hitman – I have to admit that I'm not sure.

The Inov8s I have (Mudclaws) are extremely minimalist – no padding and very flexy yet super light and drain water quickly. Took me quite a while to get used to them – they are quite harsh on your calves for example and often rub your heels until they are worn in.

I imagine these are more padded and forgiving. Most road/marathon runners I know use more conventional shoes like Asics Kayanos and the like.

Definitely worth looking for in a shop though – they'll be nice and light as breathe well.

I've worn a pair of those 320PKs enough to wear them out, and they work just fine for running on tarmac (eg training for a 10k). Not as cushioned or supportive as a standard pair of Nikes etc., but then that's kind of the whole point.

Regarding Roclites, I've not used 295s, but have had a couple of pairs of 315s, which are still my favourite shoes. IMHO they're a wonderful compromise, being almost as grippy as Mudclaws, but far more versatile – have also run extensively on tarmac in them. For off-road hardpack and rock up mountains they're the best thing you can get. The 295s should be similar but a bit lighter and less durable – I'll stick with the 315s as they're minimal enough for me.

I must caveat my opinions by pointing out that I didn't used to pay for my Inov8 shoes, and the 320PKs were I think a pre-production model. Have since spent my own money on them though.

Oh, and I've also been injured for over a year – can't really fault the shoes directly for that, but I'm also fairly sure that lack of support isn't doing me any favours at the moment – won't be going barefoot running any time soon.

cheers, there's a number of shoes including vibram 5 fingers, nike free and vivo barefoot shoes which I'd like to try, so will keep hunting 🙂

Oh, and I've also been injured for over a year – can't really fault the shoes directly for that, but I'm also fairly sure that lack of support isn't doing me any favours at the moment – won't be going barefoot running any time soon.

one of the factors which attracts me to barefoot running is the reduction in injury rate – what happened to cause the injury?

Probably being thick but surely barefeet + tarmac = a lot of shock to the feet and knees?

While we have possibly evolved to run cross country in barefeet, surely tarmac wasn't factored into our evolutionary makeup?

I got my gait looked at, and found some great shoes.

Then I figured out that my gait was rubbish and changed it. I was putting my foot far too far infront of me and hitting with my heel. All I did was start running on my toes as if I was sprinting, and it changed everything. Now I simply favour my toes, but it's brought in a load of muscles around my hips, tightened up the muscles in my foot, made everything much smoother and impact is far less. I reckon I could run barefoot now reasonably well.

Mat – running this way I found my tendons took up all the shock, so no impacts to speak of.

My point therefore is that you can start towards barefoot running without needing to take your shoes off or by some weird gimp-wear.

Hmm – interesting.

Always run barefoot on the beach (obviously!) but not elsewhere – brambles, dog turds and stuff like broken glass would worry me.

Used to end up with natural "shoes" after a Summer due to constant barefoot walking but these days they don't get the chance to toughen up.

Probably being thick but surely barefeet + tarmac = a lot of shock to the feet and knees?

Have a lookie here for info on why this is not the case if one alters the way in which they run:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

I try and strike with my forefeet when running – probably from hours of running on the beach.

hitman – Member

TBH, I've just ordered a new pair of conventional running shoes but am increasingly interested in the whole barefoot running philosophy and the effect that excessive cushioning has on foot strike and running style. Surfer, do innov8 do a road running shoe, as those look interesting? Also has anyone else tried a "barefoot shoe" for an extended period?
sorry for the hijack!!

yes, i was practically crippled by sesamoiditis in both feet, surgery was recommended…

i fixed it by wearing flip flops. i now run in innov8 terrocs – with so little heel cushioning that i'm forced to run properly.

and in April i ran my best ever half marathon – in my terrocs, landing on my forefoot.

i'm trying not to be evangelical about this, wear whatever you want, but many people find that heel-striking and complicated (expensive) shoes cause them all sorts of problems.

i wouldn't suggest that anyone starts running without shoes – the world is full of dog poo, gravel and broken glass, but there's a lot to be said for avoiding the heel-strike.

there's no shock absorbtion built into your heel, and 3/4" of rubber can only do so much. land on your forefoot and you access the 4" flex in your foot+ankle

Just ordered some Inov8 Roclite 295s – partly thanks to this thread…

one of the factors which attracts me to barefoot running is the reduction in injury rate – what happened to cause the injury?

