One of the big challenges I face in writing this blog is trying to remain objective given that I have personal biases stemming from my own experience. For example, I review, promote, and like running in more minimal shoes and don’t foresee myself ever going back to more traditional models. However, I try hard to resist the urge to convert this personal preference into a general recommendation for all runners. It’s challenging at times, and I sometimes I may project this preference more strongly than I should, but I recognize that other people have had positive experiences running in motion control, and others have had great success running barefoot. Different strokes for different folks, the important thing is finding what works for you.
There are lots of examples of where I see people making general claims relating to running that stem from their own experience, and it’s important to remember that your individual experience is related to the specific circumstances that you face. It may not be generalizable to all. I’ll give some examples.
In response to my post yesterday about the Army study showing no difference in injury rates between traditionally and minimally shod runners I got some comments along the lines of “Going minimal fixed my injuries, this research in bunk!” I have no doubt that many individuals have had great success going minimal and have used it as a tool to overcome long-term injury. That’s great! And these stories are important because they give us some insight into strategies that might work when a runner encounters a particular injury. But, I also know people who have gone minimal, broken their foot, and returned to more cushioned shoes (and yes, I understand that they may have transitioned to quickly, but they might also just be more susceptible to bone damage…). I also have friends who are much faster than me that have run in motion control shoes with success for much of their running career. The point is that, yes, your story is important, but it may not be reflective of the experience of other people out there. People are highly variable – we vary anatomically, physiologically, and our life experiences and circumstances differ. Why would we expect the same solution to work for every person?
Another example I see often comes from the clinical environment. Some clinicians have reported seeing a big uptick of injured minimalist runners showing up in their clinics and thus minimalist running is deemed dangerous. However, I’m sure they also see quite a few injured traditionally shod runners as well. Minimalist running is a relatively new phenomenon (and yes, I know someone will comment that traditionally shod running is what’s really new in the longer span of human history, but it’s the norm in the professional experience of most clinicians practicing right now…). Any time something new appears on the scene you are likely to see an uptick in injuries related to the practice. I’d wager that clinicians have seen an uptick in yoga or crossfit related injuries in recent years as well. Does that make those practices bad or dangerous? (I’m sure I may get some colorful responses to that question!)
The problem for clinicians is that they see people who are injured. If you’re not injured, you don’t go to the doctor or therapist. If you take up minimal running and your knee stops hurting, you no longer show up in the clinic. Docs deal with the bad cases. The importance of studies like the Army study (presuming it gets vetted through peer review and published) is that it suggests that when you look a broader sample of minimal shoe wearers, they tend to not get hurt any more or less than traditionally shod individuals. However, when they do get hurt it may be in new and different ways, which makes sense since tissues are stressed differently when you wear minimal shoes. The importance of clinical experience is that clinicians can give us a sense of which injuries are more common among this new population. They are on the front lines dealing with the wounded. For example, it seems that with minimal running we more frequently see things like metatarsal stress fractures, calcaneal fractures, plantar fascia tears, etc. Clinicians help reveal these patterns, and can help develop strategies to minimize risk and effectively treat the problems when they arise.
I’ll add one more example that is a slight bit different. I was reading through a Facebook conversation the other day in which a comment was made along the lines of “the only way to get faster is to run more.” The implication seemed to be that shoes and form aren’t that big a deal. Someone else responded that this may be true, but that you can only run more if you can do so without getting injured. And, avoiding injury may have a lot to do with managing footwear, mechanics, etc. Even better, I had a guy on Twitter tell me the other night that I was a “hobby jogger minimalist pumper” and that to combat overstriding people need to stop “slow-twitching” themselves to death and start working more on top end speed. I can guess what might happen if I tried having my couch to 5k group running sprints instead of the slow buildup approach we are taking…
The problem here is that it can be hard for people who are in good physical condition and not susceptible to injury to recognize what a battle it is for some to simply be able to run more or run faster. I can use myself and my wife as an example. I’ve been lucky to have not suffered a serious injury in the 6 years that I’ve been a serious runner. I’ve had my share of aches and pains, but nothing that’s required more than just a few days of rest to resolve. I can generally increase my mileage and do speed-work without running into major trouble. And yes, increased mileage makes me capable of running faster races. I can also seemingly run in most any shoe, or even barefoot, without much trouble. I’m lucky like that.
