Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

2013-12-23 5:35 PM

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Minimalist shoes versus more traditional running shoes; definitely worth a read:

http://www.therunningclinic.ca/blog/2013/12/premiere-etude-randomis...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24357642/

Shane

2013-12-23 5:48 PM

in reply to: 0

Seattle

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Thanks for posting! Although, I wasn't really surprised.

One thing that I am curious about and don't fully understand (and maybe you do) - is the role of shoe weight vs foot protection. I'm assuming that whatever shock that the shoe is not absorbing is being absorbed by the runner. Assuming no injury issues or shoe style preference (because I know specific needs can greatly complicate this question,) how do we make good decisions when it comes to weight vs the amount of shock absorption/foot protection?

I'll use myself as an example. I am trying to figure out what shoes to wear in a marathon. I've raced in flats in all distances with no issues, but how do I know that is a good decision vs maybe going with a little more protection and possibly preserving the legs a bit?

Edited by Asalzwed 2013-12-23 5:49 PM

BrotherTri

2013-12-23 6:23 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

Master

2621

Mechanicsburg, PA

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

The title makes my feet hurt.

I got my answer Hoka One One.

I think shoes selection is understanding your foot placement, then trial and error. I can tell you this rounded up toe box will get you faster off your foot but will open up your metatarsal. Well that is what I experienced.

dmiller5

2013-12-23 6:33 PM

in reply to: BrotherTri

Extreme Veteran

3025

Maryland

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

2013-12-23 7:04 PM

in reply to: dmiller5

9167

Stairway to Seven

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by dmiller5

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

I don't think Shane needs to have his own point, he's sharing a study. It looks like a well designed study of transitioning to minimalist footwear over 12 weeks in training for a 10k. Very specific design I think (I'm not an expert in design).

This begs the question of "why transition?"

There are lots of other studies out there that have looked at other aspects of minimalist shoes (greater economy), collision forces (lower in barefoot conditioned runners), tissue elasticity (greater in minimalist footwear), and whether it's strike pattern or footwear that seems more important.

Lots of takeaways and learning opportunities here for the open minded.

wannabefaster

2013-12-23 7:10 PM

in reply to: dmiller5

Master

3205

ann arbor, michigan

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by dmiller5

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

I think he was exposing us to some interesting information.

It was pertinent for me because I ran today in my Nike Frees for the first time in probably six months and now my feet are sore. However, I have a long-standing prohibition against ever running in the same shoes two days in a row. It is my belief that switching things up daily helps me to prevent repetitive use injuries that 'may' be caused by shoes. Tomorrow will probably be Hokas, Wednesday-Kinvaras, Thursday-my new Virrattas that I happen to know are under the tree

So on and so on. I may not see the Frees again for 10 days or six months depending on my mood.

FWIW, I have been happy with using Kinvara or Kinvara-like shoes for most of my miles the last couple years. Excellent trade off of a low drop, somewhat minimalist shoe that still offers relatively good cushioning.

2013-12-23 7:13 PM

in reply to: BrotherTri

Seattle

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by BrotherTri The title makes my feet hurt. I got my answer Hoka One One. I think shoes selection is understanding your foot placement, then trial and error. I can tell you this rounded up toe box will get you faster off your foot but will open up your metatarsal. Well that is what I experienced.

So, how do we decide what is working?

Is it just when something hurts that serves as an indicator that we need to change something?

bcagle25

2013-12-23 7:37 PM

in reply to: gsmacleod

Expert

2355

Madison, Wisconsin

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

If anyone has ever put together a study, you would know exactly how hard it is to get information that will please everyone. That said every study is aimed to answer a certain thought, hypothesis, trend, etc.

In this case the study was aimed at looking at the injury rates and pain perception in neutral vs minimalist shoes.

This study gives more weight that the minimalist shoes such as Vibrams give more injuries, then neutral shoes. In essence it is aiming to get people off the "I ran Born to Run and running minimalistic makes the most sense" train.

dmiller5

2013-12-23 7:46 PM

in reply to: AdventureBear

Extreme Veteran

3025

Maryland

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by AdventureBear

Originally posted by dmiller5

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

I don't think Shane needs to have his own point, he's sharing a study. It looks like a well designed study of transitioning to minimalist footwear over 12 weeks in training for a 10k. Very specific design I think (I'm not an expert in design). This begs the question of "why transition?" There are lots of other studies out there that have looked at other aspects of minimalist shoes (greater economy), collision forces (lower in barefoot conditioned runners), tissue elasticity (greater in minimalist footwear), and whether it's strike pattern or footwear that seems more important. Lots of takeaways and learning opportunities here for the open minded.

