12345

Running in "minimalist" shoes (Read 511 times)


Hungry

     "Not sure what "minimalist" really means, esp. when Hoka considers themselves minimalist because of their 4-mm drop. Is it lighter, lower heel-to-toe drop, no rock plate, less pronation control even if the shoe is built sturdier hence providing more support?"

     

    Yes to all of the above. And add to the list: less cushioning, more flexible, room for the toes to spread out and flex.

     

    All of these characteristics put a shoe closer to the "minimal" end of the scale. But, it's a scale, with bare feet on one end and maybe the Brooks Beast or combat boots on the other.

    Hoka's seem to be in a category by themselves. They have a relatively low foot drop (~ 4-6 mm), but they have a huge amount of cushion. One of their shoes has a 6 mm drop, but that's with "Stack Height: Heel (42mm), Forefoot (36mm)" according to runningwarehouse.com. They look like platform shoes to make you a couple of inches taller  -- hmm, maybe I should give them a try before I knock them.

      I always thought that "drop" was an odd way to measure whatever it is that it is supposed to measure.

       

      Wouldn't specifying an angle be more precise? Is the "drop" the same in a size 12 as a size 6 shoe? Seems unlikely.

        Hoka's seem to be in a category by themselves. They have a relatively low foot drop (~ 4-6 mm), but they have a huge amount of cushion. One of their shoes has a 6 mm drop, but that's with "Stack Height: Heel (42mm), Forefoot (36mm)" according to runningwarehouse.com. They look like platform shoes to make you a couple of inches taller  -- hmm, maybe I should give them a try before I knock them.

        You really need to try them before knocking them. I know I was really surprised. There's still some stability issues with the height off the ground. I'm waiting for LRS to get my size in in the Stinson Evo's.

         

        FWIW: I was having some forefoot issues where extra protection in the forefoot with a reasonably wide toebox seemed like a good idea - but maybe not *that* much. I was in LRS for some other shoes, and we got talking about Hokas. He asked if I wanted to try a pair on. So I did. They didn't have my size or model, but did have something to give me a feel for what they rode like. It was an unbelievably smooth ride with a rocker that sort of pushes you forward. It was one of those "wow" feelings - at least on flat surface of shoe store. Some of their models are fairly stiff, but others are more flexible.

         

        A friend of mine just set a women's 350-mi foot course record on the Iditarod Trail Invitational in the waterproof version of Mafates (not made any more). (Course records on that race depend a lot on snow conditions, which are superb right now on that trail.)

         

        In the meantime, I'm finding I really like the Xodus so may not need / want the Hoka.

        "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

          I always thought that "drop" was an odd way to measure whatever it is that it is supposed to measure.

           

          Wouldn't specifying an angle be more precise? Is the "drop" the same in a size 12 as a size 6 shoe? Seems unlikely.

          It may be, but I think the stack height is still useful information. I know it helped me recognize that the Xodus really do have more protection in the forefoot area than the ASR do, and that's what I was really after - not any amount of drop or angle.

          "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog


          Hungry

            I always thought that "drop" was an odd way to measure whatever it is that it is supposed to measure.

             

            Wouldn't specifying an angle be more precise? Is the "drop" the same in a size 12 as a size 6 shoe? Seems unlikely.

            This piqued my curiosity. The angle is clearly not the same for the different sizes for a given amount of "drop." Although I don't know if it's more precise or any more useful:

            With a 6 mm "drop," a size 12 has an angle of about 1.203 degrees, while the size 6 has an angle of about 1.463 degrees. If you changed it to a 12 mm drop, the size 12 has an angle of about 2.405 degrees, the size 6 has an angle of about 2.924 degrees.*

            (* Assuming a Mens size 12 is 11.25 inches long, and a Mens size 6 is 9.25 inches long.)

            Slow day at the factory, time to go home.

              Small studies can be scientifically valid if designed and conducted well. Are you a peer of the authors, and thus in a position to critique the methodology?

               

              But yes, the authors themselves formed the same conclusion (use an even slower transition than has been recommended).

               

              On another note, I found it interesting that a) the last person I saw running in Vibrams (2 days ago) appeared to be landing pretty heavily on her heels, and b) the heel was the location of one of the two stress fractures noted in the study. I think a lot of people do, in fact, heel strike when running in minimal shoes, and it seems logical that this would contribute to injury.

               

              FWIW, I've been looking at the wear on my newest pair of VFFs, and it's remarkably even, heel, midfoot, and toe. I'm thinking that's a good thing, but it could be personal bias. I've got 4000 miles on five pairs.

              Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                Interesting.  Just saw this today.

