A growing distaste for minimalist and barefoot runners
Edward Edmonds
practicality can sometimes be on opposite sides of the spectrum,
people seem to have a hard time finding balance these days.
This distaste has been growing for a number of months, sure I wear
flats to train in and I run around now and again with no shoes on, but
I always hesitate to call myself a minimalist and/or barefoot runner
(I usually prefer to just say I train in flats), I don't know exactly
what it is, but people who I've met or seen on the Internet who say
I'm a minimalist runner or barefoot runner, there seems to be a tinge
of elitist assholishness to them (kinda like the douches bags that
play golf), almost as if their "status" separates them from the rest
of the recreational runners out there.
This is not to say that all people who say I'm a minimalist or
barefoot runner are all total douches; I've met a lot of people who
call themselves this who are quite sensible and pleasant characters
(Tim Downie seems like a nice cat), but the context in which they say
it is more to identify with the technique or describe what they are
doing, this in contrast is a big difference from saying: "Hello
recreational runner, I'm a minimalist/barefoot runner, everything
about your running is wrong!" They just can't help themselves from
wanting to correct you and have you join their cult.
Anybody else notice this trend?
Tim
> Don't get me wrong I love the principles, but principles and
> practicality can sometimes be on opposite sides of the spectrum,
> people seem to have a hard time finding balance these days.
>
> This distaste has been growing for a number of months, sure I wear
> flats to train in and I run around now and again with no shoes on, but
> I always hesitate to call myself a minimalist and/or barefoot runner
> (I usually prefer to just say I train in flats), I don't know exactly
> what it is, but people who I've met or seen on the Internet who say
> I'm a minimalist runner or barefoot runner, there seems to be a tinge
> of elitist assholishness to them (kinda like the douches bags that
> play golf), almost as if their "status" separates them from the rest
> of the recreational runners out there.
>
> This is not to say that all people who say I'm a minimalist or
> barefoot runner are all total douches; I've met a lot of people who
> call themselves this who are quite sensible and pleasant characters
> (Tim Downie seems like a nice cat),
Nice of you to say so. ;-)
> but the context in which they say
> it is more to identify with the technique or describe what they are
> doing, this in contrast is a big difference from saying: "Hello
> recreational runner, I'm a minimalist/barefoot runner, everything
> about your running is wrong!" They just can't help themselves from
> wanting to correct you and have you join their cult.
>
> Anybody else notice this trend?
I can't say I've met too many other barefoot runners in the flesh, only in
the more obvious barefoot forums. I'd agree that there is certainly a
faddishness about some of them and that barefootedness is more an article of
faith with them than "just another way of running".
For me, it's just about trying an experiment to see if I run "better" (i.e.
faster & with fewer injuries) or whether there's some other intangible
delight to be had when running barefoot. I'm enjoying trying it and whilst
I can't make any pronouncement about making me run "better" yet, I have
found that in some circumstances, running barefoot is genuinely fun and I
find I want to do more of it for that reason alone.
Last Tuesday we were running short hill sprints and I was wearing my VFFs
but I found I was hankering for the full BF sensation. When we got to a
flat smooth bit of road I removed and VFFs and delighted in "flying" up the
road barefoot. Even removing the relatively lightweight VFFs makes a big
difference to your leg speed and I just love that sensation. Just a shame
the road was so cold! I had to put them back on not long after.
I must admit I'm not convinced of the universal superiority of BF running.
When I see these videos of how wearing shoes affects the way you run & heel
strike etc., my reaction is "Duh! What did you expect?". The human body is
a wonderfully adaptive machine and I've seen many runners with wonky legs
and knees lumbering along in ultra races and I would *expect* the human body
to run differently in shoes and "different" isn't the same as "worse" or
"badly", it's just different.
Maybe in a year's time I'll have more answers or maybe I'll just be more
opinionated. Watch this space. ;-)
Tim
John Hurley
snip
Well nobody is going to call me a minimalist given my current favoring
of heavy bouncy training shoes like the Nike Air Max Tailwinds but I
understand it does seem to be trendy or popular or even semi cult
like.
