Which is the more pseudo -science, Barefoot technology or Gait Analysis?

oxygen

I won’t mention any brands or company’s here. I recently got some gait anayalysis done, and it showed I am a fairly heavy over pronouncer, (my feet point outwards, not unlike a penguins :S )


So I bought a pair of runners to compensate for that. But after 3 months with the runners, I’m starting to feel shin splints again. I can feel the ball of my foot hit the ground before the front of it, but I don’t know how to correct this automatically without slowing to a snail’s pace and thinking about every single step.


Would a pair of bare feet shoes help this? I do believe in the technology but don’t want to exacerbate by bad foot fall. It’s a bit telling that most barefoot runners will wear regular runners to a race event.



Thanks for any opinions.

RayCun

The shin splints might not be because of the way you run - it might just be that you have increased your running volume by too much recently, possibly on harder surfaces (concrete and tarmac instead of grass), and your body is complaining.

I tend to think that your running style is going to improve, out of necessity, the more you run. Doing faster work too will improve your form. Running some or all of the time barefoot (or 'barefoot') will force you to pay attention to your form, because it will just be too painful to run otherwise. Or you could go on a Chi running course, or get some other kind of coaching to give you running form tips.

Very few people have absolutely perfect running form, and a good pair of runners will compensate for the problems you have. But I think as you run more you should go from being a major pronator/supinator/heelstriker (whatever the problem is) to a milder one, so your runners need to do less. Which is why people tend to move from heavily cushioned runners to lighter runners as they get more experience.

oxygen

This is great advice, thanks alot RayCun.

As you guessed I'm a pretty novice runner. I will keep running and see if there is improvements. I will look into a Chi Running course or some coaching maybe.

Rogue Runner

People seem to think that a properly fitted pair of runners are the 'silver bullet' for all running injuries. 90% of all running injuries (PF, IT Band pretty much all knee, hip &pelvic) stem from a weak core. People think that a decent pair of shoes are the answear to their prayers, they're not.

Ceepo

Rogue Runner wrote: »

People seem to think that a properly fitted pair of runners are the 'silver bullet' for all running injuries. 90% of all running injuries (PF, IT Band pretty much all knee, hip &pelvic) stem from a weak core. People think that a decent pair of shoes are the answear to their prayers, they're not.

Can't say I would agree that 90% is down to poor core, while a good core is important I don't think it is responsible for most injuries. What about muscle imbalance, leg length difference, poor running form, etc, A storg core is a help but only 1 piece of the jigsaw

PaulieC

I'm not sure what you mean by this

I can feel the ball of my foot hit the ground before the front of it, but I don’t know how to correct this automatically without slowing to a snail’s pace and thinking about every single step.

The only part of your foot further forward than the ball is your toes. I assume you are talking about your heel ?
The only way to change your gait is to practice at it, which takes time as you effectively have to learn how to run again from scratch. It takes a while but one day it will just click and you won't be able to not do it

Timmaay

Ceepo wrote: »

Can't say I would agree that 90% is down to poor core, while a good core is important I don't think it is responsible for most injuries. What about muscle imbalance, leg length difference, poor running form, etc, A storg core is a help but only 1 piece of the jigsaw

I'll agree with you on core being only one part of the Jigsaw, certainly with the longer stuff, however for middle distance, and probably XC also a weak core in my view certainly is the unknown root problem of many injuries!

oxygen

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this



The only part of your foot further forward than the ball is your toes. I assume you are talking about your heel ?
The only way to change your gait is to practice at it, which takes time as you effectively have to learn how to run again from scratch. It takes a while but one day it will just click and you won't be able to not do it

I thought the ball of my foot was the heel :S I meant the heel

spurscormac

To go back to the question posed in the thread title (its a topic that could discuss all day), I think there's an element of science in both.
As you improve your running form (gait), you may find that you can progress from a heel striking pronator, to a forefoot striking "natural".
It's simply a matter of what suits any one individual at a given point in time.
Plenty of research can be done into form, chi running, etc etc, but at the end of the day, each individual has to make a decision that suits them.

I'm firmly on the side of "natural" running, but recently had a discussion with another runner who said he couldn't change from his structured shoes.
I wondered whether or not he uses racing flats during a race, must keep an eye out to see, but I wasn't going to convince him to change, so just left it at, "it works for me".

