injuries which would mean I could barely walk if ignored. These have disappeared using VFF's, which force me to run with a mid or forefoot strike rather than a heel strike.
I have also tried the merrel Trail Glove shoe which uses a vibram sole with slightly more cushioning, not enough for heal striking to be comfortable, but enough for my feet to feel ok after hours of running and walking. I find it much less flexible and it holds my foot rigidly laterally, ie I think it artificially turns my ankle in and holds it there.
I was using these for longer trail runs last summer almost exclusively, but I think they contributed to a stress fracture in my leg. I now don't run in them and have brought my VFF's back out again.
So far my own limited practical research in this area has suggested that for me a very flexible sole that allows my foot to smoosh about and ankles to role around makes for least chance of injury. Other people may be different.
Your making the assertion not me. I am asking a question.
I took too long to respond! Can't discount bolt just because he sprints. Running and sprinting are the same physical motion. You just engage different energy sources to achieve the speed.
Running and sprinting are the same physical motion.
Of course they are however Bolt doesnt run in the same way that Farah does in the sense that his only requirement is traction and something to show his sponsors name!
To some extend this is the same of Farah when he competes. The difference being Farah probably spends about 90% of his running time in something we would all recognise as a "traditional" shoe and not something we would describe as akin to "barefoot" To bolt it doesnt really matter I suspect he seldom runs more than a mile or so in training and that is at very high speed. I may be wrong but he is not what you would call a "distance" runner/trainer
My theory is that barefoot or minimalist shoes allow or encourage more movement at the ankle joint, which in turn uses the small muscles in the lower legs more effectively - things like the peroneals, tib pos, flex dig+hall longus. Folk who have "achilles" pain are often misdiagnosed as having tendinopathy when it's really one or more of those muscles that's giving them stick. It's certainly true in my case.
I asked a contact of mine who works in elite distance running in Ethiopia - he tells me that runners there run barefoot until they are sponsored then they tend to run in whatever the sponsor gives them - changing shoes depending on what they are doing in training and the part of their training cycle. Once they are sponsored they are encouraged to do a couple of barefoot runs each week.
Plus one or Fell Running
Massive amount of freedom as to where is good to run compared to a bike. I suspect the running naysayers are just rubbish at running.
A great addition to add to your hobbies. Only run on the roads as a last resort though, xc/trail/fell-mountain is the way to go.
It's only a matter of time before you buy your first singlet.
Can anyone explain the difference between these new fangled minimalist shoes and a pair of Walsh PB's for me please?
Aside from the Walshes having far gripper tread.
My theory is that barefoot or minimalist shoes
Therin lies the problem. Its marketing language that describes something that has been around for decades. We just called them something else. Its this straw man of "built up" shoes versus "minimalist".
"Built up" just means a shoe with a midsole and given that you are not running "barefoot" in its literal sense then your shoe has a midsole. Its called something different and their are a host of manufacturing companies and marketeers happy to perpetuate it.
Just my opinion
Can anyone explain the difference between these new fangled minimalist shoes and a pair of Walsh PB's for me please?
About £50
😀
Sorry for the thread hijack by the way whattyre!
Unfortunately I need to get on with some work 🙁 Would be interested to debate this further with more hard evidence available though (googled pictures of Mo training and couldn't find anything without a prominent sponsors logo, although all shoes were cushioned with heel lift interestingly)
piemonster - MemberCan anyone explain the difference between these new fangled minimalist shoes and a pair of Walsh PB's for me please?
Aside from the Walshes having far gripper tread.
well,
surfer - MemberAbout £50
covers most of it, but rest assured that when you buy a pair of merrels/inov8's you've invested your money in a company that's spent loads more money on styling and advertising.
A lot of shoes marketed as "barefoot" or "minimalist" have a midsole (although it will probably be thinner than a "normal" shoe). For example the Merrell Trail Gloves I run in have a 4mm midsole."Built up" just means a shoe with a midsole and given that you are not running "barefoot" in its literal sense then your shoe has a midsole.
AFAIK it's the toe-to-heel drop that determines whether a shoe is "minimalist" or not. Out of interest what is the bio-mechanical reasoning behind a larger drop (10mm or more) given that the foot is not shaped that way and running on the heel is not good form?
Not really sure, having never come across them in person. A quick look at their website reveals that some models are lightweight and come with minimal drop, similar to "barefoot" shoes. The first thing I noticed though looking at the Walsh website is all their shoes are banana-shaped, rather than foot-shaped, which struck me as a bit odd!Can anyone explain the difference between these new fangled minimalist shoes and a pair of Walsh PB's for me please?Aside from the Walshes having far gripper tread.
Can anyone explain the difference between these new fangled minimalist shoes and a pair of Walsh PB's for me please?
What tend to be considered as 'proper' minimalist shoes tend to have a much wider forefoot than Walshes, though it's yonks since I had a pair, so could be talking cobblers. Also the eva foam seem to blow through pretty quickly on them.
But mostly they're too cheap and the wrong shade of blue and yellow.
IanMunro - MemberWhat tend to be considered as 'proper' minimalist shoes tend to have a much wider forefoot than Walshes, though it's yonks since I had a pair, so could be talking cobblers.
they do a wide-fit option now, i find them very comfy.
(standard Walshes are too narrow for me)
You see that's where they went wrong. Called it wide fit, rather than bio-optimised minimalism compliance technology.
ah, but they've called them 'ultras'
as in 'PB Extreme Ultra'!
That Norman, he's on the ball.
Ish
Interesting. What about shoes like Newtons which I've just started running in? Quite liking them.
Went for a [url= http://app.strava.com/activities/39987598 ]second run[/url] yesterday. Same distance as before, but faster and with less walking. Enjoyed it.
This:
Plus one for Fell RunningMassive amount of freedom as to where is good to run compared to a bike. I suspect the running naysayers are just rubbish at running.
A great addition to add to your hobbies. Only run on the roads as a last resort though, xc/trail/fell-mountain is the way to go.A great addition to add to your hobbies.