Jump to content


How Barefoot Runners Are Shaping The Shoe Industry


114 replies to this topic

#1 Jogger

    CoolRunner

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,323 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:58 AM

Interesting article here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/s...401.html?page=1

Quote

How Barefoot Runners are Shaping the Shoe Industry
A group of running rebels are shedding their shoes and reporting years of injury-free miles. Some ultramarathoners, biomechanics experts and doctors think that's probably a good thing. Others go so far as to say running shoes are in fact causing injuries. Meanwhile, running shoe companies continue to precisely measure runners, and pound and flex shoes in their high-tech labs. Could shoes—and shoe companies—be covering hundreds of thousands of perfectly able bare feet? If shoes are doing damage, just what are the companies measuring?


Support our Australian advertisers:

#2 slowmo

    1000-club old-dated SlowRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Joined: 08-November 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kogarah, Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:53 AM

Thanks for the link Kev.

The more I see the 'modern surfaces' argument put forward, the less convincing I find it.

That's a mind-boggling prototype shoe at the end of the article !

slowmo

#3 HillsAths1

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,593 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 06
  • Location:Hills District Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:30 AM

Kev a very brave post from someone with a financial interest in shoes.

I however am still not convinced(three cheers from Kev).

I am sure at some point I will give it a go, but the thought scares the s#@t out of me.

I feel comfortable in my shoes and have very few injuries that could even remotely be caused by shoes.

The thought of running on rocky surfaces just leaves me with a wince, even the sight of Long Arms bounding along at Ramsgate made me shudder(for all the wrong reasons :yahoo: )

#4 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:38 AM

View Postslowmo, on May 26 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

The more I see the 'modern surfaces' argument put forward, the less convincing I find it.

So you don't agree with the article then? :yahoo:

Remember probably 80% of runners are slower than 5m/km with a stride that is <60% of height and a frequency <75. So its neither convincing that pronation is the problem for these runners, nor that the high heeled running shoes are the problem, nor is it convincing to barefoot success when:

Quote

way back in the pack there was one person, Rick Roeber, who stole headlines with his unique running style. .... he isn't wearing shoes.
They could probably wear anything given practise and would still get injured because of poor biomechanics or doing too much too soon.

The runners at the pointy end who stride at >100% height, >90 frequency i.e. plenty of 'air time' if you do the maths have shoes with very very little heel or midsole (they are called racing flats for a reason).
They hardly ever get injured either , despite the high volume and intensity of training.

When I see :

Quote

way in front of the pack there were ten people belting it out for victory without wearing shoes.
B)

Then you could say its convincing.

cheers

#5 Jogger

    CoolRunner

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,323 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 09:53 AM

hills aths,

Quote

Kev a very brave post from someone with a financial interest in shoes.
in all my years of running (first marathon more than 20yrs ago) I have run in almost everything and tried almost everything. I liked it all and think I have gained some perspective. even barefeet. I don't see anything wrong with it. All I know is everyone's feet and style are different. But you can't hide from the truth - shoes are shoes and it takes all sorts (but if you are fed up of the "running shoes are this season's fashion" way they are sold today and want a no-bullshit, just-send-em-in-the-post option with a no-risk refund policy then you know where to go).

Quote

I feel comfortable in my shoes
as do most people.

#6 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:11 AM

I do not agree with the article either, how could I ever agree with a scientist who sold his soul.

I enjoyed reading comments bellow the article, as usuall public provides more info and knowledge than journo ever could.

#7 HillsAths1

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,593 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 06
  • Location:Hills District Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:35 AM

From the article

"45 percent of the faster runners (those with a 5-minute, 18-second-mile pace or better) ran heel-to-toe-step; rest ran with what he calls a midfoot strike, in which the heel and forefoot strike the ground simultaneously."

This would indicate that forefoot running is quicker as 55% of the point end run this way.

As opposed to 80% who run heal to toe in the slower runners.

#8 RunBare

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 07
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Brisbane QLD

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:48 AM

View PostHillsAths1, on May 26 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

I feel comfortable in my shoes and have very few injuries that could even remotely be caused by shoes.

Me too

#9 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:49 AM

View PostHillsAths1, on May 26 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

From the article

"45 percent of the faster runners (those with a 5-minute, 18-second-mile pace or better) ran heel-to-toe-step; rest ran with what he calls a midfoot strike, in which the heel and forefoot strike the ground simultaneously."

This would indicate that forefoot running is quicker as 55% of the point end run this way.

As opposed to 80% who run heal to toe in the slower runners.

hehe I noticed this too and had a laugh as how the statistics could be used by journo...

on top of this, as what said in comments, those who run heel-toe did so because of high heel is forcing it and also because they were re-educated by some coaches or friends

which was my case by the way, at Vienna marathon expo, the science shoes idiots from addidas were screaming at me and laughing at me, when I run front strike on their testing tready BF
was filmed, and told I had to run heel strike, thats the only way to run marathon and they were sticking some of their special models under my nose.
I was stupid than and followed their hysterical propaganda, switched to heel strike and went from injuries to injuries eventualy forced stopp ryunning for many years, still recovering from it till now.
At that time I was stupid not to realize what happened and why and was searching for better and better shoe and was getting slower and injured to the stage I could not train at all.

If I ever meet those bastards, I woul hang them, no, no,
I would ask them to try their sprinting spikes with longest spikes and stepp accidentaly on their balls
after accidentally knocking them down

#10 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:53 AM

Interesting article. The more informed consumers are, the better the choices they'll make. But for better or worse, there's no way the average person would ever be persuaded to run barefoot on the streets. If I lived in Byron Bay, I could maybe see myself giving it a crack - but I live in inner melbourne and my bare feet are not going to be meeting the broken glass/dogshit/jagged rock/detrius strewn streets on dark weekday mornings anytime soon.

