making the switch to minimalist shoes

[stitchfan18]

I've heard a lot of people talk about shoes that help you run more naturally. I understand the concept, and it makes sense to me, but I'm having problems dropping money on a pair of minimalist/ natural running shoes since I don't have problems with my current shoes. Confession time: I've never been fitted for an actual pair of running shoes before. I bought my first pair of Mizunos at DSW, and never had problems with them. I've stuck with the same brand and style and keep reordering the shoe through running warehouse when I max out the miles. I don't know what I do when I run, are there certain types of runners who do better with minimalist shoes? I am considering shopping around at the RNR USA expo in a couple weeks, but know that I'll get a biased opinion about the shoes in whatever booth I walk into. I'd love any info or feedback about these shoes before I start really looking around. Are they really worth the money? Are there any brands that have really great deals at expos vs. online or in a local running store?

 

[joan4mickey]

My philosophy is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I have never been fitted either. I started running in Jan. '08 and have had ITBS in 2009 after my first Princess. Went to doctor, did therapy and it is fine. My left foot has been bothering my since after the Princess 2011, but I stretch it, take aleve after a run and night before a run and only run three times a week. (ok, this week I broke the rule and ran 4...the Princess and three 10k this week).

I read a book Born to Run and it talks about these great runner and about running and shoes and how our bodies work.

Having said all that...if what you are doing is working, I would not change. Just my opinion.

I'm wearing New Balance 1190 right now and have been since Aug. 11 when I started training for my first full and dog gone, running warehouse is out of my size right now. I was wearing Nike structure triax before that.

 

[EddieMccoy2]

I would be very careful on making a switch lke that. It is one that you really have to ease into. There are now so many options and I don't think I would ever consider running long distances in those shoes. I started out running in Asics THT I found in Sports Authority. Everything felt good and I ran my first half in them. I decided to go get fitted at a running store and it was the best thing I ever did. I got fitted for the Brooks Ravina's and it was so much a better shoe for my running style. I immediately improved on my 5K times and me feet felt great and light through all my distance races. The biggest thing in getting fit is to find out if you need neutral shoes or supportive shoes based on your pressure points on your feet and the amount of roll you have on your ankles when you run. I was n a supportive shoe and switched to neutral and it made a huge difference to me. As with the minimalist movement, I would get fitted for the right minimalist shoe if you are serious about it. Just about every major running shoe brand has one. Five fingers still seem to be the most popular. I run in a pair of Kahru shoes for short distance races that are close to minimalist that I won in a 5K and there is no way in the world that I would run longer than 5 miles in them. They are faster and lighter, but my feet take a pounding.

 

[stitchfan18]

My philosophy is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I have never been fitted either. I started running in Jan. '08 and have had ITBS in 2009 after my first Princess. Went to doctor, did therapy and it is fine. My left foot has been bothering my since after the Princess 2011, but I stretch it, take aleve after a run and night before a run and only run three times a week. (ok, this week I broke the rule and ran 4...the Princess and three 10k this week).

I read a book Born to Run and it talks about these great runner and about running and shoes and how our bodies work.

Having said all that...if what you are doing is working, I would not change. Just my opinion.

I'm wearing New Balance 1190 right now and have been since Aug. 11 when I started training for my first full and dog gone, running warehouse is out of my size right now. I was wearing Nike structure triax before that.

I have the same philosophy about not fixing something that isn't broken, that's why I'm hesitant to make a switch or start trying out these shoes. I'm feeling the peer pressure from all my running friends who seems to be switching over. I am admittedly the person in the bunch who hasn't suffered from any injury beyond a minor case of ITBS before my first 1/2. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards not switching. Thanks for the input, I needed to hear that this minimalist thing isn't the best for everyone!

I would be very careful on making a switch lke that. It is one that you really have to ease into. There are now so many options and I don't think I would ever consider running long distances in those shoes. I started out running in Asics THT I found in Sports Authority. Everything felt good and I ran my first half in them. I decided to go get fitted at a running store and it was the best thing I ever did. I got fitted for the Brooks Ravina's and it was so much a better shoe for my running style. I immediately improved on my 5K times and me feet felt great and light through all my distance races. The biggest thing in getting fit is to find out if you need neutral shoes or supportive shoes based on your pressure points on your feet and the amount of roll you have on your ankles when you run. I was n a supportive shoe and switched to neutral and it made a huge difference to me. As with the minimalist movement, I would get fitted for the right minimalist shoe if you are serious about it. Just about every major running shoe brand has one. Five fingers still seem to be the most popular. I run in a pair of Kahru shoes for short distance races that are close to minimalist that I won in a 5K and there is no way in the world that I would run longer than 5 miles in them. They are faster and lighter, but my feet take a pounding.

