Press Release:
Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
Heelless running shoe is put through European paces
A NEW concept in running shoes developed in conjunction with researchers at Staffordshire University has been put through its paces in Europe.
Tags:
<
COVID-19 affects the running gait
|
Subcutaneous bursa is important in insertional achilles tendinopathy
>
Page 1 of 2
-
-
What has the poor old achilles tendon done to get all the extra loads, from people who are not natural Forefoot Strikers.
-
Michael
I have seen and tried this shoe and I have to admit that it works. I am a heel striker but due to the clever design, it is not a simple as the name Heelus suggests. ( I have no financial interest and was very skeptical of the intial concept).
Worth keeping an eye on.
Ps I can't give nay further design info as I am under confidentiality agreements.
Phil -
I made my own heel-less running shoes years ago when I had retro calcaneal extosis. I simply cut our the back part of the shoe where it rubbed on the heel while leaving the top part for minimal support. I then glued a light nylon to the back for asthetics. It relieved the pain until I found other methods for pain releif.
-
-
I had a pair of running spikes from adidas just like this in the late 80´s early 90´s . Flo-Jo broke the world record in the same type of shoe.
I´ll try and find a photo. -
Oh, I just Googled it and see what you mean. I didn't make anything like that. It looks unstable, but who's to say unless you try it. There are a lot of gimics out there for vulnerable runners searching for help and I hope this is not another one.
-
I believe it will go like this:
1. Pre-manufacturing press release with fantastic claims.
2. Release of shoe product with fantastic claims and testimonials.
3. Reports start surfacing from runners unable to run comfortably or from runners getting injured in shoe.
4. Media hype dies down.
5. Shoe slowly becomes just another failed attempt at the "perfect running shoe".
Only seen it happen about 100 times over the past 40 years of my running career. -
-
I want a tunable shoe.
The ability to add different materials based on the type of ground, running style etc.
I could make millions on the 'training' courses alone.
Phil -
-
-
Which we have discussed to a point where most others get bored as we rip out 50 posts a day. :D
EDIT : and the most important thing - being able to say what colour of shoe you will have - -
Michael
You have hit the nail on the head!
It is quite easy to design a shoe with adjustable components to modify the shoe reaction forces but how the hell do you know which one is right.
That's why you now often see products and training courses hand in hand - I am sure we can all name plenty of orthoses that are accompanied by one day 'training' courses.
I reckon that this concept may the first realisation of FEM in relation to shoes choice on the high street - over to you Simon.
Phil -
I want a running shoe that makes people think they are running barefoot.....oh wait.....I just thought of something......I can call it a barefoot running shoe......I'll make millions on the idea!!
Oh.....wait again......I've just thought of another idea that will make me my second million.....I'll design a line of clothes that will make people think they are naked......I will call it naked clothes......I can see the money rolling in already!:rolleyes:
I'm so glad that these runners and other people are so gullible to think when they are running in thin soled shoes that are running barefoot just like our ancestors did. This power of suggestion we have over these people will allow all of those shoe companies to make lots of money selling a new types of shoes to the runner who thinks they are missing something if they don't try the "latest thing".
I can only smile, watching the parade marching by.....:drinks -
Last time I spoke to Doc Spooner about this he dreamt of the day running shoes have stiffness modulation capabilities akin to the suspension system used by Audi -
Also what about bringing back the kinetic wedges - Be able to increase and decrease the eva stiffness medial -lateral heel and medial and lateral forefoot - thus adjusting the amount force of the GRF vector. (maybe better expressed as energy absorbed - but notsure)
-
-
If this is the case, could any shoe/orthosis be designed which could address this? My feeling is that broad technology may not be the answer, but rather an individual solution which is based on the individual foot characteristics... oh wait... isn't that what an orthotic is? -
-
Dana -
Kevin, it is unfortunate that marketing can get in the way of good ideas. I did a 20 mile trail run this morning before work in a pair of SHOES that weighed 6 oz per shoe, that had virtually no support, no cushion, no heel to toe height differential. Essentially, they where a pair of thin, highly flexible rubber soles attached to my feet with thin nylon uppers. The only thing these shoes did do was protect the skin on the soles of my feet from sharp rocks. That is it.
Not once did I think about whether I was running barefoot or with shoes. Rather, I was thinking about the pleasure of running without my feet and legs being weighed down in heavy shoes. I was thinking about how good my feet, legs and back felt while running. Finally, I was thinking about how easilly I glided through 20 miles like it was no more than a run around the block. All the marketing in the world will not allow you to complete a 20 mile run feeling strong and refreshed. I would argue that what you have on your feet might have an influence. Being in good shape helps as well.
Marketing might get people to part with their hard earned money in the short term, but only results will keep them returning. It is not about what people think, it is about what works or doesn't work.
You are assuming that these shoes do not produce positive results. Sorry, but with what I continue to find after 100's of miles of trial so far, I would have to politely disagree.
Dana -
Dana, while the mass of a shoe may have a detrimental impact on metabolic cost, metabolic cost is also influenced by surface stiffness. Viz., the increased metabolic cost of the shoe mass may be negated by the shoes manipulation of surface stiffness. Indeed, by optimising the surface stiffness, the metabolic cost may be lower while wearing the shoe than running barefoot, while offering the additional benefit of environmental protection. -
My point is, pick the lightest possible shoe that best fits the surface you will be running on. Since surfaces vary, there is no single shoe, therefore no single shoe is perfect.
