[Closed] Turns out that I was wrong. (shoe content)

/obligatory

/p>

Is this you, 33 seconds in? 🙂

/Edit: Too slow!! 😀

8)

didnt listen to me AGAIN shmeee

I've been running in these this week 🙂
[img] [/img]

That made me chuckle 🙂

Interesting - your achilles tendon problem cleared up? That's usually the thing that starts to hurt when people start minimalist running.

Have you seen a physio about it?

Interesting - your achilles tendon problem cleared up? That's usually the thing that starts to hurt when people start minimalist running.

Am slightly intrigued by this. Sounds counter intuitive but heard that it's the case.

Also glupton, be interested to hear what sort of plan you followed and any preparatory work you did.

Terry - you were always banging on about running with a forefoot strike - that's why I didnt listen to you - because that is just silly.

I have a natural midfoot strike running style.

Molgrips - yes my bilateral chronic achilles problem cleared up.

Crikey - saw several physios - including some of the best elite sports physios in the country.

MrBlobby - No preparatory work, just changed shoes.

I think that the reason it worked might be down to the greater amount of freedom that the shoes provide, but also the paradoxical greater amount of arch support that they feel that they give. One part of my injury was an insertional achilles tendinopathy and a bit of bursitis which was due to a overpronation on one of my feet. I think the old shoes were forcing my foot into a position that it didnt really need to go to, but weren't providing any arch support - i.e. the heel counter was doing all the work.

My achilles felt a lot better after the minimal-shoe run I did on Tuesday, certainly compared to a run in normal shoes. Sadly, I can hardly walk today due to calf soreness... my build up was going well, but then I took a couple of weeks off. Oops. 🙄

I think that because minimal shoes don't provide any support, your foot muscles all get a decent workout and get strengthened which could sort out any imbalances.

When I first did it I had painful arches for a while - not any more, the muscles in there have strengthened up no end. So you could say I no longer need any arch support.

Terry - you were always banging on about running with a forefoot strike - that's why I didnt listen to you - because that is just silly.

Why's it silly?

molgrips - I think it's silly to run with a forefoot strike because it effectively shock loads your achilles using the biggest lever available. The biomechanics of a midfoot strike seem like a much better idea for me and my sample size of 2 feet or 1 person.

mid foot .... i have an arch in the middle of my foot .....

forefoot is the ball ... heel is the rear ......remembering im not a medical professional in training....

Terry - have a watch of this - http://bcove.me/bl3sigi6

no .... i have a 50kb connection via 3g dongle im in the middle of the desert - look out the windows i see camels and sand dunes

So how do you land on your midfoot then?

My forefoot touches the ground first, then my midfoot gets lowered onto the ground and if I am tired and/or going slowly, my heel lands on the floor. If I am trying to fast it doesn't touch.

OK - you're an engineer - if the ball of your foot is your forefoot and your heel is your rearfoot - how would you get the bit in the middle to hit the ground? Destructive testing is not allowed.

If you really are "striking" with the ball of your foot then there is probably an issue. If you are just touching down first before using the arch to absorb most of the impact then that's probably ok, though maybe too short a stride or you are running on your toes.

Regardless of all this barefoot stuff, any sort of "striking" is bad. Need to feel light on your feet and brush the ground.

Interesting stuff, I am keen to get some "transitional" shoes after being sold the concept by an evangelist local running shop owner.

I was going to start a thread but was scared of the flaming 😀 OK here goes, are they any good?

So against my better judgement I decided to try some minimalist shoes.

The other option is landing on the outside of your foot...?

Landing with your foot flat?

And in other news - my early experiments with Kinesio tape and neck pain and lower back pain are looking promising...

If you land flat footed, your knee/thigh has to do all the shock absorbtion. If you land outside or forefoot then your foot, calf, knee and thigh can all contribute.

I like to land forefoot, I feel like my achilles is the best place to store energy and release it on push off. I do not get achilles problems. I'm not fast either though.

There shouldn't be much "shock" to absorb. Most of the shock comes from people overstriding and driving their heel into the ground. Foot should be landing softly and brushing the ground. If your foot is being driven into the ground and you're worried about shock absorption then there is a problem. Always found it a good thing to try and focus on making as little noise as possible when running (edit: being light on your feet.)

