Barefoot Running Debate

Not to mention the numerous articles which discuss the relationship between sedentary daily lives (i.e sitting on your ass at you desk for 12 hours a day) and increased risk of sports induced musculoskeletal overuse injury as a result.

 

This paper which looked at Fatigue and changes in joint Kinematics - Hip, knee and joint coupling timing. Which maybe of interest

Edit : removed paper so no one gets any stress.

Heres the abstract for anyone who missed it.
http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=162402&postcount=5

 

Mike,

Be careful about uploading articles which are in press (or recently published) - Craig had a stern talking to from some publishers who didn't take too kindly to it

 

Hello,
I've been reading blogs here and there about people running bare foot and how its helped with their achillies, ankle, knee pain etc etc. But i can never read too much because some of what they say and their reasons behind it just does my head in! But a lot of these people claim that they had been running there whole life and nothing else had worked for them.

I assume there must be a reason for the improvement, and maybe this fad is helping some to rehab them selfs with out noticing... bare with me (not sure if this has come up before but this discussion is 22 pages long!)

We know that the Alfredson Heel drops work well for Achilles tendinitis and that rest or reducing distance/intensity is also important. Well this is kinda what those people do when they start bare feet running (from what i can gather). Once they have joined a barefoot cult they are instructed to start of really slow and with little distance. When running barefoot the forefoot hits first and then the heel lowers to the ground (eccentric loading like Alfredson says). I imagine they also do lots of calf stretching as well. They also get more rest because they dont try "over do it".

Lots of patients lye when they tell you they have been doing exercises etc. and those can sometimes/often be the ones that claim to know more about everything than you (ie dedicated weekend warrior/ triathlete - Barefoot runner) (generalization i know). So they pick this "new idea up and now they feel better

only to be stuck down with DMICS


Well this is an idea i had on this anyway

Cheers
Nick McI

 

I was interviewed last week by a reporter for a Toronto (Canada) magazine, "NowToronto" about my thoughts on barefoot running. Anyone wanting to read some comments by me, Chris McDougall, Dan Lieberman, Amby Burfoot and Darwin Fogt can look here:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/lifestyle/story.cfm?content=176138

This still is the thread on barefoot running ......isn't it???:craig:

 

New Balance Minimus (please note Lieberman's research mention)

 

You can almost see the £££££££ signs in Katherine's eyes....

 

Barefoot running still news worthy in the UK - this from today's Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/09/is-barefoot-running-good-for-you

 

The reality is that the running shoe is industry has jumped on the bandwagon. They are all developing or currently marketing their own line of shoes that are supposed to simulate barefoot running or bring you close to it. Here is a list of the major companies that I am aware of that have jumped in the game. A big player noticeably missing is Asics. It might be that I'm just not aware of whether or not they have something in the works.

Merrell - Barefoot Collection, several models, male and female, due out March 2011, Vibram will make the soles
New Balance - Minumus, 3 models, road, trail, wellness, due out March 2011, Vibram will make the soles for these shoes as well
Nike Free - currently 3 models, they have been available for 5 yrs now, even before Vibram FF.
Adidas - Clima Chill, 2 models, currently available, they are similar to Nike Free in concept.
Saucony Pro Grid Kinvara - Currently available, these are like racing flats
Vibram - FiveFingers in many models currently available
Several other small companies - there are several small companies with "minimalist" shoes out there but I'm not sure they are big enough to stand up to the big shoe companies and survive longer term.

With the exception of Merrell and Vibram, these companies already had cross country racing flats. It is all about marketing though. People aren't intuitive enough to realize "minimalist" shoes have been available before the running shoe industry even existed as it does today. These shoes have always been around, it just took a while for people to think they are the next magic pill to running success. The major shoe companies, will repackage some of their products, slap them on a trail runner in a scenic add and sell "minimalism".

Vibrams are the only shoes with toes, the rest are more traditional shaped although they claim to provide more toe room. It will be interesting to read the reviews after these shoes have been out for a while. Nike has mixed reviews. The barefoot people say they are too much like traditional shoes with an elevated heel and too much midsole. The market who votes with dollars has supported it as a successful shoe line. We know how successful Vibram has been, they can't keep up with the demand and the reviews from customers are generally 5 out of 5 stars.

