OP here - remember that my post was title "REFLECTIONS on 6 months of barefoot running".

Contrary to what you're implying, it was not "Absolute proof why you should be barefoot running"

My opinion still stands that it can benefit everyone even if you don't exclusively do it, and that's the point of these forums - to discuss things that aren't clearly defined and likely won't be so. It's a good discussion.

I hope it does pay off! Because, yes, it is a lot of fun! I ran minimalist for about a year and on certain trails it was fantastic. (I stopped because on other trails, it was a nightmare. Avoiding sharp rocks was always mentally exhausting for me. I never got to the point where my brain did it on autopilot. But, when those rocks are hiding under pine needles/fallen leaves...no way around that.)

I don't really buy the evolution argument though. Evolution is 'backwards looking' and stalls at 'good enough'. There is no reason to think that our feet/ankle/leg system is completely optimized. We have simply evolved sufficiently to survive a little longer before reproducing. A shoe, which is completely unknown in our evolutionary history, may or may not be 'better' than without. It is the naturalistic fallacy to claim it is worse because it is artificial.

Yes, there will be more studies, but it'll likely be opaque.

Heck, even the current data on 'injury reduction' is really opaque. When I first heard "doesn't significantly reduce injury", I assumed injuries were equal and the same. Then I looked at the one of the barefoot vs shod studies they reference, and it turns out the injuries are different - barefoot runners reported a LOT more scrapes and small lacerations of the sole compared to shod, and get more reported short-term achilles strains. The shod runers got different types of injuries. Cumulatively, the numbers were similar, but they were farrrr from saying 'same thing, same effect, same injuries.'

I suspect you'll get more of the same with more studies. And for 25+ year studies, they'll at best be correlational, not causational, so even softer. But still, more data can give us clearer picture, so I'm all for it.

Again, what I think it is still important to emphasize is that all the motion control, neutral, fivefinger toe style, etc. were not developed based on science - they were all developed on marketing. There are no 'seminal papers' that these shoes were based on, and you're fooling yourself if you think a running shoe sales clerk is using science to 'match' you to a shoe by looking at your stride for a few seconds in the store. (They are going by the marketing brochure recs.)

You may be right about the shoe being better with than without. For sure, for sharp/hot/cold surfaces, the shoe is better! I still think though, in general, moving the way nature intended, is best. There are exceptions, but they tend to be very special circumstances - this holds true for nearly all mammals as well, so it's hard for me to say we're so special from a locomotive standpoint that we NEED stuff like really supportive shoes.

Again, add the 50%+ injury rate of runners across the board, and it's pretty easy to argue the shoes are likely doing runners a disservice (by letting them go too far, too fast, etc.)

The sharp rock avoidance thing was also mentally exhausting for me for the first few months - but now, if I'm wearing anything thicker than 2mm, it's effortless and natural to automatically scan the trail and avoid the rocks. For me, it became second nature, not too dissimilar to descending moderately technical terrain on a mountain bike - the first two months are suckdom mentally, and after regular practice, it's a joy to use those skills and easy on the mind. Just my experience, but worth pointing out, as honestly, the first 2 months, I thought "this friggin sucks to worry about rocks on trails" and almost quit trail running because of it.

Remember, Lightheir is the guy who posted he gets 4,000 miles on his shoes with the lugs only wore down half way.

Not even lying - when I saw that I could run PRs no problemo at 70+mpw using a pair of sneakers that had like close to 1000 miles on it, it was a big nudge to just go full minimalist, as it was clear that this 'replace your shoes or get horribly injured' was pretty overstated in my case, and I suspect I'm not at all unique.

Not at all unique..................Four Thousand miles with only half wear. Dude, you are so full of shit

Dude, I didn't say the 4000 OR lugs were half-way, that's what Kenney said.

SOME lugs were totally, gone, and some were nearly intact. I'd worn through the entire midsole in the posterior heel edge. The main reason I would stop using them is that the upper got so filthy and nasty and torn that it was friggin' fugly. And it was probably around 1000.

