Calling all barefoot bores

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2016/feb/25/run-away-why-it-really-doesnt-matter-what-trainers-you-wear

Not sure I entirely agree that it doesn't matter what kind of shoes you wear. Or that nobody knows what support means. I'll be sticking with my moderate stability shoes for the time being, thanks.

Comments

  • My fav bit...

    'Liz, for instance, favoured supportive shoes: “Yeah, just ’cause they offer support and they keep your ankle in place.” Where Liz’s ankles would have ended up without support, heaven knows'

    Hehehe

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    He only study to actually come up with a type of shoe that reduces injury rates in all runners was by Benno Nigg. The answer to the million dollar question was- a comfortable one. Running in shoes that are completely comfortable for the pace, distance and terrain you are tackling makes for your best chance of avoiding injury. Who'd have thunk it?
  • ‘Shoe retailers are more trustworthy than scientists’ image

    There is only one real absolute- red shoes are faster. If you're not ready for red shoes yet, get some that fit, are comfy and suit how you run (and possibly the surface that you're running on).

  • Ah, I wish I could, Kattefjaes, but ladies' shoes only come in pink. image

    I do actuallly own several pairs of Vibrams which I mostly use for going to the gym or loafing around. I like them. I don't run in them, though - they are just that bit too minimal for that. I have been using Nike Frees for several years. Never had a blister or a black toenail off any of them so I'll stick with them.

  • in the  comments section there was a reference to a research paper which I had seen previously 

    Barefoot

    which may influence shoe decision making!!

    The formula on page 1 where g = the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface is worth the read aloneimage

     

     

  • ZouseZouse ✭✭✭

    Torque Steer, ta for posting that link. I have just devoured that article (ignoring the really tricksy maths, obvs).

    I'm going to try and change my running gait now. I have some very sadly neglected 'zero drop' shoes that I picked up for cheaps a while ago. I'll drag them out of the cupboard and give them a go.

  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    When I started out I ran in motion control housebricks because of floppy feet and low arches. Then I used off-the-shelf orthotics (Orthaheel). That was after initial gait analysis in a running shop backed up separately by a qualified sports physio.

    But now, 15 years on, motion control seems no longer to be a category. Only stability. Sweatshop sort their shoes by colour, ffs. I had my gait checked again about a year ago and it came out as mild pronator to neutral. Maybe the motion control and orthotics worked.

    So I've pretty gone to selecting shoes by feel rather than category and in the past year I've not suffered any issues. One slightly grumbly knee for a while but it passed so presumably not to do with the shoes.

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Motion control is alive and well in new balance. I think 940, 1340 and 1540 are the numbers with he higher numbers being more brick like.

    Almost any shoes with stability blocks hurt my feet as soon as I stand up. I do have weird feet though.
  • Muttley wrote (see)

    When I started out I ran in motion control housebricks because of floppy feet and low arches. Then I used off-the-shelf orthotics (Orthaheel). That was after initial gait analysis in a running shop backed up separately by a qualified sports physio.

    But now, 15 years on, motion control seems no longer to be a category. Only stability. Sweatshop sort their shoes by colour, ffs. I had my gait checked again about a year ago and it came out as mild pronator to neutral. Maybe the motion control and orthotics worked.

    So I've pretty gone to selecting shoes by feel rather than category and in the past year I've not suffered any issues. One slightly grumbly knee for a while but it passed so presumably not to do with the shoes.

    I went on a bit of a quest for some really plush shoes to use in my rotation, and tried some New Balance 1260v4 motion control shoes, as they boasted about being super plush, and having all sorts of lively bounciness. Hell, like a lot of people I pronate a little bit, so that was my excuse.

    Holy crap, what a miserable experience that was. They were like 'murican cars in shoe form- huge, heavy, over-engineered and probably reluctant to go around corners too. They also had all the energy return of wearing rotting horsemeat on your feet. They were bloody exhausting to run in. After the first kilometer or two, I said "sod this for a lark", and walked home. They were unspeakably awful, I think my Doc Martens boots are better suited to running.

    I think they might have put me off New Balance for a very long time, they sucked so hard that they had an event horizon and Nice Mr Dyson hanging around making notes.

    I eventually took a pair of Hoka Clifton 2 for a spin and bought them (yay for local-ish shops who encourage you to actually try things out). They are now my token slow, comfy luxury shoes for when I want an easy time. They're very nice, making a change from my more usual fare.

    That said, I have a pair of 2mm drop Newton Distance S IV nestling in a boxy lair- picked up in a sale for a ludicrously good price. I am looking forward to taking them for a spin in the summer, when it's hotter and less soggy out. That's about as minimal as I feel safe messing with for now. It's a nice contrast to some of the other shoes.