There is a bunch of younger faster lighter runners who train in flats
most of the time. That is just what works for many of them it has no
direct correlation to the barefoot running foolishness.
Like most things in this world it revolves around money right?
People want to make money from this "cult" ... train you to run like
that ... sell you 150 dollar minimalist shoes ... etc. Not much
different from the people that want to make money training people to
run 5/6/7 hour marathons.
Charlie Pendejo
> people who I've met or seen on the Internet [...] douches bags
Well, there ya go. It's just a rotten neighborhood. :-)
> They just can't help themselves from
> wanting to correct you and have you join their cult.
Is this much different from any other fad, or is it just human
nature? I think you see the same behaviors in just about any internet
discussion, whether the "cult" is barefooters, raw vegans, or rabid
religious proselytizers. Then another group arises, equally
obnoxious, to stake out the diametrically opposite position: trainers
fans who condescend to the begging-for-injury idiots who run in flats
or barefoot, those who belittle the begging-for-anemia idiots who
avoid red meat, rabidly judgmental atheists with childishly simplistic
notions of faith and religious practice.
It's what makes the 'net go 'round!
A bit tangential maybe, this recent New Yorker review touches on the
polarizing influence of the net:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/02/091102crbo_books_kolbert
Anyhow, IMO the best defense is cultivating the ability to ignore the
obnoxious. Sometimes easier said than done. But if you let them
influence your own beliefs and behaviors, well, the terrorist have
won, so to speak.
Meantime, I'm sticking with my four and five ounce flats. As recently
as this summer I reckoned I'd step up a notch to the (relatively)
cushy Hyperspeed for a marathon, but now I'm leaning toward the
Piranhas.
Charlie Pendejo
> Like most things in this world it revolves around money right?
>
> People want to make money from this "cult" ... train you to run like
> that ... sell you 150 dollar minimalist shoes
I don't a big cash cow here:
[a] Super-light flats are a tiny sliver of a miniscule fraction of the
running shoe market. Adidas, Asics, Mizuno, and Nike must sell at
least 99, maybe 999, trainers for every pair of minimal flats. I
don't have sales statistics but would put $$$ on it. Many running
stores don't even carry flats, period, not even relatively beefy
ones. Because there's almost no market.
[b] Some are overpriced, absolutely. But not all, e.g. Nike's Streak
XC 2, a very fine and fairly minimal shoe, under $55 -
http://www.runningwarehouse.com/descpageMRS-NKSTRKO.html - it's the
Kinsei and Kayano trainers which have the silliest prices these days.
Well gold medal goes to the Newton shoes, so pricey that triathletes
can't get enough of 'em.
[c] Many runners report getting a lot more miles out of flats than
they used to from trainers: if you're not depending on the sole to
provide cushioning in the first place, it's no big deal when what
little cushion there was, wears out after a few hundred miles. Wear
'em until they fall apart 1500 miles later. That makes 'em all the
cheaper, at least if the upper is reasonably durable.
i2run
> Even removing the relatively lightweight VFFs makes a big
> difference to your leg speed and I just love that sensation. Just a shame
> the road was so cold! I had to put them back on not long after.
Tim you should try that in New England winters, speaking from
experience. :)
When my laces came off in an uncertified 10K race (6.4 mi actual)
couple
of NE winters back, I kicked my shoes off when my cold hand didn't
cooperate.
I ran in just sox on icy streets, to my surprise a big PR for 10K or
6.4 miles
at that time and see your *speed* gain view. Since then I train in all
kinds of
shoes but race only in the flats, a big boost on a race day.
i2run
> those who belittle the begging-for-anemia idiots who
> avoid red meat
on earth or air. You can not only survive, but thrive being a vegan
as Mr. Jurek does.
D Stumpus
Count me out on the barefoot trend. I run on trails where people walk dogs
and ride horses. Enough said.
I enjoy running in lightweight flats, they're the most fun. I run about 4
sec/mile faster for each ounce eliminated per shoe.
Take this test: Would you rather run your workouts 15-30 sec/mile faster?
If so, you might be one of us...
