Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcunite | Hacker News Reader

Wear Altra shoes (or something similar) and protect your feet.

Something wrong with Nikes?

There is strong evidence of a need to wear shoes that don't pinch the toes (push them together) nor elevate the heel to much.

There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners) that it doesn't really matter, and you should wear what feels good.

> There's stronger evidence (among serious-ish runners)

There's some science behind it too. Google "Benno Nigg" and "comfort filter".

I'm just one data point, but as a semi-serious runner I tried switching from ordinary Nike running shoes to the cushion-less, toe-heel-preferred style, and found it made no difference. I think all this business about "running shoes are bad for you" is an overblown fad, no different than all the other fitness fads that come and go.

Came here to talk about that and see what people thought about barefoot running: either completely unshod or very minimal padding for protection only and not for landing cushion/support.

For better or worse, barefoot forces you to adopt a different gait. Stride length is reduced and landing is shifted more mid/fore-foot instead of heels. Now, can you do this in padded shoes? Sure. You just don't have much choice when barefooting: you will change your stride. If you view heel striking as a bad habit--maybe causing injury--this will prevent that at least.

Personal experience: old guy, unable to run much distance in regular shoes, and after a long conversion period changing technique, I can run a 5k comfortably without injury. Unshod. I'm trying to get up to a 10k. I do wonder if the technique will back-port to regular shoes or if the shod injuries will return.

As someone who ran collegiately and have multiple friends that were Olympians, national champions, and national record holders (quite humbling really), I would caution people from 'switching' to barefoot running.

It certainly has its place, but I've heard of too many people trying to make a switch to it only to get injured. The biggest arguments behind it are that 'it's a more natural way to run' and that 'a lot of Kenyans and Ethiopians do it and they're the best in the world'.

The truth is, they've been running that way pretty much their entire life. You (most likely) have not. Your feet will not be able to handle the beating that their feet can. I have never met a professional runner that identified as a 'barefoot' runner. A lot of runners will work in some sort of 'barefoot' training, but it's minimal and used to build up stabilizing muscles. When a single run can take you over gravel, onto a sidewalk, and through a trail in the forest, it's next to impossible to run barefoot or even with a 'barefoot' running shoe.

You are certainly free to do as you wish, but barefoot running should most likely be used as a tool at best. If you really want to make a complete transition, you would likely need to approach it with the same rigor and dedication someone would use when training for a marathon.

Yes there's definitely some muscles that need to be built up. Most noticeably for me are the ones on the sides of the foot that control rolling: in a conventional shoe there's a broad heel sole and a ridgid heel cup to give roll support. Without that, your foot wants to roll, even when walking flat. I needed to add some exercises to help supplement, and the ankles are still a little sore. But I'll take sore muscles over tendonitis.

My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.

I have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.

interesting, this is in line with current cycling performance concepts as well. top cyclists are aiming for ~90-105 cadence when climbing atm.

The science says: do what works for you. The biggest problem with so many studies is that, while people seem to believe running is something everyone can do (and do well, since it's the "easiest" of sports), that's not remotely true. People constantly hurt themselves by being terrible runners, and that almost never has a direct connection with their footwear of choice.

I've been running in Skinners for about a year now. I found that they took a bit of getting used to, but I think the necessity of totally changing your stride is a bit overblown. The adjustment is more to do with building up the different muscles you aren't used to using, or at least it was for me.

When I run in normal running shoes now, I feel weighed down and I don't do as well. My times have definitely improved, but I think that's mostly because I've been running more because I enjoy it more.

How do you deal with blisters? I tried barefoot running, made it about 1/10th of a mile, and had to walk back on my heels because my feet were raw and bleeding. I had large blisters for a few days after.

Not an expert, but I think this means your foot is sliding across the ground.

I do not develop blisters nor callouses because the feet are not landing hard and they're not sliding.

A couple of observations then. First, you can't bring your old form and start cold. Be prepared to work up to it by walking and gradually adding running. Second, the new form involves a more bent-knee, hopping, springy aspect. This vid was very helpful for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jio7DK15Q1E

It's funny that we learn how to run in diapers and then spend decades learning again.

Practice. Your feet adapt. I did give it up though, because stepping on rocks was still super painful.

Yes. In fact, after that fad it swung the other way and the Hoka shoes started becoming very popular. I will say that, however, over time I've gradually switched to less supportive shoes as I've become more experienced as a runner. I started with "anti-pronation" shoes and now are running with fairly bare minimal shoes. I think I just like the feeling of lighter shoes.

Thankfully there are scientific data to prove you wrong. You just need to leave your prejudice and bubble behind, and we're talking about running mechanics here not Nike's competitors producing minimalist shoe wear. They you can have doubt about.

Your comment comes across as a little smug. Are you sure the scientific data conclusively proves the GP's comment "wrong"? You didn't link to what you had in mind, but this study seems to reinforce their comment...

https://www.runnersworld.com/running-shoes/study-zero-drop-c...

I would be very interested in seeing those data. If you're going to cite Lieberman, I would say that he is a lot more cautious and nuanced than most articles have make him sound. He doesn't make overly generalized bold claims.

Most of these papers I've come across makes a number of assumption and use various methods that are proxies for what they want to measure. For example, they will force plates to measure the amount of force generated against the ground. But that doesn't necessarily imply more injuries because of the number of different components involved in your feet and legs. In fact, the foot is extraordinarily complex and I think that's part of Lieberman's general idea. I don't think it's prudent to reduce it to a single set of number and say "yep, more injuries" because having shoes on or off and different design of shoes can all affect how your feet and legs respond to that force.

It's not that I necessarily disagree with your statement but as far as I know there is no scientific paper that simply states, "shoes are bad for running" or "minimal shoes are good", etc. Making claims like that are often unhelpful because there isn't one simple answer to running injuries. We have a huge number of supporting muscles and components that are involved in running. Your feet is only one part in that system and even those are complex systems in themselves.

"Don't be snarky."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com