Breaking Away

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:

Tom H wrote:We on the West Coast are really getting a break thus far from the summer norms. Last few days here have been in the 50's/60's for morning runs, complete with drizzle. When I read about all of our friends in the Midwest right now, sheeze, I'm glad I'm not in Cleveland any more!

Well, I will be in Cleveland again, Tom - which will be a break from Atlanta.

Wow! What's the attraction of Cleveland? Never been there. Nice town? That's not part of the country I've made it to yet.

Glenn wrote:Love the drowned rat look!....and still a smile! 14 miles in the hot sun for me today...a cool rainy run actually sounds pretty good to me. We had cool weather until late spring too, but its full on summer now.

Funny you say that, Glenn. Some hot sun (in a dry heat, preferably) would suit me just fine right about now. The run wasn't bad, though I was pretty amazed at how drowned I looked by the end of it.

Rain....I would love some rain. Can you please stop hogging it all? We have only had 5 days since October. Nice job on the runs lately. Keep up the good work.

Allright, consider me a blank slate on this issue (pretty much true) and tell me WHY someone should move to something like the Frees. So many here on the Boards seem to swear by them but I'm not sure I still understand the concept or more imporantly the benefit of a minimlaist shoe. And if its a "I just like the feel of terrain underfoot and that's more imporant that running speeds" argument, then its easy for me to ignore this whole movement. But why should a healthy runner who wants to run as fast as possible do significant training in the Free?

Here's the strawman for you to knock down:

I'll stipulate to the Frees making your foot STRONGER by forcing additional small muscles down there to do work as you run because anything you do wrong won't be covered over by extra cushioning or support. I kind of picture it like weight lifting for your feet. You are having to take every stride with more balancing action necessary from those little foot muscles so you are working harder than you would otherwise and I guess building up those muscles? I'll also say I agree with the concept - although I'm not sure I do - that running in minimalist footwear will force onto a runner form changes that might cause injuries if no change is made. In other words, something you could get away with in a more structured shoe but ultimately would lead to an injury will be corrected more quickly in a Free/minimalist shoe because I guess it flat out hurts if you run wrong in them so you change?

But if you don't have any injuries, why wear them? Why does any of the extra work the shoe forces you to do as an adaptation help you become a faster runner? If its true that the Free is strengthening your foot, what good does that do you as a runner?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I simply don't get the minimalist movement. Yes, I read Born To Run. Good book, enjoyed in immensely. But Barefoot Ted struck me as a loon. Too much talk of "primordal urges" and none about actually being a better/faster runner. I do completely and totally get the LIGHT SHOE movement. Running faster in lighter shoes is a hell of a lot easier than in heavier ones. But that's not minimalist. The Frees are completely different than standard lightweight racers. So I think people are drawn to the Frees for something very different than finding a lightweight racing shoe. So what is that? Is it only tied to running form and making changes so as to avoid injuries? And if so, why would healthy runners wear them?

There's something big I'm missing because everyone seemingly loves their Frees!

Chris, why do we do hill sprints? As a preventive action so we don't get injured. Same thing with Frees.

I also think there's some benefit to be gained in terms of efficiency, which in the long run will make you faster as well.

Chris M wrote:Allright, consider me a blank slate on this issue (pretty much true) and tell me WHY someone should move to something like the Frees. So many here on the Boards seem to swear by them but I'm not sure I still understand the concept or more imporantly the benefit of a minimlaist shoe. And if its a "I just like the feel of terrain underfoot and that's more imporant that running speeds" argument, then its easy for me to ignore this whole movement. But why should a healthy runner who wants to run as fast as possible do significant training in the Free?

Here's the strawman for you to knock down:

I'll stipulate to the Frees making your foot STRONGER by forcing additional small muscles down there to do work as you run because anything you do wrong won't be covered over by extra cushioning or support. I kind of picture it like weight lifting for your feet. You are having to take every stride with more balancing action necessary from those little foot muscles so you are working harder than you would otherwise and I guess building up those muscles? I'll also say I agree with the concept - although I'm not sure I do - that running in minimalist footwear will force onto a runner form changes that might cause injuries if no change is made. In other words, something you could get away with in a more structured shoe but ultimately would lead to an injury will be corrected more quickly in a Free/minimalist shoe because I guess it flat out hurts if you run wrong in them so you change?

But if you don't have any injuries, why wear them? Why does any of the extra work the shoe forces you to do as an adaptation help you become a faster runner? If its true that the Free is strengthening your foot, what good does that do you as a runner?

I'm not trying to be difficult but I simply don't get the minimalist movement. Yes, I read Born To Run. Good book, enjoyed in immensely. But Barefoot Ted struck me as a loon. Too much talk of "primordal urges" and none about actually being a better/faster runner. I do completely and totally get the LIGHT SHOE movement. Running faster in lighter shoes is a hell of a lot easier than in heavier ones. But that's not minimalist. The Frees are completely different than standard lightweight racers. So I think people are drawn to the Frees for something very different than finding a lightweight racing shoe. So what is that? Is it only tied to running form and making changes so as to avoid injuries? And if so, why would healthy runners wear them?

There's something big I'm missing because everyone seemingly loves their Frees!

mul21 wrote:Chris, why do we do hill sprints? As a preventive action so we don't get injured. Same thing with Frees.

I also think there's some benefit to be gained in terms of efficiency, which in the long run will make you faster as well.

That's a fantastic question, Chris (and good observation, Jim). I'd love to dive into that question, but I need to take my kid to the dentist soon and I don't have time to think it out. I'll be back later with something that I hope makes sense.

Until then, I'll leave you with something to chew on from "Born to Run" author Christopher MacDougall:

... ultimately, the debate isn't about Bare Soles vs. Shoes. It's about learning to run gently. Master that, and you can wear — or not wear — anything you please.

Okay, I'm back. I'm trying to give this some thought so I don't end up writing a book on the subject.

"Tell me WHY someone should move to something like the Frees."

I want to start off saying I'm not a big fan of dogma. If somebody says I "simply must!" try something, wear something, buy something, see some movie, etc., I usually don't. I'm just a little contrary. I guess. It would be asinine to be that way personally and try to ram a particular point of view down somebody's throat. Wear them. Don't wear them. It's up to you.

That said, I like them very much and would hesitate to run in anything else. They work for me for training and racing - even marathons (though I must admit that I wasn't quite ready to wear Free 3.0s on a technical 25K trail race...).

I think you're missing the point by talking about proprioceptive feedback ("ground feel") and foot strengthening, even though they do factor into what I think is the real benefit of minimalist footwear - improving coordination and biomechanical efficiency.

By eliminating the "middleman" of modern shoe engineering, form errors become evident. The body has no choice but adapt, or it hurts.

This, of course, assumes that there is a point of optimum biomechanical efficiency in every human body. A "sweet spot" that allows the best performance with the least musculoskeletal stress. That's what running without technical assistance aims to achieve.

I must note at this point that the scientific consensus seems to be that humans are wired for long-term endurance, not short-term speed, so optimum biomechanical efficiency isn't necessarily about going fast… it's about going far. Seeking constant speed improvements may well be purposefully moving your body away from that sweet spot and into some level of dysfunction.

As to injury… all I can do is quote my physical therapist, who said "the human body can adapt to a wide range of dysfunction before it becomes disabled." Something to think about, anyway.

I think moving to Frees has helped me improve my form - but if somebody already has great form, maybe the only benefit for them is that a shoe like the Free doesn't get in the way. You wear it. It doesn't wear you. But you could argue that a good neutral shoe might do the same thing, or racing flats.

So, if you've been bouncing away on marshmallow shoes throughout your running career, it certainly wouldn't hurt to give Frees a try, even if you just wear them to walk around in casually. Your feet might like not being told what to do.

Excellent and thoughtful reply. I thought your quote from MacDougal in the earlier post was really good. "Running gentle"....its a great concept and makes sense to me as a goal for efficient strides. I've hardly been at this long but I do notice often with other people around me on mills or with buddies I run with how much they are SLAMMING their feet into the ground as they run. Without really meaning to, I sure do run a lot more "quietly" than some of those around me. The middleman of a more enginnered shoe you referred to probably does protect them from quickly feeling the effect of these decidedly non-gentle impacts.