So if structured support suits you then fine, if you want to move towards natural, give it a go, but slowly.

PGF

RayCun wrote: »

and a good pair of runners will compensate for the problems you have.

Are you sure? I've read recently that no shoe company has ever produced peer reviewed research that proves that their shoes in any way help to prevent injury.

Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw this...

opus

Clearly flip-flops are the way to go

Man Runs 2:46 Marathon in Flip Flops

sconhome

PGF wrote: »

Are you sure? I've read recently that no shoe company has ever produced peer reviewed research that proves that their shoes in any way help to prevent injury.

Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw this...

On the barefoot.ie website ? :rolleyes:

As with everything in life, what is good for one person is not always good for the next.

I know so many people who have successfully transitioned and are comfortable running in either minimal (4-8mm) or barefoot (0mm) footwear. Also know a lot who have not succeeded and have returned from barefoot to either minimal or mildly structured shoes.

ThisRegard

opus wrote: »

Clearly flip-flops are the way to go

Nah, sure wasn't he almost 9 minutes slower than his PB the year before. Imagine how fast he would have been in a pair of Kayanos.

spurscormac

amphkingwest wrote: »

I know so many people who have successfully transitioned and are comfortable running in either minimal (4-8mm) or barefoot (0mm) footwear. Also know a lot who have not succeeded and have returned from barefoot to either minimal or mildly structured shoes.

Would be interested to know if those that have returned to structured shoes have a mid/fore foot strike or are heel strikers, or is it a mixture of both?

Could be an interesting study in this if anyone is in the Sports Science field.

sconhome

spurscormac wrote: »

Would be interested to know if those that have returned to structured shoes have a mid/fore foot strike or are heel strikers, or is it a mixture of both?

I think the hardest thing is to establish a proper non-biased science based research program to support or disprove either camp in the shoe Vs no-shoe debate.

Some of the returns from VFF could also be mildly over pronating which in itself is not an issue, usually it was the timeframe and dedication required to transition successfully which was the problem.

Most people are established in their running habits, goals etc and do not want to disrupt this in any way. The biggest issue or barrier I would think is the person used to running 10/12k 3 or 4 times per week who doesn't want to strip their running back to allow body adaptations.

I'd mostly encourage people who want to try minimalism to take up trail or off-road running to allow a different mindset to be used in the transition approach. Your gait is naturally shorter and choppier running trails as you skip around objects, hop over roots etc. Runs are also likely to be shorter in both duration & distance so the body adapts must easier.

Trail transitioning still allows the runner to retain their structured road runs for training in their normal trainer.

spurscormac

amphkingwest wrote: »

I think the hardest thing is to establish a proper non-biased science based research program to support or disprove either camp in the shoe Vs no-shoe debate.

Some of the returns from VFF could also be mildly over pronating which in itself is not an issue, usually it was the timeframe and dedication required to transition successfully which was the problem.

Most people are established in their running habits, goals etc and do not want to disrupt this in any way. The biggest issue or barrier I would think is the person used to running 10/12k 3 or 4 times per week who doesn't want to strip their running back to allow body adaptations.

I'd mostly encourage people who want to try minimalism to take up trail or off-road running to allow a different mindset to be used in the transition approach. Your gait is naturally shorter and choppier running trails as you skip around objects, hop over roots etc. Runs are also likely to be shorter in both duration & distance so the body adapts must easier.

Trail transitioning still allows the runner to retain their structured road runs for training in their normal trainer.

So are you basing this mostly on those who went straight from standard (for want of a better word) running shoes to VFFs or other zero drop shoes, as in straight to barefoot?

Have you known many (apart from me) who've gone down the Inov-8 type route of gradual reduction in heel-toe drop in order to keep their level of mileage ?
What sort of feedback do you get on this, are they more likely to continue towards minimal?

I can imagine that any study would be difficult to conduct, as there would be accusations of bias from whatever side was on the wrong end of the outcome of the study.
It would also be difficult to get a sample size large enough to prove anything without the added input of some form of corporate sponsorship (cue further calls of bias).