My wife on the other hand has been more or less unable to run regularly for several years. Chronic hip pain and foot pain have been her nemeses (you can read more about her story here). Running more miles is not going to make her faster, it’s going to make her hurt. She’ll break, and won’t be able to run at all. We had to address the underlying mechanical problems, and yes, footwear, to get her right enough to even be able to run a few miles without pain. She’s now able to run 2-3 times per week, 3 miles at a time due to a combo of strengthening exercise prescribed by a doc and Hoka One One Bondi 2shoes prescribed by my friend Nate. The Hokas are the only shoes we have tried that allow her to run without foot pain, and we have tried a lot. As a minimalist, it pained me to discover that an ultra-cushioned shoe was the answer, but having her be able to run is more important to me than validating my personal preferences in footwear.
My wife is now at a point where running more might be possible, and increased speed might result, but it took a heck of a long time to get here. Downplaying the role of biomechanics and footwear because your experience is that they don’t matter much makes little sense.
So, I’ll finish by saying that yes, your opinions and experiences are important, and you should share them. We all learn from hearing about works for others, and it lets us have productive debates. But, be careful in thinking that what you have observed or experienced is broadly generalizable. It may be, it may not be. Sometimes you may just have to swallow you pride and recognize that Hokas will let your wife run without pain. And that makes for a happy household :)
You might also like:
Elements of a Sustainable Runner: Panel Discussion on Injuries, Training, Form, and Footwear from the Newton Running Retail Summit (Audio and Video)
Dr. Mark Cucuzzella’s Reply to Jeff Galloway’s Views on Minimalist Running Shoes and Injuries: Thoughts From a Minimalist Shoe Store Owner
Metatarsal Stress Fractures in Minimalist Runners: What Are the Causes?
On Form Change, Minimalist Shoes, Pain-Free Running, and Transition Injuries: Bob C.’s Story
My Interview on Jason Fitzgerald’s Strength Running Blog
About Peter Larson
Great post. Like you, its hard for me to not be biased given my own experiences. I tend to be very passionate and outspoken on the subject, especially when riled up by minimalism deniers. One of the reasons I’m so passionate is because running became fun for the first time after switching to minimalist shoes and ‘good form running.’ I hope everyone who wants to can experience the same thing. It kills me to hear about people who run even though they hate it.
You’re right. But I also know that my evangelizing about minimalism and natural running has turned some people I know personally on to a better way of doing it. There are so many people, like I used to be, who haven’t thought at all about form or footwear. If a formerly hopeless runner like me can benefit from what I’ve learned, I’m sure many others can as well. But I agree, these comments are often not helpful.
There’s a difference between sharing your experience so that others might benefit, such as you have done, and taking a my way or the highway approach. The latter is what I was criticizing here. It’s important that people be open minded about things they may disagree with.
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
Having had some experience as a teacher, I know that students will sometimes reject something you tell them to do as “just not right for me” because they weren’t actually doing it correctly. I’ll bet there are many runners like that. The people I’ve seen in minimalist shoes plodding along at a slow cadence and never allowing their heels to touch the ground will probably at some point give up on “this barefoot crap.” And that’s just one of many ways to do it wrong.
But again, there are obviously people, like your wife, who know about and have tried everything, but still have to do what works for them.
My guess would be that your evangelizing about minimalism turns more people off it than onto it. By all means state personal experience, but skip the hard sell.
I don’t know if the person who said that to get faster, you have to run more was me or…a certain dude who owns more shoes than I do, but it’s a sentiment that I agree with. However, it’s not that simple, of course (it never is!). It’s not about “just running,” but good training, which is multifaceted. Part of that is balancing progressive load without overload, part of it is doing the correct training for the distance, fitness level, and past experience, and part of it is staying healthy enough to put in the training. Form and footwear is, of course, a big part of that last component. There are no shortcuts, and you won’t simply get faster by changing shoes or form…you have to put in the work no matter, though obviously you have to do what you need to do to allow yourself to put in the work.
