4 ms·
My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by usi
by hangonhn 9y ago
My personal experience with this is that the real benefit for me with minimal shoes is that I forced myself to shorten my stride. I had to retrain myself by using a foot pod and a heart rate monitor that would beep if my cadence goes below 90 per minute. A high cadence forces my body to shorten its stride length and I think that has made a bigger difference for me in terms of injury than anything else. I've stayed with minimal shoes simply because it's easier to have a high cadence in light weight minimal shoes. Plus, the more padded shoes became unnecessary. Not sure if the technique works for you but could be worth trying.
- jgladch 9y agointeresting, this is in line with current cycling performance concepts as well. top cyclists are aiming for ~90-105 cadence when climbing atm.
- durandal1 9y agoI have the same experience, I couldn't even run 2 miles without inflammation flaring up in the knees (I tried to build up distance many times) - but after running with Evo barefoot shoes for about 2 years (which allowed me to run 10k:s without problem), I can now run with any type of shoes - but my technique is completely transformed with much shorter stride length and a high cadence.