Anyway, I don't get chronic injuries from my running, so nothing's broken, so there's nothing to fix.

However, I'd love to see running shoes made more minimalist, as this would be good for the majority of runners. But what the article doesn't state is who running shoes are really made for. They're made to absorb the impact of someone who's 30kg overweight, slamming his/her heels down on concrete, maybe once or twice a week. Nike, adidas, and all these guys make their shoes not for the committed runner, but for recreational leisure-wear. They're not the same thing.

Oh, and I'll bet loads of people (especially women) enjoy the fact that 22mm of rubber makes their legs look nice and long when they're running or in the gym. There are many reasons why things are the way they are.

#11 pheidippides

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 03
  • Location:budgewoi nsw

Posted 26 May 2009 - 10:59 AM

Re training, with bare feet, several years ago a friend and I used to regularly train at Manly oval on sunday mornings, with out shoes. Untill one day I unfortunately trod on a small piece of broken glass. This cut required several stitches at the local hospital. (time better spent on patients in more dire straits than myself).The running surface at Manly oval at that time was like a bowling green. Running on the beach is the only time I would run wih out some protection on my feet. Pheidippides.

#12 RunBare

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 07
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Brisbane QLD

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:05 AM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Oh, and I'll bet loads of people (especially women) enjoy the fact that 22mm of rubber makes their legs look nice and long when they're running or in the gym.

how does that work?

#13 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:09 AM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

But what the article doesn't state is who running shoes are really made for. They're made to absorb the impact of someone who's 30kg overweight, slamming his/her heels down on concrete, maybe once or twice a week. Nike, adidas, and all these guys make their shoes not for the committed runner, but for recreational leisure-wear.

wow.

so all running shoes are made for people 30kg over weight who run twice a week.

there are minimalist running shoes. Heaps. With shoes you can start from something like brooks addiction and work your way down to asics hyperspeed. Then you can go to five fingers or the feelmax panka for the ultimate in minimal shoe.

oh and my grandfather smoked and drank until he was 105 and never trod on a piece of glass.

#14 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:28 AM

How do high heels make your legs look longer? Umm... isn't that self-evident?

And tim, I stand by my comment that running shoes are mostly made for people who rarely, if ever, run. That's because the vast percentage of running shoe sales are made to non-runners (or people who run so rarely, it barely counts).

I've seen the figures (not online, but directly from the shoe companies themselves). People who most would consider 'regular' runners (ie, run 3 or more times a week) make up less than 10% of sales, based on industry estimates. These estimates date from 2006, but I doubt it's much different today.

Most running shoes are sold to people who walk in them. Who warm up for footy training in them. Who wear them to the gym. Who maybe play a game of netball once a week in them. Shoe companies know this, and design accordingly. Or do you think Nike, adidas, etc ignore the bulk of their customers and design their shoes with a hard-core of devoted runners in mind?

You're not normal. Nor am I. Nor is pretty much anyone else on here. We don't represent the majority, not by a long way. And the major sports brands don't try very hard to cater to us at all. Because we're not where the money is.

Of course there are minimalist running shoes on offer, but these are a niche offering. What percentage of shoes would fall into this category? Go into Rebel and count them, if you can be bothered. See how many super cushioned, super stable, super everything shoes there are, compared to the pared-down shoes like the asics hyperspeed. You say 'heaps'. I say less than 10% of running shoes made by Nike, adidas, brooks, asics, etc would be 'minimalist'. This is not heaps. Not by a long shot.

That's nice about your grandad, too. But I'm still not running barefoot through the streets of St Kilda at 6am. Even if it lets me live to be a hundred.

#15 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:31 AM

View PostHillsAths1, on May 26 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

From the article

"45 percent of the faster runners (those with a 5-minute, 18-second-mile pace or better) ran heel-to-toe-step; rest ran with what he calls a midfoot strike, in which the heel and forefoot strike the ground simultaneously."

This would indicate that forefoot running is quicker as 55% of the point end run this way.

As opposed to 80% who run heal to toe in the slower runners.

No mate...read it just as its put.

The rest run midfoot and just because the greater proportion do, doesn't mean its faster.

However, visual evidence of the very pointy end (thats mostly what's shown on coverage anyway), show that almost all run midfoot/heel (not heel to toe) and the ocassional forefoot strike.

However, heel to toe is more prevalent at the back end , and not because of high heeled shoes, its because the stride is not much longer than walking (work out frequency/pace and you'll see). So that doesn't mean its bad...if so walking heel-toe would be bad.

Both the shoe industry and the counter scientists confuse the issue based on own agenda. The contact of footstrike, force , way it interfaces with a particualr surface is a synergistic result of speed, frequency of stride, length of stride, air time, verticle displacement etc and is a lot different for a sub 3hr runner a 2.1hr runner or a 5hr runner.

Quite simply you would have a different experience given the pace you run.

Do today's main demographic (4:30 to 5hr) need shoes or any special shoes? quite frankly it probably does not make much difference either way because they would still stride in the same short low frequency stride and their injuries may have less to do with what the wear than with their training/racing expectations on the body and the form in which they run.

cheers

edit;

without contemplating the relevance, I agree with this:

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

And tim, I stand by my comment that running shoes are mostly made for people who rarely, if ever, run. That's because the vast percentage of running shoe sales are made to non-runners (or people who run so rarely, it barely counts).

I've seen the figures (not online, but directly from the shoe companies themselves). People who most would consider 'regular' runners (ie, run 3 or more times a week) make up less than 10% of sales, based on industry estimates. These estimates date from 2006, but I doubt it's much different today.