I do, however, have a hypothesis that running more and doing speedwork will help you to develop a running form that is efficient for your individual biomechanics. I don’t have a lot of actual research to back it up, rather, it’s just my thoughts based on the knowledge that our bodies are adaptable, as well as lazy (we try to expend the least amount of energy possible, that is, we learn to become more efficient). I do know of one study that deliberately changed people’s natural form to Pose running and they became less efficient, but it was a small, short-term study, so take it for what it’s worth.
As far as actually tweaking form, I also think we have to be careful not to go too far to the other side. It seems to be much more common for new runners to overstride, but I think that just telling people to shorten their stride can potentially lead some people to understride (assuming we define overstriding and understriding as a stride longer or shorter than the most efficient stride length for one’s individual biomechanics). It feels too much like just telling people to forefoot strike without any other considerations, and the fallout of that was we saw a lot of people still overstriding, only on an unnaturally plantarflexed foot. Relying on cadence is tough too, since that seems to vary with pace (as well as with the individual). I would tend to go with the running more thing here too, since I know for a fact my form has changed going from a 70-80 mpw 5000m runner to a 90-100+ mpw half-marathoner/marathoner, but that is, of course, anecdotal (I’d also assume it changed significantly from when I was a 20 mpw high schooler, but that I couldn’t tell you for sure). It also brings up the question as to what kind of form changes we see with specialization at different distances, even within the same athlete…and whether the changes I saw in myself were due to changes in efficiency at different speeds or due to changes within my muscles themselves (different muscles becoming stronger/tighter).
Quick clarification on that very last sentence…as an example, my stride shortened and cadence increased. Was that due to a shorter, faster stride being more efficient for the kind of work I was doing (a lot of tempo and MP work replacing the track), or am I older, spent way too much time sitting in a lecture hall, don’t go to track practice anymore where people actually stretch, and therefore have less flexible illiopsoas muscles now? My *guess* is the former, since I still *can* open up my stride (as I do when I get on the track), but who knows, maybe less flexibility makes it less efficient for me to do so…or maybe the training I was doing helped contribute to a decrease in flexibility due to something…probably with Golgi reflex, but I couldn’t say for sure.
It wasn’t you, but I think you’re right about the conversation I was referring to :) I will say this – I agree that to get faster you need to run more, and I also think that speedwork is critical. It’s downplaying the potential role that things like shoes and form could possibly have that I disagree with since technique is important and shoes can influence technique in different ways for different people. I like this quote from Scott Jurek: “Running efficiently demands good technique, and running efficiently for 100 miles demands great technique.”
In talking with guys like Jay Dicharry he will tell you he can improve efficiency in an objective way via form changes and he has the equipment to confirm it. I’d imagine sprinters work a ton on technique, they don’t just sprint more to get better. Track and cross country runners incorporate barefoot strides on grass as a form of technique work. Like you say, speedwork can help with technique. Point is we have various tools we employ specifically to work on technique, it’s not just about going out and running more and expecting everything to fall into line.
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
I couldn’t tell you one way or the other about sprinters…as far as I’m concerned, that’s practically a different sport. ;-) Something that’s interesting though is there is much less variance in sprinters’ strides than there is in distance runners strides (at the elite and sub-elite level, anyway). I’ll let that up to someone else to guess at whether that’s due to “one sprinting form to rule them all” or more homogeneity among sprinters’ body structures, because I haven’t a clue.
We did do striders, though whether or not they were barefoot depended on the person, their injury history/susceptibility, and their structure. A big thing that we DID do as far as form goes was hip mobility drills. One drawback to my own experience though is that much of what I’ve seen is the 1%. It’s the same problem that the Harvard FFS vs RFS study ran into…like Harvard’s teams, myself and the majority of my teammates are far from elite, but we’re probably not a sample that is representative of the general population either. It’s possible that many of us are in the sample where things did just sort of fall into place if we ran more. I’d also assume the majority of the runners of the first running boom (the ones who are often used in the examples of yesterday’s athletes who ran in Onitsuka Tigers) also fell into that category…but that’s all just my speculation.
