:D Barefoot Running

[CL]

But why do people need to change shoes? I use X-Talon 212's for all my off-road running and F-Lite 230's for occasional forays on-road.

That's what I'm saying!

[Inov-8 Insider]

Fantastic

I'm afraid you're missing the key point Mr Knot. Modern cushioned/supported running shoes allow people to run badly. Without them you're forced develop a natural, more efficient and body friendly running style because you can't heel strike.

I can understand you citing Tim Noakes and The Lore of Running is rightly viewed as a classic but, like many classics, some of the thinking and ideas are out-dated.

Food for thought below:

1) There’s no evidence that running shoes are any help at all in injury prevention: Dr Craig Richards published a research paper in 2008 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that revealed that there have been no evidence based studies that demonstrate that running shoes make you less prone to injury. He went so far as to issue an open challenge to running shoe manufacturers to back-up their claims with peer reviewed data and is still waiting for any replies.

2) The more you pay the more you’re likely to get injured: Dr Bernard Marti of the University of Bern analyzed 4358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6 mile road race. He studied every aspect of their training in the year building up to the race and found that 45% had been injured. The most common variable for the injured runners was the amount they’d spent on their running shoes. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.

3) A half inch of rubber isn’t going to do jot: When you run, you can generate up to twelve times your body weight of force. A half inch of rubber, gel pad or air pocket isn’t going to absorb a significant amount of that energy. Also, studies have shown, that impact forces actually increase the more cushioning you have. Our feet instinctively seek stability so, if you put something soft and squishy underneath them, they’ll come down harder.

4) Pronation isn’t bad: Pronation has been demonized but it is just the natural movement of the foot. The foot is supposed to pronate. To see correct pronation in action kick off your shoes and run over a hard surface such as concrete. You’ll find yourself landing on the outside edge of your foot, then gently rolling from little toe over to big. That pronation is a natural shock absorbing twist that allows your arch to compress. The arch of our foot is a wonderful dynamic shock absorber so why cripple it’s natural movement by underpinning it with chocks of rubber? Dangerous over-pronation only occurs when you heel strike (see next point).

5) Heel striking is the problem: Imagine standing on a high bench in your bare feet and jumping off onto a hard surface. How would you land? Certainly not on your heels, yet this is what the majority of modern runners do every time they stride. Modern cushioned shoes allow us to heel strike and that is not how, from a biomechanical perspective, our bodies evolved to run. Heel-toe running was "invented" by Bill Bowerman out of a mis-thought notion that it was a more energy efficient running technique for the masses. He developed shoes to facilitate it and the rest is a painful history.

This is not some "hippy craze" but an awakening to the fact that for 40 years the sports shoe industry have been trying to solve a problem of it's own making and selling an awful lot of shoes in the process. Feet cannot function as nature intended in shoes with inflexible soles and so, by trying to correct the problems caused by wearing these shoes with more cushioning/support etc, you're just chasing shadows.

Barefooting is not the answer as, for most people, it's impractical due to road/trail surfaces but shoes with minimal cushioning and flexible soles etc are.

[MorganW]

Been following the Five Fingers thread and this one with interest.

Trashed both heels at Skiddaw this year. Bad blisters.

A few weeks later, taking Mrs BGSec round leg 1 of the BG, clockwise, I did the damage again, and before the top of Skiddaw. (Can't believe this after last year's super longs and ultras when the feet were in great nick.)

It was so bad I removed both shoes and socks at the fence posts and went from there down to Hare Crag in bare feet.

Amazing feeling for sure and I was impressed with the amount of grip bare feet give, even on the wet bit in the bottom. The toes just spread out so quickly.

Should have carried in that way up Calva, but felt that was enough of an experiment for 1 day.

I am an orthotic wearer, but am close to deciding to race in PB Racers (in which I can't get my orthos) for shorts and mediums and sticking with Mudclaw 270s for everything longer than that.

Looking forward to seeing what Inov8 produce.

[nikalas]

1) Watch that glass Mr Craig Richards, "what gla...aahhhh." Come on Nicklas there is no research because not many are insane enough to run down the road without shoes on.

2) Maybe the athletes paying the most for their shoes ran more and as a result got injured more.

3)If I drop a bouncy ball (it's about half an inch)and a ball of stone, which will return the most energy? If there is something soft and squidgy under my feet I won't land harder I'll land softer. I'll tell you what Nicklas we'll both jump from a 30ft tower, you can land on the nice soft concrete floor and I'll land on a nice hard bouncy castle. Oh and what flowers would you like at the hospital?

5) Jumping off a high bench and running are two different movements. Forcing one to run against nature's design is wrong whether heel strikes, mid-foot plants or forefoot strikes.

Here we go again.......