Look at the regular attendees and CR's etc, pretty low numbers , then suddenly you get 8,000 finishing a half marathon (SMH) 7,000 of which probably never come to SMC, Striders etc and then you get 70,000 in C2S etc

And then if half of them get injured and don't run another run in the year, is it a surprise and/or is it the result of wearing a particular shoe (discuss)

So for arguments sake 35,000 could add to the injury stats, while the 'regular runner' wearing same shoes have an ocassional injury.
The scientists doing the study don't tell you that do they?

Then you have people that wear the same shoes and don't go outside a gym, or even outside the house.

Edited by Colin, 26 May 2009 - 11:39 AM.


#16 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:42 AM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

That's nice about your grandad, too. But I'm still not running barefoot through the streets of St Kilda at 6am.


sorry I better not post this, so pretend it is not posted :

do You charge more in high heels ? :yahoo:

#17 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 11:43 AM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

And tim, I stand by my comment that running shoes are mostly made for people who rarely, if ever, run.

sold to and made for are a different matter.

so are you saying that running shoes are designed for people who do not run?

#18 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:09 PM

View Posttim, on May 26 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

sold to and made for are a different matter.

so are you saying that running shoes are designed for people who do not run?

Tim,

If you want to have a successful product...you make the product for the same people you sell it to. The way you convince them to use it may not be for the same reason they need it...that is the marketing dept's job.

btw, the title of the article "How Barefoot Runners Are Shaping The Shoe Industry" is just as misleading when the best they can find is some guy at the back of the pack :yahoo:

#19 RunBare

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 948 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 07
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Brisbane QLD

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:17 PM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Oh, and I'll bet loads of people (especially women) enjoy the fact that 22mm of rubber makes their legs look nice and long when they're running or in the gym.

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

How do high heels make your legs look longer? Umm... isn't that self-evident?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about running shoes when referring to 22mm of rubber. Didn't see anything about high heels.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

#20 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:21 PM

Running shoes are designed for runners, but ultimately compromised by the reality of who they're being sold to.

If Nike designed 80% of their men's range for >65kg runners who happily cruise along at 5min kms, they'd go broke inside of a year. Because the majority of the adult population of the US (which drives most product development) is significantly overweight, exercises rarely, and is completely uninformed about the category.

But they'd be a nice, niche purist running shoe company, and we'd love them to death in here. I actually wish they did it, but of course it'll never happen.

Like most product development, the designers have good intentions. But there's a bullseye on the wall at the big companies, and that bullseye is their core consumer. And his/her profile reads:

Inactive - moderately active
Moderately overweight
Un-informed about the category

(interesting aside: I've seen surveys which classify someone who runs or swims or cycles more than 3 times a month as a 'regular' exerciser - seriously. it's scary) anyway, back on topic...

These guys (the designers) are 'allowed' by management to put out the odd shoe that caters to serious runners. It helps with their cred, it's good for marketing, they learn stuff from it, and they need to be able to supply their Sports Marketing Properties (ie elite athletes) with shoes they'll like. But ultimately, their product has to work for their core constituency, which means the bulk of their product will be over-everythinged.

Over cushioned... over-stable...over-engineered. The guys designing start with good intentions, but they have to turn out shoes that cater to the 'new normal'. And the new normal in American and Australian society getting bigger and less fit almost every year.

It's the same with apparel. When a 'small' technical running top fits a bloke who's 5ft 10 and 85 kilos, you know exactly who they're designing for. And it's not committed runners.

#21 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:24 PM

View PostRunBare, on May 26 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

Sorry, I thought you were talking about running shoes when referring to 22mm of rubber. Didn't see anything about high heels.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


What is this, Semantics 101?

22mm of rubber on your heels, plus an insole, will make a person's legs look about an inch longer when he/she is in the standing position.

Better? :yahoo:

#22 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:37 PM

View PostColin, on May 26 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

Tim,

If you want to have a successful product...you make the product for the same people you sell it to. The way you convince them to use it may not be for the same reason they need it...that is the marketing dept's job.

btw, the title of the article "How Barefoot Runners Are Shaping The Shoe Industry" is just as misleading when the best they can find is some guy at the back of the pack :yahoo:


I always thought if you want a successful product you convince people that to have that lifestyle all they need to do is to buy the product.

so if we want people to get into skateboard shoes then we would just have lots of cool skater guys in them. The majority who then buy the shoes want the look but do not care if they are good to skate in. But the cool guys that started the original trend wanted a good skateboard shoe.

Running is the same deal. Someone in Kiama sees this lean good looking guy cruising along and they want to look like that so they buy the same shoes to just walk around the shops.

and why was Nike using the "run yourself ugly" campaign? Why not use "walk yourself to the shop" campaign?

#23 Verity Veritas

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NSW

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:26 PM

View PostRunBare, on May 25 2009, 10:05 PM, said:

how does that work?


Give us a break, can't recall the last time when I was running in my "high heeled runners?" and thought wow I bet my legs look long? I am five floot four and am far more interested in how I am running not the length of my legs! As I am sure are most other women.

Actually most of us are more concerned about what sits at the top of the legs and our moisturiser....

Keep em coming though as it was very funny.

:-)

#24 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:27 PM

Exactly, Tim.

You sell the dream (athletic prowess... or 4WD outback adventures, or whatever), and then you supply a product that actually meets the genuine needs of those consumers.

So Nike can sell you on running gear for elites.... and Ford can sell you on a 4WD that can turn you into a hardened outback warrior... but they don't have to deliver on it.

Not only that, but a lot of people would be pissed off if they tried. People might want to buy the dream, but they don't want to buy the reality. But strangely enough, they do want their brands to paint a nice picture for them. Human nature is strange like that.