If your foot is being driven into the ground and you're worried about shock absorption then there is a problem

You need to remember that action and reaction are equal and opposite! there is always a considerable amount of force going through your body as you run, you can reduce it and improve your style (lots of running miles does this) but there is always impact.
It is more natural to land on your forefoot and not your heel and minimilist footwear has been around since we started wearing it. The new stuff is just designed to seperate people from their money!

Foot should be landing softly and brushing the ground.

That's exactly what I am talking about. Being 'light' on your feet is just another way of talking about absorbing shock. After all, I still weigh 85kg...

If you land flat footed, your knee/thigh has to do all the shock absorbtion. If you land outside or forefoot then your foot, calf, knee and thigh can all contribute.

+1, if you land on your heel your leg is basically straight, landing on your forefoot you're much more likely to have a bent knee, which means the muscles rather than the joints are taking the strain.

(Although I'm still not completely sold on the pseudo-scientific appeal of "1000s of years of evolution can't be wrong" - certainly 50 years of antibiotics, for example, do better than nature...)

Can I safely assume most of this is bobbins, if you run off road?

50 years of antibiotics haven't been better than nature from the bacteria's point of view 🙂 There you've got competing evolution - our immune systems have been competing with the bacteria's aim to survive.

The thing is, we evolved to run a certain way, and we invented shoes that allow us to run in a different way. The shoes made it possible, but some people are arriving at the conclusion that whilst it is possible to run this way, it might not be desirable after all in the long run.

In the same way I suppose that inventing the car has allowed us to get around without any effort. This is easy, but it's not good for us in the long run.

Can I safely assume most of this is bobbins, if you run off road?

Its mostly rubbish anyway, and cyclical. Find a comfortable pair of shoes and go out running.

Its mostly rubbish anyway, and cyclical. Find a comfortable pair of shoes and go out running.

... then end up injured, pondering stuff like this 🙂

Edit: Though TBF I have ran and raced for most of my life in modern running shoes and only in the last two years have been seriously bothered by lower leg problems and started looking at this sort of thing.

It's all a bit reminiscent of the 29er revolution. Need to sell more things? Invent a new thing related to but not the same as thing x, call it thing x-evo and watch the cash roll in.

If you can back it up with 'science' and/or native people, all the better.

Pumps. That's what we did cross country in.
Walshes. That's what we did fell running in.
Trainers. That's what we did marathons in.

You'll never go broke flogging stuff to folk wi'more money than sense..

Crikey is right there is nothing new under the sun just re branding and selling it to mugs!

More money than sense?

I wanted a pair of running shoes with no heel. I paid about £50. Not outrageous for running shoes, is it? And they are very different to run in, clearly and obviously. You might enjoy trying to sound clever via inverse snobbery, but regardless there is obviously a difference between running in flat shoes without cushioning and ones with thick cushy heels. Try it if you don't believe me.

Sometimes, cynicism is warranted, sometimes it's not. What bike do you ride, incidentally? When I were a lad ee by gum I rode around on a £99 racing bike...

I wanted a pair of running shoes with no heel.

When you say no heel what do you mean?

but regardless there is obviously a difference between running in flat shoes without cushioning and ones with thick cushy heels. Try it if you don't believe me.

The fact of the matter is that you are new to running by your own admission and training and racing shoes, or as we used to call them "flats" have been around forever. The fact that they are now called something else is branding and the ones I see advertised are just equivalent to racing shoes I have ran in for the last 30+ years, and yes I have tried a lot of them from track spikes to well cushioned shoes.

You might enjoy trying to sound clever via inverse snobbery

Its just a bit tiresome Molly

I rode around on a £99 racing bike

If that technology was being sold today as cutting edge and people where evangelising about it then maybe we all would have something to say.

The fact that they are now called something else is branding and the ones I see advertised are just equivalent to racing shoes I have ran in for the last 30+ years

So what? I wanted a pair, I bought a pair. Racing flats/minimal shoes, who cares what they are called? The minimal shoes fit what I wanted, and were actually cheaper than racing flats, so I got them. Failing to see why I am being stupid and marketing led, especially since I don't read running magazines or go on running forums. I fact, the first time I went into a shop looking for flatter shoes they didn't have any 'minimalist' shoes, but I noticed the racing flats, not knowing what they were I enquired about them first.

And there is a fair bit of difference between the racing flats I looked at and the shoes I ended up with. According to the shop lady racing flats aren't durable enough to train and would wear through quickly. Also the toe box in mine is quite different, and the sole is different and quite ingeniously engineered. They are closest to running spikes, in fact, but again the toe and sole are different and they do not have spikes in obviously.