Well I'm not quite sure, but I first noticed it a week after an extremely strenuous off road event in very tough terrain – I was rather unfit and the time, hence found it very tough. Is essentially a problem with straining of the ligaments in the foot, something which barefoot running puts extra strain on, and running in more conventional supportive shoes tends to help with. Am seriously considering shelving my Inov8s in an attempt to get over it. Road running is better for it than running in terrain as well, which goes against what I've done for years – doing more road running then resulted in the recurrence of an achilles injury a couple of months ago!

with so little heel cushioning that i'm forced to run properly.

An article in Running world suggested that up to 75% of runners are 'natural' heel strikers, and that the rest are divided into 24% forefoot strikers and just a teeny 1% are 'natural' toe strikers.

There's nothing inherently wrong with heel striking if that's how you run. the best advice is always find the gait that works for you, and gives you injury free miles.

There's a lot of sh*t talked about running.

There's a lot of sh*t talked about running.

Good topic for here then.

Then I figured out that my gait was rubbish and changed it. I was putting my foot far too far infront of me and hitting with my heel. All I did was start running on my toes as if I was sprinting, and it changed everything. Now I simply favour my toes, but it's brought in a load of muscles around my hips, tightened up the muscles in my foot, made everything much smoother and impact is far less. I reckon I could run barefoot now reasonably well.

molgrips this is exactly what I did. Like you it changed everything about my running. I was immediately 30% faster and the sore back and legs I was suffering from every time I ran just went. Only issue I had was that my achillies took about a couple of months before it was strong enough not to ache after a run- not surprising really as because I'd been heel striking it had never been used properly. For running shoes I just buy anything cheap that's on sale that fits and let my tendons absorb the shock. There's nothing even approaching a scientific study that shows expensive running shoes work.

I also gained about 25% in speed. I was not really a runner at all though so I didn't have any particular gait ingrained in me. Basically, all my running muscles were weak.. so I didn't have much pain in tendons or calves. Although my lower back got a bit tired for the first few runs. My new gait uses a lot of core muscles that were idle before.

There's nothing inherently wrong with heel striking if that's how you run

I can't imagine how there would be nothing wrong with heel striking. When I do it, I can hear the shock of my heel strikes inside my head. That much pounding can't be good for your body or even your brain.

And as for 'how you run' – well that was how I'd always ran since childhood, and it was terrible for me. So your intuition is not necessarily any good.

On another subject tho, what about running off-road? I find on singletrack paths through woods that I am naturally on my toes all the time as I am having to negotiate corners, obstacles, ups and downs and all. It's almost a completely different activity from a physical point of view, it seems.

90% of my running is off road – I only do road running when the routes I run are so muddy/wet I fall off the edge (has happened!) – always believed it's better for your joints and IMO, it's much more interesting.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas, etc – I'd be interested to here how these people do in races?

I think it also involves a lot more of your core to.

Two pages on running shoes and as far as i can see not one mention of a conventional racing flat like most decent club runners would race and do workouts in.

Asics hyperspeed:

Two pages on running shoes and as far as i can see not one mention of a conventional racing flat like most decent club runners would race and maybe do workouts in.

Ahem.

For the record I have some Inov-8 F-Lites 230s and Roclite 295s and both cost £50 each.

Them be racing flats.

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/p/run/8/Inov-8_F-Lite_230_Shoes/5360045959/

Oh, my bad – sorry. I thought Inov8 were purely a fell shoe brand.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas,

What's wrong with slating a theory that you must have expensive shoes in order to go running especially when that theory isn't backed up by any evidence?

If you are happy to continue believing you need your expensive running shoes to protect your body then fine. I'll continue to believe they have no benefit until someone can prove otherwise- and save myself a load of cash in the meantime

Oh, my bad – sorry. I thought Inov8 were purely a fell shoe brand.

To be fair the F-lites are the only ones in their range that are not.

Surf-Mat I'll take that as aimed at me and you have made a reference to race performances which moves from the OP, so here goes:

I have no issue with "new theories" per se however over recent years male athletic performance in the UK have deteriorated significantly. The decline in aggregate has beem masked by a small number of individuals such as Mo Farah.

When I was running in the 80' and 90's the overall depth in races was significantly higher. I recall running 25:50 in a 5 mile road race and finishing 49th! A quick google of more recent results would likely put me in the top handful of many races and even winning a few.

