No running economy improvements by wearing barefoot simulating shoes after 12 weeks.

No running economy improvements after wearing low/zero heel height differential shoes vs tradition hhd.

Reduction in running economy by switching from a heel strike to forefoot strike.

Technique work rarely leads to improvements in running economy.

That's what the evidence says.

I think you need to ask these questions:

1) What type of adaptation are you trying to create?
2) Is you goal to improve running economy?
3) Do firmer and/or lower offset shoes improve run economy?
4) Does ground impact force or how you change your gait to accommodate it the most critical component in running economy?

I'll add this... a more padded shoes can reduce fatigue, but it may reduce your adaptation to impact forces that counter fatigue.

Personally I use a wide variety of shoes for better or worse. More padded shoes for recovery runs or most long runs. More minimal for faster runs and something in between other times.

You have been told the correct information. You (and others) continually deny the correct information in favor for what you think is right. I'm glad I'm not working for a company who lives in the dark ages.

To preface my post, let's take two extremes.

1. sprinting water running with high heart rate, no pounding.
2. sprinting on a hard track with spikes with zero padding

So let's for a second assume another thing which may not apply to many of us. Let's assume the athlete is biomechanically sounds and can do some of his mileage on shoes with a low amount of padding (I am not talking about ramp, about medial posting or anything else, just padding under the foot).

Now there are a few things we're trying to affect when we train:

1. Improve top line cardio output
2. Improve blood/oxygen delivery to working muscles (mitchondria)
3. Improve eccentric durability

So it seems that if we did 100% water running we'd be able to do achieve items 1 and 2 above. But we won't get anywhere on 3. If we run on trail and grass all the time, we achieve some of three, but don't get "hardened" for a pavement oriented marathon. If we run in highly padded shoes all the time, we also basically do the equivalent of strapping "grass/trail" to the bottom of our feet for a softer landing (although not quite the same).


So running in highly padded shoes helps us to more mileage so that we can make more physiological adaptations. For cardio output and mitochondria density, I can buy that, but harder shoes should allow us to achieve eccentric durability off less miles than more mileage off highly padded shoes (keep in mind we have swimming and biking to improve top line cardio with zero pounding).


It is obviously a personal trade off and many athletes won't even have the option of shoes with less padding...that basically equals "NO RUNNING" for some. But for athletes, who can, maybe there is something there to consider, just like if you want to run a fast pavement marathon, you need to train on it. Someone might say that the answer is running the pavement marathon on highly padded shoes (actually Slowman has said that we're crazy not to for IM marathons and in my view he is correct). But I am not talking about which shoe helps us more on race day when speed is my ultimate metric. I'm discussing what is the best training tool because in training we're just trying to come up with the most efficient way to create the physiological adaptations that will help us go fast on race day. Would harder shoes allow us to achieve better adaptations off less mileage, freeing up time for the other sports?


Let's discuss.

You have been told the correct information. You (and others) continually deny the correct information in favor for what you think is right. I'm glad I'm not working for a company who lives in the dark ages.

I reckon greater load causing higher muscular trauma, and there fore greater recovery time...
So perhaps more training stimulus for a given session but at the cost of greater recovery .... Net perhaps we end up with harder less often vs less hard more often ... End result maybe bugger all difference....?

I think I see what you are getting at.

For me or most that I know the problem is always trying to maximize weekly or total volume (at first) while staying consistent and injury free. This is the point of Barry p's plans which emphasize a gradual but manageable increase in volume over time. Then specifically adapting that "durability" to your needs via speed work or specific work as it leads up to a key or peak event.

From what I see trying to force durability or push mechanical load via shoe choice (spikes on a track etc) is a recipe for disaster for most Ager's. Most don't have optimized body weight (are you sub 140 yet ;-) Ok I am still over 150), so there is already an extra load which may not be there during specific or peak phase, trying to push or force durability or the ability to avoid injury while maintaining volume is very hard and IMO often represents a tipping point between consistency and non-consistency i.e. injury.

Running even amongst elites is always limited by durability within volume. An elite might run 15 hours a week, that is huge but for cycling, swimming (or rowing, X-ski etc) that is a total dog f*&k week.

Having said that I have flats (race in IM) rubber spikes, track spikes, normal Mizuno trainers, Hoka's etc. For now the only shoe I look at are Hoka's.

Maurice

Threads about running shoes and form are often frustrating, everyone is talking about their own experience and how it works for them. When things work for us it definitely creates a strong bias. We want to pass our successful methods to others.

Dev,

Just trying to get a better idea of the question. What do you mean specifically by #3? Trying to understand exactly the increasing eccentric durability concept before I think about it more.

But one thing is constant in walking/running gait and it comes up when developing prosthetics. With respect to heel strike and the eccentric loading of tibialis anterior, A firmer heel increases the forces at initial contact and speeds up the ensuing plantar flexion. This would stress the anterior tib more eccentrically. Conversely a softer heel will dampen down and slow down the plantar flexion motion which = less eccentric load/stress on the anterior tib.

No running economy improvements by wearing barefoot simulating shoes after 12 weeks.

No running economy improvements after wearing low/zero heel height differential shoes vs tradition hhd.

Reduction in running economy by switching from a heel strike to forefoot strike.

Technique work rarely leads to improvements in running economy.

That's what the evidence says.

No running economy improvements by wearing barefoot simulating shoes after 12 weeks.

No running economy improvements after wearing low/zero heel height differential shoes vs tradition hhd.

Reduction in running economy by switching from a heel strike to forefoot strike.

Technique work rarely leads to improvements in running economy.

That's what the evidence says.

But you know what does improve economy?
Strength Training and Plyometrics