Barefoot running?

[x-ray_vision]

@Cisco

Oh Jesus, you’re delusional. The sentence reads the same way without the “and.”

Not at all. The way you misquoted him:

“most people who try it out and fail”

would be talking about those who failed. Based on that alone, it’s possible the failures are either the majority or the minority. What he actually wrote:

“most people who try it out, fail”

says just what is evident- that most people that try barefoot running fail. Written this way, we know that the failures are the majority of those who try it. Your claim that he said that the latter group is in the minority is exactly the opposite of what he said.

[Cisco]

@x-ray_vision

@Cisco

Oh Jesus, you’re delusional. The sentence reads the same way without the “and.”

Not at all. The way you misquoted him:

“most people who try it out and fail”

would be talking about those who failed. Based on that alone, it’s possible the failures are either the majority or the minority. What he actually wrote:

“most people who try it out, fail”

says just what is evident- that most people that try barefoot running fail. Written this way, we know that the failures are the majority of those who try it. Your claim that he said that the latter group is in the minority is exactly the opposite of what he said.

Wow. Is English your first language? Is it even your second?

[TroutMan]

Sorry if this is a tangent (although a tangent might be better than continued parsing of meaning in a sentence from another article).

Is there any research on barefoot running and bunions? Bunions can be exacerbated (or caused, depending on who you believe) by compressing the toes so the big toe is pointed in toward the second. Podiatrists generally recommend shoes with a wider toe box to avoid making it worse.

Since barefoot running makes you run on your toes more, I’d think it must have some impact on bunions. But is it better for them or worse than heel-toe running?

[Colibri]

@x-ray_vision

I rolled my eyes because you claimed I was blaming someone for a bullshit reason. And I’ll roll my eyes at whomever I please.

[Moderator Note]

Not in this forum. Let’s dial back on the snark, which is not productive. And no more rolleyes.

@Cisco

Oh Jesus, you’re delusional.

@Cisco

Wow. Is English your first language? Is it even your second?

[Moderator Note]

And let’s refrain from insults in GQ.

No warnings issued, but let’s tone it down here.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Cisco]

@TroutMan

Sorry if this is a tangent (although a tangent might be better than continued parsing of meaning in a sentence from another article).

Is there any research on barefoot running and bunions? Bunions can be exacerbated (or caused, depending on who you believe) by compressing the toes so the big toe is pointed in toward the second. Podiatrists generally recommend shoes with a wider toe box to avoid making it worse.

Since barefoot running makes you run on your toes more, I’d think it must have some impact on bunions. But is it better for them or worse than heel-toe running?

This podiatrist says no:

Reasonably experienced runners in good condition with healthy feet should try barefoot running (when conditions and terrain warrant it). By “healthy feet” I mean their foot has a good, stable structure, and good sensation. Their foot does not have an excessively high arch or low arch and they are not diabetic. Further, their foot should be free of any significant deformities—no bunions, hammertoes, or other bone problems.

Welcome americaspodiatrist.com - BlueHost.com

I would suggest everybody try for themselves, though. Doctors tend to underestimate what the body can do, erring on the “safe” side-- especially American doctors, considering our hyper-litigious culture.

[Cisco]

@Colibri

@Cisco

Oh Jesus, you’re delusional.

@Cisco

Wow. Is English your first language? Is it even your second?

[Moderator Note]

And let’s refrain from insults in GQ.

No warnings issued, but let’s tone it down here.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Fair enough, I won’t call him delusional again, but the second one was an honest question, not an insult. I genuinely want to know how he could so badly misunderstand a construction that is pretty common in the English language, and it being a 2nd or 3rd language to him would explain it.

[pulykamell]

**xray[/] - The sentence can be clearer, but you are parsing it incorrectly. He is not saying “most people who try it out, [end up] fail[ing]” but rather “most people who try it out, [and] fail, and get injured…” It’s a bit sloppy, but it’s clear to me this is the correct reading. It’s a comma-separated list of three modifying “most people.” Were he trying to say most people who try it out fail AND get injured, the second comma would be extraneous. More importantly, that reading just doesn’t make sense in context.