Its just a bit tiresome Molly

ATGNI bandwagon riding is tiresome, yes, but similarly it's tiresome being lumped in with these people when you've actually been researching properly, experimenting and making intelligent choices. Not to mention actually achieving postive results. Anyone who's had good results with minimal shoes and reports the results (see this thread) gets accused of being a marketing led fool and either justifying their latest bit of kit by regurgitating magazine articles or simply experiencing the placebo effect.

It's bloody annoying in fact. Some of us spent money (less than the price of a pair of good tyres in fact) to carry out an experiment, and we're just reporting what we found. I don't see why that's not acceptable.

...and making intelligent choices

You're your own worst critic, Molgrips.

molgrips - Member
but similarly it's tiresome being lumped in with these people when you've actually been researching properly, experimenting and making intelligent choices

FYI reading stuff on the internet is not the same as researching properly.

Disagree.

Just cos it's on the internet, doesn't make it necessarily wrong or any more biased than anything else. Peer reviewed papers are on the internet too you know.

Or are you suggesting I set up my own experiments and conduct extensive research myself, rather than read other people who've done it? Cos that's not exactly practical for me currently.

[i]Or are you suggesting I set up my own experiments and conduct extensive research myself, rather than read other people who've done it[/i]

😆

molgrips, that's you that is!

You, of all the folk on here take things and explore them to the nth degree!

When I were a lad ee by gum I rode around on a £99 racing bike...

When you were a lad Molgrips that was the equivalent of a Ti Lynksey! 😀 We had to make our entertainment with old fertiliser bags when I were a lad...

Cue "You were lucky" sketch!!

You, of all the folk on here take things and explore them to the nth degree!

Yes - thanks! Now tell that to surfer 🙂

PS I actually did a lot of miles on my £99 racer between the ages of 14 and 17. I became 'interested' in bike maintenance so stripped it and kept it in excellent condition (as crikey would expect), and I used it to go visit my mates in their villages.

[i]and kept it in excellent condition (as crikey would expect),[/i]

I must make a confession... I'm (Oh please merciful God that I have on many occasions said I don't believe in...) in the process of moving house and haven't cleaned any of my bikes for ages. They are filthy and I'm getting a bit nervous about it all now.

My 5 is in a state, has been for over 2 weeks since I last rode it 🙁

molgrips - Member
Disagree.

Just cos it's on the internet, doesn't make it necessarily wrong or any more biased than anything else. Peer reviewed papers are on the internet too you know.

Not proper research.

Or are you suggesting I set up my own experiments and conduct extensive research myself, rather than read other people who've done it? Cos that's not exactly practical for me currently.

Proper research.

Nothing personal, but as someone who does proper research for living i hate to see the term devalued by people who think reading reviews of a product, or half understanding a journal article they found is research.

The more I run in my minimalist shoes the more I enjoy it and the more I enjoy running again and the fitter I get and the better I feel. To the point that I went out and ran up a hill in the pentlands is the rain and wind and mud last night just to see if I could.

The shoes are up there with the best money i've ever spent. They might not work for everyone, but they work for me and I am delighted about it.

Nothing personal, but as someone who does proper research for living i hate to see the term devalued by people who think reading reviews of a product, or half understanding a journal art they found is research.

Oh come on.. it's about context, obviously. Research means trying to find stuff out. You are clearly in a position to go into far greater depth than I am in whatever it is that you do, but if I try to find something out it's still research. It's like saying my neighbours are devaluing the term "cycling" by using it for their 20 mile spin.

I used the term "proper" because I read many opinions and sources of various types and drew conclusions based on their content and apparent quality. I'm so obviously not claiming to have done a large rigorous study.

Get over yourself, in this case.

Lifted from a Podiatry forum, seems relevant

There is nothing wrong with maximalist running shoes (ie the Hoka One One's)
There is nothing wrong with minimalist running shoes

It all comes down to two things:
1. What feeling you prefer to have under your foot
2. What injury history you have (maximalist vs minimalist encourage different gaits that load tissues different --> all depends which tissues that you need to load less)

Everything else at this stage is just rhetoric and propaganda.

I run 2-3 days a week in Hoka Ones and 2-3 days a week in NB Minimus's and 2-3 days a week in various "traditional" running shoes ( and wear my MBTs to work 2 days a week!)