I'm sure we will see this go through a marketing life cycle. Since the concept is just in it's infancy and we really won't see a lot of new products in this niche until next year, I'd guess we will see this evolve over the next several yrs! My guess is it will take 5 yrs for the players to sort out, then another 5 yrs for people to lose interest.

I would think the way to approach this is not to get on a podium and denounce the shoes, people won't listen. Taking an approach of guidance might be a more productive option. I personally might not have even bought a pair of VFF if this arena was so set against them, you did a great job selling the shoes for Vibram. I sincerely believe there is a SAFE way to wear these shoes. Certainly not every day for every run. We can probably all agree that is an injury waiting to happen.

For someone who has good running form and takes their time to become accustomed to running in these shoes, they can be worn without injury. The problem is, people can be really gung ho about a new gimmick, they pull their new Vibrams out of the box and the first thing they want to do is go on a 10 mile run on pavement. OUCH.

The shoe companies warn about the need to gradually build into these shoes but I'm not sure the advice is adhered to. Based on my experience, running a mile or two at a time to begin with is enough. After a month or so, using shoes like VFF should amount to possibly 2 runs per week amounting to no more than 25% of total mileage. Those numbers are totally arbitrary and yes n=1 for my experience.

All I'm trying to say, is the fight is over with respect to minimal shoes, they are about to flood the market, it is time to figure out a way to channel the enthusiasm or business is going to be quite good for Podiatrist and orthopedic Dr.s for quite some time.

The most effective way to help with what is about to happen is not to fight the inevitable but rather to channel and teach how to safely wear minimal shoes.

Dana

 

I finally made it to the end of the thread. Wow! It took me a few days to get through but it was quite an interesting read. I don't remember how I found this website but I think it was while reading a barefoot article or forum. I have done a ton of reading about barefoot running and after awhile it really does have the "church of barefoot running" feel to it. It was nice to hear the "other side" for once.

I learned a lot reading this thread and I am grateful for all the information you guys have provided. I’m sure if I re-read the thread I would pick up a bunch of stuff I missed the first time. There was just so much information. I saved a bunch of PDFs of the studies posted and I’m looking forward to reading them.

When I found this forum I thought I was going to hear a bunch of doctors who would be going on and on about how bad barefoot running is. I was pleasantly surprised to hear how balanced the views are here and the main issue the folks here don’t like is how the “church of barefoot running” is misinterpreting and misrepresenting the scientific literature.

I have tried barefoot running and it’s really fun. The bad part for me was that I had to take such a severe cut in my mileage and intensity because I haven’t been barefoot my whole life. The skin on the bottom of my feet can only take a couple of miles at a time, and that is at a much slower pace than what I would run shod. I love running and the way a feel after an intense training session too much to stay with the barefoot running 100% of the time.

I did feel like the barefoot running made my feet stronger. This is only my feeling and I don’t have any data to back it up. It was also a very enjoyable experience and the sensations you feel while barefoot is completely different than shod. This also has a downside because if you happen to step on some kind of debris it can really hurt, but in shoes I can run on sharp rocks without a second thought. The barefooters call it “proprioception”, but I don’t want to use so much effort looking and every step I make. I would rather put that effort into the run.

A topic I see recurring is how “minimalistic shoes” are nothing new and have been around for a long time. I somewhat agree but I think what the “church of barefoot running” considers a true minimalist shoe is different than how it has been defined here. They consider racing flats a “reduced shoe” not a “minimalist shoe”. They make the distinction because racing flats still have a raised heel, arch support, and cushioning. A minimalist shoe doesn’t have these traits. A good example is the Five Fingers. There is no arch support and no cushioning. The shoe is basically a very thin piece of rubber underneath your foot and nothing else. The part that upsets me is how they still charge so much for so little. Shoes like the Nike Free or the Saucony Kinvara are not minimalist shoes, they are reduced shoe. As a result, the “church of barefoot running” thinks they are a step in the right direction, but they still have some way to go before they can be a good minimalist shoe.

