Planning to run my first Sprint...in VFFs (with problems) (Page 2)

Here's my take on barefoot running:

With the environment that most of us have to train in, running barefoot all the time is often impractical and can be risky (think stepping on something and hurting yourself and having to lay off training)

That being said, I think it can be a powerful tool if you use it correctly. I sometimes do drills and short sprint intervals barefoot on the grass because it forces me to use good form.

Unless I'm on a long run, I have a forefoot strike due to my time as a sprinter in high school (I had an excellent coach who drilled good form into our heads :D ) It all depends on how fast I'm moving.

Now I'm no expert, but I think the biggest problem with barefoot running is when people go out for the first time and try to put in too many miles. My philosophy is to run as far as is comfortable barefoot and then build up from there (I only made it 1/2 mile the first time, and I was plenty sore just from that).

This user's post has been ignored.

I ran several miles in my VFFs the first day I had them and ran 6 miles a week later.  Zero soreness or issues at any point that others complain of.  Was sort of mystified at all the warnings about not running more than 1/2 a mile at first etc.  Haven't run longer than 6 or 7 miles in them but my sister ran a marathon in hers a week after getting them, also with zero issues.   Having not come across another person other than myself (and my sister) who has had such an easy transition to the VFFs (which I really like btw), I have concluded the following factors probably make a big difference: 1) I grew up in New Zealand where as kids we took our shoes OFF to run in school and we still think nothing of wandering round barefoot in public in the summer.  People don't have the ick factor that Americans have about being barefoot on the street.  2) Living in Florida, I am barefoot at home 100% of the time.  3)  I was running in Newtons for about a year before I tried the VFFs - I think there is less difference in footstrike than going from say the typical Asics shoe to VFFs.  The VFFs feel great and I think my running economy is a definitely better in them (though I'm still hardly in danger of winning my AG), but honestly, if I had to work up to running in them by starting out at 1/2 a mile and working up over months, I doubt I would bother. 

I ran barefoot on the beach about 3 years ago thinking I was all Australian in front of my sister (I'm English living in Aus) and got plantar fasciitus in my right foot that was so painful when I ran that I couldnt train for a couple of months.

So my advice would be don't do it.

Derek

No, it means that the shoes have forced you to address the real problem in your running form.  To me that says while you spent a lot of time (and sounds like money) trying to figure out the problem, you never actually worked on trying to fix it when it comes to physically running.

Sure, modern running shoe designs suck and they over cushion to allow people who over-stride to not get the sh-t kicked out of them when they run.  But the bottom line is that - in your case - going to a shoe that didn't allow you to have crappy form helped you to address the fundamental flaws in your form.

THAT could have done with a good coach in my opinion.  As you mentioned, seeing someone run will make all the difference in the world.

Honestly, I am not looking for athletes and the ones I work with don't get injured, so I must be doing something right.  So the jab about me not ever being your coach may make you feel better, but it means zero to me.  We're on the internet having a discussion about gloves for one's feet.  If someone doesn't want varying opinions on a topic, or expect to get them, then they shouldn't ask the question.

The OP uses them, gets injured and then wonders what the problem is.  The problem is not what he has on his feet.  The problem is how he runs.  A good coach could point that out within a few workouts and feedback on how he feels while running.

Words are interpreted however the reader wants.  You cannot convey "tone" and delivery in a post.  So what come off as "elitist" to one person may be seen as joking and playful by another.

Bottom line is this.  Equipment is not what is making people get injured.  How someone runs is.  If people think that changing equipment is the magic pill that will make them be a better runner, then they are not addressing the problem.  The OP can easily run with correct form and better support without "needing" the go the minimalist route.  If he was only running on grass or dirt, then this fad would make sense.  But we do not run on dirt/grass.  And we do not eat/sleep/recover like pre-historic or indigenous tribal people do.

Road Phoenix,

I had the chance to read your post regarding training and injury and found it very informative, just like your more recent posts to this thread.  My point in the first post I directed at you is that you are threadjacking.  Prior to joining this forum I was an avid writer at Newsvine, and the learning experience there was to my mind what this site is for the body.  The reason I bring that up is protocol concerning internet manners is a big one in my book and unlike the vine, I cannot delete posts that are rude or useless.  Now, before you jump to conclusions regarding that statement, let me explain. 

Nearly every other contribution on this thread was to that effect, a contribution.  Not an undirected disagreement with an outside the paradigm approach to something you feel mastery over.  Obviously you can, if nudged in the right direction, provide criticism that is helpful and constructive as you did after I lit my flamethrower.  Now I won't ask why you didn't offer those insights to begin with but it is puzzling. 

For the record, I am in my early thirties with a background in special forces.  I used to run quite a bit while I was in the service but time and children (not to mention leaving the military) has transformed a body that could manage a 6 minute mile for 6+ miles into one that usually finishes 3 miles at an 8 minute pace (with very little left in the tank).  I stumbled on Chris McDougall's book, Born to Run by accident.  I had a conversation with a coworker that used a minimalist sort of shoe-sock and turn very good times without the associated pains that I've come to know from running; sore shins, ankles, heel bruising, etc.  Thankfully, I've never been laid up with PF, achilles  problems, knee problems, or anything else that qualifies as a serious running injury. 

