Racing Flats

I was thumbing through a popular Road Runner catalog recently and came across some racing flats. Do people use these for Triathlons, more specifically for 1/2 IM and IM distances? I do not think I would train in them often, because I tend to use a high stability, high cushion shoe (Kayano’s), but I notice the weight difference is 5-6 ounces, which I have to believe makes some sort of difference over lots of miles. One concern is that I have been prone to shin splints in the past and fear a lower cushioned shoe may bring them back.

Does anyone have any experience with them? Any opinions on time saved over specific differences or other advantages/disadvantages?

– Joe

My experience over the last 18 yrs. of doing all distances of triathlons has been to not change shoes. IMHO, It’s not about weight of the shoe…it’s more about injury. I found a shoe that works and stick with it. This is specially true for the longer distance tris. I see know reason why a shoe that can prevent injury while training can’t be equally useful for doing the same thing in a race.

In this sport there is more than enough things to change to improve performance without having to add shoe changes as one of them. Although, I have known a some triathletes who use racing flats for races and train with other type of shoes. Of those, most of them have had a strong running background.

FWIW Joe Moya

Racing flats are good for sprints and olympics. Over that and you are pushing it. I have worn them for a half, and my legs felt beat- I weighed like 137 at the time. I would never wear them for an Ironman. I have opted for light trainers for all my IMs and most half IMs.

You really only want to train on them for very short speed work if at all. I usually will do a few miles in a pair to break them in, and then use them for racing from them on. Sometimes I wear tham around the house just to make sure they are still comfortable and won’t cause any blisters.

When you go to a racing flat you are losing almost all support, and most cushion. If you wear a high stablility shoe, they are probably not a great idea for you at any length, and most certainly at half and full IM distances.

But, I’m not a podiatrist, nor have I ever played one on TV.

since you are already training in Asics’s, try the Gel DS trainers for the longer distances. The faster and more biomechanically efficient you are the more flats help. If you are racing, IMO at 6:30 mile or slower buy light weight trainers, flats won’t help. Flats don’t absorb as much of the pounding. You might experience more pounding, and hence more damage in flats. I can recall parts of an journal article where the basic premise was flats help world class runners by 3-6 secs/mile. I might be off +/- a sec or two since it has been a while. If you wear them (lightwt trainers) only to race, may be a tempo run here and there, you should be fine.

I agree with the person above me with the recomendation of DS trainers, I have done one IM on DS racers without any great problems. Have done halfs with racers too but wouldnt do a full IM with anything less than light trainer.

unless you are shooting for a sub 3hr marathon split, I would think about an all out racing flat. Using a lightweight trainer is a much better option. Over the years the Sacouny Azura has sometimes been a good shoe for an Ironman. I didn’t care for the last version, but I’ve seen a sneak peek at the newest version coming out and that is going to be my Ironman shoe for this year.

I personally find that in my flats i definatly go faster, they definatly feel lighter. I only wear my flats to race in… I have the Aisics Gel racer… (the flat made by aisics) which i find provides alot of support and cushioning. The longest i’ve run in them is a 1/2 marathon, and i didn’t feel that my legs absorbed alot of pounding. I train in New Balance 714’s which are a heavier fairly neutral shoe. I wouldn’t recommend them for IM distance races however, for that I would get the Aisics Gel DS trainer, (if it fit) its not as light as the flat, but I think the cushioning would be a good trade off. Hope it helps

