Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy(timesonline.co.uk)
timesonline.co.uk
Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article7045833.ece
42 comments
> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?
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.
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.
Perhaps the following formulation would be appropriate: if you are not in shape to run, you are not in shape to run barefoot. But I do not think anyone has argued otherwise.
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.
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.
> As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?
Isn't this an argument in favour of barefoot-ness?
Isn't this an argument in favour of barefoot-ness?
> World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?
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.
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.
And if their running career is jeopardized, they're no longer a world-class athlete.
>>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?
A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.
>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.
{{fact}}.
And which are not caused by their occupation?
And which are not caused by their occupation?
The point is that world-class runners from countries in which most people train barefoot have far fewer foot defects than people from rich countries who are engaged in the exact same occupation.
What does {{fact}} mean?
What does {{fact}} mean?
How do you know this? Is there any real data on this topic?
I know about and keep up with this topic because of my background. It's not the result of a casual google surf.
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.
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.
If nothing else I think we can be certain of one fact regarding barefoot running: it is a very appealing story. How many publications that don't typically cover running have written the same story now, and how many times has it made the front page of hacker news?
Can't buy? Perhaps not actually barefoot, but my wife got a pair of these [1] and I'm planning on getting some soon myself.
(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.
(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.
I'm a huge fan of VFF. Extremely comfortable (I dislike the pressure most shoes/socks put on forcing my toes together laterally), and great for running. I've been running with these on asphalt for the past six months, and feel the best I have in years.
And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome attention :)
And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome attention :)
After reading a HN linked article on barefoot running I did some research and bought my first pair of VFF about 2 months ago. Bought my second pair, Treks, two weeks ago for every day and use the first pair for running only. For me it has been a lifestyle changer. My feet and legs want to walk or run all the time. I'm frustrated by rainy days that leave me cooped up in the office. My wife says I get grumpy if I don't wear my "duck shoes".
I just yesterday upgraded to the KSO Treks after about five months in regular KSOs because.....
- 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 :)
- 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 :)
What's the tape mod? And why would I need to do it?
Another anecdote for these. I started running regularly a year or so ago. I'm no natural athlete, and even with relatively short runs of just a few miles, I would struggle with knee pain. (I'm quite tall.)
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...
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...
Same. If placebo cures X, doesn't that mean that, for them, the placebo is a cure for X?
I'd seen them before, and they do look like a good idea.
Edit: here, I found where I'd seen them, at Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/
Edit: here, I found where I'd seen them, at Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/
these and other "barefoot" shoes have been around for quite a while
so have the articles about barefoot running.
so have the articles about barefoot running.
I'd be willing to bet that barefoot running articles have been around since significantly before the internet. Including research, not just the drug-induced-belief associated with hippies.
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.
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 have recently wrote an article about barefoot running http://www.freestylemind.com/barefoot-running
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 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.
The benefits of barefoot running can be obtained without going totally shoeless.
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.
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.
The Newton Running [1] shoe is also designed with additional padding on the forefoot to support forefoot based running styles, like barefoot running. I like them quite a bit. Barefoot really seems appealing to Luddites. The benefit of cushioning simply can't be denied. Even the supporters negatively compare the feeling of running on concrete barefoot to running on soft dirt. There is simply less impact on the body.
[1] http://www.newtonrunning.com/
[1] http://www.newtonrunning.com/
[deleted]
Is anyone else suspicious that all these articles about barefoot running started appearing at the same time a bunch of companies came out with specialized "barefoot" shoes?
They've been about for a while now.
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)
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)
Nike has Free for 4-5 years. It had even added some cushioning to original Free over the years.
added some cushioning to original Free
Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?
Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?
There wasn't any need, but they did it anyway. I'm subscribed to the Ebay feed for the Free 3.0 in the hope that more of the old style will turn up, but the supply's been running low lately. Hopefully they'll see the error of their ways and start making the older style again.
I recently wrote about my experience in transitioning to barefoot running. http://suburbiarebooted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-became-ba... Bonus-- I was doing it before it was cool. :-P
I just bought a pair of vibram's last week. That's crazy enough for me.
I did notice that running down hill requires new technique. You cant use your heel as much or at all when barefoot.
I did notice that running down hill requires new technique. You cant use your heel as much or at all when barefoot.
I'm about three-quarters through Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, and it already feels life-changing.
WRT healthier walking and posture: what shoes can be purchased that don't look completely ridiculous?
I compared my chuck taylors to a pair of nike frees and thought the soles were equivalently flexible. Looking ridiculous is a matter of taste, but any plimsoll-inspired sneaker will probably work the same as a nike free. Vans, Chucks, Keds, etc. Even soccer trainers like adidas gazelles have hardly any sole to them. Haven't seen a "dress" shoe with these concepts that didn't look orthopedic, though.
Sanuk sells thin flexible shoes. They are a bit casual, but a few styles are work friendly:
http://www.sanuk.com/products/341027
VivoBarefoot is another alternative, although a bit more expensive:
http://www.terraplana.com/vivobarefoot.php
http://www.sanuk.com/products/341027
VivoBarefoot is another alternative, although a bit more expensive:
http://www.terraplana.com/vivobarefoot.php
You know what looks ridiculous? Hobbling because cool looking shoes have smashed your feet and wrecked your knees.
some of us have jobs where we cant wear toe shoes. be realistic.
Feelmax makes shoes that look a bit less odd than Vibrams.
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.