UKC

This is being reported a fair bit in the US..

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4510668

You are now seeing people turn up at half marathons and marathons wearing them and also people reporting much more foot injuries at the end of marathons now.. also people carrying their vibrams..

I do the odd bit of barefoot running, we finish our speed work outs here with 1 mile steady barefoot run on the grass... but I'm not a fan of 5 fingers tbh..

In reply to IainRUK: http://www.sportsonesource.com/news/article_home.asp?Prod=1&section=8&a...

In reply to IainRUK: I suspect it's because peole think they can run their charity 10ks and training on tarmac with no injury.

In reply to higherclimbingwales: I think its that vibrams are nothing special..

All they are is a racing flat.. they just force the runner to start very slow structured progression to running, but in effect if they did the same in a light weight pair of trainers.. I think they'd have less injuries.

In reply to IainRUK: Interesting, I bought some a couple of months ago but haven't really tried running in them yet. I've had a couple of walks and Lund them odd to say the least.

I've read all the blurb about easing yourself in which is why I walk in the ATM. I'm not sure I'll ever swap my runners for them but they do look great with a pair of jeans when going to the pub

Cx

In reply to IainRUK: I've never ran more than 4 miles in mine and if I walk in them even less... it hurts too much on pavements.

I'd been used to walking up to 30/35 miles in Inov8s before I bought them however, plus karate barefooted a couple of times a week, hence had 'strong' feet anyway.

Can't imagine why you would even dream of doing marathon in them and I love mine.

They are natural. Tarmac isn't!

In reply to IainRUK:

It always seemed odd to me, to buy a shoe for barefoot running. As you say, you might as well buy the cheapest racing flat you can find.

Still, it seems to be a bit harsh to sue to manufacturer of the Emperor's new clothes.

In reply to George Ormerod:
what a load of bullshit. People (especially americans...)are so reluctant to take personal responsibility for their actions. I know loads of people who have gone straight from normal runners to running 10k (or more)in 5 fingers and surprise! they get hurt.

I've been wearing mine for almost a year and love them.

In reply to Graham:

Congratulations! you win this weeks prize in the "broad sweeping generalisation involving Americans" category.

In reply to Removed User: Aye.. its also coming from Boston..

Anyway my coach has been cooing on facebook about this.. he said this would happen ages ago.. Vibrams claims just are not backed up by science.. and that's what the court case is about, false claims, not personal responsibility..

Anyway the big barefoot story of the week..

He's missing.. Caballo Blanco has disappeared on a 12 mile training run..

http://www.scsun-news.com/ci_20281254

I must admit I'm sceptical.. isn't long runs for days part of the culture.. is this the ultimate marketing ploy.. him getting sick of the popularity.. or a real issue..

In reply to IainRUK: I've always wondered about this, but I remember when I lived in London I'd sometimes see some people who trained all the time in racing flats because they were light and it felt great. But most of them were injured on and off all the time, and these boys did 90% of their running on Wimbledon common. Now that's not perfect grass (tho' it was in Richmond Park) , but it's really nice to run on, and certainly nothing like tarmac.

I don't see the difference between these and racing flats in practical terms.

Also, you'll see posts from people who've done limited running, and suddenly announce they'll run a marathon, or ultra in these. All well and good, but remember after 20 miles you're pretty kaput and your running style and form is down the toilet. What the heck is meant to happen then. I never used the lightest training shoes I could get for anything over 5km on the road as I reckoned the weight gain was more than offset by the better biomechanics (and with a 64 minute 1/2 I think my biomechanics were ok)

In reply to wbo: 64 min? Who are you?

In reply to wbo: http://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=HM&agegrou...

In reply to wbo: I agree.. racing flats V vibrams.. its nothing new..

In reply to wbo: And you went to boulder, CO.. training camps.. I only know of Yelling who does that now.. most do Kenya..

I saw one guy run 2:38 in a Vibrams.. but when you checked his splits it was basically 1:10 + 1:30.. I forget the specifics.. but his legs were obviously screwed..

Most runners I know have a simple view.. when a pair of 5 fingers beat them.. they'll take them seriously..

In reply to IainRUK:

Slighlty off topic, but I love the fact that McCains (purveyors of high quality oven chips) sponsors athletics

In reply to IainRUK: I see a chap running around the Isle of Dogs (Thames river path)wearing them on my daily lunchtime jog. It seems madness to me, the whole run is on concrete...I wince everytime I see him (although he looks fine)

In reply to IainRUK: The problem isn't really with fivefingers, although I do agree, they're not all that they're cracked up to be and they do make some dubious claims about the benefits of their footwear which should really be attributed to a change in running style rathet than footwear.

