If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Barefoot runners' smug may not be justified   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 32
    More: Interesting, lower leg, Long-distance track event  
•       •       •

16288 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jan 2013 at 10:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-28 11:04:23 AM
5 votes:

stuhayes2010: I like running in these. I can't run as fast because of lack of cushioning, but I do feel that I use more leg muscles and the run feels more "natural" or fluid. I guess I am smug or a hipster or something.


[www.northwestmilitary.com image 483x304]

/jogs with regular shoes too.


No, you're just annihilating your hip bones ... you should ask my grandfather that used to run with Jesse Owens back in the days before cork running tracks ... yeah ... enjoy those hip replacement surgeries ...

You want the softest impact running exercises you can find ... cork tracks, padded shoes, anything to reduce the strain on bones and muscles due to repetitive impact.
2013-01-28 11:04:09 AM
4 votes:
Summary: some other researchers found a different group of Africans and found that they run barefoot, but land heel first. Which does not dispute anything regarding running barefoot.
2013-01-28 11:11:39 AM
3 votes:

Rapmaster2000: I didn't know that people gave a shiat about barefoot runners. Like they actually sit in their car at a stoplight and upon seeing a guy with no shoes on think to themselves "Look at that guy with no shoes! He thinks he's so great."

These people need a hobby... or maybe a blow job.


You say that like there actually are people who don't need a blow job (or the gender-equivalent.)
2013-01-28 11:09:13 AM
3 votes:
After not running for 15 years (knee problems) I tired barefoot, and it works for me.

Just do what you find enjoyable and don't listen to people who seem to think they have the answer to everything.
2013-01-28 11:02:58 AM
3 votes:
I didn't know that people gave a shiat about barefoot runners. Like they actually sit in their car at a stoplight and upon seeing a guy with no shoes on think to themselves "Look at that guy with no shoes! He thinks he's so great."

These people need a hobby... or maybe a blow job.
2013-01-28 02:14:38 PM
2 votes:
The hell with running. I wear them just for walking around and hiking in the bush. My legs feel way better at the end of the day if i have those vibrams on rather than running shoes or hikeing boots. Also -- they dont blister the skin if you get them damp. Also its allot tougher to roll your ankle or slip on a branch in shoes that you can feel through.

I feel better wearing them and they are the most comfertable shoes i own. Screw the health benifits, they are just damn pragmatic outdoor hobby shoes.
2013-01-28 01:50:01 PM
2 votes:
boothboy007:
I further agree. Used to run in standard running shoes as a heel striker and needed braces for both of my knees for anything over a mile (not to mention the hip pain on anything over 3 miles or so). Learned to run mid-foot and the knee and hip pain went away. Switched to a more minimalist shoe and it was even easier to run mid-foot on account of not having an immense amount of padding in the shoe that was nearly forcing me to heel strike. Once I switched to those I was able to run a two-hour half marathon without any sort of pain after.


yep.

i've been running for almost thirty years now, and i made the switch to Vibram's about 3 years back. when i switched, i noticed immediately that i was pounding the hell out of my heels. so i was going to have to change my stride if i was going to run in them. i kept at it. and though it took a long time (months), going very slowly, for me to change my stride, i'm perfectly comfortable in them now.

now, i still land on my heel somewhat, but it's not the spine-shattering strike i had when i first switched; it's a gentle, rolling, low-impact landing. it's how i probably should have been running all this time, but all those squishy shoes were hiding my bad form. i wish i'd started this decades ago.
2013-01-28 12:26:05 PM
2 votes:
"Smug" is almost always in the eye of the observer. It's very rare that a person you think is trying to impress you has even given you the barest thought.
2013-01-28 12:01:39 PM
2 votes:

sigdiamond2000:

Drinking a cold bottle of water from my fridge and chucking the bottle in the recycling bin rather than grabbing a glass and filling it with not-cold water (and then washing it out when I'm done) is worth $3.99 to me.

I'm paying (minimally) for the convenience. I'm not paying for the water.