[x-ray_vision]

@pulykamell

He is not saying “most people who try it out, [end up] fail[ing]” but rather “most people who try it out, [and] fail, and get injured…” It’s a bit sloppy, but it’s clear to me this is the correct reading.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[Cisco]

@DSeid

Yes, I read it, and saw a fair amount of opinions but little in the way of convincing data. Things like this

‘Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries.’

are not all that convincing as it is also true that before the 70’s very few average athletes in the Western world ran long distances regularly; recreational distance running really didn’t take off until the late 70s.

And that’s where RunnerPat’s point may be cogent: was it cushioned shoes that caused the injuries, or that cushioned shoes grew with the popularity of distance running and that the miles that those shoes allow people to run is what causes the injuries. One point I’ve read somewhere on line is that barefoot runners tend to run fewer miles and that it may be that fact that decreases the injury rate. But that also seemed like idle speculation, not data based.

You skipped over a lot of data to get to that point (which I’ll come back to in a minute), but there are other ways of interpreting it. Evolutionarily and anthropologically, there is a lot of evidence that persistence hunting (running down animals much faster than us through endurance) was very common up until about 10,000 years ago (yesterday in biological terms.) The distance running fad that took off in the 70s is only one of the more recent ones. The Greeks ran the marathon thousands of years ago, and the modern marathon was resurrected as a worldwide sport over 100 years ago.

As far as barefoot runners running fewer miles, that may or may not be true on a macro-scale, but marathons and ultra-marathons have both been won in minimalist shoes and literally bare feet. The Tarahumara of Mexico run hundreds of miles at a time shod only in thin strips of leather or rubber. More and more ultra-runners are wearing little or nothing on their feet.

Now, from the article:

Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention. If anything, the injury rates have actually ebbed up since the Seventies - Achilles tendon blowouts have seen a ten per cent increase

In a paper for the British Journal Of Sports Medicine last year, Dr Craig Richards, a researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia, revealed there are no evidence-based studies that demonstrate running shoes make you less prone to injury. Not one.

Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland’s University of Bern.

Dr Marti’s research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn’t training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or ‘competitive training motivation’.

It wasn’t even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. 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.

Follow-up studies found similar results, like the 1991 report in Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise that found that ‘wearers of expensive running shoes that are promoted as having additional features that protect (eg, more cushioning, ‘pronation correction’) are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing inexpensive shoes.’

Despite pillowy-sounding names such as ‘MegaBounce’, all that cushioning does nothing to reduce impact. Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it’s preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference.

When it comes to sensing the softest caress or tiniest grain of sand, your toes are as finely wired as your lips and fingertips. It’s these nerve endings that tell your foot how to react to the changing ground beneath, not a strip of rubber.

To help prove this point, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked of McGill University, Montreal, performed a series of lengthy tests on gymnasts. They found that the thicker the landing mat, the harder the gymnasts landed. Instinctively, the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance. Runners do the same thing. When you run in cushioned shoes, your feet are pushing through the soles in search of a hard, stable platform.

‘Currently available sports shoes are too soft and thick, and should be redesigned if they are to protect humans performing sports,’ the researchers concluded.

[x-ray_vision]

@Cisco

Evolutionarily and anthropologically, there is a lot of evidence that persistence hunting (running down animals much faster than us through endurance) was very common up until about 10,000 years ago (yesterday in biological terms.)

Why is this relevant? You said earlier “That’s Nike’s marketing department talking. Evolution is smarter than them.”

We’re better off with sunscreen, glasses with UV protection, clothing in cold weather, etc.; why assume evolution has done what’s best for our feet when it comes to injury free running? I know you have other reasons for believing barefoot running is best, but I’m talking about your claim that evolution is smarter than Nike and whatever relevance there is to you bringing up that our ancestors ran barefoot.

