Running shoes vs running barefoot (or at least just something for protection)

In My Humble Opinion
1

Recently, I’ve been more and more intrigued with the idea of running not necessarily barefoot (mostly because I dont want to turn my feet into harsh leather) - but at least without expensive shoes. Maybe just something to protect the bottom of my feet from what lurks on the sidewalk and edges of the road.

Anytime someone starts running and asks someone else for advice, typically the first piece offered is ‘get a good pair of shoes’. It seems as though over the past few years, there is a movement to change this mindset.

I can certainly see the points of view from the barefoot side:
[ul]Humans are evolved for running, especially long distance. Proportionally to the rest of our bodies, when compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, we have large feet, large legs, large knees, large butt, and large degree of surface area for cooling using our efficient built in cooling system.
[/ul]
[ul]The human foot and lower leg naturally acts as a large spring which is able to absorb energy exerted during planting the foot on the ground, and is efficiently able to return that energy back.
[/ul]
[ul]The design of the modern running shoe has many unfounded assumptions and contradictions. Just a couple I can think of off the top of my head:

  1. The heels are thicker than the midfoot - yet just about any source you find for running form indicates that a mid-foot strike is best for speed and reducing injury. They often even go so far as to say that when you land midfoot, you are able to take advantage of the human legs ability to absorb shock! That logic seems circular to me. So why is the midfoot not thicker if the shock absorbance of the shoe is so critical?
  2. The shoe is necessary to provide support. Yet with just about every other physical thing in humanity - there is a drive to provide support only as much as necessary. For example - you sprain your ankle, wrist, whatever - you wear a support for a while until you are able to resume normal activity - at which point you ditch the support so that your body can learn to deal with the stresses naturally. Why on earth is the foot any different?
    [/ul]
    [ul]By providing previously mentioned support, the modern running shoe does nothing to force the person to modify their stride and foot strike appropriately to reduce stress and ultimately, injury.
    [/ul]
    [ul]The body of evidence of runners who were previously injury prone and who have subsequently ditched their shoes and since run injury free is growing.
    [/ul]

And then there are the arguments for the benefits of running shoes:
[ul]The majority of the population has relatively poor and injury-creating running form - so having a good pair of shoes can prevent those injuries.
[/ul]
[ul]Man did not evolve to be able to run long distances, so modern products must be created in order to allow this.
[/ul]
[ul]Some people pronate and some supinate - so they need external help with correcting that. Otherwise injuries are likely.
[/ul]
[ul]When you run, you land with extreme forces that the leg is not made to handle. This blurs with the second argument above (not being evolved for long distance running).
[/ul]

So - what other arguments can be made for either side, and what sort of cites can be provided to add mud to the clarity of this discussion?

As a current runner who has always used good running shoes and replaced them when necessary - I’m trying to find additional pieces of information for either side of the argument.

2

Well, I’m not a runner, but I do prefer to go barefoot whenever possible.

Surely stepping on something sharp is a concern?

3

I have no information on this topic, but I just saw an article about this exact subject in today’s Washington Post: In the Long Run, Who’d Want Shoes? Book Argues That Barefoot Is Better; Book Argues That Humans Run Better Barefoot Than with Shoes

4

That’s why I wear these.

5

The human body evolved to run on soft ground and grass, not asphalt and concrete.

Granted, there are a lucky few who have such perfect mechanics that they can run on anything. The most famous example being Abebe Bikila.

The actual footplant may be midfoot first but the heel does touch down momentarily and at slow paces most runners do land heel first. It should not be noticeably heel first, it should still look rather flatfooted just like a midfoot landing just biased slightly to the heel.

(Personal experience)I did try running barefoot many years ago(on grass and artificial track) and it was a disaster. I overpronate too much to not need some support.