Thanks for the input on shoe fittings. I never thought about anything you mentioned being important reasons for a fitting. I just assumed if I wasn't hurting after a run, the shoe must be fine. I'll have to save the coupons my running store is always putting in race packets and head over there next time my shoes are short on miles. Hopefully they won't tell me that mizuno's aren't the best fit for me, I've become a huge fan of mine!

 

[SAHDad]

Well, I got my first pair of Vibrams back in August of 2010 or so, and loved them. So much, in fact, that I tried to run in them all the time. And, as a daily runner, that meant every day. This is, as they tried to tell me, a Bad Idea. And yes, I got hurt - very sore at first (my calves felt like they had been repeatedly kicked for days), and then a couple of other issues.

So, I backed off, and started training in them the smart way. I went back to my old shoes, and ran a short run in the Vibrams once or twice a week, going extra slow and keeping the run short.

I switched over to Vibrams full-time about August of 2011 - so yes, it was a full year to transition. (I think I tried running in my old shoes once in October, and they hurt, because my running style had changed.) I am training for a marathon in them, in a couple of months.

BUT - if your current shoes work fine for you, there really is no need to switch. If you do decide to switch, I cannot recommend enough going to a store which stocks the shoe(s) you are interested in, and trying them on in person. I measured my foot for my Vibrams, and managed to chose the correct size (although, when I ordered my replacement pairs, my feet appear to have grown - spread out, more like, and so the new ones were a little tight), but I could easily have been wrong.
__________________

 

[Rose&Mike]

Hi Heather!

I had some conversations with my physical therapist about switching to minimalist shoes last fall when my foot was so messed up and I was just about starting over from scratch. The reason--I kept reading all these articles about people with injuries who were "cured" when they stopped wearing traditional shoes. (Of course they were all starting over from scratch as well and easing into their new way of running.)

Anyhow, the conclusion I came to---you have to be extremely disciplined (in my opinion) to run in minimalist shoes. You have to set and stick to a training routine. If you are having a bad day/bad run etc you have to be willing to end a run. There is not a lot of forgiveness if your form is bad and you start heal striking cause you went out too fast and you are tired.

This is all just my opinion on it. And I have thought long and hard about this--while on the bike and in the pool rehabbing. And I have decided I am sticking with shoes. They may not be perfect, but I just feel like my feet/knees/ankles/hips need the support/cushion.

I would probably agree with everyone--if it isn't broken, why fix it. At the end of the day you have to do what works for you.

***And on the shoe fitting. It might even be worth shopping a couple of running stores to get a couple of different opinions/thoughts. I think sometimes shoe fitting is as much an art as a science.

 

[dragitoff]

It was dumb luck that caused me to run in minimalist shoes. I wanted something lighter weight than the clunky New Balance Cross Trainers I started running in. I bought a pair of Saucony Kinvaras since my local Hibbet Sports (one of the only "sporting goods" stores in my hometown) had them. They felt good and were definiitely light.

At the time, I didn't understand the difference between minimalist and traditional shoes. Heck, I didn't even understand pronations and arch types. I loved the shoes and put alot of miles on them. When it came time to replace them, I knew now the difference between different types of shoes.

I first bought a pair of Skechers Go Run which I liked, but they aggravated an achilles injury I suffered during my last race in my Kinvaras. About a month after getting those, I bought a pair of Brooks Pure Connects for shorter runs (less than 6 miles) and a pair of Newton Gravity for longer runs.

I've alternated between the two for the past 3 months and haven't had any issues. I'm a heavier runner (about 205-210lbs) so if you do it smart, you can run in minimalist shoes and make that transition. Like other posters said though, find a good store and study a plan to make that transition.

 

[APrunner]

I agree with the "if it ain't broke..."

However, I love having different shoes and rotating. You could get something more minimal and rotate some if you like. I am kind of ridiculous here, I have about 5 different pair of Mizunos that I rotate through, depending on what I feel like. This number will drop as some of these shoes wear out (I am not going to replace all of them). I even run barefoot from time to time. The Elixir is my "go to" shoe though, especially for long runs.

