Lighter Running Shoes

I post everytime I see a question about support and like all ST posts 10 people post their ignorant opinions and attack the common knowledge concerning running and running shoes. You cannot make yourself a completely neutral runner by strengthening your feet. If you overpronate, you overpronate, get a shoe to correct for it and stop crying about it. I’ve been selling running shoes for about 10 years and have seen a countless number of people come in and gotten a less stable shoe than they need and come back in 2 weeks buying a cho-pat or something to help their new injury, all for something new or lighter. I am a neurtal runner and run in the DS Flash. If you are a neutral you do not need a stability device in your shoe to correct for overpronation, obviously. Use a lighter shoe for racing or speed work (one with slightly less stability than you use for training). But if you run in a Brooks Beast and think you are ever going to train in a gel flash you are an idiot. There is nothing you can do to your feet to “adapt” or strengthen" them to put you into that kind of shoe.

Hope I covered everyones gripes and two cents. Sorry to be a dick.

Believe me, it makes a big difference. I went from running in my T3s that are probably worn down to about 4 oz by now to running in 10-11 oz trainers and it felt like someone strapped weights to my feet. It was equally surprising that I lost so much feel for the road and the motion of my feet when I went to the cushioned shoes. It is also much easier to keep a nice high turnover rate in lighter shoes. Hopefully I will become more accustomed to the higher mileage in the “barefoot” shoes and be able to ditch the heavy trainers soon.

Chad

I race and train with light weight running shoes for the simple reason that I dont get injuries when I do. More cushioned sneakers for me led to lower leg injuries.

Disclaimer: this is probably not for everyone. like picking the right bike , what works for one runner will not necessarily be the best choice for another runner. Also, I am very lightweight which may make a difference on what type of shoe works for me.

SteveB,

Yes, they will make you measureably faster, and yes, studies have been done. The question is whether those handful of seconds make a difference to you/your place in a race.

The study that comes to mind off the top of my head was done by a guy named Holejwin (sp?). I’m sure you can track it down on medline if you are really interested. I have a copy of it laying around here somewhere.

Also, I agree with the person who says barefoot running does not correct poor mechanics. You will get injured in no/inappropriate footwear, if really have poor mechanics.

A tiny amount of barefoot running on a soft surface (for a short period of time) can be helpful in speeding up the rehab of someone with GOOD mechanics who has been wearing the WRONG shoes for a long period of time. And I mean TINY.

Just wear appropriate shoes for your mechanics. Don’t go running barefoot or in silly minimalist shoes because that is the fad. I can’t even tell you how many injuries I have seen from people doing these two things inappropriately.

Phil

thank you, thank you, thank you
.

I’m going to respectfully disagree with you.

If you overpronate, you do not have to continue overpronating. If you’re serious about changing your stance, see a physical therapist. With custom orthotics and therapy (post-knee surgery, incidentally) my stance was corrected complete in about 2 months.

I no longer use the orthotics, and I no longer pronate. It simply takes some conscious effort to retrain your body to know how to stand, walk, and run. Strengthning my ankles and feet was only part of the solution, but it was an important step. To suggest that “There is nothing you can do to your feet to “adapt” or strengthen” them to put you into that kind of shoe" is crap.

Admittedly it’s next to impossible to correct your stance on your own, but it surely can be done.

Can you explain to me why common knowledge left me, a diagnosed overpronater, unable to run?

I’ve gone from a pair of asics koji’s and shin splints/stress fractures on < 15 miles / week to nike waffle racers, no shin splints on > 30 - 40 miles per week.

Now, I’m willing to admit this might not work for everyone (even though I am not alone), but why are you so close minded to the issue? As a retailer, isn’t it in the best interest of you’re customers to keep an open mind and realize you might not know as much as you think you do? It’s way off base to characterize people as ignorant when several have had extensive experience contrary to your line of reasoning. As a scientist, when this happens to me, it makes me think that I probably don’t know exactly what’s going on.

I don’t want to characterize you based on a couple of posts on an internet board, but based on what you’ve written, you’re the same type of guy I’ve encountered for several years convincing me more shoe was what I needed. If I had continued to listen to this type of reasoning, I wouldn’t be running right now.

You cannot make yourself a completely neutral runner by strengthening your feet.

----Is there anything that says you have to be neutral? I went to very well reputed shoe store and they told me I had an under- or overpronation issue, I don’t remember which anymore. They recommend a pair of shoes. I tried them, but did not like them at all. Now I run in Brooks T3s or Asics flats. I took six months to adapt and along the way ran upwards of three to four hours a week barefoot.