    Selecting "by feel" seems to be one of the most sensible approaches- shoes that actually fit, and suit how you run; not going totally crazy with extreme fads. That said, I do love to have the excuse that rotating some different pairs helps avoid overuse injuries and prolong lifespan. If a mild stability shoe feels good, I'm delighted to use it, mind- but it's not the be-all and end-all.

    That said, I have never felt like dropping a chunk of change of VFFs, as it seems like a lot to risk for something which (like Cal), I'd probably end up using for flopping around the house.

    Unrelated, but I have a copy of the paper mentioned in the Guardian article, and am saving it for a boring flight, it looks most entertaining image

  • Hi @Zouse, watch out for your arches feeling sore the next day but its just the under used muscles of your feet getting exercise and they will get stronger. Also tight calves if you are too much on your toes.
  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Katte, the New balance 1260 is a stability shoe, not a motion control shoe. Just imagine how much worse the 1340 motion control shoe would be. Even the 860 stability feels like it should be a boot with straps to keep your legs in place.
  • ZouseZouse ✭✭✭

    Thanks LogicScience. First 5.25 miles in barefootshoes (loving the oxymoron) done at lunchtime. 

    I'm not a massive heel striker, anyway, but these obviously force a more prancey Bambi-like gait. Weeeeeee! I'm an antelope!!

    No soreness. Yet.

     

  • yeah when I made the transition from a pronounced heel striking gait, prancey was definitely the  word. I felt like I had a puppeteers strings pulling up on my knees or something. Don't know if I still prance or just more comfortable with it now image

  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    How does the barefoot shoes thing actually work? Are they proper huaraches?



    Or some minimalist flat?
  • Am sure huaraches you mean are some kind of running sandal not these:

    http://m.jdsports.co.uk/product/nike-air-huarache-utility/189058/
  • VDOT52VDOT52 ✭✭✭
    Indeed, huaraches are barely enough to be called a sandal image



    Nike likes to bastardise everything by adding a bubble.
  • I don't want to be blamed for folk suddenly jumping into different shoes and coming up with a host of new problemsimage!!
    So take it easy when transitioning into a new type of shoe and only do a couple of miles in them at first for a couple of weeks to let the muscles get adjusted.

    I am not an evangelist for barefoot running, and I don't hug trees, eat nuts or wear sandals all year, but after major spinal surgery two years ago, not running related, I had a long time recuperating and then very slowly getting back into  running.
    I was looking for shoes that would benefit me the most by working all my lower back and core muscles and core in the correct sequence and it seemed that those shoes that permitted one to run as closely as possible to a "natural" gait would be the best.

    The fact that there is not one independent, peer reviewed scientific paper out there that demonstrates the benefit of extensive heel cushioning, motion control, etc on preventing injuries does start to get one wondering and it is an indisputable fact that if one runs on, say a beach, in bare feet then one will run with a front foot bias - no heel striking to be seen!!!

     

  • I'm the same Torque Steer, though I  do eat nuts and had my sandals on last week. I suffered from piriformis syndrome after landing my heel in an uneven part of the footpath which was unexpectedly lower. A heelstrike can't adjust to unexpected changes in terrain and the muscle got stretched.

    Eventually fed up waiting to recover and be able to run, I went to a field and took my shoes off; remarkably I could run. At that time I couldn't justify buying new shoes because I had just bought two new pairs of £100 Brooks with lovely soft cushioning. So I kept wearing them but concentrated on a shorter gait and forefoot landing as if in bare feet which worked fine with no recurring injury over time. I recently bought "barefoot" trail shoes which also work fine and are more comfortable for the running style.

    One of the things that will probably put people off might be the dramatic apparent loss of stamina with resultant "workout pain" when a different set of muscles are being put to use. So perhaps if someone is used to turning out consistent times in races they wont like the change.

  • ZouseZouse ✭✭✭

    I eat nuts, but I haven't got sandals, just flipflops.

    Although my local Oxfam shop sold me a pair of almost-new Altra Olympus for twenty quid last year, I've accidentally just spaffed a bit more than that on a new pair of Altra Torin for road use.

    Blimmin' love theses shoes. Zero-drop - nicely plantigrade - max cushioning, and an enormous toe-box for my little piggies to splay, lengthen and do what toes are supposed to do when you're running.

    15 miles in & no achilles or foot soreness, although my glutes are making themselves known. Would hamstrings experience more of a stretch when forefoot striking, or am I just using a different set of power generators in the engine room?

  • Don't know for sure @Zouse; maybe the power generators if your doing it differently than normal or maybe you just ran farther or harder than usual?

    check this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7BfaQ6ZggM

    and saw this today; funny.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HyjKLKp_bTI/Uhbw3bfSXzI/AAAAAAAAEgw/_87ml3ujfGM/s400/29635901.jpg

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.