This is not a good thing for the sport and my point being that competitive running is largely the most simple of sports (possibly similar to cycling) in the sense that to go from a slow runner to a fastish runner (say 34 mins for 10k) can be achieved by following a relatively simple plan with a few basic components.
In the UK (and also the US) we have allowed ourselves to complicate this in an attempt to make running more accesible and popular (no bad thing) and more of a cash cow for large companies looking to increase the market, hence a disproportinate emphasis on equipment and shoe design. Creating trivial differentiation in shoe design to extend the market (Inov8 seem to be doing this although i am a fan of their competitive fell shoes)
As a result in my opinion we have erred to far towards the "run a fast 10km off 10 miles a week" "train less and run faster" "avoid injuries" etc mentality.
I am not being elitist in my approach as I take my hat off to anyone who gets off their *rse and goes for a run (at whatever speed) but I do worry when people expect to find a "silver bullet" by discovering a new way to circumvent the hard training required to compete at a reasonable level.
To be competitive requires sacrifice and hard training and in the UK we seem to have lost that mindset.

To turn your question on its head.

How many elite athletes run/race in their bare feet?
How many race winners (at any level) win in bare feet (I came 4th in a regional XC race some years ago in bare feet but it was necessity as oppose to planning and I never repeated it)
How many attendees of the "learn to run" lessons have improved in terms of performance and how can that be attributed and quantified?

I have heard several stories about people who've grabbed a pair of any old shoes and gone for a run with poor technique and given themselves bad injuries. Selling someone a well-cushioned shoe is way easier than teaching them about toe striking. So you could argue that shoe technology is at least protecting people from their own poor style.

How many race winners (at any level) win in bare feet (I came 4th in a regional XC race some years ago in bare feet but it was necessity as oppose to planning and I never repeated it)

I abandoned my spikes halfway round the southern XC champs once because the ground was so hard they weren't working at all. Bloody silly to wear them in the first place really. I didn't come fourth though – maybe 184th 8)

Anton Krupicka does a fair bit of training barefoot and he's pretty elite (ultradistance). Also there's a thread on letsrun about a 1-2 marathon victory for a couple of barefoot runners here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2721400&page=0

Surfer – honestly not aimed at you – quite the opposite. You and Mol have written some very interesting posts in fact.

It's those that just rubbish an entire thread with no basis or backup.

Placed 5th (actually 4th – the guy in front took a short cut!) in a fairly big regional race (part of a National series) and apart from my first race (top 1/3 – was a bit unprepared), always been well in the top 10% or even 0.4% in one race. However this is all fairly regional (Devon and Cornwall) and all off road so direct comparisons are tricky. But it's not about that – it's about people dismissing interesting discussions while offering no indication of being half decent themselves. It's a bit like me advising on extreme DH MTBing!

I certainly wouldn't dismiss barefoot running (having done a fair bit of it on beaches) at all – just can't see it on tarmac.

Just run my usual route (very off road) and had it been in barefeet, my feet would now be shredded from sharp rocks, brambles, sticks, etc – so I'm just slightly struggling to see how it's practical in trail runs? I did REALLY concentrate on toe striking though… 😉

Flipping hot here – my keyboard is now a pool of sweat.

I abandoned my spikes halfway round the southern XC champs once because the ground was so hard they weren't working at all. Bloody silly to wear them in the first place really. I didn't come fourth though – maybe 184th

184th is a great placing, The Southern is a very competitive race. My training partner won it in 96 and he trained like an animal!!!

I think that most of the research on unpadded shoes / barefoot / toe running etc. has been relating to sports injuries, not performance. Obviously reducing injuries has a massive effect on actual performance, allowing you to do more races, and finish more of them, but I'm not clear if it has an effect on top end speed, and which way it does.

I've certainly improved in terms of injuries/pain by changing my running style. I feel that I have improved in terms of performance, but not being a very competitive type (I enter about 1 race a year or so, and only run offroad, so courses are very different) I have no real evidence of that.

To be honest, like probably 90% of people who go for a run though, I give much more of a shit that I'm not breaking myself by doing so, than I do about being 1 minute faster in a 10k. I think there is a very narrow PB focused mindset that says that injuring yourself is fine if you manage 34 minutes or whatever, which personally I think is quite sad, and really misses the point of what should be an enjoyable activity – going for a run isn't a job (at least for non-professionals), it is a fun activity*.

In terms of highly successful athletes who run with shoes with a very small amount of cushioning, the only people I can think of are fell runners, but there pretty much everyone good wears inov8 or similar not very supportive shoes, so there isn't much comparison in the other direction.