I'm currently training in some heavyier 9+ oz Nike Lunarlites, because I
couldn't get my favorite flat. I'm going to try the Lunar Racers when these
give up the ghost.
Really, the only differences I notice between minimalist shoes and the other
kind is that I run faster in them and the uppers don't last quite as long.
pithydoug
> Anybody else notice this trend?
Trends make conversation. I enjoy the delving into new areas of
running being groups, barefoot, X's training method., etc. I get
grumpy when someone claims their theory is correct and all the others
are wrong or conspiratorial.
Stop by a nutrition forum and watch the pong match with fad Diets.
-D
Charlie Pendejo
>> those who belittle the begging-for-anemia idiots who
>> avoid red meat
I2:
> This is way overblown, I haven't touched anything that moves
> on earth or air. You can not only survive, but thrive being a vegan
> as Mr. Jurek does.
No doubt. You and Scott and countless others.
Hell, look at this guy (who's also done well with ultras, I believe):
http://www.30bananasaday.com/profiles/blogs/i-gotta-brag-a-little
And others do very well on the polar opposite diet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blubber#Uses
Now if half a dozen guys get all preachy about *any* diet in a forum,
that's annoying.
I2Run
| No doubt. You and Scott and countless others.
| Hell, look at this guy (who's also done well with ultras, I believe):
| http://www.30bananasaday.com/profiles/blogs/i-gotta-brag-a-little
That is incredible considering he also was 101 overall and top 100
among men just a week before on the biggest stage known as NYCM.
pithydoug
30 bananas a day? How many of us could eat 30 in one day before ODing
on the taste? I remember eating about 6 in my first 50 mile race and
could not face them again for almost 6 months. I have always loved to
eat, especially a variety and why I took up running - to control my
weight. I can only assume those that can eat the same stuff repeatedly
eat to live and not live to eat. ;)
-D
Charlie Pendejo
> 30 bananas a day? How many of us could eat 30 in one day before
> ODing on the taste?
I wouldn't sign up to volunteer for it, but this concept of ODing on
the taste you've mentioned from time to time is foreign to me. I've
assumed it might be based on not just the same taste over and over,
but maybe also greatly aided & abetted by running an ultra - like the
body's maybe a lot pickier about what it wants and doesn't, when under
that kind of prolonged stress?
One of his runner buddies made a video last year when debate was
raging on another forum, whether anyone *really* ate this way or if
these guys were just pulling everyone's legs. I can't recommend
actually watching the guy eat a couple dozen bananas, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXD0RRde1ag
Anyhow, in the comments section: "I ate nothing but bananas for about
3 months straight at one point and felt wonderful!" That sounds a
little oppressive to me.
Elflord
> Don't get me wrong I love the principles, but principles and
> practicality can sometimes be on opposite sides of the spectrum,
> people seem to have a hard time finding balance these days.
It's the nature of novel approaches and methods (to almost anything, training
being one example) that they attract cults. There are some people who are drawn
to the novel "thing" to a large extent just to be different.
Then these people develop an entire cult-like system, complete with conspiracy
theories, fanatacism, envangelism, dismissing everything besides the said novel
approach as inferior, etc.
But then there are a "silent majority" who simply enjoy being able to use this
novel training method to their advantage and benefit from it -- but have little
desire to change everyone else, to envangelise, or to subscribe to some kind of
conspiracy theory or cult system.
Those Dan, Tim and Chuck in this forum are quiet enough about it that their
more reasonable voices tend to be obscured by the din of some of the fanatics
who post on letsrun.
It's not at all uncommon to do some training in flats. Back in the good old
days when I ran on a regular basis, most of my training parters wore flats to
speed work (and as much as 1/3 or so of their total weekly mileage was
accumulated during these sessions, because they would do a few miles warming
up and cooling down)
I'd suggest tuning out the fanatics. They are for the most part just a source of
noise.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
"RRings best troll" -- Mr Billie on rec.running
dizzy
>Count me out on the barefoot trend. I run on trails where people walk dogs
>and ride horses. Enough said.