I think that the protocol shows that taking a person who has been running more than 5 years in "normal" shoes, and has been wearing "normal" shoes their whole life, has injury problems when transitioning too quickly into minimal shoes. I am open minded about these things, but the testing protocol seems questionable at best.

BrotherTri

2013-12-23 8:02 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

Master

2621

Mechanicsburg, PA

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by Asalzwed

So, how do we decide what is working?

Is it just when something hurts that serves as an indicator that we need to change something?

Not trying to be a smart a$$, but that is the great dilemma imo. I don't know if the following is an answer or not.
Obviously listening to our bodys, but often that could put us into a paranoid state. Any persistent pain is not a good sign and something need to be looked at. I could go to 5 different shoe gurus and get 5 different recomendations based on my foot bio mechanics. That is were the trial and error kicks in. The other thing is you could run a particular footwear and the company changes something. Guess what now you may have issues. Bottom line I think this is just one of those questions that has no real answer. Just need to be mindful is It pain in a persistent state then maybe time to change or before.

Just my opinion and experience.

2013-12-23 8:17 PM

in reply to: BrotherTri

Seattle

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by BrotherTri

Originally posted by Asalzwed

So, how do we decide what is working?

Is it just when something hurts that serves as an indicator that we need to change something?

Not trying to be a smart a$$, but that is the great dilemma imo. I don't know if the following is an answer or not. Obviously listening to our bodys, but often that could put us into a paranoid state. Any persistent pain is not a good sign and something need to be looked at. I could go to 5 different shoe gurus and get 5 different recomendations based on my foot bio mechanics. That is were the trial and error kicks in. The other thing is you could run a particular footwear and the company changes something. Guess what now you may have issues. Bottom line I think this is just one of those questions that has no real answer. Just need to be mindful is It pain in a persistent state then maybe time to change or before.Just my opinion and experience.

Well, I'm glad there doesn't seem to be any magical answer because its sure got me stumped!

It's really hard because, as I said, I have worn racing flats in a marathon no problem. But I have no idea if its the BEST option. And generally, racing marathons is quite infrequent so you can't just try again next week and decide what's better. Then on top of that there are a million other variables to take into account and its difficult to decide exactly how the shoe fit into the equation.

aliddle9876

2013-12-23 8:33 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

Member

169

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Is the first link in French for everyone else or just me?

2013-12-23 8:43 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by Asalzwed

I'll use myself as an example. I am trying to figure out what shoes to wear in a marathon. I've raced in flats in all distances with no issues, but how do I know that is a good decision vs maybe going with a little more protection and possibly preserving the legs a bit?

I think the right answer for this is pretty individualized but, in general, I don't think many amateur runners benefit from flats for the marathon distance. A lighter shoe, like a lightweight trainer is probably a better choice for many and just a trainer for the rest.

Personally, when I was running all the time, I found that my lightweight trainers were best when I was running 4:45/km or faster and my flats seemed to be best when I was running 4:00/km or faster. If I wore my lightweight trainers for an easy run, I would finish with more soreness and often some hot spots but for a threshold run, they felt fantastic. Similar with flats, sprint, oly, I pace work were all great and they were okay for threshold work but seemed to take a greater toll than lightweight trainers.

Now, this might have been all in my head but that was what worked well for me.

Shane

2013-12-23 8:47 PM

in reply to: dmiller5

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by dmiller5

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

While I didn't really have a point beyond posting an interesting study involving minimalist running shoes, my thoughts are:

1) minimalist shoes are not the panacea they are so often presented as.

2) even with a pretty conservative transition, the minimalist shoes still saw many runners experience issues with the minimalist shoes.

3) as we've seen many times, the switch in shoes often just changes where the stresses are felt on the body.

Shane

2013-12-23 8:48 PM

in reply to: aliddle9876

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

English is halfway down.

Shane

2013-12-23 9:11 PM

in reply to: dmiller5

9167

Stairway to Seven

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by AdventureBear

Originally posted by dmiller5

In conclusion, if you switch to a minimalist shoe and don't transition properly, you have a greater likelihood of injury.

They excluded the results of runners who were used to a minimalist shoe.

So what is the point you were trying to get across here?

I don't think Shane needs to have his own point, he's sharing a study. It looks like a well designed study of transitioning to minimalist footwear over 12 weeks in training for a 10k. Very specific design I think (I'm not an expert in design). This begs the question of "why transition?" There are lots of other studies out there that have looked at other aspects of minimalist shoes (greater economy), collision forces (lower in barefoot conditioned runners), tissue elasticity (greater in minimalist footwear), and whether it's strike pattern or footwear that seems more important. Lots of takeaways and learning opportunities here for the open minded.

I agree with you..but why is the testing protocol questionable?