Your tap water has quality standards, bottled water has none.

I can see using a filter for hard water but the economics of using fossils fuels to produce the plastic container and burned for the transport of a product that comes out of your tap for fractions of pennies a gallon is institutional stupidity.

Use a filtered carafe for the fridge and reuse the water glass. You don't have to rinse it between glasses the same day.
2013-01-28 11:42:48 AM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Summary: some other researchers found a different group of Africans and found that they run barefoot, but land heel first. Which does not dispute anything regarding running barefoot.


Sure it does. Part of what caused the barefoot/minimalist-shoe fad was the claim that regular running shoes cause many of us to run unnaturally. This study suggests that there may be more variation in "natural" running styles than previously thought. Perhaps we didn't necessarily evolve to run as midfoot strikers. As others on this thread have noted, minimalist shoes works for them, but I think it's a YMMV type deal. Minimalists shoes aren't a panacea and I've yet to see any research that shows that even on average minimalist shoes prevent more injuries than otherwise.
2013-01-28 11:34:49 AM
2 votes:
A) the studied population are not runners
B) you're not controlling for surface -- which is what? 90% of the justification for fore-foot-first? (That it's less-damaging *when running on paved surfaces.*)
C) you're not even broaching the subject of efficiency or damage/injury types/rates

Can you imagine a headline of "MLB pitching style may be undermined by new research" based on a study of how non-athletic people throw a baseball with no regard for either effectiveness or drawbacks of the different styles?

Clearly a troll-tastic Fark headline is to be expected. But wapo? Shameful tabloid dickbaggery.

/ only runs when chased
// hopefully the researchers do get more money to continue
2013-01-28 11:29:22 AM
2 votes:
img3.etsystatic.com
The last best running shoes you will ever need.
2013-01-28 11:24:41 AM
2 votes:

The Larch: lohphat: If people are spending $59M on "minimalist shoes", thn they aren't athletes, they're "tools".

Americans spend over 200 times that much on bottled water.

Yes, people sure do spend a lot to run around barefoot, but they spend an incredibly huge amount to drink something that comes out of the tap for free.


This is me not disagreeing with you.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers.
2013-01-28 11:23:37 AM
2 votes:
2013-01-28 11:16:29 AM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Good luck with your hookworms, hipsters!


In case there was any mystery that hipster means person I don't like.

Here's the deal, hipsters don't exercise. Hipsters stay thin with Parliament Lights and cocaine.
2013-01-28 10:59:39 AM
2 votes:
If people are spending $59M on "minimalist shoes", thn they aren't athletes, they're "tools".
2013-01-28 03:02:35 PM
1 votes:

hitlersbrain: The human body is all round pretty crappy. We are bad design incarnate, why do you think we need so many machines just to survive? Tech is our only trick and it's funny how so many people keep saying tech is bad. Without it we would either starve or be lion food.


There is a couple of hundred thousand years of human natural history that proves you are either a troll or utterly stupid.
2013-01-28 02:50:04 PM
1 votes:
I run several half and full marathons a year, along with the occasional ~39 mile weekend. I'm 30 and in pretty good shape. After four years of running, I started developing acute pain in my right knee after ~16 miles into a race. At about mile 20, it became so bad I had to finish the rest of the race at a walk (which didn't hurt at all). Soon the pain started happening earlier and earlier in my runs, getting to the point where anything after 5 miles wasn't doable.

After going to a Orthopedist doc he suggested that my problem came from the collapsing of my arch, which in turn lightly jars my knee sideways during a run. After a couple hours, the cartilage gets inflamed - causing my pain. I was given a wrapping technique to better support the arch/ankle. It worked pretty well, but the wraps started getting all jacked up when I sweat and after a dozen miles, starting to cause more problems than they're worth (unraveling, twisting, etc).

After seeing a physical therapist to check on the issue, she suggested I try out a barefoot style shoe and see how I do. After about two weeks of retraining myself on how to run (landing on the ball of my feet vs. heel), it started to feel really natural. When I ran my first "barefoot shoe" half-marathon, I cut my best time by 15% and had no knee pain. I have yet to try a full marathon with them, but after a couple half marathons, I can personally attest to the shoes dramatically helping me and allowing me to run long distances again.