6

I have no proper evidence to add to the discussion, just an anecdote. Until fairly recently, I haven’t been a runner. Before I took up recreational running, I would occasionally sprint around while camping. When I camp and I’m not in charge of a group of children, I don’t wear shoes. I found that I was a decent runner when I was going through the woods barefoot. My stride was completely different than it was on the road and the whole experience felt much more natural. I never ran more than a few minutes with the purpose of getting from Point A to Point B, but it was many times longer than I was able to run on a road. It was significantly more enjoyable as well.

7

This feeds right into the point of the human body being able to build up to what is required to do so. What would keep the foot from being able to adapt? I don’t disagree that it may take longer, however. I’m also not advocating taking someone who can run 20+ miles on pavement, removing their shoes and asking them to do the same thing without building up for it - I completely agree that would be a disaster.

Does the heel touch down momentarily because that is part of the natural motion, or because when you run with shoes, the heel is propped up? With the heel having a greater thickness in a running shoe than the midfoot - you are effectively removing a good amount of vertical distance the heel can traverse before hitting the ground. That much space can make a huge difference in the amount of cushioning that can be provided by the foot on its own, if in fact having the heel briefly touch the ground is part of the natural motion. (Without even discussing the effects of having a stronger calf muscle, which would further act to reduce the impact on the heel - possibly negating it all together).

Also - regarding landing heel first, the counter to that is that most people start off running (who are likely the slower pace runners) with the same mechanics that are used for walking. Having cushioning in the heel doesn’t discourage that, because the runner would never get the ‘Ow, that hurts! Must alter my mechanics to avoid a heel strike’ thought chain, which would force them into having more proper mechanics of landing not on the heel, but farther up on the foot, when running.

This is actually something I’m very curious about. When you tried it - what made it a disaster? (more questions to follow based on the response :slight_smile: )

Some people are born with naturally good mechanics, that is true. But better mechanics can be learned. I know from my triathlon training that my initial swim mechanics SUCK (even though I swam in high school) - but I’ve been working on reinventing my stroke to make it more efficient, and have had positive results. The relating thought for running shoes is that they dont encourage runners to improve their form.

I’m actually glad you chimed in (as contrarian as I’m being) - I was originally thinking of bringing this discussion up in the current C25K thread - but decided it was a bigger issue than what should be discussed there.

I realize that there are two camps here, and I know there are hardcore believers on each side. I’m just trying to see what arguments and facts can be brought up regarding the topic.

8

This seems to be the crux of the entire barefoot running argument - when you run without running shoes, your body naturally gravitates towards a more comfortable stride. That is not to say it is instant, however.

My own anecdote - my wife tried starting to run a couple years back, and ultimately failed because she injured her knees and needed surgery to even be able to walk for more than 20 minutes after that. This was when I was starting to run again as well, so I hadn’t done much of any research into… well, anything.

Since then I’ve come across multiple things that have improved my running form, cadence being a big one - because it shortened by stride and got me landing more on my mid-foot rather than being a heel striker. Anyhow - now my wife wants to start the C25K program again, and I was mentioning form as something to work on right away, given her history. I was trying to think of the best way to explain the motion and mechanics of proper running form, and wasn’t coming up with anything simple and succinct. It wasn’t until the idea of running barefoot came up when the mechanics all made sense, and she said that yes, she does in fact run differently when barefoot as opposed to when she was trying to run before.

9

Very interesting - I was just thinking about this lately. I have plantar fasciitis that apparently is triggered by a particular type of running shoe and the way it arches my foot. I finally (after much time, energy and money) found a good running shoe that does not hurt but I have been thinking of the possibility of running barefoot. I had reached the point of thinking that shoes are only hurting the situation! There is a HS track close by that I am thinking of using to test. Of course, it’s here in MS so I’ll try to make sure my feet don’t melt to the track.

I’m thinking that since I’m coming off a “flare up” and have to ease back into running again it might be a good test since I can only go about a mile at first when I am still tender from the fasciitis, and part of that is walking. Might be a way to ease into barefoot running.

10

Hey silk.

To clarify some of my points:

When I said the foot evolved, I meant the 100s of 1000s of years of evolution, not the adaptation that comes from training.