There is a problem generally in terms of quantifying performance that the current population of fast runners overwhelmingly wear what running shops / companies sell or give them, so only a very small percentage of runners will be wearing barefoot style footwear, meaning that the extremes of low and high fitness in those people will be less pronounced. It'll be interesting to see what happens now mainstream shoe companies are producing 'barefoot style' shoes, whether new athletes will come up who have learnt to run that way, and how their times are.

do worry when people expect to find a "silver bullet" by discovering a new way to circumvent the hard training required to compete at a reasonable level.
To be competitive requires sacrifice and hard training and in the UK we seem to have lost that mindset.

I don't think there is anyone who claims that there is a silver bullet that lets you go super fast. Some people are claiming that there is a silver bullet that means the sacrifice involved in going fast and training hard might include fewer serious foot or leg injuries. And they have research evidence to back them up on this particular claim, with no one yet having provided any evidence to rubbish their claims. This is despite research aimed to support the use of fancy trainers being obviously in the interests of several of the largest sportswear companies in the world, and almost certainly funded very very well (for example several US universities have many millions of dollars in Nike funding). Given how many people you meet who say 'I tried running, but it was bad for my knees / ankles / shins / achilles etc.' then surely anyone who runs, even the most insanely personal best time focused club runner, should be interested in ways that might help their sport stop breaking people?

Joe
*and don't get me started about lap counting types at the swimming pool!

I also gained about 25% in speed. I was not really a runner at all though

Well of course you weren't. I heel strike when I run, and if I gained 25% speed I'd be wearing a GB vest, 30% and I'd be winning Olympic medals. That's compared to when I was doing a lot of road running in well cushioned shoes. The thing is, I don't heel strike that much when I run faster – you naturally don't – but it is natural to heel strike when running slower. Of course there is heel striking and then there is heel striking – good running form involves you absorbing shock by landing on your heel and then rolling onto your forefoot, if you could feel the shock from landing on your heels then you were doing something fundamentally wrong and had very poor running form.

Nobody is suggesting that you must have expensive shoes to run in – simply that very cheap shoes, or those with no support or cushioning are likely to be a bad idea for a lot of people. You can get something perfectly decent without spending a lot though.

To be honest, like probably 90% of people who go for a run though, I give much more of a shit that I'm not breaking myself by doing so, than I do about being 1 minute faster in a 10k.

Well true. But modifying my style made it stacks easier to run along nicely, and made the whole experience about a million times more enjoyable. I think the improvement in my times was because of this.

I think there is a very narrow PB focused mindset that says that injuring yourself is fine if you manage 34 minutes or whatever, which personally I think is quite sad

I am not aware of a single incidence of this mindset. Athletes cant really forsee injuries so the tradeoff you refer to doesnt really exist. I have ran through minor injuries and pain however never with a view to making a sacrifice just with the (sometimes mistaken) view that the injuries are trivial and will clear up if I reduce my training.

There is a problem generally in terms of quantifying performance that the current population of fast runners overwhelmingly wear what running shops / companies sell or give them

Its not that straightforward. Un sponsored runners dont run in their bare feet then switch to cushioned shoes when they are given a shoe contract. They run in cushioned shoes and then simply change brands! Steve Ovett was sponsored by Saucony when they noticed he was wearing their shoes to race in, he was at the end of his career but still entering (and winning) the occasional race.

Running faster with fewer injuries is the holy grail and finding a correlation between those running fast and incidences of injury is hardly groundbreaking!!
However my point is (and it may allign a little with your experience) is that if you want to avoid running related injuries then dont run. By running you increase the risk and as a (past) competitive athlete the trick is to increase the amount of training (structured and sensible performance focused training) to increase the benefit.
At the higher end of that training we increase the risk. Athletes tipping over into the injured catergory do so not because they are foolish (although some are) but because many causes of injury are unforseen. Its irrational to continue to train knowing a injury may end your season!

Given how many people you meet who say 'I tried running, but it was bad for my knees / ankles / shins / achilles etc.' then surely anyone who runs, even the most insanely personal best time focused club runner, should be interested in ways that might help their sport stop breaking people?

But you are assuming these people are telling the truth! Running is none of these things but what it is is "hard" I have met many people who tell me they cant run because they tried it and it ruined/injured their knees/ankes etc etc. I question this. What I suspect is that people try to run, with the best intentions, then realise it is not as easy as it looks! By taking this approach its not running per se that "breaks people" it is intencive training that sometimes does this which means we should spend less time encouraging people to "take up" running (although the more the merrier because its great!) and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

I avoided "proper" running for many years due to fear of injury. It's also why I run mostly off road – right or wrong, in my mind it puts less stress on your knees.

