Running Shoes Question

  • #1
Not sure if this is technical enough to go into another category. I have been running recently, and I can't find out if running shoes increase or decrease running speed as opposed to wearing no shoes at all.

I have used google, but I am not finding the answer I am looking for.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
655
3
Track shoes used by sprinters are ultra-light compared to regular running shoes. Apparently this gives them a small edge. On the other hand, you wouldn't want to walk around in them for very long.

I can also attest that it is much easier to run in regular running shoes than steel toed boots (you can really feel the weight difference).
 
  • #3
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
if running shoes increase or decrease running speed as opposed to wearing no shoes at all.
Have you tried running barefoot for any distance?
 
  • #4
WarPhalange
It's not about speed, it's about not destroying your knees and ankles with the impact of feet on sidewalk.
 
  • #5
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
It's not about speed, it's about not destroying your knees and ankles with the impact of feet on sidewalk.
At the speed I would run if I were barefoot, destroying my knees and ankles wouldn't be an issue :rolleyes: !
 
  • #6
Defennder
Homework Helper
2,591
5
I'd say it increases the speed. Unless the soles of your feet are very rough, you won't be able to generate the same amount of friction to run fast enough.
 
  • #7
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
Most of us have effectively degraded our legs by wearing shoes so running barefoot is probably not an option. Track & light running shoes for max performance, heavier ones for your everyday longer runs. Tracks shoes would think (with nice spikes) increase performance.
 
  • #8
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
The lighter, the better for performance. Barefoot wouldn't work as good, because shoes can have spikes or a tread pattern for better traction. The exception would be running in sand.

For training, you want a sturdier shoe that offers some cushioning from the shock. Training in a racing shoe will cause you some injury problems if you're putting in a lot of miles. If you have to choose between a better shoe for racing and a better shoe for training, go with the better shoe for training. The performance difference between running injury free and running with nagging injuries far outweighs any performance difference due to weight.

In high school, I had three pairs of shoes. A pair of racing spikes, a pair of training spikes, and a pair of training road shoes. I didn't run enough road races to make the expense of a fourth pair of shoes worth it. The racing spikes never needed replacing. I needed new training shoes about once a year, but we put in a lot of miles (70 to 100 miles a week).

For prolonged activities in the water, your feet will last longer in a good training shoe than in a racing shoe or barefoot. Plus, the bouyancy of a running shoe will cause your feet to float after they've detached from the rest of your body. Eventually, they might wash up on shore, providing your loved ones a body part to cherish.

A little like a message in a bottle proclaiming, "I'm dead! Stop looking for me!"
 
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
The lighter, the better for performance. Barefoot wouldn't work as good, because shoes can have spikes or a tread pattern for better traction. The exception would be running in sand.

For training, you want a sturdier shoe that offers some cushioning from the shock. Training in a racing shoe will cause you some injury problems if you're putting in a lot of miles. If you have to choose between a better shoe for racing and a better shoe for training, go with the better shoe for training. The performance difference between running injury free and running with nagging injuries far outweighs any performance difference due to weight.

In high school, I had three pairs of shoes. A pair of racing spikes, a pair of training spikes, and a pair of training road shoes. I didn't run enough road races to make the expense of a fourth pair of shoes worth it. The racing spikes never needed replacing. I needed new training shoes about once a year, but we put in a lot of miles (70 to 100 miles a week).

For prolonged activities in the water, your feet will last longer in a good training shoe than in a racing shoe or barefoot. Plus, the bouyancy of a running shoe will cause your feet to float after they've detached from the rest of your body. Eventually, they might wash up on shore, providing your loved ones a body part to cherish.

A little like a message in a bottle proclaiming, "I'm dead! Stop looking for me!"
:eek:...:rofl:!!
 
  • #10
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
Not sure if this is technical enough to go into another category. I have been running recently, and I can't find out if running shoes increase or decrease running speed as opposed to wearing no shoes at all.

I have used google, but I am not finding the answer I am looking for.
Somewhere in the 10k range there is the debatable question whether shoes help or hinder. Way below that (distance-wise), in sprints, there is no question that shoes are necessary to provide enough frictional contact with the surface to allow the necessary power to go fast. Way above the 10k, in marathons, for example, very few people have the foot condition necessary to survive that amount of abuse. Barefooted marathoners are not unheard of, but they are not among the top finishers. There have been barefooted 10k runners that do win (Zola Budd being the most famous).

Modern air-bag shoes do allow for some elasticity in the collisions between foot and ground, thereby saving some small amount of energy with each footfall. Prior to that, the outsoles of the shoes just absorbed the crash. When I got my first pair of Nike Air shoes in the 80s, I was certain I was running faster, but I never compared it to a barefoot control test.

Watch the Olympics, and see if any runner is barefooted. That will provide some authoritative input.
 
  • #11
WarPhalange
At the speed I would run if I were barefoot, destroying my knees and ankles wouldn't be an issue :rolleyes: !
Yes, but you're not stupid.

I especially like their "It's natural!" argument. So is tuberculosis.

EDIT: I interpreted you meaning you'd run slow... were you being sarcastic and saying speed >> health? If so, sorry. :(
 
  • #12
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
Yes, but you're not stupid.

I especially like their "It's natural!" argument. So is tuberculosis.

EDIT: I interpreted you meaning you'd run slow... were you being sarcastic and saying speed >> health? If so, sorry. :(
:smile: Yes I meant I would run slow. Heck what am I saying...run?!? I couldn't run barefoot if I were being chased by a lion...I'm a tenderfoot :biggrin: !
 
  • #13
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Out on the sidewalk, running speed is definitely slower without shoes...ouch! Yowweee! Yikes! Ouchie! (At least until you build up enough callouses on your feet to withstand all the debris out on most sidewalks.)

I don't know about anywhere else (like nice cushiony tracks).
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,905
2,414
A little like a message in a bottle proclaiming, "I'm dead! Stop looking for me!"
Haha. If I'm ever stranded on a desert island, that's the message I'm going to write.
 

Related Threads on Running Shoes Question

  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
793
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
2K
Top