Interesting perspective on trail running, yeah you would certainly run with a different stride alright and this would help with a move towards minimal, though you would surely want to begin reducing your road shoes heel-toe drop at some point too?

sconhome

spurscormac wrote: »

So are you basing this mostly on those who went straight from standard (for want of a better word) running shoes to VFFs or other zero drop shoes, as in straight to barefoot?

Definitely, yes. There was a definite trend of "I've read the book and I want the shoes" through 2010-2011 and people were literally stripping off their shoes and socks and going barefoot. The catch is, it feels so good, you dont want to limit yourself and thats were people were getting injured.

Majority of these have gone back up the line a little to the minimal ranges with 4-8mm heel drops & more 'shoe' than barefoot but less than technical trainers.

spurscormac wrote: »

Have you known many (apart from me) who've gone down the Inov-8 type route of gradual reduction in heel-toe drop in order to keep their level of mileage ?
What sort of feedback do you get on this, are they more likely to continue towards minimal?

To be honest, no. I think you've taken the most sensible approach to minimalism and have considered it as an individual, reading and sourceing advice but then listening to your own body and applying change as and when it suits you.

If Carlsberg did transitioning, it couldn't be any better than how you did it!

spurscormac wrote: »

I can imagine that any study would be difficult to conduct, as there would be accusations of bias from whatever side was on the wrong end of the outcome of the study.
It would also be difficult to get a sample size large enough to prove anything without the added input of some form of corporate sponsorship (cue further calls of bias).

Even as a spokesperson for a running shoe shop, I would probably be considered biased by some.:rolleyes:

spurscormac wrote: »

Interesting perspective on trail running, yeah you would certainly run with a different stride alright and this would help with a move towards minimal, though you would surely want to begin reducing your road shoes heel-toe drop at some point too?

Its a happy median position. If the trail running is done minimally the strength will develop in the feet, the natural postural changes will occur and the individual may find that this 're-mapping' of the body transfers nicely to the road without interfering with shoes. Its not all about forefoot striking either, by reducing the body of the shoe gradually you will strengthen all the connecting parts and help the body attain or reinforce alignment which will allow more efficiency and less injury than previously.

Bearing in mind a lot of the niggles and injuries are potentially caused by over use or incorrect footwear in the first instance, barefoot or minimalism won't be a panacea fix (which seems to be the main belief). Minimalism & barefoot will help address strength and postural imbalance if given the time to adjust and adapt properly.

PaulieC

amphkingwest wrote: »

To be honest, no. I think you've taken the most sensible approach to minimalism and have considered it as an individual, reading and sourceing advice but then listening to your own body and applying change as and when it suits you.

If Carlsberg did transitioning, it couldn't be any better than how you did it!

awww get a room you two

Oregano_State

oxygen_temp wrote: »

I thought the ball of my foot was the heel :S I meant the heel

Try doing a few fast stride outs. You should find that you naturally rise onto the balls of your feet as you begin to sprint. This is optimal for running as you can absorb the impact through the arch of your foot and ankle, instead of coming down on your heel, which has little natural ability to flex and absorb the impact.

Try slowing it all down and concentrate on landing with a mid or fore-foot strike (like running on your tippy-toes). This will intially be hard work on your calves, but with practise, building up slowly, it will become natural. If you watch any top quality runner, they never land on their heels.

Have a look at and practise a few of these drills a couple of times a week.

spurscormac

cambo_gueno wrote: »

awww get a room you two

Rather not.

On a serious note however, I'm quite surprised that more people don't take the gradual approach, as it makes so much logical sense.
I would have been interested to hear how others have got on with it, how long it took them to transition, whether they went the full distance to zero drop shoes, etc.

Oh well, I'll remain the lone exponent of sanity in moving towards minimal then.

ThisRegard

amphkingwest wrote: »

If the trail running is done minimally the strength will develop in the feet, the natural postural changes will occur and the individual may find that this 're-mapping' of the body transfers nicely to the road without interfering with shoes.

While I'm in no way a mimimalist runner, I started on the trails wearing a pair of Salomon XT Wings and progressed to a pair of Roclites. Most of my running would be trail or cross country. Last year I sent the Roclites back as I had a minor issue with the studs and while waiting for their return I raced in my Salomons. First time wearing them I felt like I was wearing platforms, felt very unsteady and unsure on the loose stuff and eventually I went over badly on my ankle.

