The best running shoe may be nature's own | Hacker News Reader

The best running shoe may be nature's own

reuters.com

54 pointstokenadult42 comments

I've been wearing Vibrams to get close to the barefoot feel.

Upsides: They really work. Downsides: Being asked about them at least three times a day from passerby. For colder weather, toe socks are almost required. And they get damp quite easily; that's tolerable when it's warm and you wear the shoe by itself, but in the case of wet & cold weather, damp socks = frozen feet. Despite this I was still wearing them in last week's storm in the Bay Area because, at least at the time, it seemed better to feel cold than to feel clumsy.

I've considered Vibrams as well, but have been holding off due to the look. You can also try the Nike Free line, which were made with the barefoot running idea in mind. Those have been around for a few years.

The Vibrams give me the willies, too, so I actually used to order custom moccasins from a local boot factory until Feelmax came out with their shoe (I still wear the moccasins in the winter.)

There have been durability issues with them on tarmac as they were originally meant for trail/sand/dirt/grass use, but the newest iterations have remedied this a bit too.

http://feelmax.com

Terra plana is also coming out with the "Evo": http://www.terraplana.com/the-evo

I also haven't taken the Vibram plunge, but I can give you a huge thumbs up for the Free line. I've been doing almost all my running (40+ miles per week) in Free 5.0s since I switched over last fall, and they are reasonably comfortable and attractive as everyday walking shoes as well.

Yeah if you dont walk around barefoot much then the way to ease your feet into Vibrams would be to wear nike frees for a while. It'll help your feet adjust to the feeling.

I'm interested in using Vibrams as everyday shoes. Can anyone comment on their durability longer-term?

I've been using them for running twice a week and playing basketball on outdoor courts at least 2-3 times a week for the last 6 months. So far, they havent even begun to show any sign of wear.

If I may ask, what shoe were you using before that and what sort of problems made you switch? How long did it take to get used to the Vibrams?

I have a flat foot (over-pronator) and am using stability shoes along with specially made orthotics. For the past five years I have been experiencing different levels of pain in my left shin. Nothing helped (changing shoes, orthotics).

Now I'm trying barefoot running. Very low mileage for now and lots of strengthening exercises. Will report positive results - if any.

I'd be very interested to hear your results. I too am an over-pronator and while I'm curious about barefoot running, I'm hesitant to take the plunge without some knowledge of how it will affect my feet (+shins and joints).

> Will report positive results - if any.

Please report negative and "no change" results as well.

I bought a pair of KSO's around July of '09 to go hiking. I've enjoyed it, but you have to be more aware of where you step as some rocks do, in fact, hurt. Also, getting things in between your toes can be an issue. I don't really find the former to be much of an issue. Being more observant of my surroundings isn't a bad thing to me. The latter can be an issue, but it's also related the former.

Overall, I'm pleased. I don't have any intention of going back to more traditional shoes.

Agreed. I've had very similar experiences.

Another thing I've found is that if you are playing a sport which requires sudden direction changes (e.g. indoor ultimate), the skin can peel off the bottom of your feet.

It's probably different for everyone, but something to look out for if you plan on playing hardcore tennis or basketball in them.

Yeah, the cold feet things is a bummer. I bought some Injinji socks (that Vibram sells), and it fixed the problem. I'm a barefoot runner anyhow, so Vibrams were a natural fit (pun not-intended).

How is walking/standing on concrete in these? I find my feet will start hurting if I even simply stand barefoot on a hard surface for any length of time.

I've spent a lot of time walking around barefoot (no Vibrams either--never felt like spending the money on them) in cities (NYC and SF), and your feet get used to the concrete thing really quickly. Your feet toughen up and it's not a big deal. I agree about barefooting being annoying in cold weather though.

I've had them a few months and have been wearing them more and more; but so far I'll still take sneakers to walk more than a mile on asphalt.

About your feet hurting in general, I used to have the same problem before I started taking omega-3 supplements. I hadn't expected that benefit at all.

The Vibram KSO doesn't do a good job of keeping your feet warm in the cold and wet. I mostly run barefoot on dirt trails, but pull the KSO's out of my pocket when I hit really bad terrain. Cold is the one thing that stops me.

I'm moving to the Bay Area myself in a couple of weeks, and was kind of hoping that that was the solution to the cold weather problem. I am a little worried about finding good quality dirt trails.