Oblig cheezy finish photo!
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
/ymmv
2013-01-28 02:41:07 PM
1 votes:
I ran for years in top-of-the-line Asics ( Gel-Nimbus, Kayano) and always got fitted at specialty running shops. I had shin splints off and on for about 7 years which greatly impacted my ability to run, as one can imagine. I switch to VFF in 2011 and haven't had shin splints since. Sore legs and ankles for a bit, yes, but nothing like chronic shin splints. There's my anecdotal evidence, but whatever. Criticize for looking stupid or being trendy but for many people these shoes have reopened the sport to them.
2013-01-28 12:40:42 PM
1 votes:
What about that study that finds that while Homo sapiens is capable of running long distances, there is no evolutionary benefit to it and it's not something that would ever have been done on purpose prior to the late 19th century.

Sprinting, even jogging for some moderate distance while hunting herd animals makes sense. Certainly not more than a mile or so, for the herds don't stampede that far and besides, once you've spooked them into stampeding, you've bungled the hunt and you're back to the clan's village to weave baskets or do women's work. But again, look at the vast majority of human existence: it's been 6,500 years since God created man and gave him dominion over the Earth and most of that has been without shoes and on unpaved trails and fields. It's not just the African Negro who's gone barefoot, but all people, White and Slavs and even the Punjabi Indians have spent most of human history barefoot, except for the foot-binding, which is practiced by the Chinaman.

No, running shoes accommodate a modern hobby, the running, and to do so barefoot is a foolishness, unless it is done on a natural surface like grass or dirt or asphalt or sand. And then it should not be for more than the distance one can shoot an arrow.
2013-01-28 11:47:05 AM
1 votes:
I work at a shoe store, and sell a fair amount of minimalist shoes. I can honestly say that 95% of people buying minimalist shoes are insufferable douchebags who don't have a clue what the benefits/disadvantages to them are.

That said, the other 5% are pretty cool and knowledgable on minimalist shoes. I've been running competitively for years and thankfully have always ran with a midfoot strike. I do own several pair of minimalist shoes, though I don't really run with them anymore.

The advantages of these shoes are quite obvious, but many don't understand that you need a lengthy period to get used to the complete lack of cushion and support and then wonder why thy get hurt. Those folks who do take their time to get used to it tend to love the minimalis shoes.
And if anyone is looking to try them out - check out the New Balance minimalist models. They are much more comfortable and the design blows Vibrams out of the water.

/just my two cents.
2013-01-28 11:39:02 AM
1 votes:

Rustico: My experience is simple: ran using traditional padded shoes (fitted at renowned running stores) and developed problems with my legs; ran using minimalist shoes (Vibrams) and mid-strike and leg problems went away.

Entirely possible that had I run using modern shows AND a mid-strike stride I might not have ever developed the leg issues.


This is most likely very true, as the striking is really more important than whatever shoes you are wearing. It's just that by wearing minimalist shoes, the impact of the heel-strike will tell you very quickly that you are losing the mid-strike.

Whereas with traditional running shoes, if you aren't paying attention to your form,it's all-to-easy to fall back into the cushy squishiness of heel-striking.


// My preference for minimalist shoes isn't really for street running, but for trail and rock scrambling due to the "ground feel" and the ability to wrap my whole foot around things.
kab
2013-01-28 11:38:44 AM
1 votes:
Subby either didn't RFTA, or has some assumption that minimalist runners advocate heel striking.
2013-01-28 11:37:32 AM
1 votes:
The reason why runners get problems may be due to the fact they ignore how their foot strikes the ground or just simply don't know any better. They just buy a shoe in the runner section that looks nice and feels confortable.