Even on gravel and hardpacked trails my roclites feel comfier than my road shoes, but as I mentioned in the What are you wearing.... thread I'm still unsure of going the same direction for my road shoes. All I can do is give them ago I suppose.

Outside

spurscormac wrote: »

Rather not.

On a serious note however, I'm quite surprised that more people don't take the gradual approach, as it makes so much logical sense.
I would have been interested to hear how others have got on with it, how long it took them to transition, whether they went the full distance to zero drop shoes, etc.

Oh well, I'll remain the lone exponent of sanity in moving towards minimal then.

Your not on your own! Plenty people have successfully made the transition! Myself included. I kept getting shin splints trying to start out doing a bit of running for fitness so being the inquisitive person that I am I looked into what was wrong with me if I kept getting shin splints yet there are people running 100 mile races with no shin splints!
I didn't believe there was anything wrong with me and came to the conclusion I was simply running wrong. So I went about teaching myself to run properly. Very strange at first, feels awkward and kept thinking "this is never going to work", new muscle groups being engaged so lots of occasions where calves were feeling very sore after run's but as they say no pain no gain and the muscles simply adapted and became stronger. Shoes with a cushioned heel simply got in my way of landing on my forefoot, I was straining my calves extra hard to try achieve this with cushioned runners. So I went minimal.

My theory was that there was no point in doing this by gradually decreasing heel toe drop, it would cost a fortune anyway. I didn't see the point in "half" running correctly. You were still using bad habits and the heel was simply getting in the way of allowing you body to do its thing. Adapt! I went for Vibrams. Going this route I knew I had to use low mileage initially and pretty much start from scratch.

Started on Nov 2011, ended up training through the winter gradually building up mileage and being very careful on how my calves, planter fascia and achillies felt. Best of all, ZERO shin splints.

Went on to do my first marathon in connemara in April 2012 wearing the Vibrams and haven't looked back since. I do most of my running in Merrell trail gloves (I like running trails so needed a bit more protection without that heel). On the road and track I'll use my Vibrams for training and races.

TBH I wouldn't bother getting Vibrams again, my next road shoes will be a light zero drop shoe with a toe box. Just too awkward putting Vibrams on, they smell really bad without socks in a few days. Just easier to slip on a shoe with an elastic lace and go.

I don't do barefoot running, I don't think there is such thing as a barefoot shoe, its a glaring contradiction. However I do see benefits in doing it to strengthen the foot.

My theory for avoiding the gait analysis route and getting insoles was that the support in the insoles was obviously replacing the job of a few ligaments and muscles that just needed to be activated again. You really have to concentrate on running form initially and it feels wrong but stick with it and before long it feels wrong running the old way. Give your body a chance to adapt and it generally does!

spurscormac

Nice to read an account of the other way to make the gradual transition. Did you back off completely and build up the mileage, or did you continue to do some longer runs in other shoes?

Outside wrote:

TBH I wouldn't bother getting Vibrams again, my next road shoes will be a light zero drop shoe with a toe box. Just too awkward putting Vibrams on, they smell really bad without socks in a few days. Just easier to slip on a shoe with an elastic lace and go.

I would recommend looking at the Inov-8 shoes if you want plenty of toe space, those with the Anatomical last, which is all of their road shoes. The Bare-X Light 150 has a quick lace system too.
The Road-X-Treme 138 is even lighter, but not out til Feb/Mar timeframe.

There are a lot of other options out there, but sure sure about availability in Ireland. I've seen the NB Minimus road shoe in Elvery's, and to be honest, the unprotected section of the sole didn't inspire confidence - it looked like aeroboard to me.:eek:

PaulieC

I did pretty much the same as outside, but I still run in more cushioned shoes for longer runs, although they still have a lower drop than "normal" ones.
This is purely for comfort reasons as I find that if I go further than about 7-8 miles in very minimal shoes, the bones at the front of my toes get sore

PaulieC

cambo_gueno wrote: »

I did pretty much the same as outside, but I still run in more cushioned shoes for longer runs, although they still have a lower drop than "normal" ones.
This is purely for comfort reasons as I find that if I go further than about 7-8 miles in very minimal shoes, the bones at the front of my toes get sore

My large metatarsus is what it is. I have no idea why this gets sore as I tend to land on the outside of my foot. But anyway, my body said no and I listened

Outside

spurscormac wrote: »

Did you back off completely and build up the mileage, or did you continue to do some longer runs in other shoes?