I just pulled out my old racing flats and the wear pattern is a worn patch on the ball of the foot slightly to the outside of the sole, the entire heel is evenly worn and the outside of the toe is worn.
Looks like I landed midfoot first, roll in and the heel land flat then toe-off.

The heel padding is only slightly thicker than the forefoot.

My old training shoes show the most wear in the middle of the heel and slightly less in the forefoot, showing I was landing heel first but fairly flat.

The mechanics I was referring to are the foot and leg action on landing(pronation).
When I tried running barefoot, I developed knee pain and plantar fasciitis.

I did notice I was landing midfoot but the heel still touched down. This was even when running 5:20-5:30 pace.( 10K on the track)

I do think very limited barefooting on grass would be beneficial but I don’t like articles that say we all should be doing this wholesale.

You know how runners can be. :wink:
"New training method! Shiny! Jump in blind! :wink:

I just think the number of runners who can run barefoot like the author are few and these kinds of article do a disservice in general.

11

I dislike running, a lot, though I probably should do it since I can and it’s an easy exercise. Years ago I found Running Barefoot site, where a lot of people run sans shoes. I can only run barefoot now, even though I don’t do it often. The founder of the site runs marathons, on the road, so it can be done. I would say the track is the worst place to run barefoot as it’s very prickly. Concrete and blacktop aren’t that bad once you get used to it. I walk, when I’m home, without shoes and I don’t have thick leathery soles so I don’t think it will be a huge problem.

As for your pros for shoes, people can run long distances without problems, it has nothing to do with shoes.

12

I’ve been running in Vibram Five Fingers for a couple of months now, and I love them. In my experience:

  • Running in them is fun because you feel everything. There’s instant feedback whenever your foot touches the ground. I feel like I run with more agility, especially when doing sprints.

  • I have indeed adapted to run differently by landing more on the mid-foot. Back and knee pain has been nonexistant and my posture has improved.

  • My feet have become very muscular and veiny, my little toes no longer curl underneath my other toes so much, and my calves look very taut and lithe.

  • Pavement running: I can run on the pavement in my Vibrams. However, I’ve found that if I do a lot of pavement running several days in a row without a break, my feet will ache the next day. It’s mainly stiffness in my arch and pain in the pads of my feet. To be clear, it’s not crippling foot pain, but it has occasionally meant the difference between taking a day off and going for a run. As a result, I’ve made an effort to run on grass as much as possible (I do a lot of working out on an artificial turf soccer field near me).

Overall, I’m glad I made the switch and I think my Vibrams are the raddest shoes ever.

13

Ah - so this is interesting.

In looking at racing flats, it appears they are considered to be much more minimalist than typical running shoes. Here is an articlethat seems to have a pretty good description of them.

They are described as being less supportive than a running shoe with less cushioning. In the context of why one might be interested in running barefoot (to improve stride and biomechanics) - they seem like a potentially good compromise between the two sides. You get the strengthening of the tendons and buildup of the foot structure in flats more-so than with typical running shoes, but you also get some degree of cushioning which can be beneficial.

Runner Pat - Do you feel like you still over pronated when you tried running barefoot? One of the arguments I’ve heard regarding pronation is that if you are not heel striking (which you would not do when barefoot), pronation is very difficult to do. Physically, that makes sense to me - since the heel is more of a rounded surface than the front part of the foot - I can see where a heel strike would result in pronation in many people. As opposed to the front of the foot which is flatter. However, I’m a pretty neutral runner myself, so I really have no idea what exactly causes pronation.

The deal with McDougall (who is the current barefoot running promoter referenced in the majority of articles people are citing) is that he used to not be able to run even a short distance after he developed plantar fascitis. When he did his trip to Mexico and ended up ditching his shoes, he is now able to run a 50 mile ultramarathon with no problem.
Obviously, simply saying that ditching the shoes cured all his issues is a bit of an oversimplification - but he does contend that it forced him to have a better stride and to correct his mechanics to the point where his injuries went away. And he is not of a body type someone would think of as a runner - he’s a bigger, heavier guy. So I don’t classify him as a person who is naturally gifted with perfect form that allows him to run barefoot with no problems at all. If he did have perfect form, he’d probably have been able to run a 5k without issues.

