When is Minimalism too much?

Lower and lower, sleeker and faster, lighter shoes is what we all want.

In my opinion, transitioning to a minimalist shoe for many may be a step too far.

When transitioning to a minimalist shoe 'form' should be the first consideration. Do you naturally run as a forefoot striker or a heel striker?

If you are a forefoot striker naturally, ie. without forcing it or thinking about it when you slip off your shoes and run, do you land on the front, outside of your foot as per the diagram below?

If this is you, then it should be no bother to you to effect a transition process to a minimal shoe. Depending on where you are starting from we would expect to see this transition period having different durations for each individual.

If, on the other hand, you are more of a midfoot striker or heel striker you have a lot more work to do to achieve a smooth, injury free transition to minimalist shoes.

Transitioning from this position is a much more gradual change as you are having to work on changing your natural form, re-mapping neuromuscular pathways and developing core strength to help stabilise the pelvic area which will become more active during the transitional phases.

Speak to us about this as invariably you will be best advised to rotate between your traditional shoe and minimal shoes more frequently to prevent tweaking connective tissues or causing injury.
 
With many shoe manufacturer's introducing lower ramp shoes ie. changing from the traditional 12mm to 10 / 8 / 6 mm differentials in their core shoes you need to be careful of changes like this occuring in your favourite shoes year on year. It can be a source of injury if you are not prepared, expecting or aware of the change. 

For most people you can handle 12 - 10 or 8 - 6 but a change from 12 to 8mm may be a step too far and result in niggling calf, achilles or foot pain as tendons and muscles are strained beuond their usual points. This is why we always recommend that you call into your nearest Amphibian King store to double check the fit and profile each year.

The series of images below graphically represent and explain the differences in the loading of the feet during the landing phase and the effect on capturing and releasing kinetic energy on the propulsive phase.

Running Kinematics
	Heel Striking	Forefoot Striking
Moment of Impact
	Hip and knee are flexed.
	Ankle is dorsiflexed (toes point up).	Ankle is plantarflexed (toes point slightly down). Foot is usually slightly inverted (the sole is angled inwards).
	Land on the middle to outside of the heel just below the ankle joint.	Land on outside of the forefoot (the ball of the foot, just below the 4th and 5th metatarsal heads).
	As you land, the ankle begins to plantarflex (toes move towards the ground).	As you land, the ankle begins to dorsiflex (heel moves towards the groud).
	Arch of the foot is not loaded.	Arch of the foot is loaded and begins to stretch/flatten.
Impact  Foot Flat	↓	↓
	Knee and hip flex.
	As the ankle plantarflexes, the forefoot comes down.	As the ankle dorsiflexes, the heel comes down under the control of the calf muscles and Achilles tendon, which are stretching.
Foot Flat Midstance	↓	↓
	Knee and hip continue to flex.
	The ankle dorsiflexes as the lower leg moves forward relative to the foot and the foot everts (rolls inward).
	Now that the whole foot is on the ground, the arch begins to stretch/flatten.	The arch continues to stretch/flatten.
	This combination of eversion, ankle dorsiflexion and arch flattening is called pronation.	This combination of eversion, ankle dorsiflexion and arch flattening is called pronation, but occurs in the reverse direction compared to heel striking (from the forefoot to the rearfoot not heel to toe).
Midstance Toe Off	↓	↓
	Ankle plantarflexes bringing the heel off the ground (calf muscles and Achilles tendon now shorten).
	Foot’s arch recoils, and the toes flex.
	These actions push the body upwards and forwards for the next stride.

Images and table layout from http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html

In transitioning, a natural heel lander has to overcome the tendency to load the arch in a forward motion. As I've mentioned in previous articles the best way to naturally change your landing pattern is through a mixture of your 'normal' running and some focused efforts at re-teaching your body what natural (forefoot) running form is all about.

Any questions please fire them at me!

Happy running :)

Are we supposed to barefoot run? (A tongue in cheek look at evolution)

This old chestnut keeps popping up, again and again and again. I've also written about minimalism and barefooting before.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="280"] English: barefoot running (Photo credit: Wikipedia)[/caption]

 

 

It generally starts as a discussion about barefoot running, usually by a newly converted barefooter who reckons it's the best thing since bread became sliced and very quickly degenerates into a willy measuring exercise between pedants who insist on discussing the relative density and hardness of concrete and dusty, pre-civilisation, pre-societal concrete.

 

Here's a recent example: Your expensive running shoes could be destroying your knees, ankles and hips.

 

Now I don't know about you but as far as I understand evolution and progress are usually determined by the axiom 'survival of the fittest'.

 

So, based on current trends and my anthropological time machine I have a theory.