If you overpronate, you overpronate, get a shoe to correct for it and stop crying about it. I’ve been selling running shoes for about 10 years and have seen a countless number of people come in and gotten a less stable shoe than they need and come back in 2 weeks buying a cho-pat or something to help their new injury, all for something new or lighter.

------The problem I see in what you describe has nothing to do with whether the shoe works or not. Runners are not patient. I’ll bet the above described persons probably took the lighter shoe and immediately started or continued to run the same number of miles. Your body can only adapt so fast and then it will break down. If they were coming back in two weeks then they just were not smart about how they implemented the new shoes. I’ll be willing to bet a large number of people could probably run in shoes that provide absolutely no cushion and be fine if they simply gave their bodies time to adjust.

It makes perfect sense that you would recommend against such a plan to your customers for a couple of reasons—1) Most of them don’t have the patience to put an intelligent adaptation plan into effect and 2) You don’t sell many shoes if a person only needs to buy one or two pairs of shoe per year.

If I were selling shoes, I wouldn’t recommend they try a “barefoot” shoe simulator either.

Chad

**“I’ve been selling running shoes for about 10 years and have seen a countless number of people come in and gotten a less stable shoe than they need and come back in 2 weeks buying a cho-pat or something to help their new injury, all for something new or lighter”. **

So what are you trying to say these people should do that come in and have an injury and buy the cho-pat? Are you saying they should buy a more stable shoe? or give a flat more time?

**

Kev is right and so are you. Kev is basing his opinion on observing hundreds of runners. You are basing yours on 1, which is correct for you. You are also not fully understanding the term “pronation” in the open kinetic chain sense of the motions (triplanar). Having a flatfoot or one that “wants” to collapse is something most of us have.

I am basing mine on thousands of patients, runners, etc. as well. Kev is more right however. I won’t go into details here, but my favorite quote to my residents:

“You can’t make chicken soup out of chicken shit…”

How does one separate cause from effect?

Michael Yessis, PhD in “Explosive Running” says:

“Once the natural foot structures are weakened, it becomes necessary to rely on external support structures (such as running shoes) to take over the normal functions of the foot. But the support given by various shoes does not match that given by a well functioning foot, nor is the support functional.”

and:

“Some running-shoe studies indicate that running shoes are the cause of many running injuries. This makes sense for two important reasons: (1) the shoes allow you to run incorrectly by landing on the heel, which creates high braking forces, and (2) the shoes do not allow the support structures to function as needed in the running stride.”

I agree that it is foolish for someone who has kept their feet tightly booted for most of their lives to switch suddenly to barefoot running or to running in minimalist shoes; just as it would be foolish for someone who has had their arm in a cast for 6 weeks to go out and pitch 9 innings. But if the athelete is patient, he can progressively train his feet to do what they have evolved to do.

I’m not yet sure which fad is more damaging. The “silly minimalist shoe” fad or the “running in a high-heeled boot” fad.

Trader

So what are you trying to say these people should do that come in and have an injury and buy the cho-pat? Are you saying they should buy a more stable shoe? or give a flat more time?

People need to give their bodies more time to adapt to the flats. Like months worth of time. That is the short answer. If people are patient and listen to their bodies then “barefoot” shoes might work for them. You never know unless you try and you can’t make a serious attempt unless you are patient.

There is a huge difference between a cushioned running shoe and a flat, especially one like the T3 that I run in right now. When I ran in adidas Bostons, my feet and legs became used to the cushioning and I could only go about 250 miles in each pair before my feet/legs would ache and I would pull out the next pair. I ran about 800 miles that way last winter in Nov/Dec/Jan. Then I tapered and ran the LA marathon and after that I started running barefoot/in old racing flats. I did not try to immediately build up to the 70 or 80 miles a week I was doing before. I started out with 10 minutes barefoot each day and ran the rest in the old flats. From March to June I only ran about 20 hours a month. During that time I ran only in old flats or barefoot and at one point ran as many as 2+ hours of a five-hour run week.

When I deployed to Iraq, I brought only the pair of T3s and some Asics flats that were a little more substantial. In July, August and September I went from five hours running per week to 10 in those shoes. By the time I ran 1:45 in the T3s they had 450 miles on them and were very thin. The next week I pushed to hit 11 hours and my feet finally pushed back. I backed off with a rest week and was good the next week. That is the problem with most people—they don’t listen to their bodies and run through injuries. Fortunately for triathletes, we can just ride the bike and will experience a minimal loss of fitness.