If you learned to run in trainers and you swap to vibrams without adjusting your style you will end up injured. The whole point of barefoot running is that having bare feet means it is painful to run with poor style and you must therefore learn a lower impact less painful style. Wearing anything at all on your feet (vibrams or otherwise) lessens this feedback and therefore does not stimulate this adaptation. In some senses, minimalist footwear is the worst of both worlds, it doesn't protect you form the impact of poor form or stimulate you to change it.

The problem (and I have to admit to being part of this) is that switching to minimalist footwear and running 10k is cool. Going genuinely barefoot and starting again by running 1k will just get you weird looks from passers by and get you left out of the running clubs etc.

Its a shame they are not sueing asics and nearly every other shoe company that have for the last 40 years made unfounded promises about injury prevention based on zero scientific evidence, and statistically with no overall reduction in injury amongst runners. Oh and then they could add to that list most podiatrists that have given shoddy professional advice in telling people they need to spend hundreds on custom orthotics just to make sure there feet and bodies will never be strong enough to run naturally and without expensive gimmicks.Thank god runners are starting to wake up and demanding change

In reply to bendurance: I think you'll find runners aren't demanding a change... fat duffers are.. joggers are.. a racing flat has hardly changed in 20 years..

Most of us run 70-100 miles a week in these trainers which are simple asics, mizuno etc trainers..

There's been no awakening.. no change in demands.. from people who run a lot. Top coaches haven't changed what they advise. Physio's haven't. Its just people would rather read fiction than go and speak to a proper coach or good runners.

Its just more marketing.. which you've all fallen for.. its brilliant people moan about the marketing of expensive shoes with unnecessary technology.. and have fallen for the marketing of expensive shoes which mimic barefoot running..

I go through 12 pairs of trainers a year at a mimimum. But run almost 4000 miles a year with few injury issues.

When I get beaten by a guy in five fingers, or I hear of a guy running 80 miles a week in them.. then I'll give them some thought..

lets just make this clear there has been no demand for change from anyone experienced runners. Innov8, Soloman, Merril etc have all brought out minimilist shoes.. which is basically what walshes have been for 40 years anyway.. and on the road its what we've been using for 40 years anyway..

In reply to bendurance:

Disagree.

In reply to IainRUK:
>

Agree.

What you may not have considered is that the majority of the running market (fat duffers included) have not had access to good quality coaching; they have made decisions on what they have been told by 'shoe specialists' traditional running companies and even the likes of runners world. so instead of focusing on improving form and strength to avoid or overcome injury they get persuaded that motion control, orthotics or cushioning is the magic cure.

I dont actually disagree with you about minimalist shows being no different to racing flats or the marketing hype that has taken over the minimalist movement (and didnt make any claims in support of VFFs over racing flats). But in my view the hype is serving a purpose; it's getting runners to think about correct running form and challenge the nonsense that has been pushed on the 'jogging' market for the last 40 years. Perhaps it is going too far the other way and convincing people they can go from the sofa to an ultra marathon simply by donning a pair of VFFs. But at least it now looks like we will end up with a happy medium of sensible advice, combined with sensible use of footwear.

Its also important to remember that the transition from an amateur runner that plods along in a pair of brooks beast wondering why running is so painful, to an experienced runner who wears racing flats and has the strength and form to clock regular high mileage, is often blocked by a repetition of niggling injuries, which may partly be the result of inadequate conditioning but also the result of poor form encouraged by poor footwear.

I started running in my late teens without any sound coaching or advice (but always with the latest trainers) and managed to get to a 3:10 marathon and 34min 10k, but eventually stopped running at the age of 24 due to ongoing ITBS (despite regular hip strengthening and physio, as well as increasing levels of motion control shoe through to orthotics) and failed to make the transition to an 'experienced club-level runner'. However, after starting again 6 years later and initially running barefoot (now in anything that is flat, unstructured and not too much cushioning) I have found a natural running form that allows me to run without any ITBS. This is not a magic cure (and Im sure no different to that which competitive runners have been doing in flats for years); but for me personally it is a revelation and the awareness of the popular minimalist movement (both research and marketing hype) did push me in the right direction.