Articles like this always seem very strange to me. My mother grew up dirt poor, and didn't wear shoes all summer long in Northern Minnesota. As soon as they got enough money together, shoes were the first thing they purchased.

I grew up in Central America, and I spent a lot of time playing soccer with other kids that were barefoot. As soon as those families had money, one of the first things they purchased were shoes.

It strikes me as very strange that shoe companies are now selling expensive running shoes that give you the feel of running barefoot. I understand the reasons for it, but I just don't get it.

I think one element is probably that as a social signal, shoelessness is a big sign over your head that says "I'm poor." That's unpleasant, obviously, so people buy shoes.

I think that the big show companies are catching on to the new "natural" fad and trying to adapt accordingly to protect their business.

It's the same way McDonalds implemented a menu full of healthy options (called the "New Tastes" menu here in Australia).

The "Effective Mass at Impact" between heel listed ~ http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFo... is interesting. 6.8%/1.7% of total body mass and forefoot means the later has reduced vertical momentum. Small efficiencies make for less wear and tear on joints, especially the knees. I tried running on my forefoot (with runners) and noticed it works easily uphill, very hard down hill and difficult on the flat. It's really hard on the top half of the calf and quads. There is no chance I'd be wearing the flimsy runners they suggest. The terrain is rough, hot and covered in rocks, dry grass and the chance of snakes.

I'd like to see how this technique would work with running and rotating sports like (basketball, tennis, football) which have high levels of knee injuries. The 5% efficiency might give an improvement in running life though canceled out in jumping sports such as basketball. Useless for running over rough terrain with heavy weights.

I've always run with toe first, even though I don't go barefoot. It wasn't until I finished the book "Born to Run" that I realized so many people run with heel first. It just looks non-intuitive and inefficient. The most straightforward transition from a walk to a sprint is to explode on your toes. I really don't understand the heel first running style.

For most field sports athletes, I think it's a pretty natural form as well. For any sport requiring pivoting, cutting, and rotating (soccer, basketball, football, etc) explosiveness is key. I can't think of any activity where heel first running would work, except for really light jogging or power walking.

The high incidence of knee (or other) injuries in some sports isn't really related to running form either. Most of them are a result of trauma, such as landing awkwardly or physical contact. Toe first versus heel first doesn't really matter there, except for the stronger muscles that the former form may build. Running toe first will reduce the chance of injury from persistent strain put on the lower body as a result of long-form running, since it happens repeatedly over a long period of time.

"I really don't understand the heel first running style."

Running heel first is undeniably easier than running toe first.

For a runner to switch from heel to toe running is straight out painful. It puts more than double the stress on the lower leg (calf, shins). Overtime, becoming acclimated to toe running is probably beneficial, but it requires a lot more lower leg strength and conditioning.

Simply put, people run heel first because it's easier.

Heel running is easier if it's what you're used to, due to muscle memory and different conditioning of muscle groups. Your leg adapts to the stride it's used to, so you could just as easily say that heel-runners have atrophied lower legs as that toe-runners have strong ones. I would say heel-running is more intuitive for a longer stride and a vertical posture, and less so for a short sprint. Whether heel-running easier in a vacuum is not "undeniable," mostly due to the lack of such vacuums (vacua?).

Running heel first is definitely easier in your typical modern training shoe with a giant heel lift. But when you put on a pair of lightweight shoes with minimal heel lift, mid-to-forefoot striking seems much more natural. Heel striking in racing flats is very awkward, and I certainly wouldn't consider it easier.

I definitely agree that moving away from heel striking can be very difficult after many years of doing it. I've slowly worked my way down from bulky trainers to lightweight trainers to minimal flats, and my achilles tendons gave me hell throughout the entire process.

really? I've always found that if I do anything but the forefoot style I find myself needlessly in pain. On the other hand, I guess most folks are ok with some level of pain unrelated to muscle soreness as a consequence of the endorphin high being so positive for them?

"... I can't think of any activity where heel first running would work ..."

When you have 32lbs on your back with GP's. Toe first doesn't work because of the weight. So it's heel first.

I recently switched to the Vibram Fivefingers Trek, which is somewhere between a sock and a sandal. It encourages the barefoot running style while protecting your feet from sharp objects.

http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/products/products_kso_trek_...

