Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy
timesonline.co.uk
timesonline.co.uk
Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.”
World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?
My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary. Most of the benefits of barefoot running come from changes in running form. Shod runners have plenty of padding, so they can get away with letting their heel strike. An occasional barefoot run on grass will help you learn proper form while avoiding the disadvantages of constant barefoot running. At the end of the run, you can look at the grass stains on your feet to get an idea of how much your heel is striking the ground. Once you learn proper running form (no grass stains on your heels), you can practice that same form while wearing shoes.
There is one oft-forgotten side-effect of barefoot running: massive callouses. See http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-running-l... for before and after pics.
Edit: I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.
Actually "foot defects" would appear more in world class athletes: the strain they put on their feet will expose any small defect that would normally go unnoticed by someone with a sedentary lifestyle. As long as the problem isn't too serious, their running career is not jeopardized.
This behavior is a common pattern with groups on the margins. Although it can be annoying, it doesn't have any bearing on the merits of barefoot running. The Ruby community is a good example, as are vegetarians.
I'm failing to see how callouses would be such a show stopper with barefoot running. Any of the minimal shoes available on the market are enough to prevent callouses if you're concerned about them. I've never owned a pair of traditional running shoes that didn't give me agonizing arch pain within 5 minutes of running, but I've been running for 6 months in a pair of Vibram Five Fingers with no pain at all--I've also got no ugly callouses.
> Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers.
You're probably right on this point. But, to me, it's a lot like saying that our cardiovascular system is not properly evolved to transport blood with high levels of cholesterol.
Edit: The callouses bit.
Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?
> I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.
It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the obese.
I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet.
As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?
I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces.
I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law.
I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.
Isn't this an argument in favour of barefoot-ness?
I had an inkling hygienic concerns might be partly underlying your opposition. Even without addressing whether the issue is really of much concern, Feelmax, Vibram and others make shoes that provide protection while allowing for "barefooting." Against the elements? This winter (down to -22ºC) I have been wearing a traditional moccasin with a 4mm flat rubber sole without any problems.
> I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion...
Support braces are an entirely different matter. I would contend that people who are reliant on mechanical contraptions for moving are as a group not the prime audience when talking about running of any kind.
> I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes?
I would prefer toe-stepping.
> If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running.
I am not sure this is true at all. Yes, it is really hard to toe-step if you lack the muscle to support yourself, even though exercise will eventually strengthen you enough, but to go from that to asserting that heel-stepping is therefore better is a stretch. I would imagine that weight sufficient to force me on my heels would be highly destructive on joints (hence all such problems obese people face.) If you consider such weight pushed down on an unstable surface - which is what a cushioned shoe is - without the necessary ligament- or muscular control to maintain posture, the leg is virtually guaranteed to be constantly misaligned.
>World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?
A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.
And which are not caused by their occupation?
What does {{fact}} mean?
Hartman's work with over 100 world class athletes is "real data". Aside from that, there's a great deal of literature about overpronation, probably the most common bio-mechanical foot defect in runners from rich countries. Additionally, has been conducting research about this topic for a while. In fact, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation published a couple of months ago, saying that running shoes often increases joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle. Their study did include athletes and did look at long term bio-mechanical defects in those who wore sneakers of varying degrees of padding.
You may not be able to find all of this data for free from your computer desk, but it does exist.
(For those not interested in clicking, think toe-socks with +5 armor rating)
[1] http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
edit: as to starkfist's comment, these and other "barefoot" shoes have been around for quite a while. Maybe if there were more correlation, but as-is I don't see any marketing stunt.
Edit: here, I found where I'd seen them, at Wired:
And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome attention :)
- I hadn't done the tape mod, so the straps frayed and eventually broke.
- The Treks have more waterproof materials.
- I managed to slice up the soles. The Treks have thicker soles.
I'm looking forward to a run in the rain today :)
After reading some of these articles, I decided to give the five fingers a try. At first, my hamstrings and feet were so tired I could hardly walk after running. (You don't realize how many muscles you have in your feet, because you don't use them unless you land on the balls of your feet.)
Now, at about the 1 month point, my hamstrings have strengthened, I still feel a lot of soreness in my feet, but the issues with my knees are completely gone.
Maybe placebo, I know, but I don't mind placebo if it works...
so have the articles about barefoot running.
The "big" hype over this is relatively recent from what I've seen, though, and far trailing what would be needed for a shoe company to develop and start selling a specialized shoe if they were hoping to jump on the hype.
I don't have years of experience, but when I run with minimalist shoes (now always) I never feel arch or knee pain. It's worth at least a try.
I haven't started running barefoot yet, but my beefy New Balance running shoes have been relegated to mucking about in the yard. I now run in a well-worn pair of Chuck Taylor hightops. Just going to a much more minimal shoe forced me to concentrate more on forefoot/mid-foot striking, a light, quick stride, and proper posture.
What many people overlook is that running is a skill that must often be relearned as we get older and run again for fitness (ever see any nine-year-olds with shin splints, runner's knee or ITB syndrome?). Cross-country skiing, cycling, and swimming all have skill components, why not running? Going minimal on footwear forces that attention to form.
Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?
It all started a couple of years ago when that research into how expensive/fancy trainers were actually not as good for athletes as bog standard "normal" ones.
And that progressed into bare footed is even more beneficial / less injury prone.
With that said I admit that I also remember seeing ads for a barefoot style "shoe" too. So you could well be right.
(as it stands I recall the science and research was pretty solid - especially the stuff about cheap trainers over expensive ones)
I did notice that running down hill requires new technique. You cant use your heel as much or at all when barefoot.
http://www.sanuk.com/products/341027
VivoBarefoot is another alternative, although a bit more expensive: