Generally I wouldn’t write on a topic that’s been covered as thoroughly and in-depth as minimalism has the last few years, but my cousin asked me my opinion. That said, here goes.

The basic premise of the present movement towards running without shoes is, as far as I can tell, is that if God had wanted us to wear shoes, we would have been born with shoes on…and shoes companies keep making bigger and bulkier shoes so as to make us dependent upon them…and just look at the Tarhumara Indians and how far they run and how they never experience debilitating injuries…and they don’t wear shoes. Oh, and how could I forget: the Kenyans who almost literally run circles around every other nationality in the world grow up without shoes on, and look how fast they are!

Full disclosure: I work at a running store and my job is to sell running shoes to the masses.

When I was fifteen years old I began to read on a high school running message board about this crazy thing called “minimalism” that could potentially make me faster. This was early 2006, three full years before Christopher McDougall’s “Bible of Minimalism,” Born to Run, was published. This message board discussion wasn’t a bunch of high school kiddies following the most recent fad. It was a collection of high school runners who were attempting to reach the highest possible level of running allowed by their talent through self-experimentation. This running message board was where I first learned of the now-famous Vibram FiveFingers. It was where I first considered heel-striking to be a bad thing, where I learned, in detail, the process of transitioning to minimalism and eventually barefoot running, and where I formed my opinions on the subject which hold true today.

After reading discourse on the subject and reading various posters’ results with their minimalism experiments for several months, I began watching videos of world class runners racing. Nearly all of them were mid-or-forefoot strikers, meaning that their foot initially touched the ground in the middle or front of it—as opposed to at their heel. In my mind, this seemed like a good argument for minimalism, or, at least, the premises of minimalism. However, I couldn’t afford to blow money on a pair of shoes that weren’t actually shoes unless I knew it would work. At the time I was training in the Nike Air Structure Triax, a stability shoe designed to prevent over-pronation.

After several months of reading about it all, and somewhat constant shin splints, I decided I was going to convert to forefoot striking. I laced up my Structure Triaxs, jumped out the door, and went on a several mile run. The entire run, all I thought about was making sure I landed more on my toes than on my heel. I focused on nothing but the process the entire run. And for a few weeks, every run that followed. Pretty soon I was able to run with a forefoot strike without really thinking about it. Over time, it became more of a midfoot strike. Today, five years later, I am regularly told by various coaches that I have incredible running form.

After transitioning from being a heel-striker to a midfoot-striker, I quickly grew weary of the big, bulky Structure Triaxs. Especially the nifty feature that included the Zoom Air unit popping after a lot of miles (I don’t know why, but this isn’t an issue for me anymore). I had also heard that adidas made very good trainers, and I wanted to try them out…and their lack of an Air unit was intriguing. Finally, I found a pair of adidas Supernova Light shoes online for $50. That was my initial foray into training in lighter shoes—what we call “performance trainers” in the shoe industry. It went really well, and I was hooked. Lighter shoes feel better to run in, I think. I went on to train in the Nike Zoom Skylon after the Supernova Light was discontinued, and then after the Skylon was discontinued, I trained in marathon racing flats for about a year (most of my training at the time was done on dirt trails, though). Today I train in the Nike Zoom Pegasus and the Nike LunarElite, and am greatly looking forward to the return of the Nike Zoom Elite—the first true performance trainer of theirs in a few years, in my opinion.

But I digress. I share all of that to give you a look into my footwear background. In 2009 when Born to Run was released, I was initially excited because it was super-duper popular and I wanted to see if the predictions of a second running boom would hold true.

However, as “minimalism” and “barefoot-running” and “Vibram FiveFingers” became catch-phrases in popular culture, I quickly became annoyed by the book. Its premise is ridiculous: the Tarahumara Indians run in rubber tire-based sandals and are rarely injured, so we, too, should run in as little shoe as possible so that we will never get injured.

Chris McDougall left out an important part, though: first, the Tarahumara Indians have been doing this whole running thing for hundreds or thousands of years. It’s their primary form of transportation. They do it from when they’re very young. Their bodies have adapted to it. And, possibly most importantly, they carry very little if any extra weight. They’re extremely lithe, and almost all of their running is on dirt and grass. Let me share a little secret: dirt and grass are extraordinarily forgiving; concrete and asphalt are not.