But here's the part I still struggle with. It almost seems like one of the very purposes of going to a minimalist shoe like the Free is to deliberately set you up for injury/pain. In other words, you will be FORCED to change your stride and footfalls because running the way you did in the more structured shoe will flat out hurt if you run in Frees like that and put you out of commission. That's probably being overly dramatic about it but it does seem odd to me to use pain/injury as a way to train. Nobody is ever recommended to go from the marshmallow shoes you mention to using Frees every mile right off the bat. That's because I guess you are supposed to ease your way into using a shoe.....that will hurt you?! Weird to think of it that way but isn't that the correction it is trying to make happen? Do it this way or you will have foot pain?

I think of this sometimes when I go out into the driveway in bare feet to get the paper. It hurts! And I always think of how when I was a kid, by the time Summer came I had the bottom of my feet completely conditioned to walk around barefoot and there was almost a layer of hard tough skin callus allowing me to walk on hot pavement or over small rocks etc. So I get the concept about using the Free or its ilk to build up tolerance to uneven ground and forcing your foot to do more proprioceptive running but I'm still missing the "WHY?".....why would I want to be able to walk out into my driveway in bare feet when its really hot out and not be bothered by that? Isn't it easier and maybe better to just put some shoes on first?!

As I mentioned above, my own belief is that you can run your fastest race times in the lightest shoe that you can handle without injury. I know you had problems in running in the 5.7 ounce Lunar Racer so that seemed to cross the line into "too light" for you and others can run in something like the 4-something ounce Mayfly with no issues (I'm too chicken to try!). Some people can't go into something much lighter than 9 or so ounces for something like the marathon. But the whole "what is the fastest race time shoe" does seem dictated by finding that sweet spot of lightest weight pssoible versus what your foot can handle over the rigors of a race. For the sake of just prolonging an argument, I'll point out that the Nike Frees seem (to me and perhaps me only) to be NEITHER in the context of finding a shoe to make you faster. They are neither lightweight nor particularly good at protecting your feet with cushioning for 3+ hours of running. They allow their user to feel the ground more and be free. That starts to sound like an ad for Shape-Ups to me...

Chris M wrote:As I mentioned above, my own belief is that you can run your fastest race times in the lightest shoe that you can handle without injury.

I think that this statement sums it up, Chris. I mentioned that I've slowly moved down to the Brooks Launch (7.5 ounces) for the majority of my runs, and I ran my half yesterday in the Adidas Adios which is 6 oz in my size Womens 7.5. I know that I run lighter on my feet since I've adapted to the Launch and I oddly enough get more mileage out of them, but I still wear my orthotics in both pairs (they are soft and weight barely anything, but it is still a couple of ounces) because I'm not ready to let go of them yet.

My previous training shoes were over 10 oz., then I moved to the Brooks Defyance which in 8.8 oz, and now the Launch. Who knows, maybe I'll make it to a more minimalist shoe in the end, but it is a slow progression and I think mark would agree there wholeheartedly.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:

Chris M wrote:As I mentioned above, my own belief is that you can run your fastest race times in the lightest shoe that you can handle without injury.

I think that this statement sums it up, Chris. I mentioned that I've slowly moved down to the Brooks Launch (7.5 ounces) for the majority of my runs, and I ran my half yesterday in the Adidas Adios which is 6 oz in my size Womens 7.5. I know that I run lighter on my feet since I've adapted to the Launch and I oddly enough get more mileage out of them, but I still wear my orthotics in both pairs (they are soft and weight barely anything, but it is still a couple of ounces) because I'm not ready to let go of them yet.

My previous training shoes were over 10 oz., then I moved to the Brooks Defyance which in 8.8 oz, and now the Launch. Who knows, maybe I'll make it to a more minimalist shoe in the end, but it is a slow progression and I think mark would agree there wholeheartedly.

Absolutely a slow progression, Michele. I've progressed from hard shell orthotics and maximum control shoes to stability shoes to neutral shoes to Frees over the course of several years. I'm just NOW starting to really feel the change in my stride starting to pay off, and I think it'll help keep me running for years.