I backed off mileage because I was just frustrated with shin splints and started from scratch. I wanted to get rid of any bad running habits fully and let me legs adapt. So initially running 2 - 3 k and just walk back home! Once the new running form felt like the new "norm" I started into longer runs. I haven't run in the cushioned runners since, feel really horrible and clunky now so I just use them for cycling to work.

Initially I actually had a pair of racing flats to work on form, but found Vibrams the best for feeling a heel strike so that worked a lot better. I still bring my heel down a push off it but the ball of the foot seems to absorb the initial impact and give a more fluid motion.

Once the legs adapted for the new form I couldn't get over how far I could run without injury and ended up training for the Connemarathon.

Thanks for the advice on shoes, I have a pair of Merrell trail gloves for the trail which I find very comfortable so I was thinking of getting the road shoe version.

The inov8 shoes you've just pointed out look good too. No shortage of "minimalist" shoes anyway!

Outside

cambo_gueno wrote: »

My large metatarsus is what it is. I have no idea why this gets sore as I tend to land on the outside of my foot. But anyway, my body said no and I listened

I'd get that too for longer stuff, I'd back off the distance the following week then give it another go the week after that and generally speaking I could run further without discomfort and I built it up that way.

spurscormac

I haven't gone as far as zero drop yet. Started with a 9mm drop last Dec, went to 6mm in June, still using the 9mm drop shoe for longer runs.
Recently got a 3mm drop trail shoe, and been using it a couple of times a week on tempo and speed sessions on rough paths around some pitches.
Probably ready to move to 3mm drop on a road shoe, but not a fan of the current Inov-8 offering so I'm willing to wait until the new ones come out.

Not sure if I'd go any further than that, but give me 6 months & I might have changed my tune.

b.harte

I was going to write a long dull post about how I came to start my transition to a more minimal shoe and my bad experience with gait analysis, but I decided to spare you all the tedium.
Instead I'll just give my own results:
I've a pair on road-x 255, been transitioning in them for a few months now, following the guide on the inov8 website and sticking the runs into my training plan when possible.
From the first day I put them on I loved them, so much better than my other traditional heeled and padded shoes.
I'm now up to 8 or 10 km in them with no problems, my calves took a bit of a wake up the first few times but nothing that laid me up.
My current 5km pb is 21:58, down from 24:18 at the beginning of September.
The drop has been since around the same time I started to use the 255s for my "fast sessions". I've shaved about 50secs in the last 3 weeks.
Now, not all of this is down to the shoes, but they have been a big part. Their design forces me to increase my cadence, which is where the speed is coming from.
I'm also a lot fresher after the runs than I used to be, and it feels as if I'm running softer / lighter than my 90+kg would suggest.
So for me, the transition to minimal technology is showing benefits, in my experience gait analysis didn't do that.
I already know what my next shoe will be like, it's just a matter of when.
I can see myself using the 255 for longer runs and going to the next step for faster work.
Can't fault the inov8 so far, and the best bit? I get to run sock-less as well which is so good.

Bertie

frfintanstack

Oregano_State wrote: »

If you watch any top quality runner, they never land on their heels.

Is this true?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/myths-of-running-forefoot-barefoot-and-otherwise/?smid=fb-share

Enduro

frfintanstack wrote: »

Is this true?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/myths-of-running-forefoot-barefoot-and-otherwise/?smid=fb-share

Nice link. Thanks for that.

This thread makes for interesting reading. The whole stuctured vs. minimalist vs. barefoot debate seems to be full of opinions, half-truths and assertions with very little genuine scientific data.

I definitely agree with the general thrust of the observations from that article. Having watched how the best ultrarunners in the world run, there is a big variation in the styles they use. That's obvious just using simple naked-eye observation without having to use a high speed camera. Ultrarunning is going to push any theories on economy and efficiency to their limits, so its a good place to see what really works. Some of my fellow Irish international ultrarunners are big fans of minimalist shoes. But I've also seen people have self-inflicted (and entirely predictable) disasters with barefoot style shoes.