Eh? Feet are more-easily cleaned than are shoes. 8)
Edward Edmonds
30 bananas a day. Seriously the dudes got to be drinking a lot of
them in shake form, still that's a lot of bananas. I like bananas but
after 2 the consistency of them makes me want to vomit.
I once looked up the life expectancy comparison between the different
diets, interestingly you don't live longer just because you eat right,
in fact the only real major difference was quality of life and later
life health problems.
I have a tendency to believe that one of the reasons we as homo
sapiens became such great runners is because of the hunting factor
amongst other variables. Obviously there are all kinds of extremes in
diets but I don't think it's a huge determining factor in race
performances. I read a book called "More Fire" that went a great deal
into the Kenyan diet and I was surprised to find that in their
training camps they eat a lot of meat, of course that's not all they
eat they also eat a lot of complex carbohydrates. It seems as if just
like everything else in life balance is key, unfortunately people seem
a lot less balanced these days. That's not to say you can't eat 30
bananas a day, but seriously if you get to point where you can't
handle all natural chicken broth I wouldn't consider that normal I'd
consider that extremely limiting if it can down to a survival
situation.
Have you ever had Ostrich? Very tasty and sensible. When I select
meat to eat I have a tendency to lean towards animals that have very
active life styles I think when that type of meat is available and
reasonably priced it's sensible. But I don't quibble over it, not
something I'm going to exert an extreme amount of effort to find.
I wonder if the bananas dude ever feels the need to swing from tree to
tree...
pithydoug
> On Nov 15, 12:38 pm, pithydoug <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> I wonder if the bananas dude ever feels the need to swing from tree to
> tree...
Or pick the fleas and ticks from their mate and eat them.
-D
Edward Edmonds
Or their big toes turn to poseable thumbs.
Tim
Or even opposable ones. ;-)
Tim
Michelle
"Tim" <timdow...@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Or their big toes turn to poseable thumbs.
>
> Or even opposable ones. ;-)
Could it be that maybe he's referring to photographing or painting big toes
or thumbs?
--
26.2 Because I can
pithydoug
> In article <7mf67eF3hkde...@mid.individual.net>,
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktAebUTdSY bring popcorn
Edward Edmonds
Did you miss that from this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/browse_thread/thread/357b7073d7960576
or are you reposting that again so you can look at my beautiful
face :-)
EE
Tim
More likely just senility. ;-)
Tim
aeiouy
"pithydoug" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:888734a1-99ee-44ba...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
-D
Years ago (lots of years) when I went through Basic Training the only thing
that was consistently not bad was the mashed potatoes so I ate a lot of
them. After Basic and AIT I didn't touch mashed potatoes again for a couple
of years.
aeiouy
On Nov 17, 7:08 am, Michelle <miche...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <7mf67eF3hkde...@mid.individual.net>,
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktAebUTdSY bring popcorn
After watching that it might be a couple of months before I can eat popcorn
again
Edward Edmonds
It's probably better for your health anyway unless you eat homemade air
popped from scratch, if so then there is always Raisenettes or Milk Duds.
Charlie Pendejo
> It's probably better for your health anyway unless you eat homemade air
> popped from scratch
I never liked air popped - popcorn really wants some oil (but not
butter) IMO. I like stovetop popped in a bit of coconut oil, still
pretty healthy. With a little sea salt and ancho chile powder.
Doug Freese
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a06fe70-f6e2-4a4a...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
I'm with you on the oil but I'll take a smidge of olive as it tastes
better and healthier than coconut. From a pure health standard, air is
better but tastes like cardboard. Air corn is like drinking Michelob
Ultra and calling it a real beer.
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I never liked air popped - popcorn really wants some oil (but not
> > butter) IMO. I like stovetop popped in a bit of coconut oil, still
> > pretty healthy. With a little sea salt and ancho chile powder.
>
> I'm with you on the oil but I'll take a smidge of olive as it tastes
> better and healthier than coconut.
I use safflower oil when making popcorn.
dizzy
Me too - but I use corn oil or peanut oil. I *love* my corn...
What's the deal with sea salt, anyway? Sodium chloride is sodium
chloride, no?