(Interestingly, I didn't always wear orthotics. When I started running 30 years ago, stability shoes didn't exist. I wore Nike Daybreaks - a nylon upper on a single-density foam midsole - and had no problems. It was only years later, when some shoe salesman started critiquing my foot shape that I wandered into the world of "broken" biomechanics. Now that I'm back to something closer to what I wore years ago, running feels more natural. It seems I had to come a long way to come full circle.)

Here, BTW, are what Daybreaks looked like...



That padding looks pretty thick, doesn't it? Well, remember, it wasn't as dense as what we have these days....

Chris - "It almost seems like one of the very purposes of going to a minimalist shoe like the Free is to deliberately set you up for injury/pain. In other words, you will be FORCED to change your stride and footfalls because running the way you did in the more structured shoe will flat out hurt if you run in Frees like that and put you out of commission."

Egad! Do you really think that? It's not like a random heel strike in a Free 5.0 lances a red-hot poker into your leg, dooming you to weeks of rehab, expensive co-pays and a lifetime feeling of inadequacy. But I only have myself to blame for that, I suppose. When I said "it hurts" in the post above, I should have said "you can feel it."

Stimulus begets response. Just like a hard set of repeats will stimulate muscle development (with some accompanying "discomfort" and/or "hurting"), running with enhanced proprioceptive feedback stimulates positive adaptations. Ignore that feedback and keep clopping away mindlessly, and yeah… you may actually feel pain. Same as if, after wearing Vomeros for years, you decide to run your next 20 miler in VFF. You can fix biomechanical weaknesses. You can't fix stupid.

Your driveway moment: I'm not a big fan of frying my feet on pavement, but I do enjoy going barefoot - even on the annoying "exposed aggregate" concrete that is my front porch. Sure, you can feel it, but the stimulus feels good. It wakes up your senses.

(Thanks for subscribing to the paper, though. We need all the help we can get!)

So there's an answer to the "why" question. Why do it? Because it feels good.

I chuckle when I hear people say things like "Look at the elites! They don't go around racing in Frees! Or running barefoot." Well, no. They run in racing flats with a lot LESS padding than even the thinnest Frees, especially in XC or track events. Some of them might even have less between the sole of the foot and the ground than VFFs. It's about as far from a marshmallow shoe as you can get.

Lastly, my Frees have offered pretty good protection in four of my five last marathons (including two huge PRs), so all I can honestly say is, they seem to work for me. I did a marathon in that window in "racing" shoes (Lunaracer 2s), but I didn't really get a sense that the extra support helped me that day - and the construction of the shoes caused me to blister badly.

(Funny you mention Shape-Ups. I think they argue that the instability caused by the wobbly soles builds strength and coordination. I guess by that argument, we should be putting our future Olympians in 5-inch spike heels.)

All this thought about old school shoes got me thinking, and Googling.

After Nike stopped making the Daybreak, I experimented with several different types of shoes (including, believe it or not Tim, Brooks) and had a nasty tendency to rip the heel cup off from the midsole. My feet aren't exactly standard issue, and I guess I can put a lot of torque on a shoe back there.

That problem was solved (at least until it was discontinued) by the Nike Equator. It was probably an early version of what became a stability shoe, though the main benefit to me was that it had an extra layer of reinforcement around the heel that kept the shoe intact through the torture test.

Here's what the Equator looked like:



And here is proof (!) that I wore them. This was from an 8K race way back in 1982. Notice how I'm approaching a nice midfoot landing? See? There's hope for me yet!

I've progressed from motion control with orthotics, to now stability without orthotics, and sometimes neutral without orthotics. I'm pretty paranoid about getting injured so it's going to be a continued slow progression for me. I don't see myself with the Frees but I also didn't see myself dumping the orthotics either. Some good points both ways you guys have made. Like Michele, I need to find some lighter shoes as a next step.

I wore these when I was in college:

This is what I wore in college. Talk about your "enhanced proprioceptive feedback"! Those screw in bottom studs would be drilling small holes into the bottom of your feet the whole time you wore them.

