I may well have overemphasized the toe-first strike. But I'm sore, not injured - so it's a good lesson learned, and the price wasn't too high.
That's good. But yeah, I would definitely expect some calf soreness as you transition to a more forefoot/midfoot strike and/or a lower drop running shoe. As long as it's just soreness and not injury, all's well.
I'm still on traditional shoes (Sauconys, got them last year, not sure the model, and I still have a pair of ASICS Kayanos), and I'm eager to go minimalist - but wondering whether it will be best to go to an intermediate shoe first, or get a zero-drop shoe and ease them into the routine with shorter runs. Over here, running shoes start at about $180 a pair, so it's worth some thought. I'm going to sign up for a session or two with a running coach, I think.
From everything I've read, there's little-to-no benefit in running an "intermediate" shoe first. You'd still want to ease it into the intermediate shoe, too, so from my perspective, you might as well get the shoe you want and start easing into it now.
I want to emphasize the difference between minimalist and zero-drop. Altra makes zero-drop shoes but most of them are cushioned (i.e., not minimalist). Other shoes (e.g. most racing flats) are pseudo-minimal in that they have very little cushioning, but still have a traditional heel-toe drop. Still others (like the Nike Free line, which I wear as walking shoes) are branded as minimalist due to their design, but are both cushioned and have a heel-toe drop.
The advantage of zero-drop is strengthening the calf muscles and allowing a more natural foot strike, which mostly translates to less overstriding. Risk of certain injuries (such as my shin splints and runner's knee) can be decreased (assuming one does adapt his or her running form), while risk of others increases (such as calf injuries and Achilles/peroneal tendinitis) because of the increased strength required in other areas.
The advantage of less cushioning is better ground feel, which can allow more natural stability, since there are near-instantaneous reactions your foot and leg can make to lessen shock and improve stability when it can feel the terrain better at the moment of impact. From personal experience, I would say this is true (over questionable terrain, I'm ALWAYS better off letting my foot fall as it will and letting my body make adjustments naturally, versus consciously trying to adapt my footstrike or stride to adapt to it), but also only really useful if you are running on uneven or varying terrain.
When I get home next month, I plan trying to run in my traditional running shoes (NB 890s) again to see how they feel. If they feel okay, I'll probably get another pair of traditional running shoes with a slightly lower drop (4-6mm) to supplement. If the heel-toe drop still throws me off, I'll be trying on Altras at my LRS.
I like my Minimus, but I want to try some cushioning, too.
It's a good mix of narrative and manifesto, and I'm trying to keep an open mind but not get swept away.
It was inspired by a research paper (in
Nature, I believe?) and like so often happens in science, the original research was overhyped and misinterpreted by the non-scientists. Still good, I'm sure, but why I'm wary despite probably seeming like a total convert if you just looked at my shoes.
Edit: Incidentally, I was beaten in last month's B.A.A. 10K by a barefoot runner. Not minimalist. Barefoot. On the crowded and congested rain-soaked streets of downtown Boston. I was standing next to him at the start, and lost him during the race, until he passed me around the 6 mile mark. Now personally, I love going barefoot, but I'm not that brave.
) It beeps at me, angrily, when I run too fast and tells me how long I should recover. It beeps angrily when the weather is turning. And on hikes it tells me where the next waypoint is and directs me nicely around.