When I first starting reading about barefoot running I couldn’t help but believe the hype. I read a bunch of stuff about how it reduces injuries, improves form, and improves performance. Who wouldn’t want all of that? I have run barefoot and in minimalist shoes, which is a huge difference and I like how it has been pointed out that minimalist running is still shod running, not barefoot. I didn’t notice any affect on injuries, but I can see how the chance of injury is high while running barefoot. I noticed a big change in form, but I don’t know if that a good thing. While shod, I heal-strike and haven’t had any problems with it so far. While barefoot, you must change to a mid or fore foot strike and that put a large amount of stress on the calves and Achilles. I have also done a ton of reading on foot strike and form, but that’s a whole different topic. Instead of going into the form debate, I will just say that I believe there is not one single form that everyone should be using, whether it’s Pose, Chi, etc.

As for performance, I’m not sure how anyone can say you will be faster while barefoot. I can’t run anywhere near my top speed while barefoot. The difference is greater as the distance increases. I also agree with the point that has been made about elite performance and how not a single elite athlete races barefoot. Their entire livelihood is based on their performance at races. If running barefoot made them faster they would be doing it.

Based on my experience running barefoot and what I’ve read in the literature and forums (from both sides), I use barefoot running as a training supplement to shod running. I am way too competitive to run at almost half the pace and less than half of the distance that I can run while wearing shoes. I hope to one day post numbers that are as good as Dr. Kirby’s, but it will be a lot of sweat and work before I get there.

Sorry for the long post but there was a bunch of stuff I wanted to address. I know I left a lot out because I wasn’t taking notes along the way, but that’s good enough for now.

P.S. I never heard of the word “shod” before I found a barefoot forum. Did the church make that term up or is it a real word?

 

Whilst we are back on the subject of misrepresenting research, it appears 'America's Podiatrist' (self proclaimed I suspect?) may well be guilty of this also... but then again he is as affiliate of the 'Primal Foot Alliance'

http://www.americaspodiatrist.com/2010/08/want-to-pronate-less-maybe-you-should-run-barefoot/

So apparently we finally have the research that barefoot running is better! So we must be talking about the long term prospective study we have all hoped for which investigates injury rates in barefoot Vs shod runners (and matches both groups for variables such as foot type/axial deviation, training mileages, etc etc) right?? Wrong. This is the study the blog is referring to:

http://journals.humankinetics.com/jab-current-issue/JABVolume26Issue2May/EffectsofVaryingAmountsofPronationontheMediolateralGroundReactionForcesDuringBarefootVersusShodRunning

Is it me or did this study not even investigate injury??

Taxi for Dr Nirenberg please...

 

Probably from one of my posts. It means "wearing shoes". Simple English terminology.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shod

 

When looking at videos of people running on a treadmill from behind, you can see the foot hit the ground generally on the lateral side of the heel, or possibly the midfoot. After contact, as runner progresses forward weight shifts from the rear of the foot to the front of the foot AND from the lateral side of the foot to the medial. While weight is shifting lateral to medial, there should be a slight amount of inward rolling of the foot or pronation. If this rolling is pronounced, it is considered over pronation and that excess rolling motion can lead to injuries. Right?

When a runner is predisposed to over pronation and wears shoes that are cushioned, when their heal hits the ground with a soft midsole, there isn't a whole lot of stability and the foot can rotate inward in a big way if there is nothing to hold it back.

Now, if that runner is barefoot or wearing something like Vibram FiveFingers and the runner lands on their forefoot with their toes spread to form a stable platform consisting of the front 1/3 of the foot, there is a limited need for their foot to roll forward and/or inward. Their foot is already very close to being in the position it needs to be for toe off. Since they are not landing on an unstable heal platform and there is no need for the foot to roll inward since it is already there, would that negate or at least reduce the tendency to over pronate?

I'm just trying to think this through. For a runner who has over pronation problems wearing shoes and landing on their heels, when you take their shoes away and they land on their forefoot, what happens to their over pronation?

Dana

 

Wrong Dana. We do not like nor use the term 'over-pronation'. Won't go over it all again here as it's been discussed in another thread ad infinitum - will find it in a mo and post the link

Won't go into the rest of your post at the moment as it all pertains to 'over-pronation' and it is first important you grasp why this is ambiguous and needs to be removed from everybody's vocabulary

 

Here you go Dana - found it: http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=39128&highlight=overpronation

 

Thanks Ian, I'll read up so that I can use the appropriate language to ask my question.