In reply to bendurance: Well I think bad advice in a shop is a huge issue.. I had one guy in JJB tell me to try another size as they didn't have my shoe in the size I wanted...

Its different in the US strangely. The club scene is minimal here, running shops are the scene. You basically run for a shop, we have a cafe/bar on the side and run from the shop 2-3 times a week. Everyone who works there is a competitive runner or triathlete, and normally a coach, so generally the advice is much stronger than in a UK sports shop. There are good ones now, but there are a lot of shockingly bad sports shops, especially high street sports shops.

In reply to IainRUK: I've never used (or seen in the flesh) the vibrams - far too expensive a gimick for me. Though I do run barefoot and now have some Huaraches.
Maybe the problem is differentiating between RUNNING & RACING, these are two different things. Barefoot is a totally different running style, with shorter steps and different foot fall, being involved in a race may lead back to stretching out and reverting to old gait with heel strike - disaster awaits?

In reply to Moley: There does seem to be a bit of cult element to the barefoot thing at the moment, and it's tempting to see it as just another fad. Mostly however I agree with Bendurance ^^ that it's really good to finally see the dialogue in shoe shops starting to be about how to run, rather than just what to wear. I'm impressed that shops like barefootvivo have started running free coaching sessions and actually taking responsibility for how their products get used.

In terms of the injuries in marathons and suchlike, it reminds me a bit of something I saw a lot when I worked as a boot fitter in an outdoor shop. Soft shoes and boots feel a lot more comfortable when you put them on, and inexperienced hikers fail to differentiate between initial comfort and the demands put on your feet by 10 hours on a rough trail with a 20kg bag on your back. I've spent many an hour talking someone into accepting that they need stiffer soles than they think for their upcoming trek.

When running an endurance race, you are by definition pushing your limits and running further/harder than you would do in a normal training session. I agree that barefoot type shoes or flats are better to train in, strengthen your feet and are better for your knees and hips. The first recommendation I would always make to people with flat feet, pronation, supanation, collapsed arches, whatever, is to walk around in barefeet as much as you can, to strengthen the relevant bones, muscles and tendons. The same logic almost certainly applies to running in flat shoes. Problems are likely to occur when we start pushing the limits in them. Top athletes might well have the condition to run marathons barefoot, or in very low profile shoes, but the rest of us might want to think about some extra support on race day.

In reply to KarimS: "and inexperienced hikers fail to differentiate"

I think that's the main problem. You'd have a job talking me into stiffer soles - I never carry more than 14kg including water and enough food for two weeks but I'm not inexperienced, spend all day on my feet most days, wear Inov8s (except in winter) and used to do martial arts. My feet are pretty strong. It is the inexperienced who listen to advertising or just one mate, and then get injured.

I'll be wearing Inov8s for the W3000s this May, the normal distance 3 times and an out and back once but come the Ultra in June... my Asics will be on my feet. That's just commonsense but sadly, some people and most advertisers seem to be lacking in that department. The Vibrams won't play much of a part.

In reply to mrchewy:

I did the Welsh 3000s in Vibram 5 Fingers last year. They were excellent and I had no problems with them. You do have to consider your foot placements a bit more on stoney ground.

In reply to Shani: I'm more interested in how they'd cope with muddy/boggy ground - if they do follow the contours of your feet, I'm guessing there isn't much in the way of lugs to bite into slippy stuff.

Also, how does the shape work? With most shoes there can be the bulk shape of the foot (length, width, taper ratios etc) that can fit quite a few feet, and the lacing can account for individual feet details. How does it work if individual toes have to be split out and the whole shoe is meant to follow the foot shape closely (to mimic barefoot running) - do you need to have feet very close to a standard shape, or are there dozens of sizing options you have to juggle to find the right one?

In reply to Liam M:

I've done various terrain in them (over Brown Knoll on the Kinder Plateau in horrendous wet and muddy conditions). They were fine. Your feet get wet and so the shoe acts like a wetsuit. I advise some 'gators' made of old wetsuit. Your feet won't stay dry but they get 'wet and warm'.

On descending grassy hills I've found them superior to stiff soles. The effort of walking in them is generally also superior. In fact they only really lose out IMO in snow and on very stoney ground with sharp edges (such as around Carnedd Dafydd IIRC).

Mine are the 'Flow' which is a slightly ruggedised version of the V5F (I've had them years). Grip was fine. Not sure if my feet are standard shape or not but getting a good fit was easy..