The purpose of the cushion in running shoes is to allow people to run on concrete and asphalt (henceforth referred to as “hard surfaces”) without injuring themselves. There are simply too many fragile bones in the human body to consider running barefoot or in extremely minimal shoes on hard surfaces a reasonable concept. Theoretically it’s possible. One must slowly transition, and in all reality we’re talking about a minimum of one-year process from training in “regular” running shoes to training in Vibram FiveFingers or the New Balance Minimus (which is essentially identical to the FiveFingers except with a normal toe box). But I feel that it would be more beneficial to take that year—or longer—and run more (longer, faster, harder, more frequently) and get better at the activity of running than it would be to take the time to properly transition into barefoot training.

I’m not opposed to going barefoot in certain aspects of training. I will often cool down after a hard track session by running barefoot on the infield. However, this isn’t because of some magical result that running barefoot will provide—it’s because it feels good to run barefoot in grass. (Although, I suppose it also stretches my calf and Achilles a little bit, which is beneficial because racing shoes have substantially less heel than training shoes, and I’m always pretty sore after longer races.)

I suppose it comes down to one’s goal with running. If their goal is to get fit or lose weight, then running more will be better than trying to transition into barefoot running. If their goal is to run fast, then running more will be better than trying to transition into barefoot running. However, if their goal is to run barefoot, then obviously there is only one logical course of action.

Note: I wrote this recap of the 2010 Chickamauga Battlefield Marathon for the Chattanoogan.com.

Fort Oglethorpe, GA–The 31^st running of the Chickamauga Battlefield Marathon, a Chattanooga Track Club production, saw the fastest finisher since 1999. Jason Altman, a Knoxville native and member of the racing team Runner’s Market, won the race in 2 hours, 39 minutes, 44 seconds after a 17 mile dual with Gwinnett Running Club member  Dan Fassinger, who finished second in 2 hours, 40 minutes, 10 seconds.  Runner’s Market runner Matt Lawhern finished in third place.

Altman and Lawhern, who not only race for the same team but are frequent training partners, were co-leaders of the race in its early stages.  The two were joined by Fassinger around mile five, and Lawhern quickly slipped back into third place.  By mile eight, Jason Altman and Dan Fassinger were dueling alone, a position they would hold until after they passed the 24^th mile marker.

It appeared that Altman had broken Fassinger as early as mile 11.  Right after the 11^th mile marker, Fassinger dropped his arms to his side and shook them, an action many runners take when they are starting to fatigue and cramp.  Within half a mile of that, Altman had opened a 10 step lead over the younger runner.

The record shows, however, that Fassinger wasn’t fatiguing that early.

“I was feeling pretty good at that point in the race,” the 26 year old Fassinger said afterwards. “I was shaking my arms out to keep loose and not tighten up.”

“Dan was a little bit slower than I was at the water stops,” Altman explained.  The 31 year old finished in 8^th place at Chickamauga in 2005, when he finished in 3 hours, 3 minutes. “I kept the same stride (at the water stops) while he slowed down, so that’s how I opened that gap up. But it only lasted about a mile, and then he closed it back up.”

It would be another several miles before Fassinger’s race preparations would catch up with him. The Western Carolina University alumnus said that he only ran between 50 and 55 miles a week leading into the marathon.

“My training hadn’t been going as well as I’d hoped,” Fassinger admitted. “I’m not doing as many miles as I should, and I suffered for that towards the end. I felt good through about 18 or 19 miles, and then my legs started cramping up a little bit.”

Altman said that he was concerned about letting the race be determined by a finishing kick, as Fassinger was an 800 meter specialist during his time at Western Carolina. Almost immediately after passing the 24^th mile, Altman pushed the pace enough to break Fassinger, and the Knoxville runner extended his lead to 26 seconds over the final two miles of the race.

