Minimal Shoes

[Ryan]

Rob, interesting thoughts.

...will runners who train less than X miles NOT experience any ill effects of today's running shoes?

I can't say for sure but there may be a point there. In the past, I've found that I can wear almost any shoe when I'm running low mileage. Bump up the mileage and I have to be more careful about what I'm wearing (not too much medial posting, which seems to punish the arches; not too soft, which seems to allow a bit too much pronation for me; in short, a nice, neutral shoe).

Do runners that train more than X miles NEED to incorporate some sort of minimal footwear training to prolong their running?

I don't think you need to. I've run as high as 161 miles in a week, I've averaged over 140 miles a week. I wasn't wearing bricks on my feet but I was wearing what most would consider "normal" training shoes. I didn't feel that those shoes harmed me, they just didn't give me the same benefit that going with less shoe has. It would have been interesting if I would have gone more minimal when I was still running that kind of volume to see what the effect would have been. Unfortunately, I didn't and I don't anticipate returning to those volumes any time soon, if ever, so that might be a big unknown.

Also, can a minimal shoe simply be an old worn out shoe?  It may not be as lightweight as a racing flat, but the support structure would be worn down sufficiently to require overall foot strength.  If the goal is to rely on the strength of the foot, could you theoretically wear your toes through the soles?  Thoughts?  Great thread, I dig the studies.

Maybe for some people but I found one of my limiting factors with the "normal" training shoes was that I didn't wear them evenly. I wore them more on the inner side than the outer side so, with time, they became unbalanced and promoted too much pronation. I came to the conclusion after discovering this that the ankle and knee soreness that became my tip-off that I needed to retire a pair of shoes was due to this uneven wear.

[ksrunner]

I do believe, though, that Culpepper was 6'1" and 130# in his competitive days. 

Wow! I thought I was thin at 6'2", 148# out of high school.

Though my wife likes the lean runner's body, having a BMI that low might push her limits. Of course, with my appetite and her cooking, I am sure that there is no need to worry that I will grow too thin.

As far as gradually transitioning to minimal shoes, I think that it is a good idea to wear minimal shoes as often as possible. If you're transitioning to Fivefingers, then wear them as much as possible -- basically anytime that there are no dress codes or safety concerns that would prevent you from wearing them.

It may also be a good idea to minimize the other shoes you wear as well. For me, I probably cannot get around having some fairly hefty boots for farm work. (I don't see myself going in with the horses or running a chainsaw in five fingers or XC flats.) But, I could probably find a lighter shoe with less heel for work. I wear some Footprints shoes -- basically like dress Birkenstocks. They are probably better than most work shoes, but they are a bit big and clunky and the heel is built up a bit.

[Andrew A.]

Check out Earth shoes, with their patented negative heel.  They can be a bit pricey (though places like Sierra Trading Post will often have them steeply discounted, do a google shopping search on the ones that interest you and you might find some that are far below msrp) but they make shoes that would seem to fit the bill.  I have been considering getting some myself for work.

[Andrew A.]

Regarding the studies that confirm the benefits of such training, do you think there is a magic number of weekly miles for the studies to pertain to you?  Meaning, will runners who train less than X miles NOT experience any ill effects of today's running shoes? Do runners that train more than X miles NEED to incorporate some sort of minimal footwear training to prolong their running?  Solve for X.   

No, as with the "10% rule" and its ilk, it cannot be that simplistic.  Of course, I track neither overall mileage nor shoe mileage, so I would have no stats even if I thought they might possibly be valid.  I say go with what feels right, your body will let you know whether it is too much.  Let it be a gradual progression, err slightly on the side of caution.  Incorporate it as much as possible -- as with an example noted above, I use cc flats for 'walking around' shoes as much as is practical and am mindful of how I walk when I do. 

Also, can a minimal shoe simply be an old worn out shoe?  It may not be as lightweight as a racing flat, but the support structure would be worn down sufficiently to require overall foot strength.  If the goal is to rely on the strength of the foot, could you theoretically wear your toes through the soles?  Thoughts?  Great thread, I dig the studies.