David

Running shoes, like bicycles, come in all kinds of flavors for all kinds of events and all kinds of people. Right off the bat, racing flats are for racing, not training. Without doubt keep your training shoes for all of your training. since your Asics are much more supportive shoes than any flats you’ll ever find, if you’re worried about stability, you probably shouldn’t use racing flats.
The cushion aspect, however, totally depends on the flats in question. As I’m sure you read in the RR catalogue, different flats are recommended for different distances. As there’s only a smidge of difference in stability from a half-mile flat to a marathon flat, the real distinction is the cushion. I think if you head to a good running shoe store that carries flats designed for marathons (store locations may be hard to find), you’ll be pleasantly surprised at exactly how cushioned a pair of flats can be.
Personally, I own a pair of cushioned trainers for training, a pair of marathon flats for races over 10k, and a pair of Nike Zoom Waffles for anything 10k and under. Granted, I haven’t had any problems with shin splints, but I have run the gamut of knee problems over the years.
Everyone is different in their shoes. Most people wear a more cushioned shoe than I do in 10k’s and you may feel more comfortable shifting the whole range of cushioning down a bit, i.e. stable shoes for training, lightweight trainers for marathon/half, and marathon flats for 15k and under or something. It’s all personal, but I would never recommend training in any kind of racing flat.

I second the motion for the Asics DS Trainer VII. I have run marathons and an Ironman in them without any problems. I actually train in them as well although everyone says you should rotate your shoes for training and racing.

I weigh like 155 at race weight. Racing flats are too light for me. I use my training shoes for IM distance but do wear racing flats for the short stuff.

I have run all my sub 3:00 marathons in Gel Lytes, its replacement, the Verdict DS and once in Kayanos. A couple of times in there I attempted the same in racing flats. Both times I ended up 3:0something and had extremely sore feet and legs for an inordinately long time. I’m 165 in fighting trim. Draw your own conclusions…

a bad idea for anything over Olympic, and even then I’d hesitate. Depends on your biomechanics, but if you’re prone to shinsplints, I’d highly recommend using one of the lightweight trainers, or just use the shoes you’re used to. Remember your legs are already weary by the time you reach the run, and need all the help they can get. Sure the flats might save you seconds, but it’s more likely they’ll lose you minutes due to injury. Only the elite and biomechanically gifted use racing flats for marathons - I’ve run 2:40, never used a flat, very very seldom even saw one after the real racers had disappeared into the distance.

I would stick to a lightweight shoe, but racing flats might be a little thin. They do make racing shoes, I wouldn’t call them flats regardless of what they are marketed as for marathons or 1/2s. I think true flats shouldn’t be worn for more than a 10k race. No matter what the distance, running on pavement with flats is harsh. I would say any advantage from the flats would be negated by the fact that your knees on shing will be throbbing by halfway through your run. Just my opinion.

I say try them out. Use them on a brick workout and see how they feel. One observation I have made over time (both as a coach and an athlete) is that it is people with overbuilt shoes that suffer the most from shin splints. Now your supportive shoes may in fact be protecting you from other problems, but no one could diagnose those here. For many of my athletes I recommend a very lightweight shoe to train in, especially for beginners. The caveat being that you must have easy access to trails, and 'never" run on cement (except for perhaps a couple of long runs if you are doing a half or full on cement). Personally, I trained for two full years in “racing flats” (Mizuno Phantoms) running 45-70 miles a week, and never experienced injury. I am not a whippet by any means (160 #s), but am fairly efficient.

So the redux is that I say go for it. The Asics DS Racer is a great shoe for half and full thons.

trike wrote: “Personally, I trained for two full years in “racing flats” (Mizuno Phantoms) running 45-70 miles a week, and never experienced injury. I am not a whippet by any means (160 #s) …”

I’ve read all these posts and certainly don’t disagree. But, I wore the Mizuno Phantoms for almost a year, too. Did everything in them last year, from 10ks to 20 mile runs on concrete (yes, concrete) to IM USA. I’ve got problems with my running (the simple problem of breathing too hard if I go faster than 7:15 pace), but none of these problems are foot or shin or knee oriented.

I searched and searched yesterday for an article from Scientific American sometime in 2000 that gave an interesting overview of the running shoe situation. They don’t have the article on the website anymore (without paying a subscription fee). But I recall quite clearly the gist of it being that the authors found direct correlations between the rise of certain running injuries and the introduction dates of things like medial posts and air in the heels. The authors also found no correlation over long periods of time between running injuries and the hardness of the surface one runs on. They found that runners certainly preferred to run on softer surfaces, but there was not a long-term injury prevention factor at work. They most definitely found that “motion-control” and heavily cushioned shoes *did *correlate to higher injury rates.