In reply to Shani:

Just confirm, are you talking about walking or running. I seem to remember you saying running long distances was unnatural.

In reply to The New NickB:

I walk and sprint in them. And yeah, I think that running steady state for long distances isn't good for health:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-17580252

In reply to Shani: Well that's proved it then eh?

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-12-16/delhi/27935303_1_med...

In reply to Steve John B:

Google-Fu eh? Try googling marathon deaths. A lot of hits for a healthy pursuit.

In reply to The New NickB:

"I sometimes get pain like you describe if I am having a particularly heavy week, I had it this week after racing and doing a hard tempo run on consecutive days."

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=500289&v=1#x6819972

:o

In reply to Shani: Googling is not a healthy pursuit and you know it

In reply to Shani:


Would you expect to see many hits for news reports of people not dying during marathons?

In reply to Anonymous:

Apart from the bodycount of such a 'healthy' pursuit, I certainly wouldn't expect an article like this:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/19091

In reply to Liam M:

I am another fivefingers wearer. Re the fit, the upper is stretchy so will mould around your foot shape - some have laces, some have straps. The biggest group of people who struggle with toe shoes are those with their second toe longer than their big toe. They won't fit unless you conduct surgery on the shoe (or the foot, I guess ).

Some models are slick underneath but there are also trail versions with lugs a bit like mountain bike tyres.

I wear mine 95% of the time for running as I enjoy feeling the ground texture underneath my feet. It is another pleasant sensory thing like the wind in one's hair. I will never win a race or run more than 25 miles a week so I don't particularly care about the implications for elite athletes. But I know of some people who do put in a very high mileage and they offset the cost by changing them less often than conventional shoes. Mine have done 600+ miles running and a lot of casual walking and they still have plenty of life in them as there is no cushioning to break down. In fact I would say they look as hideously ugly now as the day they were bought! (they have green flashes on the toes which remind me of frog feet - not sure what the designers were thinking there)

In reply to Shani:

Ah the school boy error of confusing number and rate; google the assessment of the risk of dying during marathon running for a better picture.

In reply to George Ormerod:

Ah the schoolboy error of ignoring survivorship bias. For a better picture still, google the risk of injury whilst training for/running marathons.

In reply to Shani:

Your point being?

In reply to George Ormerod and Shani:
Could we also factor in the risk of dying and/or injury when following training programmes based on high carb and/or paleo diets? That ought to keep this thread running (pardon the pun) for a few weeks yet.

In reply to Shani:

I did some sprint training the other week and felt like I had been beaten up.

In reply to Shani:

So you mean the 'survivorship' bias of the millions of people running marathons who don't die and make the risk very low...erm, that's called statistics! Try and move beyond the occasional headline grabbing death during the occasional race and look at the true picture.

Did you read to the end of that article you posted on elite runners?

"I'm not sure you can make much from these data," added Maria Rosa Costanzo, MD, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association and medical director of the Edward Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Failure in Naperville, Ill. "We don't have any idea of the outcomes of these patients.""

She also noted that the number of patients in the study was small."

In reply to George Ormerod:

Nope, I mean survivorship of those that make it to the startline compared that those who got injured and/or died trying to get fit for a marathon.

In reply to Anonymous: Happy to oblige.

I see that Tim Noakes (Lore of Running), is now adjusting his position in favour of a more paleo-style diet (www.timeslive.co.za/lifestyle/2012/02/05/sorry-but-carbo-is-really-a-no-no):

The sports physician, affiliated to the University of Cape Town and the Sports Science Institute of South Africa, won worldwide acclaim for his book Lore of Running, described as the "Runner's Bible" and first published in 2003.

Parts of the book, which advocates the benefits of "carbo-loading" and a high-carbohydrate diet, will now be rewritten.

"I used to say 'carbo-load every day, as much as you can'. Yes, this is a turnaround. Absolutely," he said, smiling.

In reply to Shani:

Hmm, A bit off topic, but I bought a copy of LoR in the early 90s methinks.

Steve

In reply to Shani:

I think to a point you're probably right, overdo anything and the result will not be good. What "overdoing" is precisely, depends upon the individual.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/when-exercise-is-too-much-of-a-goo...


..and conversely, spending years sitting on your arse eating pies is a lot more likley to do you some serious damage than marathon training. You just need to look around a hospital ward to see that.