So consumers want Nike to run ads making them feel all fast and elite, but they want their shoes to be all soft and spongy and comfy, like big slippers. They want Ford to run ads making them feel rugged for buying a 4WD, but they want their 4WD to have carpet and soft suspension and be good in the carpark, not on a rutted dirt track.

ps - Run yourself ugly was a good campaign for runners, but unusual in this market. Nike launched it at the time when adidas was genuinely struggling in running - and in this market, they wanted to kick adi while they were down. So they over-invested in running, and to a degree it worked for them. It was always designed to talk directly to people like us, rather than the mainstream consumer. This is something that happens quite rarely in Australia, because budgets don't usually stretch to sports-specific work too often.

#25 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:32 PM

View PostVerity Veritas, on May 26 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

Give us a break, can't recall the last time when I was running in my "high heeled runners?" and thought wow I bet my legs look long? I am five floot four and am far more interested in how I am running not the length of my legs! As I am sure are most other women.

Actually most of us are more concerned about what sits at the top of the legs and our moisturiser....

Keep em coming though as it was very funny.

:-)

Verity, you should probably be flaming me, not RunBare. I started the whole 'long legs' thing.

Again, I'm not talking about people who run here: I'm talking about the majority of people who buy running shoes - non runners. Gym bunnies... leisure-wearers... etc. Obviously, runners would be far more interested in performance over aesthetics. Although, there are enough people on here who won't buy a pair of running shoes because of the colour to suggest that maybe aesthetics matter more than we care to think.

#26 Verity Veritas

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NSW

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:48 PM

View PostDontStop, on May 25 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Interesting article. The more informed consumers are, the better the choices they'll make. But for better or worse, there's no way the average person would ever be persuaded to run barefoot on the streets. If I lived in Byron Bay, I could maybe see myself giving it a crack - but I live in inner melbourne and my bare feet are not going to be meeting the broken glass/dogshit/jagged rock/detrius strewn streets on dark weekday mornings anytime soon.

Anyway, I don't get chronic injuries from my running, so nothing's broken, so there's nothing to fix.

However, I'd love to see running shoes made more minimalist, as this would be good for the majority of runners. But what the article doesn't state is who running shoes are really made for. They're made to absorb the impact of someone who's 30kg overweight, slamming his/her heels down on concrete, maybe once or twice a week. Nike, adidas, and all these guys make their shoes not for the committed runner, but for recreational leisure-wear. They're not the same thing.

Oh, and I'll bet loads of people (especially women) enjoy the fact that 22mm of rubber makes their legs look nice and long when they're running or in the gym. There are many reasons why things are the way they are.

Um er...my response was in regards to this thread. I saw a section and then on reading the entire thread I have to add just a tad.

* 30kg overweight people have the right to shoes that suit their needs and I admire these people enormously for taking up running.

* There is enough variety now in the marketplace to suit all diversity within the population.

* The majority of runners do not neccessarily lean towards a minimalist shoe.

* I say let's cheer the 30kg overweight person who makes it happen twice a week.

* People have the right to find shoes to simply look good and recreate without the need to be a committed runner.

The world unfortunately as we know does not revolve around running, you only have to read the sports pages and lack of media space allocated to see that.

No doubt in a perfect world for the committed and professional runner we wish it would be true even for maybe an hour or so...

The thread and dialogue on this topic is interesting.

One last note though. On running the Mumbai Marathon I was passed by at least three men running barefoot. Was amazed, humbled and motivated at the sheer tenacity and toughness of these individuals. I also met a young extrmely talented local girl in the seeded tend afterwards who won her local division outright for the Half Marathon and she had the most worn and flimsy pair of shoes I had ever seen but a huge smile. This young girl ran the same times I was doing if not faster in what was clearly a pair of shoes she had possibly worn out and outgrown. All I wished for at that time was a bag full of shoes to give her.



Hope that wasn't too direct but hey I just had to step in....

#27 Verity Veritas

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NSW

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:52 PM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

Verity, you should probably be flaming me, not RunBare. I started the whole 'long legs' thing.

Again, I'm not talking about people who run here: I'm talking about the majority of people who buy running shoes - non runners. Gym bunnies... leisure-wearers... etc. Obviously, runners would be far more interested in performance over aesthetics. Although, there are enough people on here who won't buy a pair of running shoes because of the colour to suggest that maybe aesthetics matter more than we care to think.


Hah... Roger that.. You are in trouble..:-)

Actually you know the problem we have (us,we..the full on runners here) were are out numbered, out played and getting voted off the island by the majority of consumers who now want to look like the "deal" but not do the deal..

LOL.

What can we do?, hope they all become serious runners or just RUN. C'MOM everyone recruit and then the shoe companies will have to change their direction.

Now there is a thought.

#28 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:57 PM

View Posttim, on May 26 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I always thought if you want a successful product you convince people that to have that lifestyle all they need to do is to buy the product.

so if we want people to get into skateboard shoes then we would just have lots of cool skater guys in them. The majority who then buy the shoes want the look but do not care if they are good to skate in. But the cool guys that started the original trend wanted a good skateboard shoe.

Running is the same deal. Someone in Kiama sees this lean good looking guy cruising along and they want to look like that so they buy the same shoes to just walk around the shops.

and why was Nike using the "run yourself ugly" campaign? Why not use "walk yourself to the shop" campaign?

Yes Tim exactly, which is why:

View PostColin, on May 26 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

The way you convince them to use it may not be for the same reason they need it...that is the marketing dept's job.

They don't care whether the people actually will run at all...just whether they think they need it.
Same as advertising 4WD's in rugged terrain then getting most sales from mums driving kids to school.

If they only sold it (and made it) for the serious weekend warrior runner there wouldn't be a big market..thats business reality.

cheers

#29 tim

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,729 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:15 PM

I have forgotten what the point was.

the stripes on the side are to make them go faster.

#30 Nickelass

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:37 PM

Running shoes are marketed on the basis that they protect you from injury.