You could also just work them in slowly, alternating the flats for your regular cushioned shoes a little at a time. That way you could maintain mileage and still adapt.

Did I mention patience was the key. Not something in good supply with most people’s ambitions.

Chad

I found this from a past post. I dont know if I agree with it but here we go-

Really good running technique is a complex business and requires the balanced co-ordination of many features. Top runners pay as much attention to developing strength in the core of the body (abdominals, lower back, gluteals, etc) as they do to ensuring correct head and shoulder alignment and arm balance. But the most fundamental of the body’s movements in running concerns the feet. While this may be an obvious statement, most photos of runners feature their upper bodies - and grimacing faces. Important features such as footstrike, range of leg movement and overall posture are difficult to identify.

Rich Clarkson spent several years of his life as a photographer following the training and racing of a young Jim Ryun (pictured below), who became the first high school student to run under 4 minutes for the mile and then broke the world record for that distance on 17 July, 1966. Time and again, Clarkson’s photos of 40 years ago reveal the secret of fast but relaxed running technique: landing on the front of the foot (not the heel), keeping the body upright (not bent forward), and driving up and down with the arms (not side to side). And all accomplished in the simplest and lightest of shoe designs, rather than today’s large, cushioned shoes.http://www.triathletes-uk.org/graphics/ryun1.jpg http://www.triathletes-uk.org/graphics/ryun2.jpg

These photos were scanned from The Jim Ryun Story by Cordner Nelson - we can’t find anyone to ask permission to use them so, hopefully, nobody will mind too much… You can find the whole book online at the Track and Field News website.

Modern shoes don’t force runners to land on the heels, but with the heel slightly (and in some cases considerably) thicker than the forefoot area they certainly encourage it, particularly among slower runners. Landing on the heels isn’t simply a question of asking the rocket science of today’s shoe to absorb three to six times the body’s weight - realistically, they can’t. Landing on the heels requires the foot to remain in contact with the ground far longer. Apart from slowing the runner down, this form of footstrike makes little use of the important shock-absorbing arch muscles in the foot and in very many cases leads to problems of over-pronation. In the early years of a runner’s life over-pronation is “corrected” (as the shoe giants would have it) by expensive stability shoes. In later years your podiatrist will be charging even more for custom orthotics.

Gordon Pirie, a world class runner in the 1950’s, wrote about these features instinctively in his book Running Fast and Injury-Free. In more recent years Romanov’s ‘POSE’ method has given a more scientific explanation for the same features, showing what the precise biomechanical benefits are and getting a group of trained runners to run on a treadmill and measuring how hard their feet hit the ground compared with ‘normal’ runners of a similar standard. Romanov’s approach includes a progressive set of drills intended not just to teach the method but to help the runner achieve the soles of the feet the awareness needed to implement it properly.

Australian podiatrist and consultant to a shoe company Simon Bartold reckons sports shoes may do more harm than good. Anything, he reckons, placed between the foot and the surface it is hitting interferes with normal proprioreceptive feedback, the conversation going from the foot to the brain. “So you completely alter the way in which you run, the efficiency and the function with which you run. The research now is looking at enhancing the foot rather than trying to control it or contain it.”

This is not new research. The information that harder midsoles attenuate shock better than soft soles has been public since 1987. “We’ve known about it for a long, long time,” said Mr Bartold. The problem, he says, is that many sports shoe manufacturers have spent considerable amounts of money marketing certain products and are unwilling to change their marketing focus. “What you are dealing with is a very unusual crossover between hard-core science and a commercial product, and it’s an unholy marriage.”

Even with the best posture, running with a heel strike puts a greater loading on the quads and the iliotibial band, whereas forefoot running spreads the loading more evenly, encouraging muscle elasticity in the hamstrings, calves and foot flexors in absorbing shock and generating elastic rebound: calf and thigh muscles work together to absorb the body’s weight. This relieves the knees, iliotibial band, hips and lower back and results in a far lower incidence of training injuries.

Runners looking to adopt this running technique need to make changes gradually and carefully. Some runners may even need a complete reconstruction of their running style, something best started at a time of year when training workloads are low and during a recovery/transition phase of a traditional periodised programme. That way, the runner has the time and inclination to learn and focus on something new before building up workload incorporating the new technique. It would be folly to introduce it during the racing season.