                 

                http://www.runnersworld.com/barefoot-running-minimalism/study-vibram-fivefingers-lead-greater-risk-foot-bone-injury

                 

                I can't vote in the poll.  I run primarily in minimalist shoes but only started running a couple years ago so no options available to me.

                 

                I'm doing most of my running in skechers go runs right now although I have a pair of vibrams.

                 

                Just ran across the PubMed abstract of this study:

                CONCLUSIONS:

                Runners interested in transitioning to minimalist running shoes, such as Vibram FiveFingers should transition very slowly and gradually in order to avoid potential stress injury in the foot.

                 

                Duh.  That advice is packed inside every Vibrams box.

                Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

                  I used to rotate between three Asics shoes: the GT-2170, the Gel Fortitude 5, and the Gel Kayano 18. I also wore, and still wear, the Vibram KSO as an everyday shoe and during weight lifting and non-running cardio.

                   

                  I needed new shoes before my marathon this past March. I bought the Saucony ProGrid Ride 5 and the Altra Intuition 1.5. I wasn't ready for 26.2 at a 0mm drop, so I took the Ride 5s with me.

                   

                  After I returned, I splurged on three new pairs of shoes: the Saucony Kinvara 3, the Inov8 f-Lite 195, and the Vibram Bikila. Now, I rotate between the five newest shoes.

                   

                  For longer, e.g., greater than 10K, runs, I currently feel most comfortable in a 3mm drop, as my Kinvara 3s and f-Lite 195s have. Two Sundays ago, I ran 13.1 in my Intuition 1.5s; while I did OK, my calves felt tired by the end. I hope to work up to 13.1 in 0mm by the end of 2013.

                  gilbertholdings


                    i love minimalist shoes, but i also don't run long distances.  either way, i just like the thought behind it and since it makes sense to me i can't see not doing it.

                    Trailglover63


                      Newbie here. I wanted to chime in on the topic, even though the thread is old. I will try to keep it as brief as possible. If it is long to you, try to think of it as my introduction….

                       

                      After 7 years of no running due to a back injury, and having a history of repetitive shin splints, and being a serious over-pronator/ heel striker who was placed into higher levels of motion control/cushioned shoes to the point where my running shoes looked like the bottoms of the boots KISS wore in their “Destroyer poster” that I had as a kid, I was able to resume running completely injury free since transitioning to minimalist shoes (Merrell trail and road gloves.)

                       

                      I did read "Born to run", and though I thought it was a good book, and made me wish I could still run, I had a bunch of reasons as to why what worked (BF running) for the Indian tribe would not work for most “western runners” who were heavier and who mostly ran on glass strewn asphalt and not on sandy/dirt trails etc.

                      My journey in life has taught me to not be closed minded on things like this, so I did not completely shut myself off to the possibility.

                       

                      A year or so later I read an article where a runner who had the exact same injury, and subsequent fears of returning to the worst of the pain from it, began running barefoot and was able to run again, so I decided to try, and I am very grateful I did. In fact I had to smile yesterday, despite some problems in my personal life, as I did my 7.5 mile Christmas day run, as I thought of what a great Christmas present just being able to run again was!

                       

                      My caveat would be that I was in a perfect position to transition, as I was starting from scratch. I did not have to put my ego aside and cut my mileage or pace drastically to give my feet ankles and calves time to adjust to now being the weak links in the biomechanics of running. To not transition properly over time, and make sure your strides are correct and your now unsupported feet can handle the stress is a recipe for serious injury.

                       

                      The last pair of motion control shoes I had were Mizuno Wave Creation 9 (bought in 2008/2009? And never got to run in due to injury) Now my back hurts just seeing people wearing those types of shoes (grin). I still use them on my concept2 rower, so I didn't completely waste a $100. But hey, if someone is not a heavy heel strikers like I was, and they have good running form and are injury free, I understand not wanting to change.

                       

                      Ps:

                      Unless you think that there was a Billius Bowermanapolis in ancient Greece pouring melted rubber into his wife’s waffle irons to make running shoes for his runners, Barefoot or zero-drop no cushion (sandals) running shoes probably are not what is the “fad”, but instead the way humans have run throughout history, until just a half century ago.

                        I got back into running, and after a couple months on my older shoes, I walked into a running store with my wallet open and walked away with a pair of Brooks Adrenaline GTS 14. I don't know what they are or how they would be classified with these comparative numbers, but they are comfy. A week later I went back and also got a pair of gore-tex Brooks Adrenaline GTX for the snowy, real cold, trail days over Winter. The GTS are for slightly less cold and drier days Smile
                        arca


                          I've got the brooks GTS 14. The barefoot supporters are not going to like them - definitely a cushioning/support shoe with a sizeable heel drop

                          12345