Michelle
dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> What's the deal with sea salt, anyway? Sodium chloride is sodium
> chloride, no?
Sea salt has traces of other minerals in it. Supposedly in these
concentrations, according to a Wikipedia article on sea salt:
Sea salt is primarily composed of the following ions, listed in order of
descending abundance by weight:
Chloride (Cl-) 55.03%
Sodium (Na+) 30.59%
Sulfate (SO42-) 7.68%
Magnesium (Mg2+) 3.68%
Calcium (Ca2+) 1.18%
Potassium (K+) 1.11%
Bicarbonate (HCO3-) 0.41%
Bromide (Br-) 0.19%
Borate (BO33-) 0.08%
Strontium (Sr2+) 0.04%
Everything else 0.01%
Charlie Pendejo
> Me too - but I use corn oil or peanut oil. I *love* my corn...
>
> What's the deal with sea salt, anyway? Sodium chloride is sodium
> chloride, no?
Yeah, peanut oil's my other choice. Along with corn oil, a good
choice for higher heat.
As Michelle pointed out, sea salt has all kinds of other trace
minerals. Who knows if that's important, though: the main thing is, I
get to enjoy a yuppie douchebag self-satisfaction in eating "the good
stuff", My current stash hails from Belgium and has solid yuppie cred
with "fleur de sel" on the label and all; but my radar is nagging me
that there's some pink Himalayan stuff that I'd better investigate
lest I fall behind the salt curve.
Edward Edmonds
No. Actually the difference between sea salt and most table salts is
that table salt usually is mixed with potassium iodide, sodium iodide,
or sodium iodate to help reduce the occurrence of iodine deficiency
which can lead to thyroid problems more specifically endemic goiters.
Edward Edmonds
When I was still doing autopsies I came across quite a few folks who had
developed goiters from iodine deficiency, so while it sounds very 3rd
world'ish people in modern countries still seem to have the problem.
Thing is most people don't realize they have them unless they check for
them specifically because not all goiters grow to the size of footballs :-)
Michelle
<5c050064-4ff1-4c4d...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Pendejo <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Me too - but I use corn oil or peanut oil. �I *love* my corn...
> >
> > What's the deal with sea salt, anyway? �Sodium chloride is sodium
> > chloride, no?
>
> Yeah, peanut oil's my other choice. Along with corn oil, a good choice
> for higher heat.
I normally cook with olive oil, but when I don't want the olive-oil taste,
I use safflower oil. But when I make stir fry or other Asian type food
(e.g., marinate tuna before searing it), I use peanut oil (and a bit of
sesame seed oil for flavoring).
anders
> As Michelle pointed out, sea salt has all kinds of other trace
> minerals. Who knows if that's important, though: the main thing is, I
> get to enjoy a yuppie douchebag self-satisfaction in eating "the good
> stuff", My current stash hails from Belgium and has solid yuppie cred
> with "fleur de sel" on the label and all; but my radar is nagging me
> that there's some pink Himalayan stuff that I'd better investigate
> lest I fall behind the salt curve.
Belgium? I thought the finest gourmet salt came from Camargue, but
then again I'm way beyond the curve in vinegars, too.
FWIW and for anyone's information or entertainment:
htttp://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/SeaSaltWater.pdf
Anders
anders
> FWIW and for anyone's information or entertainment:
> http://users.jyu.fi/~mikvapa/SeaSaltWater.pdf
Link corrected just in case someone is curious enough (yet lazy enough
to find out why it didn't work or to fix it manually) to have a dekko.
Anders (who learned about it during a casual chat with a runner who
claimed he had got rid of a persistent cramp problem and who added the
observation that his blood pressure hadn't shot up in the sky)
Tim
I'm afraid any article that uses words like "purifying reactions" go
straight in my "quack remedy" bin (figuratively speaking) along with "detox"
diets and similar nonsense. The fact that four out of the five references
are to the bible and the only non-biblical reference is to a wiki article
that makes no health claims at all gives further cause to take the article
with a very large pinch of salt. ;-)
Tim