I also don’t understand the relevance because DSeid was talking about the statistics on injuries not telling the whole story because the prevalence of running injuries could likely be due to running becoming more popular, which doesn’t necessarily make running shoes the culprit. Since we don’t have statistics on how many of our ancestors or the Greeks ran with or without foot, shin and other types of pain/injuries, just knowing that others ran barefoot or with minimalistic footwear is irrelevant.

Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention. If anything, the injury rates have actually ebbed up since the Seventies - Achilles tendon blowouts have seen a ten per cent increase

Similar to what DSeid mentioned earlier, it could be that more people are taking up athletic activities depending on how those statistics are gathered.

Follow-up studies found similar results, like the 1991 report in Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise that found that 'wearers of expensive running shoes that are promoted as having additional features that protect (eg, more cushioning, ‘pronation correction’) are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing inexpensive shoes.

It could be as simple as more serious runners are more likely to pay more for their shoes. The more serious, the more he runs, the more he gets injured. Or maybe cheaper shoes really are superior but it’s still not being barefoot.

The Tarahumara of Mexico run hundreds of miles at a time shod only in thin strips of leather or rubber.

I hear the claims in the book “Born to Run” are greatly exaggerated and this definitely sounds like an exaggerated claim. Is there any credible evidence for them running “hundreds of miles at a time”?

I’ve never tried running barefoot or in huaraches but I had little trouble running in running shoes. I’ve found myself in a couple of situations where I had to run while wearing Chuck Taylor’s and my feet were killing me the days after. I would think Chuck’s would have a lot more in common with huaraches and cheaper running shoes with less cushioning. I’m going to try making some homemade huaraches in the future (there are instructions for making them on the Instructables site) but I’m not feeling very confident that the experience will go well. I’m a bigger guy and I’m thinking I’m going to feel the pounding like I do when wearing Chuck’s and there’s no cushioning. I know one person who tried huaraches and another that tried Vibram Fivefingers and it didn’t go well for either of them.

[silk1976]

For what its worth, I find myself agreeing with Cisco on virtually every point here. And he’s not someone I’ve agreed with nicely in the past

And just to add my own anecdotal evidence - I have traditionally always worn a neutral running shoe, until about a year and a half ago when a supposed expert at a local running store suggested a new type of shoe with inner-sole support, because he saw some motion in my left ankle that he didn’t like. It took a while, but those new shoes ended up causing me to get plantar fasciitis, which I’m still recovering from. It wasn’t until I ditched the shoes and went back to minimal support shoes that the PF stopped getting re-irritated everytime I put my foot on the ground.

Back to the OP - here’s what it comes down to. There are people who hear about barefoot running, and their gut reaction is ‘its a load of crap!’. There are people who hear about it, and their gut reaction is ‘maybe there is something there’. Both sides will look at evidence for their own point of view (its really not unlike a political discussion - people say they are open-minded, but really they make a snap decision and then go looking for supporting evidence) and offer that as a reason why their point of view is more valid than the other.

It’s not. Some people can run barefoot, some cannot. Evolution takes many forms - and one form it has taken is that due to agriculture, farming and other changes/advances in human food gathering, it is not a survival necessity to need to be able to chase down an antelope in the desert until it falls over from exhaustion.

So if you buy into the barefoot running argument, give it a try. If you’ve been running for years in running shoes with no issues, and dont see the purpose of changing, then dont. Because you’ll never get a consensus or conclusion from here

[Shot_From_Guns]

Another anecdatum: I have a pair of Vibram Sprints, and I love them. My joints are trashed from about a decade of Irish dance, and I’ve had much less pain with these shoes than with anything else I’ve tried exercising in.

On the science side, somewhat:

At a hotel a month or two ago, I caught a (disappointingly brief) segment on some “science”* show about barefoot running. The one test they performed measured the impact of a runner while wearing normal padded running shoes and then while barefoot. Same runner on the same equipment. When he was running normally with a heel strike, there seemed to be a much larger impact spike than when he was running at the same speed but barefoot (i.e., landing on the middle of his foot.) The alignment of his leg was also different.