No, as Ryan has indicated, shoes with thicker cushioning compress and wear out unevenly.  I have seen this routinely with such shoes, with age/use they will tend to develop an axis of wear across which they will rock when placed on a flat/level surface.  That is just asking for trouble, as I see it.

[Andrew A.]

This would be a fairer and more rigorous criticism of the BFR zealots:
http://www.running-blogs.com/crowther/2010/02/born_to_hype_christopher_mcdou.html

[Ryan]

That is a very good critique. It also seemed to spur comments of greater quality than I am used to seeing on blogs.

The point about the studies is a great one. Each side likes to point out the lack of studies supporting the other's side. Pot, meet kettle. Now, let's move on and see if, as is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My suspicion is that is just what we'd find if we would get over the all or nothing debate.

[Andrew A.]

McDougall in his own words:
http://www.runcolo.com/content.php?220-Interview-with-Christopher-McDougall
There is plenty to work with here, I am going to have to revisit this later.

[Ryan]

I don't have much time to comment now but a few points I would disagree with him on:

I think Dr. Lieberman put that argument to rest once and for all with his study in Nature magazine. He found that the collision forces when you heel strike in shoes are three times greater than when you forefoot strike in bare feet. Here’s the most remarkable part: when you forefoot strike in bare feet, the collision forces are virtually zero!

Hmm, I don't remember that second statement. Also, the first statement seems to contradict the second. Triple virtually zero and you still get very close to zero. That's not the argument he seems to be trying to make.

So why not just forefoot strike in shoes? You can … unless, like most shoes, the sole is so thick that you have to point your toe up to clear the heel.

Am I the only one who is confused by this? Point your toe up to clear the heel?

On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, back-to-the-basics was and is the ONLY way to run.

I'm not disagreeing with this but just because it's the only way without technology doesn't mean that the technology is counterproductive. On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, the only way to travel long distances without walking was to be carried or pulled by animals. That doesn't make the car counterproductive to long distance travel. Without getting into whether the shoe enhances a runner's experience or is a detriment, this argument doesn't go far with me.

It's disappointing to see him not willing to simply debate with those who disagree with him. He says he wants to have a discussion. Well, it's easy to have a discussion with only people who agree with you. However, discussion with people who you do not agree with is often more valuable because you can open their eyes to your ideas by making valid points while, at the same time, opening your eyes to their ideas by listening to their valid points. Is he ducking a good learning experience by saying he doesn't want to be confrontational?

[Andrew A.]

More from Bobby (he sure lends a lot of his time to something that he purports to have no validity):
http://bobbysez.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-words-on-barefoot-running.html

An interesting set of links from Brooks, the second one has proven especially interesting:
http://www.brooksrunning.com/About+Brooks/On+Barefoot+Running/
http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2010/01/25/barefoot-running-an-open-letter-from-brooks-ceo-jim-weber/
http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2010/02/08/pete-humphrey-brooks-vp-of-footwear-rd-on-injury-prevention/

[Andrew A.]

McDougall in his own words:
http://www.runcolo.com/content.php?220-Interview-with-Christopher-McDougall
There is plenty to work with here, I am going to have to revisit this later.

Ok, so revisiting . . .

I don't have much time to comment now but a few points I would disagree with him on:

I think Dr. Lieberman put that argument to rest once and for all with his study in Nature magazine. He found that the collision forces when you heel strike in shoes are three times greater than when you forefoot strike in bare feet. Here’s the most remarkable part: when you forefoot strike in bare feet, the collision forces are virtually zero!

Hmm, I don't remember that second statement. Also, the first statement seems to contradict the second. Triple virtually zero and you still get very close to zero. That's not the argument he seems to be trying to make.

Yes, seems like a fanciful illusion.