I have always prefered running off road but do both. I would get the odd Achilles problem and lower back pain. Out of interest I started to wear some vivo barefoot shoes for knocking about in to see if the change in posture would help my back. I think it has but also my Achilles is ok too. I would still run in my salomons or montrails though and on longer or harder runs sometimes get a twitch in my Achilles.
I started to do the odd jog in my vivo barefoot and like it but so bought some five fingers and do really like them. It's too early to say if I run much better over a longer period, injury free, but I run for my own fun and as they give me better grip and stability and can do more on the trail.

Again there are folks slating theories, rubbishing ideas, etc – I'd be interested to here how these people do in races?

I certainly don't run competitively (with other people) and have only ever run one "official" race, it was just over 100km mountain race and I finished in the top 4%. I have run lots of marathon distances and a few ultras but these are my own routes and personal races, not that means anything to anyone. 🙂

I was skeptical and dislike the "buzz" which goes with the barefoot craze but there is something too it. I would say give it a go and then see if you think it's just another trend/marketing ploy or there might be more to it.

Just run my usual route (very off road) and had it been in bare feet, my feet would now be shredded from sharp rocks, brambles, sticks, etc – so I'm just slightly struggling to see how it's practical in trail runs?

Apologies for the bike picture but it does show the type of trails I've been running in barefoot shoes.

Roads are really quite gentle in comparison with far less gravel, rocks and thorns.

and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

Which is surely exactly what the people doing academic research into styles of running, styles of shoes etc. are up to? So why are 'proper running' types so anti all this research?

By taking this approach its not running per se that "breaks people" it is intencive training that sometimes does this which means we should spend less time encouraging people to "take up" running (although the more the merrier because its great!) and more time focusing on how we can reduce overuse injuries in more elite athletes.

Right, the evidence certainly suggests that the more you run, the more you are likely to hurt yourself, but not that injuries are in any way restricted to good or bad runners, or people who train intensively, just that people who train longer tend to hurt more. If we can reduce the underlying "probability of hurting yourself per hour" with such simple things as using much less cushioned shoes, then what a result that would be, no matter whether or not people's personal bests drop off by 10 seconds or whatever.

Joe

Roper – so your only race was a 100km mountain one? Flippin eck – that's quite a feat (and result)!

One thing with these barefoot shoes – toe lengths and shape vary an awful lots – surely that has an impact on fit?

Right, the evidence certainly suggests that the more you run, the more you are likely to hurt yourself, but not that injuries are in any way restricted to good or bad runners,

But there is a natural relationship here. There may be exceptions but I would bet money that those that get injured most are those that do most and probably (when they are not injured ) run fastest!!!

with such simple things as using much less cushioned shoes

But you are assuming the latter provides the former, why would one assume that less cushioned shoes are better? The goal is admirable but we should have an evidence based approach not simply trying to reinforce a conclusion you have already drawn.

no matter whether or not people's personal bests drop off by 10 seconds or whatever.

Again thats your goal, many would continue to take the chance. I recall a throwaway remark by Pete Whitehead who represented GB at a major games at the Marathon. I am paraphrasing and he may have been joking but he said something along the lines of "if I could win Gold I would be happy to drop down dead the next day!

Interesting stuff. If anyone finds that silver bullet, can they let me know?
On falling standards, I'm just coming to the end of Charlie Spedding's book (recommended by the way, http://www.charliespedding.com/). Still the English marathon record holder, 2:08.33 …from 1985. Good read and some interesting thoughts on injury, positive thinking and workload.

Surf-Mat, just over 100km thank you 🙂 but to be fair to the other runners the conditions were so unexpectedly bad ony the stubborn and foolish completed the race.

There are issues with toe length with VFF so I spent a good hour or two annoying the assistant trying them on and switching them round. I also took my own running shoes so I could compare with what I know. I ended up with the VFF Bikila, they are stupidly over the top in colour and price but so far I have to say I like them. I don't really want to but I do.

They look utterly bonkers but actually pretty good.

Just bought (from Wiggle) some Roclites which are a sort of halfway house. Might check those out when I wear them out – this will be my 4th pair of running shoes (other three for different conditions) so I think I need to stop buying more!