Forums >Running 101>Repeated injuries - thinking of getting Vibrams/minimalist shoes
Latent Runner
So some sections of TRAIL are worse than others. I agree. But running on trails is harder than running on flat pavement, in shoes. Agreed? As you said, "look like they've gone through a war" So why wouldnt you believe that running on trails is harder in bare feet than on flat pavement? But I cant see where your opinion matters regardless. You arent running on either bare foot any time soon.
So some sections of TRAIL are worse than others. I agree. But running on trails is harder than running on flat pavement, in shoes. Agreed? As you said, "look like they've gone through a war"
So why wouldnt you believe that running on trails is harder in bare feet than on flat pavement? But I cant see where your opinion matters regardless. You arent running on either bare foot any time soon.
The point you're missing is that it is the uppers on my shoes which wear out first, the soles are usually in very good shape. Case in point, the Asics GEL Scout trail shoes I bought in May were so torn up by August you could see my toes sticking out the sides of the shoes, and I didn't even wear those shoes every day.
As for trail running versus flat pavement; after my surgeon screwed my right leg back together in 2003 he told me I'd never run again. For the next six years I tried to prove him wrong, I tried, and I failed. Why? Because I was running on pavement. In 2009 I found a nineteenth century rail line which had been converted to a recreational trail primarily for horses, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles, and I started running on that. Guess what, I was able to "safely" run, as in I was able to run without getting injured. Sure, my shoes got chewed up, but I was able to run, and that was the key point.
Fast forward four years, I'm currently running between 65 and 80 miles per week, and on the odd day when I run on pavement with our corporate running club, I pay the price in sore joints and tendons for several days afterwards. Like it or don't, believe it or not, running on dirt is a much safer way to run over the long haul, even if it does cause the odd ankle sprain along the way.
Fat old man PRs:
Ok- you want science. DENSITY Concrete, Asphalt 2243 Concrete, Gravel 2403 Concrete, Limestone with Portland 2371 Earth, dense 2002 Gravel, wet 1/4 to 2 inch 2002 Limestone, solid 2611 Quartz, solid 2643 Rubber, manufactured 1522 Sand, wet 1922 Sand, wet, packed 2082 Sand, dry 1602 http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm
Ok- you want science. DENSITY
http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_materials.htm
Sorry, density and solidity are two very different things.
Nevermind
Trail and Ultra Running User Group
CT JEFF
Please explain.
As for getting back to running. I am glad you found something that works for you. But you had doctors tell you that you would not be able to run. Yet, you found a way. You cannot fathom that others, who have been told they will never run again, can find a way to run without shoes?
RUN SAFE. Barefoot 1st: 6/9/13. PR: 5k=22:50 10k=47:46 HM 1:51. FM 4:28 Oct 2015 joined RUN 169!
15 November 2013 Last updated at 05:27 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24953910
Feeling the growl again
Density and hardness are different things entirely. Lead is more dense than carbon steel, but carbon steel is harder. Kg/m^3 vs Rockwell scale.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Please explain. As for getting back to running. I am glad you found something that works for you. But you had doctors tell you that you would not be able to run. Yet, you found a way. You cannot fathom that others, who have been told they will never run again, can find a way to run without shoes?
Explain? Seriously, you don't understand the difference between density and solidity/hardness?
Okay, using your own list I see that concrete has a density of 2,371 kg/cu.m. Do you know what Mercury is? In case you don't, it is a liquid metal and it has a density of 13,546 kg/cu.m.; 5.7 times more dense than concrete, and yet it is a liquid. So, which would you rather punch with your fist; a concrete road surface or a pool of Mercury? Hint: punching the concrete road will possibly fracture your hand, you'll barely feel the punch into the Mercury.
As for your comment which says, "You cannot fathom that others, who have been told they will never run again, can find a way to run without shoes?" I have no idea what you're asking here. The fact is, telling someone who is getting injured when running in properly fitted shoes to switch to minimalist shoes, or no shoes at all is irresponsible and will dramatically increase their chances of injury, errr, unless they live on a golf course or sod farm and can run on springy turf.