JohnP wrote:I've progressed from motion control with orthotics, to now stability without orthotics, and sometimes neutral without orthotics. I'm pretty paranoid about getting injured so it's going to be a continued slow progression for me. I don't see myself with the Frees but I also didn't see myself dumping the orthotics either. Some good points both ways you guys have made. Like Michele, I need to find some lighter shoes as a next step.

Slow is the way to do it, John. I don't know that I'll ever start scampering around barefoot, but I don't know if I'm completely done with the transition. Time will tell.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:I wore these when I was in college:

Ooo. I recognize these. Isn't it amazing how simple they look now, compared with some of the hyper-engineered shoes out there today? (What's also amazing to me is how the prices haven't really changed all that much from then to now.)

Chris M wrote:This is what I wore in college. Talk about your "enhanced proprioceptive feedback"! Those screw in bottom studs would be drilling small holes into the bottom of your feet the whole time you wore them.

Heh. Not surprised, Chris. Tidbit from the labs: Guess who among shoe testers have the most screwed up feet? Yup. Soccer players. Actually, it's a tossup between soccer and hockey, but the reason their feet are screwed up are the same. Soccer and hockey players apparently routinely cram their feet into the smallest shoe possible to get the maximum possible level of control and maneuverability.

[/quote]

Heh. Not surprised, Chris. Tidbit from the labs: Guess who among shoe testers have the most screwed up feet? Yup. Soccer players. Actually, it's a tossup between soccer and hockey, but the reason their feet are screwed up are the same. Soccer and hockey players apparently routinely cram their feet into the smallest shoe possible to get the maximum possible level of control and maneuverability.
[/quote]

I'm glad you said that! Putting the picture of the cleats up last night reminded me that we all used to buy shoes that were at least 2 sizes too small. I wear a size 10 normal shoe and running shoe and would play soccer in 8s or even 7.5s. I think we read somewhere that Michael Platini (French star) or Rudi Voller (German star) did it so all of us thought it was tres cool to wear cleat several sizes too small. Every single toenail would fall off until the cleat got fully broken in. Just thinking about it now, I'm getting phantom pain in my feet. I think it was completely stupid and provides next to no help. Believe me, our touch wasn't very good so its not like it was helping us. Platini? Voller? Yeah, they probably did need and use the extra control but for schmoes like us "fits like a glove" can't add in skills you don't have. I would never do that now and the indoor shoes I use now are regular 10s. But no wonder wearing those cleats hurt like hell! A buddy I run with now thinks that the reason I've never seem to have any recurring foot or leg issues is 20+ years of daily soccer beating on the lower body. Maybe, I don't know. That could be why I'm such a skeptic on the whole minimalist thing.....I'm not seeing the benefit of foot strengthening but that might because I unwittingly kind of went through it ages ago so I don't get the repeptive use injuries many runners do? Who knows? But you got a laugh out of me bringing up the idiocy of hockey/soccer players doing the several sizes too small thing.

So do figure skaters! I can't even get my skates on now, and my feet have not grown as I still wear the same size street shoe and running shoe. Of course, I might be one of the only people whose running shoes are the same size as their street shoes.

Easy Run: About 5 miles

Weather: Overcast, a little muggy, but with a breeze. 58 degrees, 87% humidity. Gear: Testers, shorts, T. Fuel: Carrots and coffee before. Didn't take anything on run.

I finally was able to get a Tuesday morning run in this week! I woke up with a creaky left ankle (leftover from twisting it a week or so ago) but it eased up once I started running. I tried to make this run as smooth as possible - which seems to mean paying close attention to keeping the core in the proper position. I've always known this was important, but it was easy to forget that when I was paying more attention to my heart rate. It's still biofeedback, I suppose, but this is feedback directly from perception rather than instrumentation.

I also tried something a little different. I went out without any supplemental fluids. I usually push fluids even on cool runs. I don't know how much it helps (or if it helps at all) so I thought a little experiment was in order. Result? I didn't miss the extra fluids at all. Granted, it was five miles at 58 degrees and not as muggy as it has been lately, but still.. it was interesting.