1) Dr Richard's research paper wasn't about barefoot running. He was simply stating that there has been no data supporting the hypothesis that modern cushioned/supportive shoes help to prevent injury. This is surprising as, considering the budget and research facilities of Nike etc, if their shoes do perform this miracle then you'd have thought they'd have put the work in to show it. Also, as I said, he put out an open invitation to the running shoe manufacturers to back up their claim and no-one, as yet, has. Finally, you don't tend to get something published in BJSM unless it is valid (in strict scientific sense) and has been subjected to extensive peer review... it's not a mickey mouse journal.

2) Sorry, didn't feel I could write a summary of the whole paper but all other variables such as volume, speed, terrain etc were put into the analysis and cost of running shoes came out with the strongest correlation to injury. Again, I think the American Journal of Sports Medicine where his paper was published would have checked for such simplistic flaws in his analysis.

3) CL, I'm sorry but impact force studies have been done and the data all points to the fact that a barefoot/lightly shod runner will strike with less force than one in heavily cushioned shoes. Your ball/rock analogy is one of your typical "irrelevance granades" as energy returned is not the issue but actual impact force. As is your jumping from a tower analogy, spectacular, showy but total BS. I back-up my arguments with sound scientific studies you seem to prefer dreamt up analogies , gossip on the web or the Daily Mail. At McGill University in Montreal, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked performed a series of tests on the landings of gymnasts. They found that the thicker the mat, the harder the gymnasts stuck their landings. Instinctively the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance.

4) This example simply illustrates that the heel has not evolved as a landing/striking surface (whether jumping or running) and only by artificially cushioning it have we allowed it to become one. None of us should be heel-strikers, it's not natural for anyone but conditioned by a lifetime wearing inflexible soles.

[nikalas]

That's what I'm saying!

Hurrah, we agree on something!!!

[CL]

Here we go again.......

1) Dr Richard's research paper wasn't about barefoot running. He was simply stating that there has been no data supporting the hypothesis that modern cushioned/supportive shoes help to prevent injury. This is surprising as, considering the budget and research facilities of Nike etc, if their shoes do perform this miracle then you'd have thought they'd have put the work in to show it. Also, as I said, he put out an open invitation to the running shoe manufacturers to back up their claim and no-one, as yet, has. Finally, you don't tend to get something published in BJSM unless it is valid (in strict scientific sense) and has been subjected to extensive peer review... it's not a mickey mouse journal.

2) Sorry, didn't feel I could write a summary of the whole paper but all other variables such as volume, speed, terrain etc were put into the analysis and cost of running shoes came out with the strongest correlation to injury. Again, I think the American Journal of Sports Medicine where his paper was published would have checked for such simplistic flaws in his analysis.

3) CL, I'm sorry but impact force studies have been done and the data all points to the fact that a barefoot/lightly shod runner will strike with less force than one in heavily cushioned shoes. Your ball/rock analogy is one of your typical "irrelevance granades" as energy returned is not the issue but actual impact force. As is your jumping from a tower analogy, spectacular, showy but total BS. I back-up my arguments with sound scientific studies you seem to prefer dreamt up analogies , gossip on the web or the Daily Mail. At McGill University in Montreal, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked performed a series of tests on the landings of gymnasts. They found that the thicker the mat, the harder the gymnasts stuck their landings. Instinctively the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance.

4) This example simply illustrates that the heel has not evolved as a landing/striking surface (whether jumping or running) and only by artificially cushioning it have we allowed it to become one. None of us should be heel-strikers, it's not natural for anyone but conditioned by a lifetime wearing inflexible soles.

AARRRGGGG take that glass out of my foot, AARRRGGGG quickly. Ear we go again said the earwig

'Sound scientific studies.' There is no such thing nowadays. What we have today is statistics which is mostly what you're relying on. Statistics have ruined the world we live in because it is very easy to fiddle the data to 'prove' anything one wants to, and then demand action to force people to comply with the new research I.e. global warming.

It's got to the point now where researchers can't even make simple deductions because of their almost religious belief in the figures.

Here's a simple deduction. The kids down the road jump up and down on a trampoline. I can see their little faces as they rise above the hedge. Up and down for 30 minutes at a time, bawng,bawng,bawng. Now are you telling me if I removed the trampoline when they're at the highest point they'll appreciate the lower force of the landing on the concrete floor?

Shoes should be flexible and the mid-sole/sole should be the same width all along, with cushioning that gives rebound to the runner. A bit like a trampoline.

[bfluc]

1) Watch that glass Mr Craig Richards, "what gla...aahhhh." Come on Nicklas there is no research because not many are insane enough to run down the road without shoes on.
[...]

Christopher,

On what basis can you write there is no research because not many are insane enough to run down the road without shoes on? There is really no research? Nothing at Harvard University? 8;-)

http://barefootrunner.org/reports/07.../07harvard.htm

[Aaron]

Since Inov-8 seems to be watching this thread, I decided to register and chime in.

We need minimal shoes that have the same thickness in the sole from toe to heel that also provide shielding from bruising on really technical trails.