Its high time there were independent, controlled studies to prove the benefits (or otherwise) for running shoes.

A science led, fact based debate on running shoes, may lead to a renaissance in shoe design to the benefit of both the running shoe companies, runners and "weekend warriors", potentially reducing injuries and improving performances.

Independent studies may confirm current shoe design is optimal, or may lead to a rethink of current approaches. In either case, everybody will benefit - particularly those that are prepared to put evidence ahead of "hype".

In the absense of independent, scientific studies we are left with marketing hype, misinformation and fashion. As Tim so eloquently put it "stripes on the side are to make them go faster"

Edited by Nickelass, 26 May 2009 - 02:40 PM.


#31 DontStop

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,432 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St Kilda, Victoria

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:52 PM

hmm... I think such studies would benefit the consumer far more than the supplier. The sporting goods companies are onto a pretty good thing at the moment. If it were to happen, I'd be surprised if the corporates put even a single dollar into it. Especially given that all their current research is designed to allow them to create unique solutions and designs that only they can manufacture.

Maybe a relatively large organisation such as the NYC road runners could kick it off? It'd need to be led by end users, that's for sure.

#32 Nickelass

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 03:13 PM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

hmm... I think such studies would benefit the consumer far more than the supplier. The sporting goods companies are onto a pretty good thing at the moment. If it were to happen, I'd be surprised if the corporates put even a single dollar into it. Especially given that all their current research is designed to allow them to create unique solutions and designs that only they can manufacture.

Maybe a relatively large organisation such as the NYC road runners could kick it off? It'd need to be led by end users, that's for sure.

I believe that any company that could site independent research is likely to benefit, particularly if there is a mismatch between "marketed" benefits and "proven" benefits. A lot of shoes are currently marketed on the basis of their technology - despite there being little independent evidence.

Company's that take a proactive approach are more likely to be "ahead of the curve" in adopting any new technology. Alternatively, new players have little to lose in challenging the status quo.

Sporting bodies or institutes that wish to gain a competitive edge have much to gain in possible performance improvements or injury reduction.

Edited by Nickelass, 26 May 2009 - 03:14 PM.


#33 Rico

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 638 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canberra

Posted 26 May 2009 - 03:20 PM

I can't guarantee this is right as I'm still waiting for Amazon to deliver McDougall's book to me (he's the main barefoot advocate referred to in the article), but I was under the impression that after exploring all angles of barefoot running and tarahumara sandals and everything else he still chooses running shoes for himself when he trains for and does his ultramarathon, he just makes sure it is something lower profiled.

Which I think is where this whole thing is going. For a long time almost nobody questioned cushioning and stability, you couldn't have too much and if you ever got sore feet then you needed more of it. Looking at what people can do barefoot or almost barefoot is a step towards reviewing that understanding, and I suspect what a lot of us will take out of it is a taste for lower profile shoes, and a recognition that sore feet sometimes mean our foot muscles need more training not less training. And maybe there will always be super cushioned shoes for some parts of the market, or even the largest part, but there will also be products developed for people who want something else. And there already is, with Nike Frees and such cashing in on the questioning of excessive cushioning and stability.

Actually having gone through this mental journey recently one of the things that most surprised me was that for a lot of runners we are already there in that most of the really good runners I come across seem to do lots of running in racing flats.

#34 Freesoul

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 08
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Near Geelong

Posted 26 May 2009 - 07:33 PM

HOW BAREFOOT RUNNERS ARE SHAPING THE SHOE INDUSTRY

....Yeah, good luck!

Multinational shoe companies don't care what the consumer wants. They design, market, flog off whatever they think will sell. They orchestrate the fads and fashions and create a 'need'.

The thing about barefooting, like living sustainably, is that it is non-consumerist. Nobody wants to buy 'nothing'! :yahoo:

That's why I run barefoot.
Shoes - don't need em!

Edited by Freesoul, 26 May 2009 - 07:36 PM.


#35 slowmo

    1000-club old-dated SlowRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,311 posts
  • Joined: 08-November 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kogarah, Sydney

Posted 26 May 2009 - 07:36 PM

View PostDontStop, on May 26 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

You sell the dream (athletic prowess... or 4WD outback adventures, or whatever), and then you supply a product that actually meets the genuine needs of those consumers.
My favourite expression for this (from a friend who used to work in an ad agency) is "you don't sell the sausage, you sell the sizzle" :yahoo:

View PostRico, on May 26 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I can't guarantee this is right as I'm still waiting for Amazon to deliver McDougall's book to me (he's the main barefoot advocate referred to in the article), but I was under the impression that after exploring all angles of barefoot running and tarahumara sandals and everything else he still chooses running shoes for himself when he trains for and does his ultramarathon, he just makes sure it is something lower profiled.
Don't expect the book to be very analytical or even consistent Rico.

Firstly, that's not the author's point (although he himself has publicized the book as if that was its main point in some of the excerpts I saw published). The book is more about characters and, in my favourite sections, about running in the larger setting of culture and personal experience.

Secondly, the book would have benefited hugely from a good editor. It is well worth reading. It has some wonderful stories and characters and insights. It also has a huge amount of dross that reads like a teen-age surf/skate/celebrity magazine - though that might just be olde phartism on my part.

A more general comment on the thread: I personally don't give a fiddler's whether another runner wears shoes or not and I find shoes-are-evil extremists as worrying (and predictable) as barefooters-are-stupid extremists. As someone here said, having options is good. Add to that an open mind, a bit of thought, and freedom from being embarrassed or teased for experimenting (with or without shoes) and you have everything you need to work out what's best for you.

slowmo

#36 Leofisio

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:São Paulo - Brazil

Posted 26 May 2009 - 08:00 PM

that is one thing that amazes me in this case:

minimalist shoes makes sense? YES

Cushioned shoes makes sense? YES

Normal shoes makes sense? YES

Barefoot running makes sense? ALSO YES

The bottom line here is that each one is unique and most of the biomechanical theories makes sense (depends on preferences, and self beliefs), and there is no right or wrong answer for this question... i don't think that ASICS is less fair than Vibram 5 fingers...I think all companies want $$ anyway...