TFBubendorfer

Enduro wrote: »

This thread makes for interesting reading. The whole stuctured vs. minimalist vs. barefoot debate seems to be full of opinions, half-truths and assertions with very little genuine scientific data.

That always happens when that particular topic gets debated; not just here on boards but everywhere.

Oregano_State

frfintanstack wrote: »

Is this true?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/myths-of-running-forefoot-barefoot-and-otherwise/?smid=fb-share

Interesting!

Enduro

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

That always happens when that particular topic gets debated; not just here on boards but everywhere.

That's exactly what I was trying to say: that's it universal. Obviously not clearly enough though

frfintanstack

..

RayCun

More 'born to run barefoot' stuff, but interesting for the stuff about head position etc
http://edge.org/conversation/-brains-plus-brawn

spurscormac

b.harte wrote: »

From the first day I put them on I loved them, so much better than my other traditional heeled and padded shoes.
I'm now up to 8 or 10 km in them with no problems, my calves took a bit of a wake up the first few times but nothing that laid me up.


I already know what my next shoe will be like, it's just a matter of when.
I can see myself using the 255 for longer runs and going to the next step for faster work.
Can't fault the inov8 so far, and the best bit? I get to run sock-less as well which is so good.

Bertie

The calves do take a bit of a hit alright at the start, and when you move to your next shoe (to the 233 I assume), then you'll feel the same sensation again, though not for as long.

Good to hear someone else having a good similar experience.

RayCun wrote:

More 'born to run barefoot' stuff, but interesting for the stuff about head position etc
http://edge.org/conversation/-brains-plus-brawn

Interesting read alright, though ain't got to the end of it yet, it's long & I've work to do.

ncmc

I’m reading Born to Run at the moment and he makes a pretty compelling case for barefoot running, but like anyone who has a very strong opinion one way or the other, I suppose his opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt. I like the idea of moving to a more minimalist shoe, do most people agree that a more minimalist shoe (although not necessarily a barefoot style shoe) is better than a very structured shoe?

I am currently on my third pair of Nike Pegasus, trained and ran DCM in a pair and I find them ok for the most part. Although since DCM, I am finding myself with more aches and pains than normal. Not sure if this means I need a new pair of trainers or if it’s because over the winter I have been doing nearly all my running on footpaths whereas during the summer I would have run a lot on a forest path.

Would Nike Pegasus be considered a very structured shoe? I am tempted to try a more minimalist shoe, but am training for Cork marathon at the moment, so am wary of making any major changes.

Oregano_State

ncmc wrote: »

Would Nike Pegasus be considered a very structured shoe? I am tempted to try a more minimalist shoe, but am training for Cork marathon at the moment, so am wary of making any major changes.

AFAIK the pegasus are geared towards neutral runners and mild over-pronators who want a great deal of cushioning. So to answer your question, they wouldn't be the most structured of running shoes, but they are heavily cushioned.

Certainly a minimalist shoe would be very different, I've recently started wearing the Nike Free 4.0 V3, which is very different to the NB 890V2 I was using before that. I don't do a lot of mileage as I'm a sprinter (well trying to be) but I'd notice the difference on the foot in terms of the Frees being more flexible in the sole and midsole.

ncmc

Oregano_State wrote: »

AFAIK the pegasus are geared towards neutral runners and mild over-pronators who want a great deal of cushioning. So to answer your question, they wouldn't be the most structured of running shoes, but they are heavily cushioned.

Certainly a minimalist shoe would be very different, I've recently started wearing the Nike Free 4.0 V3, which is very different to the NB 890V2 I was using before that. I don't do a lot of mileage as I'm a sprinter (well trying to be) but I'd notice the difference on the foot in terms of the Frees being more flexible in the sole and midsole.

Thanks Oregano State, I actually meant to ask if they are heavily cushioned rather than structured. I do have a slight overpronation. It’s tempting to try and move to a more minimalist shoe, there seems to be a lot of positives

spurscormac

My favourite topic resurrected...

If training for a marathon, you've been running quite a while (read a year or two at least) & you don't have any injury problems, then I wouldn't bother with doing the transition ahead of the marathon for fear of getting yourself over the change & up to the required mileage.