I devoured the book.  It was a transformational read and before you knock this "fad" I suggest you do your research and find out more of what it is about.  I did mine after reading the book and found the claims made by the author to be well founded, researched, and validated by many field experts.  For example, why do Kenyans, Moroccans, Ethiopians, and many other athletes from cultures that have little exposure to footwear do so well when compared to the west, with its abundance of science, money and research?  Does every Ethiopian living in a hut have a coach that points out their weaknesses and assign them drills every day?  Or even better, between 1900 and 1932 an American was in the top 10 finishers for every Olympic marathon.  From then to 1976 the USA was always in the top 20 (with two wins by Mr. Shorter).  Our showings during the 80s were strong but from 1996 on, where were we?  Sure, the occasional superstar (nod to Meb Keflezighi, who notably was born in a region just north of Ethiopia) puts up a good showing but outside of that what happened? 

Why are injuries related to running so universal, especially to US runners?  It doesn't matter if you are fit, lazy, heavyset, athletic, male or female your exposure to injury is the same regardless (source).

The questions posed by this book, and others, are too startling to overlook.  My want need to relearn my running style stems not from some misguided font of ego,

I’d rather try as hard as I can to be fast and live with being 20 percent slower than Ryan Hall than latch onto barefoot running as a sort of sacred truth that allows me to feel superior to the unsaved shoe-wearing runners who kick my butt in races.(excerpt from a quote you love)

..but rather from a love of the human body, what it is capable of, and who we are as a race.  I fail to see the reason behind your disdain for this philosophy.  I agree with many of the points you've offered, on this thread and the other you've started, however you should attempt to see things with a more open mind.  At the very least pick up some of the literature and see what they're talking about.

By the way, how the hell can you heel strike with your footfall under the body?

tHANKS MATE, THAT WAS A GREAT HELP, LOL.

wAS IT THE GUY IN THE ROMAN SANDALS?

This user's post has been ignored.

Here you go:



Shane

I have not read the book yet, but certainly wouldn't mind as I AM always open to new(er) ideas.  I have read a lot of op-ed articles on the topic though.

But I've also read Noakes, Pfitzinger, Daniels, etc. who are some of the top coaches and physiologists in the running world.  I put a lot more stock in what they have to say when it comes to my personal philosophies and coaching approaches.  And they have all in some fashion brought up this subject (and more specifically the ones I talked about in my other thread).

Unfortunately.

Let me clear something up,  this thread was never intended to go in this direction.  However, it seems that this is a common occurrence so I feel more information is the best path in a case like this.

Starting off, I am not a religious zealot when it comes to barefooting.  I do feel strongly about the positives associated with that style of running but I am not about to force it on anyone.  In the thread started by Road Phoenix he mentioned a study that concluded 75% of all elite runners heel strike with the remainder either midsole striking or forefoot striking (with a greater number being in the midsole group).  The forefoot strikers were not in the top finishers so, where am I going with this?

It seems, to me anyway, that how your foot lands is a component of how fast you are moving.  The study indicated that running BF, or with lightly cushioned shoes (i.e., forefoot striking) lead to reduced impact loads on the knee and hip and increased loads on the ankle.  So, it would seem that barefooting forces a runner to assume better form (if you've ever tried it and land a heel strike ahead of your COG, well you'll only do it once) by penalty of pain for a misstep. 

The sacrifice made by the BF crowd appears to be speed in favor of endurance.  Lowering impact loads on the hip and knee (after building the lower muscles to a point where you avoid injury) would imply that a runner would last longer over the course of their running career.  I don't have any data to back that up and it would appear that no studies have been conducted to discover if a corollary exists between injury rates and running styles. 

My opinion is that, in the US anyway, we've lost our way in a forest of consumer based nonsense.  More than a few run because it keeps them fit, but they hate it.  Athletes run for money, not a love of the sport and shoe companies look for the next quick way to fleece the public for a buck by selling us stuff that has a questionable track history in keeping our feet safe.  In the end, the biggest problem with the majority of runners in the US is that we don't know how to run correctly.  In other countries were shoes aren't as accessible the children there learn those fundamentals right away.  Those fundamentals are reinforced by watching their peers and those above them move the same way as well.  I don't think our culture has those benefits. 

I've chosen this path for many reasons the most important being that its made running fun for me.  All that I asked on this thread was help in keeping me on the road, using this style, and not laid up with ice packs.  Thanks to everyone that contributed, and special thanks to those that were skeptical. 

Without you conversations like this wouldn't happen.

so are you saying if you're a heel-striker, then you don't run correctly ? or how do you come up with the statement above ??!

That's an inference based on the frequency of injury per training/activity hour.  The number is above 60% per year regardless of fitness level, age, gender, weight, or proficiency.  That either means humans (specifically Americans) weren't meant to run or collectively a whole bunch of people are doing something wrong.

and this has to be foot strike instead of training incorrectly, i.e. running too much too soon or taking on speedwork with an inadequate base?  the problem is that the remedy doesnt necessarily scream out to foot strike or a type of shoe.  i am glad you like the book and want to take a stab at this whole thing, but am i the only one who finds it ironic someone calling this a 'gateway to running injury free' is asking how did i get injured doing this?  look at the principles of good training first before thinking its the rest of the world that doesnt know what they are doing.  in the end i could care what folks run in.  there are a lot of us running just fine with regular shoes and taking the time and reasonable efforts to get where we want to be and injury free.  really, i wish nothing but the best for you and am glad you enjoy the shoes and wish you luck.  just maybe take a different look at the reasons for the injury and your conclusions.

marketing geniuses that brain storm how to change fundamentals, launch information campaigns in the form of books and articles to change the minds of consumers to purchase their products. 

Bingo! 

Nike started the whole heel striking/over striding style of running this way...the minimalist running movement is causing  a very slight drift back to the traditional way of running without the gimmicky heel lift, cushioning etc.

 

 

Edited by rockrunner 2010-05-15 1:16 PM

true with nearly every product I guess.

marketing spin can sell almost anything.  separating the "chaff from the grain" is based on results of experiments on consumers.