2013-12-23 9:17 PM

in reply to: gsmacleod

9167

Stairway to Seven

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Not that this is applicable to everyone..adn it's NOT going to be the answer most triathletes want, but my quick story...

Always been an athlete involved in running sports...running, soccer, ultimate frisbee, hashing (the run club, not a toking club). got fancy new running shoes at age 12, craved that cushy feel when landing on my heel...I DISTINCTLY remember this on my first run in them...so that's how I ran all through HS, COllege, etc. Got annoyed running in soccer cleats because it hurt, but at that age my body could tolerate it.

Fast forward to age 36, 1 triathlon behind me, and I had back surgery. after rehab (swimming & biking) readded running. back pain @ the site if surgery with every step. Over the past 9 years...I have been "transitioning" to a forefoot /midfoot landing. I now run in lightly cushined, zero rise running shoes (Altra) and have no back pain when I run. i did have calf and achilles tightness during a recent 2 year period of transition of "higher" mileage which for me is all of 9-12 miles per week.

but now I can run again with no pain and it's way more fun than when i was 34, 35, 36, 37.

now my run limiter is just conditioning on and off, rather than pain all the time.

if I was still 21 I'd have no reason to change, but I wish I'd never picked out those cushy reebok running shoes in the first place...then I'd have 30+ years of less impactful form in my body. Who knows maybe I'd be an olympian!

rpistor

2013-12-23 11:07 PM

in reply to: AdventureBear

Veteran

177

Berlin, Germany

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Wait .......

a "scientific study" with 99 runners over a 12- week period (without a reference group) ???
Hmm ... sounds like BS to me ...... or somebody who wanted to read his name on the Interwebs ....

How about the scientific study, that eating 1 lbs chocolate before running reduces risk of rain fall?

ImSore

2013-12-24 8:04 AM

in reply to: gsmacleod

1053

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

In my opinion, there are too many variables involved for this study to be of any value, except perhaps to examine the methods, come up with a better study, and include more participants.

A few (and really just a few) of the issues that would need to be addressed,

First and foremost, if they all entered the same 12 week training program, how was this a change from their current program?

How were they running up to the study, volume, intensity, etc...?

What about their respective injury history?

What about the form of the runners? Heel strikers would have more difficulty adjusting to a minimalist shoe, and would have a greater likelihood of injury.

(I don't have the actual science to back this up), to my understanding and by intuition, lighter runners do better in minimalist shoes. Was this addressed?

Were all the runs done on a treadmill? Or on asphalt? The surface that runners chose to run on could also impact the study. Suppose some of the runners did much of their running on dirt trails. (This may have been addressed, but I didn't see any reference to it).

I am also curious about the design of the training program. How much intensity was there? Or was it strictly based on distance? This would have a huge impact on how each runner approached the program. Some may "take it easy," to adjust to the new footwear, and other may just pound the pavement and go as hard as usual.

2013-12-24 8:59 AM

in reply to: rpistor

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Well, when it comes to exercise physiology studies, an n value of 103 is pretty high - much more common to see n values under 20.

As to the reference group, there were three groups in the study - traditional, partial minimalist and full minimalist. It certainly could have been valuable to have a fourth group that was left in whatever they were using but I'm sure that subsequent study will refine experimental procedure.

How about the scientific study, that eating 1 lbs chocolate before running reduces risk of rain fall?

While it is always important to remember that correlation does not equal causation, it is not like the authors have concluded that lemon importation has led to a decrease in automobile crashes.

Shane

2013-12-24 9:04 AM

in reply to: ImSore

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

I'm assuming you haven't actually read the study and just the two links? Most of your points are addressed in the actual article.

Overall, while there are issues with the study (and every study will have short comings) to write it off as not having value is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One of the things that has been constantly thrown around by the barefoot proponents is that there isn't research being done into barefoot/minimalist running so of course there is little data to support or refute its benefit.

So while this study is most certainly not the final word on minimalist running, it provides some data and a valuable caution for those who prescribe minimalist running that great care must be exercised as athletes transition as even the gradual build seen in this study appears to be overly aggressive.

Shane

2013-12-24 12:11 PM

in reply to: 0

Seattle

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by gsmacleod

Originally posted by Asalzwed I'll use myself as an example. I am trying to figure out what shoes to wear in a marathon. I've raced in flats in all distances with no issues, but how do I know that is a good decision vs maybe going with a little more protection and possibly preserving the legs a bit?