I would consider it if you've constantly been getting niggles and just putting them behind you.
It does take a while to get used to, but by taking your time & not jumping in at the deep end, you can make the transition without any problems.

Before doing anything, look at the options out there. Some manufacturers have moved to less heel-toe drop while maintaining high level of cushioning, others reduce both as you progress towards minimal.
Think about what might suit you.
Do you have a favourite shoe that causes you no problems?
Does the same manufacturer off an option in the minimal range?
Do they have a progressive range of shoes from starting off through to out & out minimal?

Remember, i you go from a standard cushioned or structured shoe to a more minimal, its the decrease in heel-toe drop that will get you first, you're calves & achilles will have to stretch to accommodate this, so just watch out not to bite off more than you can chew.

miguelk

spurscormac wrote: »

My favourite topic resurrected...

If training for a marathon, you've been running quite a while (read a year or two at least) & you don't have any injury problems, then I wouldn't bother with doing the transition ahead of the marathon for fear of getting yourself over the change & up to the required mileage.

I would consider it if you've constantly been getting niggles and just putting them behind you.
It does take a while to get used to, but by taking your time & not jumping in at the deep end, you can make the transition without any problems.

Before doing anything, look at the options out there. Some manufacturers have moved to less heel-toe drop while maintaining high level of cushioning, others reduce both as you progress towards minimal.
Think about what might suit you.
Do you have a favourite shoe that causes you no problems?
Does the same manufacturer off an option in the minimal range?
Do they have a progressive range of shoes from starting off through to out & out minimal?

Remember, i you go from a standard cushioned or structured shoe to a more minimal, its the decrease in heel-toe drop that will get you first, you're calves & achilles will have to stretch to accommodate this, so just watch out not to bite off more than you can chew.

Hi Sc,

Could you give a quick overview of how you transitioned? I read a post above with the approach of going directly barefoot and slowly building milage, so I would be interested to hear a brief run through of your gradual drop down in grades.

Also, had you a neutral gait to begin with? I am intrigued by all of this and I think I would be willing to take the time and patiance (and reduced milage) to get it right, but being an over pronator using a structured shoe, I think it is a massive change. What you think?

Thanks.

edit:

And just to add, the reason I want to transition is that I see my current structure/support as being a kind of quick fix to flaws in how I run. Kind of like if you have a short leg on a table, you could stick a beer mat under it.

But the real fix is to do the hard work and correct the imbalance in all the legs of the table.

Not very scientific but IMO if I keep running with with all that structure and support then I afraid the weaker parts that I am compensating for will only get weaker and I'll be even more reliant on their assistance.

spurscormac

miguelk wrote: »

Hi Sc,

Could you give a quick overview of how you transitioned? I read a post above with the approach of going directly barefoot and slowly building milage, so I would be interested to hear a brief run through of your gradual drop down in grades.

Also, had you a neutral gait to begin with? I am intrigued by all of this and I think I would be willing to take the time and patiance (and reduced milage) to get it right, but being an over pronator using a structured shoe, I think it is a massive change. What you think?

Thanks.

edit:

And just to add, the reason I want to transition is that I see my current structure/support as being a kind of quick fix to flaws in how I run. Kind of like if you have a short leg on a table, you could stick a beer mat under it.

But the real fix is to do the hard work and correct the imbalance in all the legs of the table.

Not very scientific but IMO if I keep running with with all that structure and support then I afraid the weaker parts that I am compensating for will only get weaker and I'll be even more reliant on their assistance.

I've posted a version of this a few times, but here's how I did it...

I was running in whatever I could get on sale in Elvery's, all Asics; 2130s, Kayanos, DT Trainers. Had done gait analysis in there and they told me I was over pronating, so the shoe suited me.
That was fine and I was running a few years like that, but every so often I'd get ITB issues, niggles in the feet, etc.
After looking into it I went to Catriona McKiernan's chi running workshop, and thought this was something that could help me overcome the regular injuries.
Off I went to Amphibian King & got gait analysis about 6 months after the course - this time I was neutral in one foot, and ever so slight over pronation in the other, but was recommended a neutral shoe.
Went for the Mizuno Wave Rider, but after a while, it just didn't suit me, something about the shape of it was causing me problems in my left foot (the neutral one I think).