But what really amazes me is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL ON SHOES IN RUNNERS...

So, the real answer of this question will be only possible when we have maybe 5-6 high quality, not sponsored, RCT's published in top scientific peer-reviewed journals...

Meanwhile, it is a matter of guessing, trying what is better for us, a bit of enjoyment and a lot of injuries...:yahoo:

Leo

#37 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2009 - 08:25 AM

to girls about leg extension :
get real, men are not stupid,
men do not get fooled by silicons, hairdo, dress or high heels.
when i see Pamela, my hormons do not get excited at all, all I see is a women pretending she has something which she has not, probably pathetic looking boobs if teh silicons are taken out,
and I MAKE A NOTE - EMOTIONALY, MENTALY UNSTABLE.
the same goes for hairdo, dress etc, hairdo-she is trying to distract from ugly face? dress - she is trying to hide fat here or fat there ?
so the high heels - 10 inch needless or 22mm of rubber - I see short women, short legs trying to pretend teh legs are longer that they really are, and I make a note - emotionaly, mentaly unstable.
when I talk to a women and her eyes are about my level, I look at the shoes and take away the
silicon heel implants hight :yahoo: , to get real hight, I look at the shape of calves and thinghts to get teh picture about the legs.
I can also see a woman standing with un-naturaly twisted pelvic and unnaturaly bended spine, and make a note - she would likely complain about back pain all 9 months during preganacy and the 3 years after that.
This fits with the conclusions of some behavioural analysts :
women do teh hair, dress, shoes, makeups and other accessories, not for men, but for other women.
women consiously or subconsiously know or intuitively feel, that all that stuf does not work for teh men at all, and is actualy counterproductive, but they do not care anyway, it is about female ranking, pecking order, it is womens world insiders competitions about who is in the fashion loop
and who is not, who has better hairdresser etc, this goes in teh school, in teh office, at the sport club, at pokies, grandmas at bingo, at party, shopping mol, school mums etc.
At the end it is a showoff who has access to deepest credit card.

which leads to another pointy - who is the running shoe customer ?
big market is the school kids, it is kinda part of high school uniform, although some school are trying to stop this with their policies, it could be more american thingie - the tantrums of not going to school if parents do not buy the latest runners - it is so cool to to smoke, drink and do drugs in latest Nike's
but this is oscilating between running and basketball shoes.

heel strike and shoes. the statistics aans studies of how many % of runner at marathons do heel strike etc is quite missleading and it is the result of shoes.
Take teh shoes off, and You cant heel strike everybody would be fron striker or at least midfootstriker. so what was first - lazy bum wanted to heelstrike so was forced to buy rubber highheels, or was it shoes first and laziness in the body found out it is possible to jog heelstriking.
these are 2 extreme side of the spektrum, but as You cut down the mm under the heel more and more runners would move towards mid or front strike away from heel, with Volleys not many would be able to survive heel striking, etc, with racing flats it could be close to 50-50 perhaps.
so in my view, it is the shoe which determines the type of strike,
and it requires extremely flexible ankles to be able to front strike in highheels.

I will use example of 2 of my friends here, hoping their would not mind for educational purposes.
Vlastik found the shoe - asics nimbus to fit his style and his feet and learn to run at efficient for him biomechanics, where the nimbus become part of his legs, nimbus possibly the most cushioning shoes
but cushioning in kinda the best posible way, allow him (he is quite light skinny) to keep heelstriking at reasonable pace and do it for hours and hours, perhaps 10 hours each day for months, crossing the continent in all sorts of directions. He si worried every year, what the new nimbus model would look like, if it would be the same, and I feel that if the asics stops making nimbus, his running is in trouble.
Yiannis came to Colac for 6 days with maybe 20 pairs of racing flats, various model and manufacturers, all pairs were old, well used, most past their advertised lifespan. As Yiannis got tired over the days and nights, and his muscles depleted (he was refusing to eat properly), he could not maintain his biomechanics, his typical running posture and succumbed to jog - heel striking on the surface which become very hard (hot dry weather, grass converetd to hard compacted dirt)
his legs became so painfull, knees and shin bones, it became the issue of freezing it with ice and the painkillers pills. On day 5 Vlastik took off his nimbus and gave to Yiannis, Vklastik had some old training pair which he could use. Yiannis run in Vklastik's nimbus for maybe 10-16 hours
and got a pain relieve, lett8ing the nimbus to do the job, which his muscles were no longer able to do
Of course Yiannis was running much slower, he usualy makes up the distance first 2 days, for the last night and last morning Yiannis put on again old racing flats to be able to pick up teh pace and do teh records, interstingly Vlastik was running with him-pacing him in his heel striking nimbus, but Vlastik was taking breaks here and there and let Yiannis on his own.

I doubt that Asics invented nimbus, for teh purpose that some ultrarunners could cross the continent
or use during 6D world record attempt when tired, such a market is too small

#38 FakePlasticTrees

    Orange Juice is for losers

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 04
  • Location:Somewhere in Sydney

Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:42 AM

View PostLeofisio, on May 26 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

But what really amazes me is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL ON SHOES IN RUNNERS...

So, the real answer of this question will be only possible when we have maybe 5-6 high quality, not sponsored, RCT's published in top scientific peer-reviewed journals...