Just out of curiosity, what are Dicharry’s methods, and who did he do the analysis on? There’s a difference between breaking down a 30 mpw runner’s stride versus telling a Desi Davila she’d be more efficient if she simply shortened their stride and landed on their midfoot (the extreme scenario, I know…though I did see it as a comment on a video once). Even in the elite camp you have varying methodology. Everyone heard about AlSal tweaking Ritz’s stride (who is notoriously injury prone, so whether the change to his stride caused the injury that immediately followed or whether that would have happened anyway is anyone’s guess). On the other hand, you have Ray Treacy and Kim Smith saying her bouncy stride works just fine and letting it be. That and what looks efficient and what actually IS efficient are not always one and the same. ;-)
Jay works with everyone from rec runners to Oregon Project members. Newbies to elites. Not sure who he has done specific efficiency on, but he has Bertec treadmill to look at braking effects, VO2 system, etc.
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
Cadence shouldn’t vary with pace. New Balance’s ‘good form running’ techniques worked for me. After implementing a midfoot strike, shorter stride, and 180bpm cadence I shaved 30 minutes off my half time in a year.
I’d be very wary of any advice suggesting that cadence shouldn’t vary with pace… link to runblogger.com…
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
I understand cadence can and often will vary with speed, but ideally you want to be as close to a constant 180bpm as possible.
http://www.goodformrunning.com…
There is zero evidence whatsoever to support running at 180 at all times. The idea that it is a magic number is a myth.
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
I agree with Pete on this one. The 180 steps per minute came from Jack Daniels observing a small sample of elite men running what was I think a 5000m race. I’m not sure that a group of elite guys racing probably at 4:10 pace is the best representation of what is best for everyone. If you tried to run at that pace, your cadence would most likely be well north of 180 (unless you actually can generate some sick power upon toe-off!). I’m pretty sure Pete has another article on here that lists the cadences of elite runners at a given point at Boston (from the fast year with the tailwind, I think). Lots of variability there too…and some of them were surprisingly high.
Daniels watched elites at a bunch of distances at the 84 Olympics in LA. He said all ran with a cadence of 180 or higher. The word “higher” seems to have gotten chopped off in translation at some point and got converted into all elites ran at 180. Big difference. Almost very elite I have computed cadence for us above 180, often by quite a lot.
Sent from my iPad
Ah, gotcha, thanks for the clarification. Either way, seems like things got lost in translation (as they often do).
Yeah, not sure when it happened but it was perpetuated for a long time! It’s all in his book and written pretty clearly.
Sent from my iPad
Point#3 and #4 of “Good form running” aren’t sound. I’m afraid you’ve fallen into the trap of marketing and pseudo science.
For actual good running form your cadence should vary you with speed, the faster you go the higher your cadence should be. 180bpm is no gold standard, it’ll just be one frequency that you’ll hit as you get faster, what speed this will be will depend upon who you are.
Artificially limiting your cadence down to 180 will result in over-striding too high forces on stance. Holding too high a cadence when at low speed will be inefficient and overstress different parts of your body.
For the forward learn, using gravity to pull you forward… When this is just pseudo scientific nonsense that directly contracts the laws of physics. Gravity is vertical and pulls you downwards, the only way to gain energy from gravity is to get lower on every stride. This might make for comedy gold but isn’t what we do as runners.
Run tall, run smoothly, run relaxed.
There problems with number 2 as well – foot never lands directly under the hips, and minimizing braking is more a function of what the leg is doing than the foot.
Sent from my iPad
I’m picturing the getting lower on every stride thing…and coming up with this: link to youtube.com…
I just don’t buy the idea of one form being best for everyone, whether from an efficiency or an injury perspective. There’s too much variability among people. And it’s too easy to make the jump where if everyone should be running with the same form, everyone should be running with the same shoes, and everyone should be treated for injuries the same way, despite there being subtle differences that may not be seen upon a cursory examination. (For example, we know, both from the overbuilt shoes of the 90s and the minimalist movement of today that not everyone can wear the same shoes, and lab testing as shown that sometimes you get elite athletes with wacky form who end up being incredibly efficient).