Minimal is all relative. The Kinvara, while having a low heel to toe drop, still has plenty of cushion in the heel. If you heel strike, this shoe is not going to change you. In fact, this is the case for almost any shoe. Vibrams are an exception, but I do not consider them shoes.

 

[RunRookie]

I took a chance when I ordered my Altra Running "Instincts". I had been doing a lot of reading on natural running and discused minimalist shoes with my trainer. She suggested going very slow with them if I were to try it out. Her main concern was not getting injured by moving too quickly to a zero drop shoe (no way am I running barefoot).

When I heard and read about the Altra Running folks, I thought that shoe might be good for me. I am a heavy runner (239lbs) and while I run in neutral shoes, I do like a bit of cushioning. So these shoes have some cushioning (not as much as my Saucony Pro Ride 4s) and a wide toebox which is important to me the way my feet are.

So I bought a pair to try them out. I have been slowly running with them and have been very pleased with the results. I have actually not run outside in them yet (due to the weather) so all my runs wearing them have been on the TM. My longest run so far in them has been 4+ miles. My feet feel really good in them. I think that because I am already a midfoot striker, and that I walk barefooted when home, perhaps has made it easier.

I am working them more and more into my run schedule. I hope to get to a point where I can do a Long Run in them to see how that feels. Next month, I am taking a 5-session workshop with a run coach who is certified in Natural Running Form where they will do a before-and-after videotaped gait analysis, go on 5 coach-supervised maintenance runs, and really focus on running form using minimalist shoes. I am looking forward to that!

I would agree with the other posters though, and say go to a running store and have them fit you. I think I was a bit lucky that the shoes I bought fit perfectly for me. And definitely take it slow on the transition to them.

 

[Dug720]

All of my fittings have been in a running store. I was first put in Asics GT-2150s and they did fine, but then the GT-2160s came out and just enough had changed I couldn't wear them without rubbing a tendon on the front inside of my ankle. So after the 2011 WDW Half I got fitted again and went to Brooks Adrenalines. I loved those, and was going to get more at a different local running store that happened to be having a sale. I tried on several pair (confirming that I can never be a Nike girl as those simply do NOT work for me), and the guy decided to watch me more closely. He determined that I wasn't needing AS much support as the Adrenalines provide and put me in Brooks Ravennas. (It's not necessarily the fault of the first store...I was a beginner runner and could have improved my form since starting.) Then I went to the Brooks Cavalcade of Running set-up and had them check me just out of curiosity. While the guy there said that yes, the Ravennas were fine, he said I could even try the Defyance, which is the Adrenaline minus the support bar. So I currently rotate the Ravennas and Defyances.

That said, I am contemplating getting (or at least trying in a store) a pair of Newtons. Pretty much everyone I know who runs in them loves them. And looking at the wear pattern on my shoes now I do seem to be a midfoot striker, so they may work really well. They're not totally minimalist, but they're more minimal than what I'm in now.

 

[dragitoff]

All of my fittings have been in a running store. I was first put in Asics GT-2150s and they did fine, but then the GT-2160s came out and just enough had changed I couldn't wear them without rubbing a tendon on the front inside of my ankle. So after the 2011 WDW Half I got fitted again and went to Brooks Adrenalines. I loved those, and was going to get more at a different local running store that happened to be having a sale. I tried on several pair (confirming that I can never be a Nike girl as those simply do NOT work for me), and the guy decided to watch me more closely. He determined that I wasn't needing AS much support as the Adrenalines provide and put me in Brooks Ravennas. (It's not necessarily the fault of the first store...I was a beginner runner and could have improved my form since starting.) Then I went to the Brooks Cavalcade of Running set-up and had them check me just out of curiosity. While the guy there said that yes, the Ravennas were fine, he said I could even try the Defyance, which is the Adrenaline minus the support bar. So I currently rotate the Ravennas and Defyances.

That said, I am contemplating getting (or at least trying in a store) a pair of Newtons. Pretty much everyone I know who runs in them loves them. And looking at the wear pattern on my shoes now I do seem to be a midfoot striker, so they may work really well. They're not totally minimalist, but they're more minimal than what I'm in now.