I think the right answer for this is pretty individualized but, in general, I don't think many amateur runners benefit from flats for the marathon distance. A lighter shoe, like a lightweight trainer is probably a better choice for many and just a trainer for the rest. Personally, when I was running all the time, I found that my lightweight trainers were best when I was running 4:45/km or faster and my flats seemed to be best when I was running 4:00/km or faster. If I wore my lightweight trainers for an easy run, I would finish with more soreness and often some hot spots but for a threshold run, they felt fantastic. Similar with flats, sprint, oly, I pace work were all great and they were okay for threshold work but seemed to take a greater toll than lightweight trainers. Now, this might have been all in my head but that was what worked well for me. Shane

I absolutely agree that is is individualized. But I have a hard time understanding why an amateur wouldn't benefit from a lighter weight shoe, assuming they aren't having any issues with injury.

I just don't understand how to make a good decision about shoes, other than comfort. Well, and of course they have to look cool too

I also feel that the people that seem to know the most about the subject (running shoe companies and running shoe stores) don't exactly give unbiased information.

Finally, in regard to the minimalist conversation, I wonder, why don't we include socks when we talk about "cushioning?" I know it's not everything when it comes to a minimalist shoe, but it's got to be at least part of the equation.

Edited by Asalzwed 2013-12-24 12:11 PM

aliddle9876

2013-12-24 3:34 PM

in reply to: rpistor

Member

169

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by rpistor

Wait .......

a "scientific study" with 99 runners over a 12- week period (without a reference group) ???
Hmm ... sounds like BS to me ...... or somebody who wanted to read his name on the Interwebs ....

How about the scientific study, that eating 1 lbs chocolate before running reduces risk of rain fall?

Since when is a sample set of 99 not enough for a scientific study? It's called a "representative sample set".

Look, take issue with the results of the study if you like but knocking it because it "only" used 99 subjects is ridiculous. Many reputable studies have used a much smaller sample size.

2013-12-24 3:49 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

9167

Stairway to Seven

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by Asalzwed

Originally posted by gsmacleod

Originally posted by Asalzwed I'll use myself as an example. I am trying to figure out what shoes to wear in a marathon. I've raced in flats in all distances with no issues, but how do I know that is a good decision vs maybe going with a little more protection and possibly preserving the legs a bit?

I think the right answer for this is pretty individualized but, in general, I don't think many amateur runners benefit from flats for the marathon distance. A lighter shoe, like a lightweight trainer is probably a better choice for many and just a trainer for the rest. Personally, when I was running all the time, I found that my lightweight trainers were best when I was running 4:45/km or faster and my flats seemed to be best when I was running 4:00/km or faster. If I wore my lightweight trainers for an easy run, I would finish with more soreness and often some hot spots but for a threshold run, they felt fantastic. Similar with flats, sprint, oly, I pace work were all great and they were okay for threshold work but seemed to take a greater toll than lightweight trainers. Now, this might have been all in my head but that was what worked well for me. Shane

I absolutely agree that is is individualized. But I have a hard time understanding why an amateur wouldn't benefit from a lighter weight shoe, assuming they aren't having any issues with injury.

I just don't understand how to make a good decision about shoes, other than comfort. Well, and of course they have to look cool too

I also feel that the people that seem to know the most about the subject (running shoe companies and running shoe stores) don't exactly give unbiased information.

The weight of the shoe isn't necessarily indicative of the type of the support. Naturally more suppoort should mean a heavier shoe, and barefoot is as light as you can get, but other factors like heel support, pronation support, heel to toe drop, etc. contribute to the style of the shoe moresoe tahn teh weight.

Controlling for weight would be a nother good addition to a study protocol (not sure if its been done)

2013-12-24 4:14 PM

in reply to: Asalzwed

Champion

9407

Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Subject: RE: Minimalist versus Traditional Running Shoe Study

Originally posted by Asalzwed

I absolutely agree that is is individualized. But I have a hard time understanding why an amateur wouldn't benefit from a lighter weight shoe, assuming they aren't having any issues with injury.

There are a couple of things that make me feel that way about wearing flats for the marathon distance:

1) very few amateur athletes are well trained for a marathon and combined with going out too hard, the last few miles are not about running but just hanging on.

2) you can watch many athletes form deteriorate through a marathon and unless one is fit enough to maintain good form throughout, I don't think that there will be a positive impact due to lighter shoes.

While it is fairly arbitrary, I would guess that for most the point at which it may be beneficial to consider flats would be if one has a realistic chance of putting up a BQ time or faster.

I just don't understand how to make a good decision about shoes, other than comfort. Well, and of course they have to look cool too

I also feel that the people that seem to know the most about the subject (running shoe companies and running shoe stores) don't exactly give unbiased information.

I think that most performance socks off such a small amount of compression compared to the insole that it doesn't really matter in terms of any added compression although it may make a big difference in terms of comfort as very few shoes are truly comfortable when sockless.

As for making a good selection, I think that for most, comfort should be the primary driver of shoe selection. If it feels comfortable while running and you don't notice any consistent sore spots after running then you're probably in a shoe that works well for you.

Shane