More research online pointed me towards minimal running & I went back to AK and discussed it with Sean. He showed me the Inov-8 range and their brochure advising how to make the transition.
I tried them on and have to say, they are a very different feel at first, but the do really promote a better foot strike due to the lack of cushioning.
They also have lots of room in the toe-box so less likely to get toe or blister problems.

Long story short, here's what I did & when...
Dec 2011 - Inov-8 Road-X 255, 9mm heel-toe drop.
All my training runs & races in this as far as HM in April 2012.
June 2012 - Inov-8 Road-X 233, 6mm heel-toe drop.
Now I started to mix it up a little, shorter races & training sessions in these, LSRs still in the 255s. Also use the 255s for shorter session the day before a track wheree I use the 233s.
Sep 2012 - TrailRoc 245, 3mm heel-toe drop trail shoe.
Used these a bit for some autumn sessions on rough ground and a couple of weekend tester off-road runs. Didn't have any issues with the lesser drop, but haven't really used them in anger.
March 2013 - Inov-8 Road-X-Treme 178, 3mm heel-toe drop.
I have these on order in Amphibian King, plan is to use them at first just on the track & for 5k races (Galway series). 233s will be for regular 5/6/7 mile runs, and the 255s for LSRs still (this may change).

I've done it slowly as you can see, but remember, that's the key, and coming from a traditional 12mm heel-toe drop shoe, the initial foray to 8/9 drop is the first change you've to get used to.
It can help to mix up your existing shoes with new ones, but for me, I just dumped them (they were dead & causing me blisters) and started off with a little less mileage for a month, increasing mileage from there.

Hope that helps - any specific Q's, just ask.

pc11

Rogue Runner wrote: »

90% of all running injuries (PF, IT Band pretty much all knee, hip &pelvic) stem from a weak core.

I HIGHLY doubt this 'statistic'.

opus

Whenever I see pseudo-science mentioned, can't help but remember this

Revolutionary New Insoles Combine Five Forms Of Pseudoscience

RJC

Two things strike me as being missing from the debate and every time I see someone run a marathon in a pair of Vibrams I wince.

When I run on roads or footpaths I think (irrespective of gait - heel/mid/forefoot) I need a bit of cushioning as these are surfaces are not what my feet were ever designed to run on.

I accept that trails are easier in terms of cushioning but sharp stones can question this as well.

Therefore the minimalist philosophy (which I consider to be about reduced cushioning) seems to be a bit dangerous in that without excellent leg strength characteristics you can injure yourself.

The second thing missing from the debate and only mentioned in one of the posts above is the role of heel-to-toe drop in the promotion of good running dynamics.

Up until this point in time (the last 12 months in my reckoning) the debate about running styles and gaits has always been about providing a shoe that compensated for some flaw in your style or that helped you in some way.

I never hear anyone mention the heel-to-toe drop in shoes.

Now, as I find myself running in the latest version of my shoe of choice (the New Balance 1080- previously the 1061/62/63/64) I find myself transformed into one of those mythical creatures - the mid-foot runner.

I've been a heel striker (and have the shoes to prove it) for the past 10 years and the only change in either me or my shoes has been that the latest version of my shoes is now an 8mm heel-to-toe drop as opposed to the 12mm it was before.

Am I less injured that before? I suppose but I'm not an elite so it's relative to previous years in my internal monitor.

But when I surf the shoe websites or the walls of my local shop they all shout out words like cushioning or stability or structured or minimalist and nowhere do they seem to mention the heel drop number or what it means for your running form (I accept that Saucony do have their shoes classified by heel drop measurement).

As an aside, shouldn't minmalist shoe be super cheap seeing as the shoe company is relying on you to provide the technology (your foot)?

sconhome

You're shopping in the wrong stores.

There's been plenty of discussion on here about H/T differential for the past long while and the importance of it in shifting the centre of impact from the heel forward in the shoe.

The dynamic of the footwear industry has changed dramatically in the past 2 years especially with more and more shoes becoming a more 'natural' function and working to compliment and enhance your natural movment rather than enforcing a structure on the body.