Explain? Seriously, you don't understand the difference between density and solidity/hardness? Okay, using your own list I see that concrete has a density of 2,371 kg/cu.m. Do you know what Mercury is? In case you don't, it is a liquid metal and it has a density of 13,546 kg/cu.m.; 5.7 times more dense than concrete, and yet it is a liquid. So, which would you rather punch with your fist; a concrete road surface or a pool of Mercury? Hint: punching the concrete road will possibly fracture your hand, you'll barely feel the punch into the Mercury. As for your comment which says, "You cannot fathom that others, who have been told they will never run again, can find a way to run without shoes?" I have no idea what you're asking here. The fact is, telling someone who is getting injured when running in properly fitted shoes to switch to minimalist shoes, or no shoes at all is irresponsible and will dramatically increase their chances of injury, errr, unless they live on a golf course or sod farm and can run on springy turf.
thank you for your explanation of solidity vs denseness. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that concrete has similar properties to many found in nature that one would have learned to run upon. Please provide data to back up your claim that "even hard-packed dirt absorbs many orders of magnitude more shock than does concrete. "
I am not "telling someone" to switch to minimalist shoes either. If someone wants to try something that I have tried and read about, my recomendation would be for them to go slowly and expect some soreness as new muscles are utilized than those exercised while wearing footwear.
There are antecdotal stories of people who have had severe career ending injuries to their legs, knees, feet that have been told by doctors that they will never run again. I personally run on asphalt. Ive done it for up to 13.4 miles at a time (I have only attempted this for the past 5 months, so I am adding milage slowly) . And I believe telling someone that they should only run on grass, when you have not read up on the subject, nor attempted it yourself is irresponsible.
Okay, you win. There is just no convincing some folks.
When I started running (and my log goes back to the beginning), I got Vibrams. I cycled through many "minimalist" shoes and some sandals and did some "real" barefoot running.
However, after averaging 60 ish miles a week for a long time, I've switched to mostly run in more "moderately minimal" shoes--namely, Skecher GoRuns and Inov8 F-Lites. I really got sick of gravel, rocks, and other stuff bruising my feet. Gravel atop concrete or asphalt is not barefoot/very minimal friendly, and a lot of my country roads fit that bill.
MTA: My point was, minimal shoes might help you with your running form, but that doesn't mean they're a cure-all, nor does it mean they will work in all environments.
"When a person trains once, nothing happens. When a person forces himself to do a thing a hundred or a thousand times, then he certainly has developed in more ways than physical. Is it raining? That doesn't matter. Am I tired? That doesn't matter, either. Then willpower will be no problem." Emil Zatopek
Agreed, I typically run between 65 and 80 miles a week, most of it on dirt trails, and have had to be very careful about shoes due to bruising from sharp rocks. As you pointed out, gravel on pavement is not a barefoot/minimalist shoe friendly environment, and many of the road crossings I encounter are covered with rocks from the crossing ATV and snowmobile traffic; even the horses have to be careful on those crossings. Ouch.
Biomimeticist
You can argue all you want about the surface you run on be it concrete, or hard trail. I don't disagree that the two can be identical in density or firmness for any runner to land on; that's not my point at all. Its how your body interacts with your environment regardless to what kind of surface it runs on at the moment is the fundamental issue toward injury prevention.
Its your adapting skills which leave you at higher risk for injury in making such an instant transition.
To the belief better runners are faster because they train barefoot is a completely illogical argument to make which is why the whole Born to Run preaching is a complete con. Ancient athletes aren't faster because they train barefoot, you're slower because you wear shoes. Understanding the difference is why I don't recommend anyone to use minimalist products until they understand how shoeless cultures actually run.
That's what I pursued, a better understanding of how shoes inhibit our natural running form. And what I learned is that to simply remove your shoes and think you're magically going to run with identical skill as a human being that doesn't even know what a shoe is, sadly believes a completely absurd perspective.
Your running form has two biomechanic components, how your body moves from the ankles up, as well as how your body moves from the ankles down. And if you don't modify how your body moves from the ankles up after taking off your shoes, your running form will be even more distorted in trying to run without the biomechanic influence shoes impart into our entire running technique in its support function.
Your feet contain 25% of the total number of bones in your body as well as 33 joints, and 20 muscles. And because of modern shoe design, and its technique influence; is asking your feet, which has absolutely no strength, coordination or endurance in function to instantly figure out how its supposed to work at optimum performance levels is an athlete simply fooling themselves. Thinking that's going to happen is ridiculous.
And if the question is to functionally integrate the natural biomechanics of their feet into their running technique requires the modification of ones running form from the ankles up just as much as it does from the ankle down. That's the perspective difference I have in how I teach anyone to run.