Dana -
-
Dana -
-
Dana -
-
Mayfly 4.0 oz
Waffle racer 6.4 oz
Streak XC 2 7.0 oz
Zoom Marathoner 8.8 oz
Free Run 8.2 oz
LunaRacer 7.0 oz
Lunar Glide 2 11.8 oz
Pegasus 27 11.4 oz
Air Max 2010 14.0 oz
Shox Turbo 11 14.4 oz
I find that once the shoe pushes over 12 oz it simply gets too heavy for my preferences. I have shoes that range in weight from 6 oz to 13 oz. I prefer to run in shoes that are under 10 oz. That is an arbitrary number, could be 9.5 oz or 10.5 oz, whatever. I own 13 oz shoes and use them as a training tool. By wearing 13 oz running shoes and getting used to that weight in training, it feels great to put a 6 oz racing shoe on when I want to pick up the pace.
It would be really helpful to understand the relationship between shoe mass and bio mechanic efficiency with respect to metabolic cost. It makes me think about my experience when running with shoes the weigh under 10 oz vs 10-12 oz vs over 12 oz. It also makes we wonder if the way I've broken out the weights is purely arbitrary or possible has some significance.
Dana -
-
Right now, I am very interested in the durability of the 3 models of VFF I have. I currently have over 100 miles logged on each pair. My expectation is that I will get over 1,000 miles on them. Considering they weigh 5.7 oz to 6.5 oz. I will be happy with that and thrilled if I get 1500 miles. At $100/pair, if I can get 1,000 miles or average 10 cents/mile for a 6 oz shoe, that works for me.
When you showed those school pumps on the Barefoot debate thread for cheap, the first thing I thought is, yes but how long will they last?
Dana -
-
At this point, my current inventory or running shoes are going to last me another 20,000 miles. It will be a while before I'm in the market again for new shoes.
Dana -
-
Dana, SNMP -
-
at 6oz they are heavier than the Mayfly and as you said you have other shoes weighing from 6oz there shouldnt be a problem.
I think the 'wear time' depends more on running technique and the evenness of abrasion to the soles.
.... going back to Simon's original idea, if you could have a way of increasing the firmness of the soles in relation to the ground you wish to train on. So if you know you will run on tarmac (fatal for ankles and knees i have found from experience) you will adjust them as opposed to running on grass.
This would be a great idea and would mean each athlete could adapt the same pair of shoes for their individual requirements and needs
....... and while we're at it, what about a set of retractable spikes for sprinting on tracks as opposed to long distance road runs? -
For simplicity, if you break the shoe down to three primary parts which happen to have 3 distinct functions, it is easy to see the trade offs. The 3 parts would be the upper, which contributes to support and acts as a means of attaching the other two parts to the foot. The midsole which acts to provide cushion and possibly motion contol. The outer sole which provides durability, traction and protection from the ground.
The mayfly has only two of the three primary parts with little of the two parts it does have. It has no outer sole so durability is very limited. It has minimal midsole so cushioning is limited and minimal upper with minimal support. These are trade offs to achieve minimal weight.
VFF also have two of the three primary parts. They have no midsole so no cushioning or arch support. They have a minimal upper that is designed to hold the outer sole to the foot but not to provide support. What the VFF does have is a fairly substantial outer sole. Depending on the model of VFF, the outer sole is more substantial in terms of thickness of friction resistant rubber than many of the traditional road shoes and is only rivaled by some of the more substantial trail shoes. Therefore, for the 6 oz you get no support or cushion but durability. Not all VFF weigh 6 oz. There are VFFs that weigh 2.8 oz that have a far less substantial outer sole but are recommended for indoor wear only. Again the weight-durability trade off.
When creating a running shoe, the designers go through a series of decisions with respect to cushioning, motion control, durability, support, material selection and the last used, all contributing to the ultimate weight of the shoe. For a given shoe, if a designer wants to stay under a certain weight, as they add more cushion for example, they will need to take away from somewhere else such as the outer sole and durability or possibly the upper, loosing support and also durability.
It is extremely difficult for a shoe designer to score high on all variables and still have a shoe that weighs less than 12 oz. If you start adding things like magnetorhelogic fluid, magnets, possibly batteries? All of this will contribute to an already existing problem ever increasing shoe weight.
You might be able to reduce metabolic cost by providing a means to get to optimal leg stiffness but the reduction due to leg stiffness has to be greater than the increase in metabolic cost driven by shoe weight. At some point, the shoe will become heavy enough where metabolic cost will not be optimized.
Rather than have a one shoe does all concept. Metabolic cost is best optimized when a shoe designed specifically for a given surface stiffness is used. In this case leg stiffness will be optimized while shoe weight is optimized.
Dana, SNMP -
Morgan DW, Martin PE, Krahenbuhl GS. Factors affecting running economy. Sports
Medicine 1989; 7:310-330.
A 12.5-fold decrease in surface stiffness resulted in a 12% decrease in the runner’s metabolic rate.
AMY E. KERDOK,ANDREW A. BIEWENER, THOMAS A. MCMAHON, PETER G. WEYAND, HUGH M. HERR. Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses J Appl Physiol 92: 469–478, 2002
So it seems we can reduce the surface stiffness offered to the body by 12.5 fold or we can decrease the mass of running shoes by 1.2 Kg (42.3 oz) to get similar metabolic effects.:rolleyes:
Put another way, a shoe with optimised surface stiffness might have to be 12 times heavier than a pair of vibrams before the metabolic benefit was lost and the vibrams became more metabolically cost effective.
Page 1 of 2
<
COVID-19 affects the running gait
|
Subcutaneous bursa is important in insertional achilles tendinopathy
>
Loading...
- Similar Threads - Heelless running shoe
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 96
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 560
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 227
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 606
-
- Replies:
- 1
- Views:
- 690
-
- Replies:
- 0
- Views:
- 695
-
- Replies:
- 2
- Views:
- 1,216