So why not just forefoot strike in shoes? You can … unless, like most shoes, the sole is so thick that you have to point your toe up to clear the heel.

Am I the only one who is confused by this? Point your toe up to clear the heel?

No, and this highlights one of the major drawbacks of e-interviews (or just poor interviewers), the lack of (opportunity for) clarifying follow-up questions.

On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, back-to-the-basics was and is the ONLY way to run.

I'm not disagreeing with this but just because it's the only way without technology doesn't mean that the technology is counterproductive. On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, the only way to travel long distances without walking was to be carried or pulled by animals. That doesn't make the car counterproductive to long distance travel. Without getting into whether the shoe enhances a runner's experience or is a detriment, this argument doesn't go far with me.

+1

It's disappointing to see him not willing to simply debate with those who disagree with him. He says he wants to have a discussion. Well, it's easy to have a discussion with only people who agree with you. However, discussion with people who you do not agree with is often more valuable because you can open their eyes to your ideas by making valid points while, at the same time, opening your eyes to their ideas by listening to their valid points. Is he ducking a good learning experience by saying he doesn't want to be confrontational?

I am not disappointed.  As has been pointed out elsewhere regarding the RW 'debate' in question, it is about knowing the audience.  RW is more a vehicle for delivering running shoe marketing to consumers than it is a vehicle for delivering elucidation and enlightenment.  If they print something that challenges the status quo at all, it seems to merely dumb down the status quo even further.  (Oprah follows a similar model with great success.)  It deprives people of tools to make thoughtful and truly informed decisions regarding their running.  Anyway, as such, I would not hold being published there in high regard and cannot blame McDougall at all for feeling similarly.  Perhaps RT might not be the right venue for it, either, though I would imagine that Scott Douglas (if given the editorial okay) could do a fine job moderating a discussion like that.  A neutral publication, such as a respected blog, would likely be the most ideal.  Yet I see definite merit in your suggestion that he might be avoiding considering legit challenges to his views.  A podiatrist might not represent that, yet a podiatrist on-board with RW's editorial stance (much like a psychic on-board with Oprah's bias) would seem to represent a stacked deck or an ambush.  I can understand the reticence and I can also see the possibility of being closed to any and all challenge.

"That 300-500 replace-your-shoes mantra is strictly a marketing ploy. There is absolutely no evidence to support it. And not coincidentally, 300-500 miles equates to about six months, which is precisely when the shoe companies are rolling out their new models and the running magazines are printing their best-selling issues of the year: the shoe reviews."

I find this to be an interesting point, worth highlighting.  I would add that, as with so many other industries that cater to our disposable society, there might also be some planned obsolescence going on.  Of all the threads I have read on Letsrun.com on the topic of minimalism, I have routinely seen reports of runners who get 600-1000+ miles out of racing flats used for training.  Racing flats tend to have thinner and often denser foam than trainers do.  It seems to me that trainers of the '70s and '80s also had denser and somewhat thinner foam midsoles compared to those of today's trainers.  Switch midsoles in trainers to softer, thicker foam and wow the consumer with the "plush" or "cushy" feel and keep them in the dark about the instability and excess pronation that results for a lot of people.  Get them buying shoes more frequently out of fear that they will get injured from using shoes much longer than 300-500 miles.  


"I did have a fascinating conversation with the CEO of Brooks Running Company, which I’m about to post on my website. He seemed genuinely befuddled about the way forward, because for him, it is a genuine problem. And the problem is this: ultimately, it’s all about teaching safe technique, but whose job is that? The podiatrists certainly aren’t helping, as he pointed out. 'I talk to a lot of podiatrists,' he said. 'These guys are selling orthotics like they’re McDonald’s hamburgers.'"

Also worth highlighting.    