Who in their right mind has the confidence to come on here and declare that cadence should never vary? With all the REALLY good runners that read and contribute to this blog? At least I don’t feel as ridiculous now.
Hey Pete, you shouldn’t say “As a minimalist it pained me”. If the answer to getting back running were the Hokas that is the great news! I have met and heard many anecdotes of folks who had stopped running due to various issues getting back into it due to those clown shoes. I tried them, use them occasionally for recovery runs but found them hard to run fast and long due to my way of running. As far as minimalist, less than 15- 20 mm of cushioning not for me and long term I believe most in a road shoe,. As far as drop I run zero but find 4-8 mm best for me. All these factors vary runner to runner but I just don’t think the vast majority of us were ever designed to run on hard even roads with minimal cushioning. I think it is a different story on the trails at least for moderate distances. Less can be OK.
I think I may have been involved in the Facebook conversation that you referred to earlier. Pete I completely agree with your stance here, many in the BF/Minimalist community have developed a kind of tunnel vision and a single mindedness that also extends out to the peripheral facets of running like diet and training. It’s at times quite frustrating. This “my way is best” attitude is so closed minded.
As you know I’m a minimalist, and for 4 years I’ve been pretty free of injury, this has enabled me to be able to run enough to train for a couple of ultras and to invest the necessary time and training in my passion – mountain running. I will always extol the virtues of running lightly on a trail as it’s more than physical exercise to me, it touches me deeper than fitness, and I’d like others to share that sense of freedom I’ve found. if it takes a pair of Hokas for you to get out and above the tree line so be it! The most important thing for me is that the trail and the mountain is accessible to all and not the preserve of the elite. Oh and “hobby jogger minimalist pumper” might make quite a good blog title ;) I like it!
Thanks Nick, agree completely. I might have to grab that URL!
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
What an excellent post! It is refreshing to hear some common sense inserted into the ever-present running debates! As an older, injury-prone female runner, I am often frustrated by the elitists – those who think their way is the only way. And it isn’t just on blogs. I had an employee at a Dick’s Sporting Goods tell me how silly he thought the whole minimalist trend was while I sat there in tears because none of the shoes he kept foisting on me actually fit my feet! Even as a beginning runner – with little knowledge of this whole debate, I couldn’t figure out why he would limit MY choices based on HIS preference!
BTW, I am so glad that your wife is able to run more and that the Hoka’s are working for her! I tried on the Hokas (after your post about them helping with your wife’s hip pain) and actually liked them! In the meantime icing and massage have greatly improved my foot pain and I am back in love with my Skecher’s GoRuns. In fact, I just purchased the last 3 pairs that Amazon had in my size because I am so afraid they will quit making them (the original in E width). Just wanted you to know how helpful your blog has been! Keep up the good work!
Thanks June! Way to snap up those GoRuns :)
—
Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
Yes, as an older runner who has run for almost 40 years, I was able to run pretty high mileage for the first 20 years in almost anything, without having any real injury issues, The last 20 has been a very different story, necessitating a bit more cushioning and much more running on softer surfaces. As a perennial forefoot strider, I have found the 4 to 6 mm drop to be a sweetspot that just seems to allow the smoothest forefoot transition. I envy your chance to run in so many different shoes because it often takes a good while to find those shoes that work the best for you, and I find that your reviews often give me a good sense of weather a shoe has any chance of working for me or not. Keep up your great work.
Thanks Tom – hope to have a bunch of new reviews up in the coming weeks, finally have some time to write!
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
Good article. Loved the, “5k group running sprints”, comment.
There are very few absolutes in running, but among them are these – there is no single “best way” to run for everyone, and there is no shoe type that works well for everyone. People are far too variable.
It gets difficult in my line of work when a person who is new to running wants me to tell them what will work best for them. We try to narrow it down through a series of questions and the use of tools like gait analysis and arch profiles, but not everyone fits neatly into a one size fits all box. While these things often produce good results for people using traditional shoes, it’s far from perfect. These tools are of very questionable value for people wanting barefoot type shoes.
Trying to shoe horn everyone into doing only what works for ourselves is a recipe for failure.