I switched shoes to Asics Magic Racer (5.5 ounces) last September and upped my mileage from 20-25 to 40-50 per week since then (I run 100% on pavement). No foot pain, no knee pain, no shin pain. They’re just really comfortable to run in. I bought them not for the fact that they’ve “racers” or “lightweight” – I bought them simply because they’re just so darn comfy to run in.

I’m 165 pounds and I run long at 9:00 pace or so. Not fast, but reasonably good form (practicing a combintion of Pose and Chi technique drills).

So, maybe I’m among the exceptions out here, but Pirie, Romanov and the Barefoot Running Association would welcome me aboard.

I found this by Maffetone (one of the founding fathers of modern endurance training):

Is the Right Shoe on Your Foot?

(Reprinted with permission from “In Fitness and in Health” by Dr. Philip Maffetone)

Our modern, media-driven society encourages companies to sell products based on their special features, even if those features are not necessarily beneficial. One example is the shoe companies that make athletic or exercise footwear.

They used to be called sneakers back in the good old days; these days they have all kinds of names and specialties and all sorts of features. You’ve heard them all: energy return, pronation support, supinator shoes, heel stabilization, motion control. They’re made with gel, rubber, molded EVA and pumped with air. Companies insist they spend a lot of money to research a shoe, but what they don’t say is that the research goes into marketing and promotion strategies, and how to sell you yet another shoe for $100 or more.

For the most part, shoes are tested on machines, not people, because machines give the results the company wants and people don’t. A quick look in the medical journals will point out the abundant problems.

Did you know, for example, that the support systems in almost all shoes can weaken your ankles? And the soft, cushioned shoes of today can harm your feet? How about the height, in other words, the thickness of the sole? The farther above the ground you go in a shoe, the more unstable your foot becomes.

Scientific articles over the past decade or more strongly suggest that such protective features put in by shoe companies, including shock absorption and motion control actually increase the likelihood of injury.

Here are some of the reasons.

The human foot has millions of nerves endings, especially on the sole, which senses the pounding and repetition of running, dancing, walking or other activity. Your brain and body work together to adapt to the stress of hitting the ground by adjusting the gait. This normal protective mechanism (which occurs constantly, and not just from the feet but also most parts of the body, including the joints) keeps us from being injured during activity. When we put a sneaker or shoe on the foot, we interfere with the body’s normal adaptive mechanism. The mechanism works best when we walk or run barefoot because there is no interference with the nerves that sense our contacts with the ground. In other words, footwear can mask the sensations of activity, preventing the body from adjusting itself to perform better. The thicker and more overprotected the shoe, the worse it is for the body. The impact which results from exercise occurs whether a shoe is worn or not. Some studies show that many materials used in the fancy exercise shoes alter and distort sensation enough to actually increase the impact on the ground!

The result is a diminished ability by the foot to adapt, with potential damage to the ligaments, fascia, cartilage or bone in the foot, leg or pelvis.

A significant aspect of natural foot mechanics is the function of the medial arch. This natural support, maintained by a muscle, adapts constantly to standing, walking, running, etc. Many shoe support systems, including orthotics, can interfere with this normal functioning arch.

Sorbothane is commonly used in athletic shoes. Tests on machines show its energy absorbing abilities. But a study on humans shows that insoles made of this material actually increase leg stress by 26%. Another study failed to show any beneficial effects, but clearly demonstrated that the subjects used (U.S. Marines) had an increase in foot and leg injuries.

Other studies show similar patterns. In one, among 5,000 runners, those using more expensive running shoes (which had more shock absorbing materials) had a higher incidence of injury. Clearly, there is less chance of getting a running injury in less expensive shoes.

Pronation is a common concern among exercisers. A certain amount of pronation is normal; excess pronation can be a problem. But the more shoe manufacturers cushion the foot, the more likely the foot will prorate excessively, especially with the added soft midsole material. Shoes claiming to control pronation may actually aggravate it. Heel height can also increase pronation, especially when higher than about one inch.