"Here’s something weird, at least for me. I had this conversation with Dr. Davis recently, and I tried to make the case that minimalist shoes (racing flats, water shoes, moccasins, whatever) were as good as bare feet. She shot me down. She said that once you cover up all those nerve endings in the foot, you’re taking a step backward. You’re losing ground awareness, stability, balance, all kinds of key input that you can only get from a naked foot. Then, she proved it to me. She had me run three tests on her force-impact treadmill: first in bare feet, then in fivefingers, and finally in the Nike Free 3.0 (the thinnest Frees on the market). When I put on the Frees, they felt so thick and deadening that I had to stop and rip out the insoles. Even that way, I had trouble sticking my landings and finding the sweet spot for footstrikes. It felt like stumbling around in the dark. It was the first time I’d ever found myself on the losing end of an argument about whether too little is too much. I got her point: sometimes terrain and weather will require you to put on some protection, but given a choice, bare is best."

Is the Nike Free 3.0 really a good representation of racing flats?  The midsoles look thicker than those of cc flats or even the AdiZero PR, Asics Piranha, and Mizuno Universe.  Also, to my understanding, the Free features Nike's phylite which is one of the softest foams put into shoes.  Finally, do all the nerve endings in the foot really need to be fully activated/stimulated for the entirety of each and every run?  Can optimal proprioception be achieved with an approach using a combination of (limited) barefoot and footwear and not just going barefoot (almost) all of the time?


"Twice, I was pushing too hard on a rocky trail as the sun was going down, and twice I’ve snapped my little toe (once on either foot). I thought I was the only dumbass out there with that problem, but I’ve heard it’s happened to a few other guys as well. I met a Special Forces officer in North Carolina recently who’d done the exact same thing, and we both agreed that there is no greater pain-per-square-inch than smashing the tar out of your pinkie. The good news is, you can still run with a broken toe in either bare feet or open-toed sandals. The first time I broke a toe, I ran a 10k trail race 3 days later in my bare feet. The second time, I went trail-running the next day in a pair of Tevas with no trouble. I’ve been having a great year of running, apart from the fractures, and it’s been a blast to just charge out the door every day with no thoughts of distance, or destination, or upcoming races. Just having fun."

This, to me, spells out why people who put a lot (more than most) into their performance will (rightfully) shy away from BFR full-time.  So he ran a 10K trail race three days after breaking a toe, that does not mean that it is something anyone would really hope for or would care to deal with as a distinct possibility.  And this is likely why, though they may have started out barefoot and incorporate some barefoot running still, top pros primarily run while shod.  Like hands to a pianist, a runner's feet are his or her vehicle to personal achievement and keeping them sufficiently protected is wise.

[Andrew A.]

Pete Magill provides some more thoughts: http://petemagill.blogspot.com/2010/02/born-to-run-tarahumara-or-geb-you.html
I agree with and relate to pretty much everything he has to say; credit to him for being as honest as he does here.  Not sure that I am interested enough to sit through a 52-minute video of McDougall, however. 

[Double]

I buy Adidas shoes at the outlet mall from $16.95 to $34.95 a pair.  They are as good as anything I ran in during the 70s and 80s.  I put 1,000 miles on each pair.  I do spend around $80 on racing flats about every three years or so.  I don't race much so they last awhile.  I generally like to have less than 200 miles on a pair of flats for the marathon.  When warmer weather appears and I do a couple goof off speed workouts I wear flats to get my legs ready for racing.  This has had a good effect.  Being a bigger heal runner I like a bit of meat to the shoe.  If running a longer road race, I will also conduct a weekly workout with flats on.  As a note, most runs in flats are at a faster pace so my heal strike is not as pronounced. 

[Andrew A.]

Really good Q&A with McDougall and Scott Jurek (Feb 17th, 2010 show):
http://www.pcrm.org/doctorsforum/forum_archive.html

[Andrew A.]

Local kook community:
http://www.coloradodaily.com/outdoor-recreation/ci_14458238

[Andrew A.]

Opens an audio file: http://a50.video2.blip.tv/7100003537499/RunningTimes-TransitioningToLessShoe243.mp3?bri=1.0&brs=175