Reality is that such an intense biomechanic change simply from removing your shoes leaves the body incredibly vulnerable to injury because of the increased stress loads doing so places on them to even walk, let alone run. Its no different than handing a 15 year with absolutely no driving experience the keys to a Ferrari and thinking they won't crash at their first time behind the wheel of the vehicle.
That's why I don't recommend anyone to wear minimalist shoes until they truly learn what forward locomotion without shoes entails in skill to learn.
And if an athlete were to functionally understand how the foot is designed to work in its most natural state, then understanding why learning to carry 20% of ones bodyweight with no increase in energy expenditure is a very easy skill to learn.
Experts said the world is flat
Experts said that man would never fly
Experts said we'd never go to the moon
Name me one of those "experts"...
History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong
not bad for mile 25
Oddly enough, yes. Why? Because each stride is different so each stress cycle is different than the one before it, unlike running on pavement. That said, while I might well be tempted to run barefoot or in minimalist shoes on some sections of the trails I frequent, running on other sections so shod, would be tantamount to committing foot suicide. I typically buy pretty rugged trail shoes, and after only 500 miles the shoes look like they've gone through a war.
Oddly enough, yes. Why? Because each stride is different so each stress cycle is different than the one before it, unlike running on pavement. That said, while I might well be tempted to run barefoot or in minimalist shoes on some sections of the trails I frequent, running on other sections so shod, would be tantamount to committing foot suicide.
I typically buy pretty rugged trail shoes, and after only 500 miles the shoes look like they've gone through a war.
I think you're on to something here. People with ankle and knee troubles are advised to run on dirt or grass because it's softer, but I think it's not the reduced hardness of the surface, but the variety of landing and takeoff angles that improves the conditioning of the feet, and ultimately eases stress on other joints.
The point I was trying to make is that I believe that concrete has similar properties to many found in nature that one would have learned to run upon. Please provide data to back up your claim that "even hard-packed dirt absorbs many orders of magnitude more shock than does concrete. " I am not "telling someone"
The point I was trying to make is that I believe that concrete has similar properties to many found in nature that one would have learned to run upon. Please provide data to back up your claim that "even hard-packed dirt absorbs many orders of magnitude more shock than does concrete. "
I am not "telling someone"
Nobody has provided data either way; if that's the way one wants to go, neither of you win. But I would venture to say that the personal experience of many...certainly myself....is that running on even packed dirt is lower impact than running on concrete. So, for me, that is my default assumption of fact unless someone can provide proof otherwise.
I experimented with the whole minimalist thing extensively years before Born to Run or it was cool to do so. My reasoning had nothing to do with what was "natural" or reducing injury; I had learned that the more I ran in racing flats the less problems I had with them on race day, so I wanted to figure out how much I could run in them without negative impact on my training.
What I learned was that I could run a couple times a week -- 8-13 miles per run -- in the most minimal flats and then wear them to race marathons. That's all I needed. Further, if I wore them more than that it began to impede my recovery. For example, I could not wear them in a 10-mile workout one day then put them back on the next day for an 8-10 mile recovery run (all of this on asphalt and concrete) and expect my legs to be recovered then next day for another workout. So I began wearing flats for Tues/Thurs workouts and lightweight trainers the rest of the time and do that to this day.
I also found hard dirt trails much more forgiving in minimalist footwear than concrete or asphalt.
To bring this back to the OP, we have someone who was still in the adjustment period with regular shoes, reads Born to Run, and now seems excited to try Vibrams. My question would be, why? I have not read the book but from the fact that I see so many people who have coming away thinking that they are going to go out and go minimal and somehow reduce injuries they have been having...does the book really suggest that? Because most people will find that to be completely false.
So a newer runner now thinking about minimalism should know:
a) It is not a cure-all; there will be an adjustment period with aches/pains/minor injuries, just like regular shoes. If you want to do it fine but do it for the right reasons.
b) If you have not worn them before this may be worse than in regular shoes; you are trying to adapt both to running in general and also footwear you are not accustomed to.
c) IMHO it is wise to start first on grass and softer surfaces and ease into running on hard, artificial surfaces. Not that it can't be done but we're trying to reduce the chance of injury. I do not think this suggestion by shipo was unreasonable.
I get an amount of trail running for this very reason, to condition my supporting tendons, muscles, joints, etc. By far, most of my miles are on concrete and asphalt.