Don’t pay attention to claims that an exercise shoe will make you perform better. Data shows that running, for example, in a well cushioned shoe will slow you down. That’s because these shoes cost more than money; they cost you in oxygen, too. The thicker, more energy absorbent athletic shoes require significantly increased oxygen uptake. It’s due to the increased contact time the shoe is on the ground and the reflex leg muscle activity.

What Can You Do?

Many people have gotten “addicted” to their shoes. The same problem exists for some women who have worn high heels for years. The muscles of the foot and leg, especially the calf, have adapted to the shoe. If you suddenly change your shoe style, such as a lower heel, your muscles will have to readjust their length. This will take some time, often a couple of weeks, during which you may experience calf pain or other discomfort.

Case history

Some time ago, after seeing running shoes get higher off the ground, over supported and softer, I thought about the times in college when I ran barefoot. From a practical standpoint, I wasn’t willing to go that far, so I looked for the closest thing: a shoe that didn’t restrict my natural foot and ankle mechanics but offered protection from stones and wear and tear. I started by looking at the newest shoes but was immediately horrified at the prices. The so-called racing shoes looked better for everyday use, not as much over support and cushioning, and lower to the ground, but still over priced. I tried Keds. Yes, those cheap no-attempt-at-support sneakers. For under $10, I was on my way. But my first day running left my calves quite sore. I realized it was just the difference in heel height, coming down to the ground from what seemed like stilts. The second day out, my legs wouldn’t let me run. Even walking was uncomfortable. I found walking on the treadmill acceptable to my body. After a week of that, and feeling better, I began running on the treadmill. And after another week, ventured outside again. My calves and everything else adapted to the somewhat radical change in shoes and felt like those of a 20 year old elite athlete.

The typical heel in exercise shoes forces you to run too far back on the shoe rather than striking the ground farther forward. This exaggerated heel-toe gait is a walking style and is unhealthy for runners.

Shoe companies allude to magical abilities possessed by the shoes in advertising: this shoe cures weak ankles, these shoes correct pronation and that shoe makes you run faster. To make things worse, you have to pay dearly for the advertising and the high-tech additions to your shoes which may have an adverse effect on your health.

Correction

Treating any footwear problem involves, mainly, knowing how to select the proper shoe. You may also need to seek help from a competent professional who can correct any mechanical problem which may exist.

I switched to lightweight trainers last august and am considering a full time switch to flats, based on a number of things: my success with the pose method (and the empfield method which appears to be pretty similar) romanov (aka mr. pose) recommendation of training in flats romanov and yessis articles/books I’ve read that discuss similar data to what julian mentions regarding injury rates and “modern” shoe design my belief that the body was designed to run and that we did that successfully for millenia w/o fancy shoes.

the main reason I haven’t switched yet, is I can’t find many stores that stock racing flats.

I never race without racing flats. Maybe it is because of my running background and I’ve always put on flats or spikes for competition but I need to have a lightweight, flexible shoe (even in an ironman where I’ve been reduced to a shuffle in the 2 that I’ve done). I think that it comes down to what is comfortable and what you are used to. I am around 170-172 lbs when in racing shape so I’m not a lightweight but I’m used to wearing racing shoes and don’t have biomechanical problems so they work for me.

The word spikes. Brings back fond memorys of the ole XC days. The smell of grass and dirt watching hundreds of people running around. Watching the womens race and the women in the race. Dew on the grass, the hills await. Brings back memories. I’m digging mine out for my next threshold session on the track. heck I might even wear them around the house.

Since I started the gel trainer post I am surprised at the number who use them for races. Never noticed them at races, although I have used them in the second run for duathlons quite a bit . As for training in flats I don’t think I start right off the bat if I was training in motion control shoes. I might step down to something like a 2080 then down again. Better to go down step by step then leap off the cliff.

On another note has any noticed that the Asics 2080 feels stiffer in the forefoot than the 2070 or am I feeling things?