Amen! I can't wear anything that Nike makes for running. I've tried so many different ones, but as someone who alternates between Brooks Pure Connects and Newton Gravity, I can say I love both shoes! I really like the feels of the Brooks and the Newtons. They're both very unique and different from each other, but I enjoy them both for their respective uses.

 

[Dug720]

Amen! I can't wear anything that Nike makes for running. I've tried so many different ones, but as someone who alternates between Brooks Pure Connects and Newton Gravity, I can say I love both shoes! I really like the feels of the Brooks and the Newtons. They're both very unique and different from each other, but I enjoy them both for their respective uses.

For me, Nike shoes always feel like there's a big bubble under the ball of my feet. An example of not necessarily going with the shoes I think are cute (there was one pair I loved and wanted so badly to have work) in favor of ones that actually fit me and feel good!

It's good to hear from someone who uses Brooks and Newtons!

 

[dcr]

I get a kick out of those who suggest that running "minimal" (whatever the heck that means) or barefoot is somehow better, more spiritual, purer, or whatever higher concept that they want to attach.

I guess women shouldn't wear a high tech sports bra, because our ancestors didn't use them. Better run naked, because we weren't born with clothes. Pardon my hyperbole, but there is no real reason to go without the tools that have been developed to help us run in our current environment. Ancient people had to adapt to a way of running that did not include space age shoes. Did that make them more efficient, faster, or somehow better? I don't think so.

The better technical shoe companies spend a ton of money to make us go farther, faster, and with less chance of injury. Some people call that an advancement. Others call that a step backwards. Ultimately, you have to be the judge. If you want to wear the latest $300 pair of shoes that makes you get out there and run your best - you are doing yourself a great service! If feel that strapping banana leaves to your feet with hemp cord is what it takes to get you out there and running - good on you! Please, make careful and well informed choices in everything that you do with your running. But first and foremost - make the choice to run!

Derek

 

[EddieMccoy2]

I'm intrigued with Newton's. The sticker price scares me, because it doesn't take long for me to put a lot of mileage on my shoes if I really like them. I currently rotate between two Brooks Ravinas & for short distance runs / races, Karhu Flow Rides. People do swear by Newton's, so maybe I'll give them a shot one day.

 

[RunRookie]

I get a kick out of those who suggest that running "minimal" (whatever the heck that means) or barefoot is somehow better, more spiritual, purer, or whatever higher concept that they want to attach.

LOL! Yeah, I am not a 'shoe or form zealot' by any means. I am just curious about the way these shoes impact my running form and whether that impact is positive, negative, or neutral. I am a techie, geek, gadget man for sure, so I will be the last one to jump on the 'back to our ancestral roots' band wagon.

I think the real thing here is running form, and what feels right and makes your running the most efficient with the least amount of energy. Shoes, clothes, and all the rest are just tools to help reach the optimum 'form' that works for each of us individually.

 

[dcr]

.I think the real thing here is running form, and what feels right and makes your running the most efficient with the least amount of energy. Shoes, clothes, and all the rest are just tools to help reach the optimum 'form' that works for each of us individually.

There is no question that running barefoot is the least efficient way to run, and uses more energy than running in a good pair of fairly light shoes. Even Kenyans run faster when they wear shoes! Form is always something to strive to improve, no matter what you wear.

 

[SAHDad]

There is no question that running barefoot is the least efficient way to run, and uses more energy than running in a good pair of fairly light shoes. Even Kenyans run faster when they wear shoes! Form is always something to strive to improve, no matter what you wear.

I think the jury is still out on barefoot being the least efficient. As far as I know, there has not yet been a meta-study on the rates of injuries between barefoot/minimalist and the more traditional running shoes.

That said - I think the reason that the Kenyans (and almost everyone else) is faster with racing flats instead of barefoot or something like Vibrams is because the racing flats are how they have trained for their entire life. It is quite possible that, right now, there is some kid who is training either barefoot or in minimalist shoes, who will do very well in the 2020 or 2024 Olympics - but I agree, you probably will not see barefoot runners in the top 10 at any major race for at least another 6-8 years.

Do I like mine? Sure*. Are they for everyone? Not really, no. And there is one heck of a learning curve associated with them. But, ultimately, every runner is an experiment of one. If you can get your best results running in Mizunos, use those. If your fastest times come in bare feet, or in Army boots, use those! Figure out what works for you, and then don't change it unless it no longer works.