The women’s race was won by Canton, GA resident Kaye Starosciak. Starosciak’s winning time of 3 hours, 3 minutes, 44 seconds was a seven minute personal best. She led the race wire to wire and was generally unchallenged; Kaari Linask, the second place female, finished in 3 hours, 25 minutes, 12 seconds.  The third female finisher was Allison Bahe (3 hours, 27 minutes, 12 seconds).

Local running staple Hugh Enicks took home the victor’s laurels after winning the half marathon race in 1 hour, 19 minutes, 45 seconds.  William Warner (1 hour, 22 minutes, 18 seconds) and Greg Hosier (1 hour, 25 minutes, 21 seconds) finished second and third, respectively. Laura Peterson was the female champion; she broke the tape in 1 hour, 35 minutes, 48 seconds. Vanessa Erens was the second place woman (1 hour, 36 minutes, 24 seconds), while Lisa Logan (1 hour, 39 minutes, 10 seconds) took home the bronze.

The two events (full and half marathon) had a combined 1, 113 finishers. 502 people finished the marathon. 611 finished the half marathon.

The marathon was the third leg of the Chattanooga Track Club’s three part race series titled The Battle for Chattanooga. The series, which is spread over a calendar year, consists of the Chickamauga Chase, a 15 kilometer race in April; the Missionary Ridge Road Race, a 4.7 mile race in August; and the Chickamauga Battlefield Marathon, which takes place on the second Saturday of every November.

This week, my co-worker Damien and I decided that we were going to try an experiment in making money on Saturday, our day off.  Our plan was as follows: purchase a case of bottled water as inexpensively as possible, sell bottles on a street corner (preferably at one of the busiest intersections in town) for $1 per bottle, and profit accordingly.

I read this morning on Bi-Lo’s website that this week they are selling cases of 24 bottles of Deer Park water for 3.99.  I sent a text to Damien informing him that I found our supplier.  It was perfect, because the intersection we intended to use was actually right next to a Bi-Lo.  This way, we could purchase one case of water at a time, in an effort to minimize potential damages.

At 1 o’clock this afternoon (the heat of the day), Damien and I met at Bi-Lo’s parking lot. He had brought the cooler, I had brought the money for investing in our product, and we proceeded to purchase one case of water, which, with tax, came out to $4.11.  (As an aside, the look upon the cashier’s face when I asked that he give me my change (from a $20 bill) all in $1s was priceless.)  After purchasing the water, we drove down the road to the Twice the Ice machine where 20 pounds of ice are sold for only $1.50.  The first bulk of ice filled the cooler less than halfway, so we purchased a second bulk for another $1.50.  All told, I was in the red $7.11 as we took position at our street corner, ready to sell water and make untold levels of profit.   Visions of grandeur and eventually buying uniform shirts for ourselves that said WATER $1 danced in our heads.  (Truth be told, Damien wasn’t quite so gung-ho about selling water, although he was interested in the potential for profit.  I assured him that, if we hadn’t sold any water after a half hour, I would certainly be ready to admit defeat and go home.)

As we stood on the side of the road with our signs that said WATER $1 and watched the traffic light cycle through three times without anybody willing to buy, I devised a new sales strategy: stand in the median.  I grabbed two bottles of water, dashed across the road to the median, and almost immediately sold out of my (very small) stock.  I ran back to Damien, and we decided that it was definitely a good decision to set up shop on the median, so at a lull in traffic, we carried the water cooler to the median and quickly stationed ourselves at a large interval.  Damien, too, quickly sold two bottles of water in our new position.  All was going well.  After twenty minutes, we evaluated our sales: seven total bottles of water had been sold.  The two of us high-fived each other for breaking even, and set out to continue to sell.  A couple minutes later, a police cruiser pulled up next to our water cooler and flipped on his lights.  Two officers crawled out of the car and indicated that we needed to come over to chat with them.  I couldn’t believe what was happening.  The conversation went a little like this:

Officer 1: Do you two have a permit to be selling this water?
Me: Uh, no sir.  We didn’t realize we needed a permit to sell bottled water.
Officer 2: Why are you selling the water?
Damien: Well we were just doing a project basically in entrepreneurship.
Officer 1: The reason we came over here is because someone called and said that there were people playing in the street at this intersection.  Obviously that’s not the case, and obviously you two have good intentions.  It’s okay if you want to continue this project, but you’ll need a permit.
Me: We didn’t know that we needed a permit, I apologize.
Officer 1: Yeah, anytime you sell anything, it’s a city ordinance, you need to have a permit.  Even those people you see collecting donations on the side of the road have permits for it.
Damien: So does that mean…we’re breaking the law right now?
Officer 2: Technically yes, but all you need to do is go down and get a permit.