In making the change, runners who currently land on their heels will find themselves using their achilles tendons, calf muscles and those in the arch of their foot much more than before, and there will be some initial soreness, the cure for which is to rest before doing more. Anyone completely new to this technique should begin with simple drills and non-running exercises, such as running on the spot, running backwards, or skipping with a rope. Over time, runners should consider adding a short amount of barefoot running to their weekly routine in order to work the full range of the calf and achilles muscles - but again, this should be done gradually.

As runners let their feet learn to feel the ground and land properly, modern cushioned shoes will quickly begin to feel more like boots, and runners will feel more comfortable in racing flats. Changing shoe type is again something to be done gradually and initially for only shorter training runs because racing flats offer less support and the runner’s arch muscles take time to develop.

But back to Jim Ryun. Many of us marvel at most top runners, especially the Kenyans, when watching their running gait and one thing that really makes an impression is the way their feet come up so high after leaving the ground, almost touching their backsides. This is more evident in the shorter events, but even some of the 10km runners show this. What’s at work here is the simple principle of leverage. It’s easier to move a shorter lever than a longer one, and the leg is easier to bring through if you shorten it by lifting the foot as close to the backside as possible. It can also be brought through quicker and so increases stride rate, in turn making it easier to increase stride length. It takes a lot of strength in the hamstrings to get this kind of lift, but the starting point is to land on the front of the foot and not on the heel.

To quote a previous poster,

thank you, thank you, thank you

Your explanation was much more convincing to me than my own anecdotal experience.

Chad

You make a good point regarding cause and effect.

Most people DO NOT need overbuilt running shoes. These monstrosities can and do screw up people with perfectly good (or good enough) mechanics. Many people can get away with a well built, neutral trainer (FWIW, the NB 1060 is, IMHO, the best neutral running shoe I have seen in years). The reason is that you should pronate…it the way your foot is built. I have seen a number of injuries resulting from the inappropriate use of the latest gee-golly-whiz-bang-pronator-stopper shoes…though probably not as many as I have seen from people inappropriately trying to run in a minimalist design.

(I’m not sure of the reason, though I suspect it is that the injuries resulting from running inappropriately in a minimalist design are more often bony injuries, whereas the others are getting soft tissue injuries that more often responsive to rest and shoe change.)

You make a point regarding evolution…which is an interesting one I have thrown around with some of my colleagues. Here is the thing, though…the evolution argument only applies if you have a selective pressure. In other words, 100k years ago, our ancestors were running from predators, running for food, whatever, and the fastest runners with better mechanics probably lived longer, reproduced better, etc. There were pressures that FORCED this. The slower ones with poor mechanics got eaten, didn’t catch dinner, etc. The genes of the faster/better mechanic people got passed on. The next generation did likewise, and so on.

We don’t have selective pressure anymore. My 8 minute (overpronating) mile gets dinner just as fast as your 5 minute, pretty as a picture mile because we both take a car to a supermarket. Thus, the genes of those of us with bad mechanics get passed on. We are no longer continually evolving towards better mechanics, in other words. People have bad mechanics, but if it is a structural problem it often requires a structural solution, to some extent.

Thus, I would argue that your authors point relies on the false supposition that all feet are created equal. Also, your feet were never designed to run on asphalt, concrete, etc. Thus, you need to make at least some room for technology to keep from plain abusing yourself too much on these types of surfaces.

Phil

I think your colleagues were a bit off in their suggestion that selection for running in our species ended 100,000 years ago. Rather, we began a slow global transition from hunter-gatherers only a bit over 13,000 years ago. But with the transition nearly complete, I agree that natural selection for running fast and/or long has probably been replaced by artificial selection for something else. (…feet that fit in stiletto heels perhaps?) I’m also not sure how quickly in evolutionary time our feet can morph. Maybe 13,000 years is sufficient. I don’t know.

Yessis is careful to use “quantity qualifiers”. He doesn’t suppose that “ALL feet are created equal” and probably would agree with you, as i do, that some feet need mechanical help. I also agree that we have not evolved to run on hard, artificial surfaces and that some forefoot protection is probably required.

We might differ on two points:
First, on the proportion of the running population who have a structural defect NOT caused by an overweight condition, encasing feet in rigid day-wear shoes or running in overbuilt running shoes. My guess is that that proportion is small. Certainly not as large as the running shoe industry would have us believe.
Second, on what exactly an overbuilt running shoe would be for a runner with no structural defect. You suggest the NB 1060 at 13oz for such a runner. In contrast, I would suggest the Brooks T3 at 6oz for a training session or race of @10K or less on a smooth surface and ratchet up the protection as the distance increased or the surface deteriorated. I do not advocate that anyone transition immediately to such a shoe. A very gradual change is appropriate for runners who are not overweight, who have reasonably good form and who have no significant structural defects.