If you're going to seriously jog or run you need to do some research on how to identify your foot design that will reveal what part of your foot strikes the ground and buy a shoe that matches your running style. Yes, serious running shoes are made for 3 different types of foot strikers. May sound like trivial BS but it makes a big difference with soreness and being prone to injury.

Man may have been running barefoot for tens of thousands of years but we've also advanced in science to where we can protect our feet, legs,back...etc, as we run. Not saying some people don't benefit from minimalist shoes but there's a certain ambiance out there where we like to think we've had it wrong the whole time and the secret is less. That's just marketing doing it's job.

/run 25 miles a week
//6' 2" 250 lbs as well so absoribing heavy impact is important to me
2013-01-28 11:34:48 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: The Larch: lohphat: If people are spending $59M on "minimalist shoes", thn they aren't athletes, they're "tools".

Americans spend over 200 times that much on bottled water.

Yes, people sure do spend a lot to run around barefoot, but they spend an incredibly huge amount to drink something that comes out of the tap for free.

This is me not disagreeing with you.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers.



I can nearly always find a case of 24 12-ounce bottles of water for $3.99 at my local grocery store.

Drinking a cold bottle of water from my fridge and chucking the bottle in the recycling bin rather than grabbing a glass and filling it with not-cold water (and then washing it out when I'm done) is worth $3.99 to me.

I'm paying (minimally) for the convenience. I'm not paying for the water.
2013-01-28 11:31:12 AM
1 votes:

RichieLaw: MasterPlanz: After not running for 15 years (knee problems) I tired barefoot, and it works for me.

Just do what you find enjoyable and don't listen to people who seem to think they have the answer to everything.

This. I had to start to run after my ACL tear. Running with a heal strike, even in super cushioned shoes, really hurt my knee. Running with a mid-strike solved all issues. Plus it made my ankles stronger as a side effect (larger calves and anterior tibialis).



I further agree. Used to run in standard running shoes as a heel striker and needed braces for both of my knees for anything over a mile (not to mention the hip pain on anything over 3 miles or so). Learned to run mid-foot and the knee and hip pain went away. Switched to a more minimalist shoe and it was even easier to run mid-foot on account of not having an immense amount of padding in the shoe that was nearly forcing me to heel strike. Once I switched to those I was able to run a two-hour half marathon without any sort of pain after.

In short: do what feels best to you, but there is some validity to mid-foot running and it's connections to minimalist shoes.
2013-01-28 11:13:54 AM
1 votes:
My experience is simple: ran using traditional padded shoes (fitted at renowned running stores) and developed problems with my legs; ran using minimalist shoes (Vibrams) and mid-strike and leg problems went away.

Entirely possible that had I run using modern shows AND a mid-strike stride I might not have ever developed the leg issues.
2013-01-28 11:11:35 AM
1 votes:
This entire thread sounds fat.
2013-01-28 11:06:50 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: If people are spending $59M on "minimalist shoes", thn they aren't athletes, they're "tools".


Americans spend over 200 times that much on bottled water.

Yes, people sure do spend a lot to run around barefoot, but they spend an incredibly huge amount to drink something that comes out of the tap for free.
2013-01-28 11:06:25 AM
1 votes:
I have to disagree. Barefoot runners' smug will always be justified as long as people pay $200 and up for fancy running shoes. The only runners who are proof against barefoot smug-buggers are the lucky few who are paid massive amounts of money to shill for shoes and those who have their own branded shoes.

Running barefoot is classic Oneupmanship, as taught by Stephen Potter. Making millions of dollars in endorsements is the only One-up that can trump it, although passing a barefoot runner who is hobbled by blisters or cuts to his or her feet might give you a very temporary boost (smugging stopping to help works better, especially if you win the race any way).
2013-01-28 11:00:34 AM
1 votes:
I like running in these. I can't run as fast because of lack of cushioning, but I do feel that I use more leg muscles and the run feels more "natural" or fluid. I guess I am smug or a hipster or something.


www.northwestmilitary.com

/jogs with regular shoes too.
2013-01-28 10:56:57 AM
1 votes:
Like all things hipster, it's only ironically good for you.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report