A similar complaint gets raised quite often about gatorade. The vast majority of studies into gatorade effectiveness are sponsored by gatorade, with everyone saying well of course the results show that it works. My take is that nobody really cares enough to spend their own money to do this studies so they have to be funded, who else is going to fund these studies other than the bodies that have a vested interest. It's a catch-22 for gatorade etc...

I remember reading something a while back about the difference between running barefoot and in shoes. The end result of the article was that the body gets used to whatever it's running in so it doesn't matter if you're barefoot or not. Rudi's post proves that by saying that it's not the shoes that Korous was wearing that matter, it's the man wearing them.

#39 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:47 AM

View PostLeofisio, on May 26 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

But what really amazes me is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL ON SHOES IN RUNNERS...

So, the real answer of this question will be only possible when we have maybe 5-6 high quality, not sponsored, RCT's published in top scientific peer-reviewed journals...

Go ahead do one...who's going to do one if they are not being paid for it?

View Postwalker1st, on May 27 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

heel strike and shoes. the statistics aans studies of how many % of runner at marathons do heel strike etc is quite missleading and it is the result of shoes.
Take teh shoes off, and You cant heel strike everybody would be fron striker or at least midfootstriker. so what was first - lazy bum wanted to heelstrike so was forced to buy rubber highheels, or was it shoes first and laziness in the body found out it is possible to jog heelstriking.

Not quite Rudi.

As I said earlier, most of the fastest (above 90%) do not heel strike but they land midfoot/heel because of their gait cycle, stride, frequency etc. If they were to land forefoot it would negate the energy return system.
And therefor they don't require nor use highly cushioned shoes at the heel...racing flats. B)

However for the vast majority of runners, who do not run with a stride bigger than walking (work it out using their pace and frequency before responding) it is inconceivable that they would be doing so bouncing along on the forefoot or even midfoot .....with or without shoes.

Do walkers land heel first...is that ok, so why not these runners with a stride of <1m?

So its not the fault of the shoes that they do so nor is it a problem that they do so at low pace and short stride.
So the shoe is actually putting the cushioning precisely where they need it.

cheers :yahoo:

#40 Leofisio

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:São Paulo - Brazil

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:13 PM

View PostColin, on May 27 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Go ahead do one...who's going to do one if they are not being paid for it?

Colin,

I would love to run a study like this... I think is very relevant for the running community.

As I said before there are meny questions to be answered and more than 1 study is needed.

The problem, in my view, is funding... the perfect scenario would be to find a " neutral" funding (such as a government based one) to run the study, unfortunately most of these funding boards are giving money to research like diabetes, heart diseases etc...

Other possibility would be getting corporate sponsorship, but this is always prone to bias (conflict of interests)...

Having saying that I participated in a grant sposored by a pharmaceutical company and the contract was quite clear: they give us the money, we run the study and will publish 100% of the real results regardless the direction of it... they accepted!

Anyway... if you know someone who have the money to invest on it... I am happy to design and conduct the study! :yahoo:

Cheers,

Leo

#41 swaggerer

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 09
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:38 PM

View Posttim, on May 26 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

I have forgotten what the point was.

the stripes on the side are to make them go faster.

Tim. I find that the swoosh works much betterer. Not only that but the aesthetic value is on such a higher level: almost a religious experience akin to laying ones eyes on a goddess, as she baths on the rocks by the cool waters of a pristine lake surrounded by playful, exiguously-clad nymphs and helpful hand maidens.

The cold hard fact is that with stripes, all the energy in the product is directed downwards away from the shoe forming a connection with hell, whereas with the swoosh it is contained within the heavenly and spiritual parameter of the shoe, hence improving the joyous feeling of floating along as if one had wings of an angel on ones feet. A ride beyond all belief.

Goose Long Travel just said: " Gee Ronnie, typical Swaggerism, stupid intro followed by academic pretentiousness and conluding with more stupid-as Sid waffle.

" Them blokes on CR are correct. Change your CR name to "gravity". You suck."

Nothing like a bit of negative reinforcement. Arrh well.

Cheers,
Swagger.

Edited by swaggerer, 27 May 2009 - 12:46 PM.


#42 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 27 May 2009 - 12:39 PM

View PostLeofisio, on May 27 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

Colin,

I would love to run a study like this... I think is very relevant for the running community.


The problem, in my view, is funding... the perfect scenario would be to find a " neutral" funding (such as a government based one)

Having saying that I participated in a grant sposored by a pharmaceutical company and the contract was quite clear: they give us the money, we run the study and will publish 100% of the real results regardless the direction of it... they accepted!

Anyway... if you know someone who have the money to invest on it... I am happy to design and conduct the study! :yahoo:

I could think of many better things for the tax payers or benevolent people to spend on.

and btw, if you believe that you will hold that pharma co to it...just remember there is no such thing as a free lunch, esp not that industry.

#43 FakePlasticTrees

    Orange Juice is for losers

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 04
  • Location:Somewhere in Sydney

Posted 27 May 2009 - 01:44 PM

View PostLeofisio, on May 27 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

The problem, in my view, is funding... the perfect scenario would be to find a " neutral" funding (such as a government based one) to run the study, unfortunately most of these funding boards are giving money to research like diabetes, heart diseases etc...

Yes, that is most unfortunate.

Swagger, I liked your post.

#44 swaggerer

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 09
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 27 May 2009 - 02:06 PM

GLT and you, FPT, are in the same mystery box then? Thanks for the back-handed praise B) .
Call me cynical :yahoo: .

Fyezall,
Swagger.

#45 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2009 - 02:16 PM

View PostColin, on May 27 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Not quite Rudi.