*Scare quotes to indicate the typical pop-science pablum they throw at you on shows like this.

[hdc_bst]

I looked into this a while ago before taking up ‘minimalist’ running. The consensus I found was that: 1) no thorough studies had been performed comparing injury rates across ‘shoe strategies’ for significant populations. 2) some small population studies found differences in unshod biomechanics that the authors thought could be related to injury rates.

So, the jury hasn’t even convened. Personally, I think this would be a great time to experiment on the troops - try different shoes during basic and compare injury rates.

On the anecdote side, my previous running problem was knee pain. I have good arches and strong ankles. I switched over to minimalist shoes (Asic Piranha) and have really enjoyed it - no knee pain, and only some initial calf pain. I’ll echo previous comments - if running is painful it’s a switch that may help you; if you’re running no problem, why mess with a good thing?

[Cisco]

@x-ray_vision

[post #50]

This whole post reads like “I can interpret data however I want, even in ways contrary to the conclusions of the studies’ authors, and everything else you say is worthless because it’s anecdotal. Now here are my anecdotes:” :rolleyes:

@hdc_bst

Personally, I think this would be a great time to experiment on the troops - try different shoes during basic and compare injury rates.

My dad went to USMC bootcamp in 1973. Everyone wore Chuck Taylors and he doesn’t remember any running injuries. My brother went (incidentally, to the very same place) in 1997, and says people were dropping left and right from knee, foot, hip, and ankle injuries. A couple guys even got sent home. My brother thinks this might have something to do with the “advances” in running shoes since the '70s. My dad, of course, thinks it’s because people are pussies these days.

[Cisco]

These are the martial arts shoes I referenced in my first post in this thread. They have a soft, flexible sole with little cushioning, no built up/widened heel, and no arch “support.” They’re a steal at 15 bucks - a much smaller investment than VFFs or NB MT100s - and if you decide you don’t like running in them, I happen to think they look pretty damn hip, too.

[DSeid]

Anecdote first … so today is my short workday and afterwards I picked myself up a pair of NB MT100s (often mentioned as one of the minimalist shoe choices) and fit in a short run in the late afternoon - about three miles. I can’t say that when I did heel strike hard it hurt all that much but maybe just because the heel is so much lower I did find it easier to keep up a shorter midfoot strike stride, and felt as fine afterwards as I always do (my knee pain only happens after mile 11; I am more looking for a lighter more efficient form). In a few days I’ll try a slightly longer run and pushing myself for speed intervals a bit and see how it goes …

The studies you quote are using “expensive” as a proxy for amount of cushioning. Yet some cheaper shoes have lots of cushioning too. As a matter of science it is very unconvincing.

Now then, on to the question of whether or not strike location really matters (which I accept up to date on the basis of expert opinions alone). Interesting. Among elite endurance runners a majority are heel strikers. Midfooters aare less of a minority in the fastest group, but still a minority. Apparent inversion seemed to be the bigger deal.

The purpose of the present study was to document actual foot strike patterns during a half marathon in which elite international level runners, including Olympians, compete. Four hundred fifteen runners were filmed by 2 120-Hz video cameras in the height of 0.15 m placed at the 15.0-km point and obtained sagittal foot landing and taking off images for 283 runners. Rearfoot strike was observed in 74.9% of all analyzed runners, MFS in 23.7%, and FFS in 1.4%. The percentage of MFS was higher in the faster runners group, when all runners were ranked and divided into 50 runner groups at the 15.0-km point of the competition. In the top 50, which included up to the 69th place runner in actual order who passed the 15-km point at 45 minutes, 53 second (this speed represents 5.45 m[middle dot]s-1, or 15 minutes, 17 seconds per 5 km), RFS, MFS, and FFS were 62.0, 36.0, and 2.0%, respectively … Apparent inversion (INV) of the foot at the foot strike was observed in 42% of all runners.