Chris M wrote:

Mark B wrote:Heh. Not surprised, Chris. Tidbit from the labs: Guess who among shoe testers have the most screwed up feet? Yup. Soccer players. Actually, it's a tossup between soccer and hockey, but the reason their feet are screwed up are the same. Soccer and hockey players apparently routinely cram their feet into the smallest shoe possible to get the maximum possible level of control and maneuverability.

I'm glad you said that! Putting the picture of the cleats up last night reminded me that we all used to buy shoes that were at least 2 sizes too small. I wear a size 10 normal shoe and running shoe and would play soccer in 8s or even 7.5s. I think we read somewhere that Michael Platini (French star) or Rudi Voller (German star) did it so all of us thought it was tres cool to wear cleat several sizes too small. Every single toenail would fall off until the cleat got fully broken in. Just thinking about it now, I'm getting phantom pain in my feet. I think it was completely stupid and provides next to no help. Believe me, our touch wasn't very good so its not like it was helping us. Platini? Voller? Yeah, they probably did need and use the extra control but for schmoes like us "fits like a glove" can't add in skills you don't have. I would never do that now and the indoor shoes I use now are regular 10s. But no wonder wearing those cleats hurt like hell! A buddy I run with now thinks that the reason I've never seem to have any recurring foot or leg issues is 20+ years of daily soccer beating on the lower body. Maybe, I don't know. That could be why I'm such a skeptic on the whole minimalist thing.....I'm not seeing the benefit of foot strengthening but that might because I unwittingly kind of went through it ages ago so I don't get the repeptive use injuries many runners do? Who knows? But you got a laugh out of me bringing up the idiocy of hockey/soccer players doing the several sizes too small thing.

I knew it! Your buddy might be right. You had to run so carefully - mindfully, even - in those cleats that you may well have unwittingly taught yourself good form. One of the suggestions I've heard from barefoot running zealots is to take off your shoes and go walk, then run, on the sharpest gravel road you can find to teach you to run carefully and minimize your ground contact. Cramming your feet in too-small cleats could do pretty much the same thing.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:So do figure skaters! I can't even get my skates on now, and my feet have not grown as I still wear the same size street shoe and running shoe. Of course, I might be one of the only people whose running shoes are the same size as their street shoes.

That makes sense, Michele. I cringe just thinking about it. (And my street and running shoe size is the same, too. I think sizes may be getting a little more uniform now.)

Easy Run: About 9 miles

Weather: Sunny, mild. 55-60 degrees, 92-79% humidity*. Gear: Testers, shorts, T. Fuel: Banana and coffee before, and two endurolytes. Carried water with nuun.

My first back-to-back in a while, so I went out without a set distance in mind. 4? 5? 6? I didn't know, and didn't really care. I decided to figure it out as I went. Well, the morning was so nice and the run felt so comfortable that I just kept going. I went down Llama Ridge and into a section of dips and rolls before hitting a good turnaround point about 4.5 miles out, then I went back through the rollers, back up Llama Ridge and cruised home for a total of 9 miles. It felt just about right.

(No llamas this morning, only cows.)

*-My apologies to my friends in the heat-fest back east.

55-60.

Nice job on the run, nearly double digits in the middle of the week, SWEET!

Apparently, us in the South don't get the same type of sympathy since we have been dealing with the heat since April....

Jerry wrote:55-60.

Yup. A nice May morning.... in late July. Yeesh. I know everybody else is keeling over from the heat, but we're stuck in perpetual spring here. The upside: our backyard berry crop has lasted a long time!

Joel H wrote:Nice job on the run, nearly double digits in the middle of the week, SWEET!

Apparently, us in the South don't get the same type of sympathy since we have been dealing with the heat since April....

Thanks, Joel! I won't be able to get a run in this weekend (heading out on vacation), so it's not like I'm going to be getting a lot of miles in this week. Sorry you guys have it so bad right now. The conditions sound like they put Bangkok to shame.

Ah ok, that makes more sense. Have fun on your vacation!

Joel H wrote:Ah ok, that makes more sense. Have fun on your vacation!

Well, actually... if I wasn't driving to Central Oregon on Sunday, I would have gone for a longish run, too. Probably just as well to keep easing into it, though: I plan to do a lot of trail running next week.