* With a couple caveats. Stepping into an icy puddle or on a lone rock or acorn gets me to rethink the whole thing, at least for a couple of steps.

 

[dcr]

I think the jury is still out on barefoot being the least efficient. As far as I know, there has not yet been a meta-study on the rates of injuries between barefoot/minimalist and the more traditional running shoes.

You only have to look as far as the data from major racing shoe companies to see that shoes do give you an advantage. The mechanical aspect alone is overwhelming, for both sprinting and distance running. And don't me me the conspiracy theories about the shoe companies having a vested interest in keeping us in cushioning. They want to make shoes that sell. And nothing sells running shoes like fast runners in their shoes!

As to injuries, the potential for protection against injury leans heavily towards well designed shoes. The injury advantage that barefoot running gives against injuries is that very few people are going to be putting a ton of miles on their skins every week. Fewer miles should mean fewer injuries.

It is quite possible that, right now, there is some kid who is training either barefoot or in minimalist shoes, who will do very well in the 2020 or 2024 Olympics - but I agree, you probably will not see barefoot runners in the top 10 at any major race for at least another 6-8 years.

Since it is a fad that cycles through every 10 years or so, you might see a lone winner here, or there, but my money is on it slipping away, only to be revived once again in a decade or so. On the other hand, every year people bowl 300 games with plastic balls, hit a hole-in-one with steel shafted clubs, and score a blue line slap shot with a wood hockey stick. Almost anything is possible. The most important thing is, does it make you want to run? If it does, then do what it takes to makes your feet move!

 

[SAHDad]

You only have to look as far as the data from major racing shoe companies to see that shoes do give you an advantage. The mechanical aspect alone is overwhelming, for both sprinting and distance running. And don't me me the conspiracy theories about the shoe companies having a vested interest in keeping us in cushioning. They want to make shoes that sell. And nothing sells running shoes like fast runners in their shoes!

Oh, I think the conspiracy theory is a load of bunk. Shoes companies exist to sell shoes, and while I think that fast runners sell shoes, so do comfortable shoes. And, I must confess, some of those heavily cushioned shoes (Hoka, I'm looking at you here!) feel really nice. They're just not my cup of tea when it comes to running.

And yeah, I should have noted that I don't think you will see a barefoot runner do well on a track at any distance under a mile. Heck, any race where you wear spikes is going to put a traditional shoe at a huge advantage - you need the cushioning if you are wearing spikes. (I don't know for certain, but I imagine that a Vibrams or similar with spikes would be like trying to run on concrete with traditional spikes. )

As to injuries, the potential for protection against injury leans heavily towards well designed shoes. The injury advantage that barefoot running gives against injuries is that very few people are going to be putting a ton of miles on their skins every week. Fewer miles should mean fewer injuries.

You can put 30-40 miles a week in minimalist shoes pretty easily. (That's what I hover at, more or less.) Not sure I would do it barefoot though - I've run barefoot outside, but not much, and barefoot on a treadmill is akin to rubbing sandpaper across your soles.

I could theorize that most (but not all) who switch to minimalist shoes are going to pay a lot of attention to their body, and back off when there is pain. Again, personally waiting for a good, long-term metastudy on injury rates - also aware that there are exceptions to every rule.

Since it is a fad that cycles through every 10 years or so, you might see a lone winner here, or there, but my money is on it slipping away, only to be revived once again in a decade or so. On the other hand, every year people bowl 300 games with plastic balls, hit a hole-in-one with steel shafted clubs, and score a blue line slap shot with a wood hockey stick. Almost anything is possible. The most important thing is, does it make you want to run? If it does, then do what it takes to makes your feet move!

Not entirely convinced with the faddishness arguement, but I heartily agree with the part that I bolded. Whatever works for you (and every other runner), do that!

 

[dragitoff]

I'm intrigued with Newton's. The sticker price scares me, because it doesn't take long for me to put a lot of mileage on my shoes if I really like them. I currently rotate between two Brooks Ravinas & for short distance runs / races, Karhu Flow Rides. People do swear by Newton's, so maybe I'll give them a shot one day.

Newton states that you can get double the mileage out of their shoes that you do normal running shoes. They claim up to 700-800 miles out of a pair of Gravity (which is what I have). I've only put about 100 miles on mine so far and they haven't shown ANY wear yet.