Trader

We might differ on two points:
First, on the proportion of the running population who have a structural defect NOT caused by an overweight condition, encasing feet in rigid day-wear shoes or running in overbuilt running shoes. My guess is that that proportion is small. Certainly not as large as the running shoe industry would have us believe.
Actually, I agree…DEFINITELY not as high as the running shoe industry would have us believe. They do have a product to sell, after all. However, it is not an insignificant number.

Second, on what exactly an overbuilt running shoe would be for a runner with no structural defect. You suggest the NB 1060 at 13oz for such a runner. In contrast, I would suggest the Brooks T3 at 6oz for a training session or race of @10K or less on a smooth surface and ratchet up the protection as the distance increased or the surface deteriorated.

I think that depends upon the size and weight of the runner, don’t you? For example, the NB 900-901 is a great almost-neutral shoe, but it breaks down too quickly for runners over 175 pounds or so.

Also, I don’t think heavy and overbuilt nessecarily go hand in hand. To use the 1060 as an example, it has a very cushy ride, and is a little heavy because of that. However, it lacks most of the rollbars/motion control nonsense du jour that tends to cause problems for mechanically sound runners. Thus, I would not call it “overbuilt”.

See, we don’t disagree as much as you might have thought :^). Good discussion.

Phil

Lighter is faster. Stability shoes, motion control , medial stabilizers, etc., are all marketing smoke and mirrors. I’ve had chronic knee pain for years. After multiple evaluations it was finally determined that because I had flat feet I needed orthotics and should run in motion control shoes. I took that advice to heart, decreased my mileage and worked on improving my running form. To make a long story short… knowing lighter shoes are faster I decided to run my IM last month in racing flats without my orthotics. I figured I’d have the rest of the year to recover if I really messed myself up. I did try a few runs up to 6 miles in the flats without orthotics first (no problem). The final result was a 10:41:00 IM with a 3:53:00 run (I’m 48 years old). NO PAIN or leg discomfort whatsoever from the run. My calves were sore for 3 days after the IM from out of the saddle climbs on the bike.

If you have chronic knee/leg problems don’t fall prey to the mass marketing of the large shoe companies. Relearn how to run. Start slow and with low mileage. Focus on form and you’ll be able pitch the heavy trainers. In my case I had to learn to run more on my mid and forefoot and shorten my stride.

Good luck,

Hans

Well put. For a while I believed that I needed the latest shoe technology or I couldn’t run. Then one day I thought, “what if someone hadn’t invented the motion control shoe?”

HH

But if you run in a Brooks Beast and think you are ever going to train in a gel flash you are an idiot. There is nothing you can do to your feet to “adapt” or strengthen" them to put you into that kind of shoe.

Glad I didn’t hear from you a year and half ago.

In the spring of 2004 I was running in Brooks Beast and on my way towards orthotics. Now I do half my running in New Balance 230s – no cushion and about 1/8-1/4 inch of hard rubber on bottom. I’ve used them for 10K to 8 mile races. One a week, I run barefoot. For long runs, I’m using Asics Speed Stars – which I think are heavy, but I’m still looking for good minimal shoe with some cushioning (ideally, no heel). I’ve found that I no longer fit normal size shoes and need wider shoes – seems like my feet have gotten a little bigger. I’m still working on my form, but the key is to run with fast cadence, at least 180 steps per minute. If there is one key, it is cadence. I’ll bet every overpronator who “needs” a support shoe runs a slower cadence. It ain’t running. It’s jogging. My transition did not happen overnight. Like the post above notes, it takes a long careful transition. My first step was to transition to Asics DS Trainers. I worked on posture, did yoga, and made an effort to walk with my feet straight (wearing low heel shoes). I still have a way to go, but I’ve gotten faster and feel I can still get faster, while before I was just getting slower.

Oh, what about my Beasts – which I ran in for nearly ten years? I kept a few old pairs to wear while working around the house. After a while, they became horribly uncomfortable – even for walking – so I threw them out.

If you think people can’t strengthen their feet and lower legs so they can run with minimal shoes, I say bull. The human body has remarkable ability to adapt and strengthen. Read on this website for some examples of folks who have gone from overweight smokers to Kona qualifiers. Look at the example of Gordo Byrn. It just takes time, care, and patience, but people can go from being overpronators to natural runners.

HH