 

Way back when, if we are to believe what we are told, we were fruit and vegetable eaters, eating all round us and then moving on to new pastures in search of new food sources like  grazing animals. The current trend of Paleo diet would indicate that this how we developed as a species; eating fruit, nuts, vegetables and seeds in their raw state (in so far as possible).

 

Then, through a pioneering trendsetter someone picked up a wooden stick and developed a taste for animal protein. (Could you call it a 'club sandwich' ? )

 

This influx of animal protein led to development of better brain function as we evolved, leading to the development of tools for cooking , cleaning etc. Oh, and fire was created or at least the means to maintain it and the knowledge to transport fire from one location to another, allowing us to cook food.

 

Now as these early men (& women) clubbed and collected food all around them the faster animals and possibly tastier always eluded their reach. No matter how sneaky we were we couldn't catch these sources of meat. They'd smell us or hear us in the woods and grass trying to creep up until they were in range. All to no avail.

 

What did we do next?

 

We started running.

 

(This has taken generations to get to this point in the story, time machine, remember?!)

 

We soon discovered that we could run. Now we couldn't run as fast as the animal we wanted to eat and after a while we realised this. With our brain developing we started thinking and working together as a team with the result being that we got cute and realised we could run longer and further and steadier than the dinner. We didn't know it at the time but our bodies liked this idea and started to develop mechanisms that encouraged us to run. We got taller, straighter and lighter; we became land running hunters.

 

All of the reading we do, all of the fora we engage in everything is geared to us understanding that this is the reason we are born to run. We evolved.

 

I don't disagree.

 

However.

 

I think the first hominoid man who fashioned a pair of foot covers from some animal hide to protect his feet from the dusty, gritty, thorny surface and that offered him some grip on the rocky terrain gained an evolutionary advantage over the barefoot guys.

 

Apart from the obvious fact that we still cover our feet, providing unassailable evidence of the historical benefit of footwear, that 'barefooting' died out and needed to be rediscovered comes down to the simple truth that the guy with the footwear had the competitive edge over the other guy in the chase to get the good looking girls.

 

Survival of the fittest! ;)

 

Run Smooth

Which of these runners 'runs right'?

I know its a cliche, but lately I've been thinking and its worrying.

Every day that we use video playback in +Amphibian King Galway to provide a medium for helping people choose the running footwear best suited for them. The most common question is 'do I run right?'



Now how do you answer this?

Like footwear there are so many factors that are involved, and how do you decide what is 'running right'?

There's the school of thought, run barefoot, it will fix you and make you a better runner. I agree, yes and no.There are people who have fantastic barefoot running form, yet as soon as you put them in shoes they forget all of that and run stupid. 

By 'run stupid' I mean, they switch their brain off, they run and allow the shoe to insulate their foot and deaden all the nice feedback and kill off decent form. So yes, barefoot running is good for them. 

Then there's the majority of us who don't run sweetly, bit of a stomper and untidy barefoot form, in the main shoes are good for them, but also a bit of barefoot or minimal work to help remap muscles and improve form.

I've a couple of previous posts on this area of discussion: What's in a name?

The bit that worrys me and an area I would do research into if I had a these to do for college is what defines 'running right' ?

The common perception is that you should land on your mid to fore foot, allow the heel to drop, charging the calf muscles with that impact force, the muscles turn this impact force into elastic potential energy which as you body weight moves over the centre of gravity becomes kinetic energy levering you just as your foot locks into a rigid structure propelling you forwards.

All this to be done at 90 strides per minute.

The problem I have with this is there is no variability taken into account for height, weight, fitness, mechanical deficiences or anything that marks us out as individual.

In fact it reminds me of the 'one style fits all' coaching that we used to get swimming Total Immersion. 

I think running form should be considered more along the lines of Swim Smooth where rough categories are defined based on common characteristics in swimming style and instead of saying 'this is the way all of you must swim' they look at the individual characteristics of the styles and work with those.

What I mean is there is no point taking a 5 minute mile runner whose running form makes them look like they've been shot or something, doing loads of coaching to make them this graceful forefoot striker with perfect poise and balance who clocks 5:10 miles.

Is there?

Ideally you would look at this individual and work a couple of form tweaks to help them become more efficient so they can run 5 minute miles for longer or to help clock a 4:55 mile. 

Its not about making a beautiful runner out of someone, its about running beautifully and efficiently within your body's capabilities and recognising the difference. 

P.S. the 'ugly' runner on the right is Priscah Jeptoo who won +Virgin London Marathon today in 2:20:13 

Run Smooth

Which of these runners 'runs right'?

I know its a cliche, but lately I've been thinking and its worrying.

Every day that we use video playback in +Amphibian King Galway to provide a medium for helping people choose the running footwear best suited for them. The most common question is 'do I run right?'