I can attest that there is an adjustment period to strengthen your ankles and calf muscles. As an experiment it's going well so far. It totally changed my gait.

Barefoot running techniques are becoming very popular. The recent book _Born to Run_ is partly responsible for this phenomenon.

But within the running community, there is not yet a consensus on the barefoot style (or the related Chi Running style), mostly due to the lack of data. Hopefully this study and others will finally shed some light on comparative injury rates.

The basic idea is this: The arch in your foot is quite strong and flexible, and it is all the cushion you really need when running or walking. Running barefoot forces you to use this natural springiness of your foot by landing on your mid- or fore-foot. Running in shoes, on the other hand, encourages you to lengthen your stride and land on your heel. The heel-strike is the source of much injury (plantar fasciitis, knee problems, etc) according to the barefoot advocates. It's simply impossible to run barefoot and land on your heel-- it hurts too much.

In the book _Born to Run_, the author goes to a gait analysis lab. They compared the impact of him running on a force plate in shoes and while barefoot. To his surprise, there was less impact while barefoot than while in his Nike running shoes; the theory was the massive heel cushioning takes the edge off an impact that would otherwise cause sharp foot pain but doesn't lessen the total impact on your ankles, shins and knees.

There was change in the air at the Zombie Runner store in Palo Alto where I bought the Vibrams last week. They could barely keep any of these models in stock. Born to Run was on display in front of the shoe wall as if it were now required reading before buying a shoe.

> I can attest that there is an adjustment period to strengthen your ankles and calf muscles.

My recommendation would actually be to start by toe-stepping through your daily activities (whether with barefoot shoes, socks or whatever) two weeks or so before going all-out running. Starts the process of strengthening the muscles and, importantly, the ligaments around the ankle and in the foot.

Toe-stepping should be maintained thereafter, too. It always surprises me that there are people who do barefoot running but revert to heel-stepping when walking. On the other extreme, some people do not put their heels down when standing still, which should also be avoided. Move on the toes, rest on the heel.

I love my vibrams. It took 3 or 4 runs to get my calf muscles up to any kind of strength to be able to run in them, but it completely vanished the knee problems I'd been having, simply by forcing me to change the way I ran.

I wouldn't wear them every day -- they are, as others have pointed out, not as warm as ordinary shoes. But if you're running or hiking, they feel great and are better for you.

Good illustration here of running with heel strike vs forefoot.

http://www.newtonrunning.com/run-better/optimal-running-form

I use Newtons and like them a lot. Haven't tried the Vibrams yet.

I don't doubt that landing on the balls of your feet can cause less stress, but the heel striking example is almost doing a lunge on every step which isn't how most people run.

this is not really news in some running circles (there were advocates in rec.running fifteen years ago, for example).

one word of advice - if you are a runner and decide to switch to a forefoot strike (even if keeping using shoes) then do so gradually. i got a very painful, slow healing stress fracture in the front of my foot from changing too quickly.

Link to research and videos:

http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/

There was a very interesting article along similar lines recently, entitled "You Walk Wrong: It took 4 million years of evolution to perfect the human foot. But we’re wrecking it with every step we take.":

http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/

After reading about this and similar research, instead of going out and buying an expensive new "barefoot-style" running shoe, I just pulled out my old, completely worn out running shoes out of the back of the closet and started wearing them running. They've lost almost all cushioning and are as flat as can be -- but 4-5 months later, I feel great.

I think like people have mentioned, the trick is really to just to land on the front/midsole of your foot not your heal. Then whatever crappy shoe you have will be fine.

I used to do this and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, stress on my legs seemed better but my feet ending up hurting a lot after a while. I found comfy running shoes worked out best. Of course, I have a slightly abnormal bone structure in my feet that may make my observations invalid. Plus, after a slight tear in my MCL I rarely do anything but the elliptical these days.

I switched to forefoot walking after having some serious foot problems, but it was really difficult to learn how to do it in shoes. Once I started going barefoot, it just came naturally. http://suburbiaRebooted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-became-ba...

I consider myself a barefoot runner, although I'm rather new to the scene. One's feet toughen up rather quickly.

Sometimes people pull over their cars as I run by and ask, "you need a ride somewhere"...

Zola Pieterse (Budd), is famous for having run barefoot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_Budd

Barefoot Ted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnizzgzyzu8

Most of his videos are relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com