Getting back on subject, I did some running when I was in my twenties about 30 years ago and being skint at the time put in quite a few miles of road running in baseball boots which had no padding and 3mm thick soles. Never had any problems although I probably never went more than 4 miles at a time. I wouldn't dream of doing the same now that I'm in my fifties, I'd be crippled in a week.

In reply to Shani:

The background is that Bergstrom and Hultman and many after them found that low carbohydrate impairs performance.

However, molecular exercise physiologists then discovered that low glycogen binds to and activates the fuel gauge of the body termed AMPK. AMPK regulates many of the adaptations to exercise and thus low glycogen increases the adaptation in theory.

This is why the evolving recommendation is to consider training on lower carbohydrate to drive the adaptations and to compete on high carbohydrate as it limits performance. The trick is not to overinterpret all of this.

In reply to Shani:

Good point, but the numbers of people not doing the marathon, but training, or training for shorter distances, and the massive number of hours of training put in (compared to the tiny snapshot of actual races), mean that if the risk were significant the streets would be littered with dead runners. Or cyclists for that matter.

We've been through this discussion before and there's a study of 11 million runners, showing no significant increase in risk.

I've noticed a few things about these links you post on how bad running is for you: they're based on elites, who put in massive efforts and training loads; they can reach no conclusion whether these changes actually affect mortality; and the sample sizes are small.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/sports/ultrarunner-micah-true-found-dead-...

In reply to Shani:

And in other news, tens of thousands of ulta runners didn't die this week... while lots of fat knackers did.

In reply to Anonymous: Foolish to do too little or too much.

In reply to Shani:

In bad taste obviously, but more importantly is it relevant, before an inquest probably not. Statistically, well meaningless.

In reply to Shani: Did you read the thread..

In reply to Shani:

By definition, surely. But how much is too much?

In reply to Anonymous: $64,000. Different thresholds for all. Much of the damage is incremental and hidden for years.

In reply to Shani: I don't get the beef about this..

I actually think ultra marathons are bad for you.. I get nutritional stress marks in my fingers after hard ultra's, but I think the generally I'm fitter and healthier than 99% of the population.

yes, maybe I run too much, but most run too little, eat poor food, smoke, drink too much.. we all have our vices.. if mine's just to run too much, there are worse ones to have...

But I don't think marathons, if fit, are too much.. 2:30-3:30 hrs of running for most people and it'll take little out of them.

I"m not getting into n = 1 science.. you don't get news reports based on fat guy dieing in the streets..

In reply to IainRUK:

Do the manufacturers claim that they are suitable for marathons?

ISTM that only an imbecile would consider running over 20 miles, usually on tarmac, barefoot or in a barefoot shoe!

In reply to IainRUK:

Isn't jogging anything more than a few miles pretty unnatural anyway?

In reply to Jurgan C:

Not according to some.. we can outrun most animals over long distances.. there's evidence to suggest we evolved to be exceptional long distance running..

Isn't climbing steep rock faces pretty unnatural anyway..

In reply to IainRUK: It doesn't bother me if it's optiamlly good for me or not. I do at 8 or 10k every day because I like it, and it's good enough for my body and mind. I've done a lot more in the past and that's not great for you, but it's the price you pay if you want to go fast.

Tim - yes many people will think these are the ticket for road marathons because they are natural, and efficient apparently, and being freed from the tyranny of shoe manufacturers will stop all those niggly injuries. I'm amazed I'm not bed ridden after 20 years of running in corporate torture machines from Nike and Asics.

In reply to timjones:

Well there was one imbecile who left it too late to pick comfortable trainers before his marathon, and changed his plan a few hours before and ran it barefoot. He broke the world record (Abebe Bikila). But I imagine his feet were a teensy weeny bit tougher than the average bloke's.

In reply to The New NickB: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-05-09/Micah-True-marathoner/...

In reply to Shani: "medical examiners couldn't point to the cause of the heart disease"

In reply to Shani:

Thanks.

Here's a link to the full autopsy report: http://extremelongevity.net/wp-content/uploads/2401-12AutRpt.pdf

From the conclusions, "..The appearance of the heart did not fit the criteria for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy which is usually asymmetric and involves the septum nor that of a dilated cardiomyoptathy. The best determination is that of unclassified cardiomyopathy which resulted in a cardiac dysrhythmia during exertion."

..and if anyone, like me is, wondering what cardiac dysrythmia is..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_dysrhythmia or cardiomyopathy..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiomyopathy

In reply to Shani: http://sweatscience.runnersworld.com/2012/05/did-running-cause-micah-trues-...