And here is a study from this year in Nature that supports Cisco’s contention.

Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.

Make of them what you will.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@hdc_bst

no knee pain, and only some initial calf pain

Yes, *do *expect any minimalist shoes to kick your calves’ ass (if that makes any sense) at first. For the first week or so with my VFFs, it felt kind of like somebody had taken a bat to my legs. But it’ll definitely be a “good” pain (muscles getting used in new ways) versus a “bad” pain (something is getting torn). And personally I was surprised at how quickly my legs adjusted, especially given what terrible shape I’m in (no regular exercise since I retired from dance ~10 years ago).

[Colibri]

@Cisco

This whole post reads like “I can interpret data however I want, even in ways contrary to the conclusions of the studies’ authors, and everything else you say is worthless because it’s anecdotal. Now here are my anecdotes:” :rolleyes:

[Moderator Note]

I asked everyone to dial it down, and instructed x-ray vision to refrain from using rolleyes. That goes for you too, and everyone else.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Greenhorn]

Dan Empfield, longtime runner and triathlete, founder of QR bicycles and owner of slowtwitch.com, wrote an article in response to the recent NYT piece. Some excerpts are below:

The problem is as follows: Either the author of the article misunderstands or misrepresents how runners and their prospective shoes are mated; or she’s faithfully representing a misunderstanding that exists among both the U.S. Military, and the scientists who’ve constructed certain newly-released studies.

I think it’s instructive to examine the premise of the NYT article; of the U.S. Military’s premise while mating shoes to its recruits; and in the study the military either commissioned and/or upon which it relied. That premise is stated in the first sentence of the study upon which the article and the military rested: “Shoe manufacturers market motion control, stability, and cushioned shoes for plantar shapes defined as low, normal, and high, respectively.” (Injury Reduction Effectiveness of Assigning Running Shoes Based on Plantar Shape in Marine Corps Basic Training, Knapik JJ, et al, American Journal of Sportes Medicine, June, 2010.)
I don’t accept the premise that running mechanics necessarily follow plantar shapes, nor that footwear makers design (or necessarily design) their shoes based on that premise.

“Runners with high arches have been directed toward soft, well-cushioned shoes,” writes the NY Times article author. Absolutely incorrect. The industry does not believe this. At least, not the part of the industry to whom I speak. Rather, we look at footfalls—running mechanics. How do you run? Do you overpronate or don’t you? If so, you need a shoe that provides for you what your body does not: support on the medial side.

I’ll allow that there is, perhaps, a miscommunication based on nomenclature: Are the authors of the NYT article, and the authors of various studies mentioned in that article, talking about the height of the arch as nature originally designed it? Or are they talking about the height of the arch after the vicissitudes of weight, and miles, have flattened it? I don’t know, and the articles don’t say. In either case, my view is that running mechanics, not any metric associated with a static stance, determine shoe requirements.

I’ve been flirting with the idea of trying a minimalist shoe, but am reluctant to since after several years of experimenting, I feel I’ve found the combination of shoe and arch support that has allowed me to run without pain for the last couple years. Since there seems to be no consensus within the running community, I’m inclined to wait a couple more years or until my current shoe is discontinued before giving it a try.

[Sister_Vigilante]

I only have anecdotal evidence but I’ll share it anyway. A friend and I both bought Vibrams around the same time (her before me). She had a hard time getting used to them because they were making her walk and run in a way opposite to what she’d been doing her whole life (heel-toe). So different muscles were getting worked. Eventually her body adjusted and she loves them.

I mentioned in another thread that I am barefoot at all times I am not at work. I had no soreness, no adjustment period, with my Vibrams, and I bought the cheapest kind. The only issue I had was the lack of cushion for the balls of my feet, so there was friction in new places.

I wouldn’t recommend getting a pair and running in them straight out of the gate. You need time to adjust unless you ran around barefoot, outside, on concrete, asphalt, grass, etc., all summer when you were a kid (and an adult, actually) like me.