And that is the aspect of running barefoot (or at least with minimal shoes) that is appealing. In reading more and more about it, I find myself agreeing with many of the conclusions - that we tend to overcomplicate an issue and put layer upon layer of fixes in place (ie, the list of ‘features’ in a modern running shoe) that do more to confuse things than actually resolve issues at their root cause.

As far as shiny and new - the shiny and new thing on the block is modern running shoes itself, which only appeared on the shelves 30-40 years ago! :slight_smile:

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, though - as it does with most things. I’d guess it goes something like this: most people can benefit with some degree of barefoot running, which improves their form and can go a long way to reduce injury; however, with the hard surfaces people run on nowadays, and the speeds they do so at, there can be an advantage to having extra cushioning for many people.

14

Pronation is the foot collapsing in on the arch, rotating inward and even the tibia rotates slightly. It’s how the foot/leg absorbs shock. Everyone pronates to some degree.

Someone who is flat footed overpronates, the high arched pronates very little.

You, a neutral runner, actually pronates but within the correct range, thus you need no extra cushioning nor control.

When I tried barefoot running, I still overpronated. Landing on the midfoot doesn’t change the way the foot works. The only runners who can run forefoot only without heel contact are sprinters, even 800 runners strike midfoot/heel.

I had a great deal of trouble with impact running barefoot, felt every step as a jarring to the body. This was on the track, grass was different. Didn’t dare try on asphalt or concrete.

I started running 33 years ago and running shoes have improved beyond anything I would have imagined.

Even if some people can trace injuries to the shoes, I think far more people are able to run due to the shoes available.

15

Well then I suppose my thinking was wrong - wouldn’t be the first time!

I have the same thoughts - running shoes helped lead to the running revolution in the 70’s, which led to many more people being able to run successfully. I just have this sense (no proof though) that there may be a large degree of the running population that have bad form, and while it is great that the modern running shoe can allow these people to run - it is a shame that they are potentially never taught properly. The only reason I learned it was because I was interested in getting faster, and that led to doing research into the subject. Many times, people aren’t necessarily interested in that, and don’t fix the bad mechanical habits.

Wait… did we just agree on something regarding footwear?! :smiley:

16

The only poor running form that I’ve seen that can cause injuries is overstriding. It generates much higher impact on a smaller area plus the resulting unnatural mechanics and muscle stress.

Oddly, I’ve found that almost all men who overstride tend to land heel first while women tend to reach out and “tiptoe”.

Other form problems tend to be upper body which while reducing efficiency, don’t tend to cause injuries.

17

I’d LOVE to have a pair of those. Unfortunately, they don’t make them big enough by at least three sizes.

18

I’ve wondered if running barefoot on soft (grass, etc.) surfaces would be better for me. I try to run, I’ve done (started, heh) the C25K many times.

I’m a toe-runner naturally. I started out as a toe walker, in fact. My mom had to work a lot with me as a tiny child to stop running/walking on tip toes all the time. I still put more weight to my toes if I don’t pay attention, and when I do toe running (instead of making an effort to plant mid-foot), it seems easier.

I wonder if barefoot toe (not tip-toe, but just where the weight is more from mid-foot to toe, instead of straight mid-foot) would work better for me.

19

Do you guys remember Zola Budd? She held various world records, all achieved running barefoot. I loved running around barefoot as a kid, and would sometimes pretend I was Zola Budd. :smiley:

20

Just a question - how many people out there wear shoes while indoors, vs usually go either barefoot, or at most having slippers on, indoors? If you wear shoes most of the time while indoors - do you overpronate or have flat feet?

Just looking to see if there might be a correlation…