I run in both shoes and barefoot, switching to shoes when the terrain will slow me down too much on the downhills or when I'm faced with miles of gravel roads. A built up heel on the shoes alters your form and efficiency, not by encouraging heel-strike, but by restricting the range of motion in your feet. It's the heel touch after striking with your midfoot that loads your achilles and calves with free energy for the next stride.

[bfluc]

Since Inov-8 seems to be watching this thread, I decided to register and chime in.

We need minimal shoes that have the same thickness in the sole from toe to heel that also provide shielding from bruising on really technical trails.
[...]

and I want some flexibilty as well...

Thanks to Inov-8 for showing open mindness!

[nikalas]

AARRRGGGG take that glass out of my foot, AARRRGGGG quickly. Ear we go again said the earwig

'Sound scientific studies.' There is no such thing nowadays. What we have today is statistics which is mostly what you're relying on. Statistics have ruined the world we live in because it is very easy to fiddle the data to 'prove' anything one wants to, and then demand action to force people to comply with the new research I.e. global warming.

It's got to the point now where researchers can't even make simple deductions because of their almost religious belief in the figures.

Here's a simple deduction. The kids down the road jump up and down on a trampoline. I can see their little faces as they rise above the hedge. Up and down for 30 minutes at a time, bawng,bawng,bawng. Now are you telling me if I removed the trampoline when they're at the highest point they'll appreciate the lower force of the landing on the concrete floor?

Shoes should be flexible and the mid-sole/sole should be the same width all along, with cushioning that gives rebound to the runner. A bit like a trampoline.

CL, I've studied statistics, been involved in research and been a part of published papers. Yes, manipulation of statistics does occur but I can assure you to get something published in journals such as the AJSM, BJSM and Nature, your methodology including your statistical analysis of data has to be 100% valid.

The problem is with your "simple deduction" is that it is irrelevant to running as we don't run on trampolines and you're missing the point.

Read this slowly and carefully:

Research carried out by EC Frederick of the Nike Sports Research Lab (so if anything they'd want to find out the opposite) stated the following at the 1986 meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics in 1986:

"When subjects were tested with cushioned vs hard shoes, no difference in impact force was found. In fact, the second propulsive peak in the vertical ground reaction force was actually higher with soft shoes"

No complicated or manipulated stats just a simple objective comparison of two sets of data by an unbiased (or some would say potentially hostile to his findings) observer.

We don't need cushioning, let alone springs, in our shoes as;

1) With the forces produced during a running foot strike (up to 12 times body mass), unless the springy surface was ridiculously thick it's going to do absolutely nothing.

2) Evolution has provided us with a gloriously efficient set of shock absorbers and an in-built protective mechanism. The arch of the foot (compressing to absorb shock and then recoiling), a wonderfully nerve rich sole ("Ow, that's sharp best tread a bit lighter") , the achilles tendon (providing "trampoline" like recoil much more effectively than anything designed by man) and further shock absorption through the knees. All of this is controlled by the brain via a constant feedback loop. Unfortunately, all of this breaks down if you dull our contact with the ground with a massive thick chunk of rubber.

Flexible flat sole: yes
Cushioning/rebound: no

If you want real world examples then some of the most respected coaches of all time advocate barefoot/minimal footwear for running.

Stanford Track Coach Vin Lananna (Wiki his CV!):

"I believe when my runners train barefoot, they run faster and suffer fewer injuries."

"I once ordered high-end shoes for the team, and within two weeks, we had more plantar fasciitis and achilles problems than I'd ever seen. So, I sent them back and told them to send me my cheap shoes. Ever since then, I've ordered the low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy."

and Arthur Lydiard (I assume you know who he is?)

"If you told the average person of any age to take off his shoes and run down the hallway, you would almost always discover the foot action of over-pronation or supination. Those sideways flexings of the ankle begin only when people lace themselves into running shoes because the construction of many shoes immediately alters the natural movement of the feet."

"We ran in canvas shoes. We didn't get plantar fasciitis. We might have lost a bit of skin from the rough canvas when we were running marathons but, generally speaking, we didn't have foot problems. Paying several hundred dollars for the latest high-tech running shoe is no guarantee you'll avoid any of these injuries and can even guarantee that you will suffer from them in one form or another."

I've never advocated throwing away your shoes as, you're right, there are too many rocks, thorns and bits of glass for our pampered 21st century feet but minimal support, cushioning and a flexible sole allows our feet to behave in as close a way as possible to what evolution intended. Evolution did not intend us to try and put springs on our feet.

We evolved as a running species perfectly adapted, from the foot up, to cover long distances in the pursuit of prey and have over 26 anatomical markers that point to this (see Bramble and Lieberman 2004). If we did evolve to run, then why do so many runners get injured? (Don't say it's because we run on roads as baked savannah is hardly soft). It's because since Bill Bowerman started playing around with his waffle iron and, by sticking cushioning on our heel, caused us start running in a way that evolution never intended we've been sucked into trying to correct something that was entirely of our own making and never broken in the first place.