I proceeded to inquire as to where and when I could receive the aforementioned permit, and was informed that such could go down during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, at the courthouse.  Until a permit was acquired, however, we were to cease operations.  All in all, the two police officers were very helpful and certainly respectful.  I was disappointed that we got shut down, because I definitely think that we could have at least sold out of our in-stock product (17 bottles remain) reasonably quickly.  Additionally, I was in shock that somebody actually called the police and reported us for “playing in traffic.”  At least the officer recognized that we certainly were not playing in traffic.

I couldn’t help but think, however, of a similar situation which recently made national headlines involving a little girl’s lemonade stand in Portland, Oregon, and her failure to acquire a $120 temporary restaurant license.  You can read about it on CBSNews.com.  If that’s the same type of license I would be required to purchase in order to continue to sell water, then fuhgetaboutit.  I’m not spending $120 so that I can try to sell forty or fifty bottles of water on a hot Saturday afternoon.  If that’s the case, I will simply be thankful for the free bottles of water and forty pounds of ice that I received today, courtesy of the seven friendly people who purchased water from Damien and I, and be disappointed that free-market capitalism is a dying novelty in the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT Looking for a degree in entrepreneurship? Check out devry university for all your education needs.

In part one of this series I discussed a tiered structure of track meets.  In part two, after a conversation with @chrisnickinson, I proposed that the aforementioned tiers be a ratings system sponsored by USATF and demanded that track meets be presented in an entertaining fashion.  I outlined, in specifics, how a small, local, “Tier 3” or “Tier 4” track meet might be presented.

I believe that part of USATF’s responsibilities include demanding an entertaining broadcast of nationally televised track meets.  Again, one can take tips from soccer.  (After skimming soccer forums this weekend, hardcore fans of that sport still see themselves as a niche sport in the United States.  I found that interesting, especially since sports talk radio has been gushing for the past two weeks about how soccer has finally “made it” in this country.)  During a soccer match, be it MLS, the English Premiere League an international friendly, or an international tournament such as the FIFA Confederations Cup or the FIFA World Cup, commercials are not shown during play, only during halftime.  This allows for two segments of 45+ minutes to show the game as it develops, and eliminates the fury that would explode if a goal were to be missed.  During a track race, the effect is the same.  Nearly without fail, during a distance race, whichever major network is televising that particular meet breaks for a commercial.  Oftentimes the commercial break will come, say, two or three minutes into a 5,000m race and conclude with three or four minutes remaining.  Exciting moves are often made—and missed—during those six or seven minutes of the commercial break.  It gets even worse when they cut to a commercial break during a 1500m or 3000m race, which are also common occurrences.  In order to present a track meet as a viewable, entertaining event, the television networks must come up with a solution for commercial breaks.  The beauty of a track meet is that, as opposed to soccer, there are opportunities to cut to a commercial—just not during races!  I don’t think it would be too much to ask for a meet to have short 2-3 minute “commercial time outs” between various events.  During this time field events could still take place (thus eliminating down-time inside the stadium) and any highlight-worthy marks can easily be shown upon the return from the commercial break.

Another major problem with the presentation of track and field events on television is the attitude which the commentators take towards the event.  With their oft-occurring insistence to describe every minor facet of the sport, the impression to the casual viewer is that track and field isn’t a sport worth knowing the intricacies of.  When I watch any other sport—baseball, football, soccer, golf, tennis, ping-pong…you get the point—the announcers assume that I, as the viewer, have taken the time to learn the basic rules and regulations of the sport.  Announcers don’t interrupt a World Cup group match to explain to the audience soccer’s off-sides rule, or a Wimbledon final to describe—in layman’s terms—how unfathomably fast a 100 MPH serve off a tennis racket is.  Likewise, viewers don’t need to be reminded how far a 5,000m race is in comparison to their “local neighborhood track.”

As the governing body, USATF needs to yank on the reigns and regain some control over the presentation of track meets.

I mentioned in part one that I believe that the 1994 FIFA World Cup—which was hosted in the United States—is a huge part of the rise of soccer in this country over the last fifteen years.  Major League Soccer itself rose from the foundation that the World Cup left behind.  Though I believe a “pro track league”—filled with teams, divisions, and the like—is an unreasonable concept, I also believe that track and field, using the concepts put forth in this series thus far, could flourish in the United States.  That said, what better way to jump-start that process than to host an IAAF World Championship?  FIFA’s choice of the United States as 1994’s host country was much lambasted due to the lack of popularity for the sport in this country at the time, but check out the resulting sporting revolution in America: World Cup matches, during non-prime time slots, received better ratings than NBA Finals games.  The deadline to bid for the 2017 IAAF World Championship in Athletics has yet to pass.  I believe that USATF must put together a competitive bid with the full intention of winning.  Doing so could change the face and popularity of the sport in the United States for generations.

In the first part of this series, I described a tiered structure of post-collegiate track and field meets in the United States.  This structure is mostly conceptual, with the top tier being those meets with the most wide-felt impact and the impact becoming more local as one drops lower on the “ladder” of tiers (however, perhaps a merit-based USATF Certification could exist which would award meets with a, say, 3rd Tier certification? More specifications for each tier would need to be created, of course).  In part one, I placed a big emphasis on the importance of small, entertaining meets with competitive events.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee (I will continue to use this as an example because that is my residence), no high quality meets presently exist.  As I wrote in part one, I believe that local, accessible meets (such as the Music City Distance Carnival or New Balance Boston Twilight Series) are a necessity for building a knowledgeable fan base.  For Chattanooga, I propose a three part meet spread over, say, five weeks.  In order to present the meet in a short, entertaining fashion, I’ve elected to break it into more manageable pieces.  In the end, most of the events of a full-length track meet will be contested, but not in one sitting.  This accomplishes two main goals: 1) As stated, it keeps the meet short and entertaining, not long and drawn out. 2) It isn’t a “one-and-done” event, and therefore over the period of time you can create a local fan base.

Simply for the sake of example, this might be the series schedule:

Week 1 Long Jump, Discus Throw, 200m, 400mH, 5000m
Week 2 Off
Week 3 High Jump, Shot Put, Javelin, 100m, 400m, 1500m
Week 4 Off
Week 5 Pole Vault, Triple Jump, Hammer, 100mH/110mH, 800m, 3000m

As a companion to the short schedule with the intention of finishing every session in less than three hours, other fashions of entertainment might include a kid’s 100m dash or t-shirts being thrown into the stands.  There would also be vendors in the stands selling items such as popcorn, pizza, water, or even beer.  A track announcer who clearly knows the events and the distances is obviously vital, as well as a program with more detailed information about each athlete: who has a fifteen race winning streak, what NCAA championship team a high jumper was a member of, etc.

Fans need encouragement to show up to these meets.  Although already inexpensive (with $5-$7 gate entry), a meet could give tickets away or maybe a coupon for a free hot dog from the concession stand as part of a local road race “swag bag.”  Or if the fans purchase a $10 t-shirt they receive free entry into all of the meets, encouraging fans to return for more entertaining product.

The key to the meet itself is to present it in an entertaining fashion.  Everything needs to be brought to “center-ring” at the right moments.  Rather than seeming down time between running events, attention needs to be brought to the field events.  Even during a race, if an athlete is attempting a huge mark, or a great duel between shot putters is going down, attention needs to be brought to those events.  It’s not about field events being marginalized; they’re as exciting as any track race.  Through presenting these events in an exciting fashion, even casual fans will get excited about the sport.  We’ve seen it happen in soccer.  Soccer announcers, unlike many track announcers, present the sport as it should be: one that deserves to be paid attention to.  By presenting it in that nature, prospective fans take notice and begin to get interested.  Ever watched a poker match on ESPN?  If people can get into poker, they can get into track and field.  It starts with the local meet, but presentation is equally as important with the major meets, including the Diamond League meets and even USATF Championship meets.  Attractive presentation is imperative if you would like to build a knowledgeable fan base.