And despite this totally worn-down shoe - I ran no faster or better when I swapped over to the brand new similar or identical pair. I always had one newish shoe ready to go for races, of similar/same type, as well as for comparison purposes. For sure, if I were getting hurt, running slower, or slipping all over the place with the old ones, I'd chuck them - it just didn't make a difference other than looks for me. It's not like I'm running on such technical surfaces all the time that I HAVE to have super intact lugs, and on roads (and most trails), you don't even need lugs. My minimalist shoes have no lugs, I'm running fine on singletrack, although I'd want the lugs if I were mountaineering.

And as a side note, if you research barefoot running pretty much everywhere states to start on Asphalt. The reason being that you will not over-do-it, where if you pick a softer surface like a track or grass you will do too much and probably injure yourself.

Overall I'll go with lightheir on this one. Why?

Pros:

• Based on previous posts seems mostly rational, reasonable, and respectful/polite.
• Not much to gain here but debating with opposite opinions.
• Conceptually agree with the minimalist concept (applied correctly) but definitely not for me being overweight at the moment. And yes I've read every/most relevant article/book on the topic.

Cons:

• In general most top runners/athletes train in more cushioned shoes and race in lighter shoes, which negates the theory lighter is always better or the sponsorship angle.
• There is not one size that fits all, and this is one case where there are many different scenarios unique to each individual.

Overall I respect his input and thoughtful responses.

Good post. Similar (but less grueling) experiences running in the sand on the beach. The extent of my ankle soreness was something of a surprise.

Yeah, for me I also find it more fun and, importantly I feel more efficient. That does come at the cost of speed though so you have to decide what's right for you personally.

For me personally, the pin dropped when I realised my cadence was wayyy down!

Update from OP here, having had this thread resurrected from 2018 -

Having aged up 5 years since, I'll readily admit that I've found through (hard) experience that with aging up, I eventually could no longer run in those minimalist shoes, as I could no longer just use run technique to lessen the impact on my arthritic ankles. I eventually developed bone bruising since my thinned cartilage couldn't handle the trauma of 25-35mpw at my paces.

I've since gone all the way to supercush shoes, and to race CF supershoes, and other things in between. The super cush shoes seem to help with arthritis in particular somewhat, but it's def not a cure. It makes a bad situation better, but it's not going to solve it. These shoes also are slow as @#! and have other problems - I've still gotten other types of injuries despite being really careful and having no sudden ramps in training volume. Some of the weird muscle strains I've gotten have def been really crippling (crutches) as I've aged up, so I do think that you probably will get different injuries when going from no shoes to big stack shoes. Keep in mind that I'm late 40s now; I never got these injuries or had arthritis issues under age 37, so the young guns here will likely not related at all to what I'm running into.

I do miss minimalist shoe running though, and would def have continued to do so had my n=1 in particular ankle arthritis (which I had well before starting my minimalist shoe trial) eventually limited me.

Was minimalist too, still for trails, but not roads

Hopefully others will take those lessons for themselves instead of having to go through the painful process of also having to learn the hard way.
Fortunately the minimalist fad is nearly dead.

Don't get me wrong - I still think minimalist is the way to go if you're not suffering from (early) arthritis like me. It's a joy to run with minimalist or barefoot - def some of the most fun - and fast - running I've done in my life. I'd go right back to it if I could. But yeah, it's also not the magic bullet for curing running injuries - although for me, I suffered nearly zero running injuries during my entire time with minimalist shoes. I have no lateral ankle ligaments from chronics tears, but this isn't an issue at all with minimalist shoes - never turned my ankle once or even came close to it, even on trails. The ONLY issue I had was my ankle arthritis. In contrast, I've gotten a whole slew of weird and not-weird injuries back with running shoes despite running slower than I did with the minimalist shoes.