Yes, new runners a re real challenge. I’m coaching a beginner 5k group right now and almost all of them needed shoes. Rather than tell them what to get we had them either go to a local specialty store or just wear there old shoes for a week or two. Once we had a sense of what they liked or disliked about the shoes they were in I was able to make suggestions to some about a second pair. For example, I’ve had some success with anterior shin splints by getting people into a flatter shoe. Some needed a wider fit. Some had shoes so undersized their toes were pushing all the way out to the tip. It’s easier to make suggestions when you have a baseline to work with.
Sent from my iPad
One more thing about new runners and something I don’t see being discussed as often as it should, is the difference between running shoes and the “sport” shoes sold at department stores. Many new runners use these sport shoes because they look like running shoes and they’re less expensive. I can’t remember where, but I saw some sales statistics indicating when these sport shoes are included that department stores sell the majority of “running” shoes. Of course this means the majority of runners may be using shoes not designed for more than casual running – a few miles a week. Or is that necessarily true? Are these kind of shoes, which are typically written off as junk by “real” runners, actually decent running shoes? Are there any studies showing people get injured more often in these cheaper shoes? Could these shoes be an alternative to expensive traditional running shoes and expensive barefoot shoes? Lots of people use them for running, yet there is little information about any of them. Is our bias against these shoes a disservice to new runners?
I think it’s possible to run in just about anything. I’ve considered buying a pair of cheap shoes from walmart or Target just to see how much different they really are :)
—-
Pete Larson’s Web Links:
-My book: Tread Lightly: link to ow.ly
-Blog: https://runblogger.com
-Twitter: link to twitter.com
-Facebook Page: link to facebook.com…
-Discussion Forum: https://runblogger.com/forum
Another great article Pete.
My brother and I were talking about this problem today. It’s extremely common in pretty much any health sphere — when people are faced with the choice of accepting they might be wrong, or acknowledging that there isn’t enough evidence to tell (or there is strong evidence showing their anecdotes are incorrect), they stick to their guns. Most common logical fallacy there is. Thanks for your work, keep it up.
Thanks Armi! I think in this case the anecdotes are fine and I believe them, I’m just wary of generalizing too broadly.
Sent from my iPad
I am a runner of 36 years, with the first truly debilitating injury. It is a combination of piriformis muscle and sciatic nerve, rendering it impossible for me to comfortably run. This is the third injury in a year while running on minimalist shoes, so I suspect I need to return to full cushion and hope for the best. It is humbling and frustrating after successfully racing, but I just hope I can continue to run at all. The lesson must be that one has no guarantee, that running is not a right but a privilege, and that the biomechanics of running suit some better than others. I just hope for the best, that I will be able to run effortlessly without pain once again.
Thanks for the comment Carl! I think you experience is exactly why I prefer to not be dogmatic about footwear choices. I run more mini al, but it’s not for everybody. It’s a matter of finding what works and sticking with it. As for you hip issues, have you had your gait looked at? I had a client the other day with sciatic/piriformis issues and saw some pretty pronounced hip drop during stance on his injured side. We proceeded to look at hip stabilization strength and noted an imbalance. Might be worth a look for you.
Sent from my iPad
Good post Pete – made me think and I’ve been guilty of prescribing advice in the past based on my own experiences. It’s like when I recommend the 10% rule for increasing weekly mileage (this is almost standard on the web) – it doesn’t work for everyone though and sometimes a runner needs a more gradual increase like 5% to avoid injury. The “one size fits all” is nearly always flawed when it comes to running advice, the best approach is to find a “general rule” and tweak it to suit your age/body strength/experience etc. until you find what works for you
As a barefoot runner (here it comes) I catch myself explaining the benefits of BFR to other runners and because it worked so well for me I assume it will work for everybody (which it does, right?)… Umm not quite, maybe… well OK
well think about it….
– BFR is probably the closest we will get to “one size fits all” – after all most of us have a custom made pair and they are purpose-built to run on ;-)
Andy from
http://www.myrunningtips.com
Thanks for the comment Andy! It’s is a constant battle for me in my new line of work, need to figure out the best shoe for each individual and not what’s best for me applied to them.
Sent from my iPad