While watching the World Cup this month, I have considered the rise of soccer (or football) in the United States. Especially when realizing Doug Logan’s former position as Commissioner of Major League Soccer, it’s difficult to not make comparisons between soccer and track and field.

In 1994, the United States hosted the FIFA World Cup.  I adhere to the argument that this event was the beginning of the rise of soccer in the United States.  Major League Soccer is growing (beginning with 10 teams in 1996, the league expanded to 12 in 1998, contracted to 10 after the 2001 season and, since 2004, has proceeded to add six teams for a total of 16 at present, with plans to expand to 18 prior to the 2011 season) at a swift rate and average attendance at MLS games nearly equal to that of the NBA (in 2009, average attendance at an MLS game was 16,120, while the NBA’s average attendance for the 2009-2010 season was 17,149). Full disclosure: the NBA has 30 teams who play 81 games per year, whereas MLS has 16 teams who play 30 games per year.

In addition to MLS, leagues such as the United Soccer League, Premiere Development League, and the National Premiere Soccer League continue to make soccer accessible to the masses in the United States.  (See Wikipedia’s entry on the United States soccer pyramid for more details about the various leagues. I will assume rudimentary knowledge of the league structures for the remainder of this article.)

American track and field could learn from the way soccer has grown in the United States.  Although, unlike soccer, track and field doesn’t need to be structured into leagues, the concepts can be matched.

The top tier track and field meets in the United States are the two Diamond League meets: the adidas Grand Prix, in New York City, and the Prefontaine Classic, in Eugene, Oregon.  A tier below that is high-quality invitational meets that aren’t part of the Diamond League, such as the Stanford Payton Jordan Invitational, or (if they were outdoor meets) the Millrose Games or Boston Indoor Games.  Below that, meets like the USATF High Performance Meets (such as the one hosted at Occidental College in late May).  Meets falling under the fourth tier would be those like the New Balance Boston Twilight Series or the Music City Distance Carnival.  Finally, the ATC Track and Field Classic would be classified as a fifth tier meet, that is, one that is designed exclusively for amateur competition.

USA Track and Field has a responsibility to encourage meets at all five levels to exist.  These meets make track and field accessible to the masses.  While Diamond League meets are great (and vital!), second, third and fourth tier meets are those that are easy to attend.  I covered the Music City Distance Carnival for Flotrack, and I saw things there that could be compared to (what I know of) European summer track meets.  First of all, it was a short program: the entire meet took place within the span of 2.5 hours.  I was also struck by a scene when I drove into the parking lot: tailgaters.  Inside the track the atmosphere was similar, with fans relaxing and enjoying an evening of races.  Entry was $5, so very reasonable.  Finally, the races were fast, with several people qualifying for the USATF Championships and multiple Olympians in the fields.  Events like the one I described make track and field enjoyable and accessible for the every-man who doesn’t live in New York City or Eugene.  Grass-roots growth of the sport is vital for growing a knowledgeable fan base.

A concerted effort towards the creation of entertaining meets—meets that don’t last two or three days, but rather, two or three hours—needs to be made.  If managed properly, the effect of a meet such as the Music City Distance Carnival could be similar to that of a National Premiere Soccer League team on a local level.  In Chattanooga, Tennessee, the city’s NPSL club, Chattanooga FC has turned the city soccer crazy.  The team plays their home games at UT-Chattanooga’s Finley Stadium, and regularly outdraws the university’s football team.  Last month, over 6,000 “Chattahooligans” showed up for a friendly match against FC Atlas, a U-23 team from Guadalajara, Mexico, for a game that didn’t even count in the standings!  During the World Cup, Chattanooga FC hosted viewing parties at a local restaurant, Big River Grille & Brewing Company, for Team USA matches.  For the team’s second match of the tournament, against Slovenia, over 150 people showed up to watch.  At 9 o’clock on a Friday morning.  What if that happened for the finals of an IAAF World Championship?  Track aficionados would be ecstatic.  I believe it can happen.