Last Place Jason wrote:2.
Last Place Jason said:
2. MINIMAL RUNNING SHOES are shoes:
...
c) which do not support or impede the movement or flexibility of the foot in any way. This is tricky. The newest minimalist shoes are tighter on some parts of the foot to improve the overall function of the shoe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: a noob here but from what I've been able to find so far:
On Jason's point above, I found that all current minimal shoes that I have tried have what I consider to be a significant flaw. These include the traditional plimsoll (from before the cushiony clunker era), the TP Evo II and the new Merrell Trail Glove etc.. The problem for me is extremely easy to demonstrate. I may only have ~3 month BF running of late but I have 46 years very occasional BF walking in simple situations (like most of us really - padding about the house etc.). If it affects something walking then it will running too.
Different people land their feet in various ways when walking but for me:
I always land without even thinking about it on my pads when walking BF on a hard flat surface. Simple socks do not affect this. If I put any kind of shoe that I've tried so far then it does something affecting form that (usually does something like) make my heel clip the ground and we get the familiar slap. Repeat this slap over hours of walking and that's bad enough but just think of the energy you're wasting overcoming that flaw to run properly. For non running shoes I can add, for example, the TP Aqua's to this category (although, strangely, they are less slappy if you use really thick socks but then of course you start to take away ground feel & they may make your feet too hot).
If you are going to have a "barefoot" shoe then I would like to see a category that passes this simple test. The "barefoot" shoe should not alter the landing mechanics at all, the foot aspect, tendon and bone geometry should stay the same as you walk. If it does not affect these things then there's a chance it will allow you to get as close to "barefoot" when running as barefoot.
If a shoe affects my walking then I find the effect is amplified if I compare BF running to using that particular shoe. It just feels wrong, I have to try & compensate for what the shoe is doing to overcome its flaws. I don't want that.
I'm guessing that LP Jason is referring to shoes like the new Merrell Trail Glove above. As a noob to BF running I still have to take great care with my form and so I mostly don't bother with shoes on my runs. I wanted a shoe for a back up. Obviously you want to test out your back up. It took me 3 attempts to get the Trail Glove shoes to feel like they are heading in the right direction (form wise). I feel that I have to force my form on it because it is affecting my form otherwise. I consider this to be an issue. The Trail Gloves are perhaps great for LP Jason as a fantastically experienced runner but I felt these things would just lead me into trouble particularly if I use them as a back up when tired & at risk of duff form anyway.
BTW; LP Jason & everyone, thanks for all the fab' information you have put out there. Wonderful stuff. :grade:
Hope I'm not getting too big for my (BF) boots diving in here. :smile:
I am curious to see how huaraches affect me in "the test". I will try them at some point, soon I hope.
I think I know the what the "significant flaw" is caused by with the shoes I've tried but I need to do a bit of physics to test my theory out before I make a complete fool of myself telling you! I expect some shoe companies already know the problem too. Failing finding a problem myself, there will still be a problem of course. "Barefoot" shoes can be designed to do the job we all want to see done, I'm guessing that there must be some resulting aesthetic issue that the marketing people will try to veto.