As I said earlier, most of the fastest (above 90%) do not heel strike but they land midfoot/heel because of their gait cycle, stride, frequency etc. If they were to land forefoot it would negate the energy return system.
And therefor they don't require nor use highly cushioned shoes at the heel...racing flats. B)

However for the vast majority of runners, who do not run with a stride bigger than walking (work it out using their pace and frequency before responding) it is inconceivable that they would be doing so bouncing along on the forefoot or even midfoot .....with or without shoes.

Do walkers land heel first...is that ok, so why not these runners with a stride of <1m?

So its not the fault of the shoes that they do so nor is it a problem that they do so at low pace and short stride.
So the shoe is actually putting the cushioning precisely where they need it.

cheers :yahoo:


Colin I do not get it, have You ever run slowly BF ?

It does not depend on teh speed, teh stride lnght etc at all, if You are BF You cant heelstrike, You exectly slowly bounce forward on the front, everybody on this forum and everybody on other BF forums reports teh same - shoes off, end of heel strike.

I do jog on the spot om my backyard concrete BF and landing front, not even touching teh ground with the heel, similar to sprint drills. If I am stationary or move forward at 1km/h, 2km/h etc it does not matter when BF, no heelstrike at all.

It is only cushioned shoes which allows anybody the heelstrike.

when I wear Volleys, I cant heelstrike either, it is midfoot, Volleys to me do not allow for clear front strike, so it is midstrike with weight on the front, not on the heels.


Racewalking is so different type of movement, that talking about here would mess up the people who have no racewalking experience, so I am going there, but what I can say is that walkers are using racing flats, and those few masters walkers, who for some reason wear cushioned rubber highheels
have terrible technique often get DQed, have injuries and are very very slow and their walk looks like a torture.
Walkers could not slamm the heel against the road with straight knee, nobody would survive that,
so there is no issue of teh shoe neede for cusioning, since there is nothing to cusion, if done properly.

when I racewalk BF (my skin cant take too much of it yet), my stride is flat foot, it is front mid and heel at the same time, it does not feel the same as midfoot strike I would describe it as the whole feet touch, it requires flexible ankles which I have from yoga, and I am trying to do same in flats, but thats more difficult since I do not get sensory biofeedback with the shoes on>
I often do training racewalks in Volleys - flat whole feet strike and did about 12H of Coburg 24H walk in shoes from Rivers for $29, which do not have cushioning at all, have small rubbery grips all over and are really flat-flat - they were not sold as sport shoes at all, they allowed me flat-whole feet touchdown.

The issue of heel shoes cushioning for racewalking is completely meaningless and irrelevant, it is similar to using cushioned bum cycling pants for boxing.

#46 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 27 May 2009 - 03:03 PM

View Postwalker1st, on May 27 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Colin I do not get it, have You ever run slowly BF ?

Yep , and I have walked barefeet.

Pretty much grew up barefeet, on all terrain inc asphalt, more callouses on heels than toes...wonder how they got there. :yahoo:

Don't reminence or romaticise about it and don't wish it on my kids. Walk around inside house, and on beach etc barefeet...but use shoes for the functionality in todays environment.

Not everything was better "in those days".

Everyone 'thinks' they ought to have a cadence of 90, run on forefoot,barefeet blah blah..but the reality is that if you have a cadence of 90 and run a 5hr marathon then you footstrike is a measly 78cm, shorter than a casual walking stride...
...or if you stride is close to your height (as most fast runners are) then you will be loping with a cadence of 41...i.e taking 82 jumps per min.

Neither of the two would be remotely good , effecient running style.

Reality is often different to perception.

cheers B)

#47 walker1st

    1000-club gold-rated CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2009 - 04:05 PM

Colin, I am getting more confused by what You are trying to say.

regardless of what the hight is, the stride lenght is the inefficienmcy of bouncing nearly on the spot, teh 5H marathon etc,

fact is if You do any of it BF You would not heelstrike, if You do it in cushioned shoes You have a nbig chance to heelstrike.

all I am saying it all depends on what You wearing on Your feet

#48 Leofisio

    veryCoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:São Paulo - Brazil

Posted 27 May 2009 - 04:30 PM

View PostColin, on May 27 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

and btw, if you believe that you will hold that pharma co to it...just remember there is no such thing as a free lunch, esp not that industry.

I agree... yesterday I was watching " insight" (I don't know if it was on ABC or SBS) and that was the topic of the discussion...

Leo

#49 technicallyfit

    CoolRunner

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Joined: 29-October 08

Posted 27 May 2009 - 04:46 PM

After all this talk I think Im trading in my car and going back to the 1960's holden ute without suspension. Also moving into a tent and eating my greens!!

#50 Colin

    Still dreaming...

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,347 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 02
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kings Langley

Posted 27 May 2009 - 05:10 PM

View Postwalker1st, on May 27 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

Colin, I am getting more confused by what You are trying to say.

regardless of what the hight is, the stride lenght is the inefficienmcy of bouncing nearly on the spot, teh 5H marathon etc,

fact is if You do any of it BF You would not heelstrike, if You do it in cushioned shoes You have a nbig chance to heelstrike.

all I am saying it all depends on what You wearing on Your feet

And I'm saying it doesn't...should I have kept some samples of heel callouses from my BF days? B)

So , a midget with a 75cm stride will be the same as a 1.8m runner with 75cm stride and both of them will bounce on the forefoot? :yahoo:

Your 'biggest chance of heelstrike' is a factor of your gait cycle and speed, frequency and stride/height relationship.

Nothing confusing about that.

Where's Tedjan, the physicist who studies this stuff, when you need him? Oh, he gave up convincing the forum experts.

View Posttechnicallyfit, on May 27 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

After all this talk I think Im trading in my car and going back to the 1960's holden ute without suspension. Also moving into a tent and eating my greens!!

Hey...my grandfather stuffed grass cuttings in his tyres and the roads are much better these days so why do you need suspension at all?