Dana

 

Ok, thanks Ian for pointing me to the discussion on "overpronation" now I know it is an ambiguous term, and it is an observation not a diagnosis.

Suppose a runner has been observed to have medially deviated subtalar joint axis rotation. They are experiencing pain from running and they wear soft healed running shoes. If they discontinue wearing those shoes and opt for no shoes or shoes with no midsole and are now encouraged to land on their metatarsal heads with toes spread to provide stability, is there a potential for the pathological deviation of the subtalar joint axis to correct itself or at least reduce it's extensiveness to the point where pain subsides?

Dana

 

Now you're talking our language mate!

Remember the deviation of the sub talar joint axis is not necessarily pathological - it is what it is. Pathology may ensue if, for that individual doing a particular activity, it results in pathological loading of any of the tissues (forces outside their zones of tolerance - or zones of optimal stress [ZOOS])

Lets use an example and keep it really simplistic - a runner with subtalar joint (STJ) axis which is medially deviated in the transverse plane (forget the other 2 planes for now for real simplicity), and is getting a sore Tibialis Posterior tendon when running.

It could be that due to the increased 'area' of the plantar foot that is now lateral to the STJ axis that ground reaction force (GRF) causes a net pronation moment at the STJ. Does this make sense to you? This in turn increases the tensile loading force (eccentric workload) of the Tibialis Posterior tendon, and = pain.

Now, we ask this runner to run barefoot. To my mind this would not alter a thing with respect to the STJ axial location, and the GRF application. Remember that if the axis is sufficiently medially deviated the entire forefoot can be lateral to the axis = therefore even with forefoot striking I would still expect to see a net STJ pronation moment. Would we still get symptoms? Probably, as the way to reduce pain in this example would be to reduce the tensile loading forces (work demands) on Tibialis Posterior. I have not seen any literature which has suggested running barefoot would achieve this.

 

Ian, GREAT. This makes perfect sense, thank you. Now to put your language into mine, if the person runs like a duck with toes pointing out, you would still expect to see a net STJ pronation moment. Therefore, you'd probably still get symptoms. I do understand what you said. I am also beginning to understand the problems many people are headed for when they get caught up in all of the new shoe hype.

I feel really fortunate that I can wear shoes like VFF without problems but I'm probably the exception. For 2011, Vibram is coming out with 5 or 6 new models in addition to their existing line of shoes. This whole thing is going to explode in the next few years. People love to buy new stuff, especially when there is a toy element to it. The shoe industry has fallen upon a new spin on ultra light shoes and you better believe they are going to capitalize on it.

Dana

 

I agree with you Dana - we can expect to see lots and lots more 'barefoot'/'minimal' shoes in the future. People may think this is because the shoe companies have finally realised barefoot running is superior and will reduce injuries (remember it might be - but none of us know that yet), and I have even heard some barefoot runners smugly talk about how the shoe industry is doing a u-turn. But let's make no mistake about it - the companies are doing it for one thing: £££££££. They aren't silly, they know how much support/momentum this is now getting and would be stupid (from a financial point of view) to not get involved.

You do sound like a fortunate individual Dana - and I'm sure there are many many more like you. However by the same token there are many many more who aren't. And once again we come back to the same old comment: We are all built different - one thing (whether that be barefoot running or running in Brooks Beast with foot orthoses) will not be the best thing for all of us.

 

:welcome:

Good job wading through it! You will notice a lot of one hit wonder barefoot runners who have posted, then get asked to back up what they say and never come back. Why is that?

You also might want to read these threads:
Vibram FiveFingers Cause Metatarsal Stress Fractures?
"Top of Foot Pain" from Barefoot Running
The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques

It suits the "Church" to have enemies...as that is how they try to justify and rationale there misrepresentation and misquoting and misuse of the science.

I know they do, but they need to look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary (or preferably a neurophysiology textbook) before they through it around like they do.

That is the problem, it does none of that.

As you said, you can run faster with shoes. Abebe Bikala won the 1960 Olympic marathon barefoot, then started wearing running shoes and could run faster to break a world record.

 

Does Barefoot Running Make You Blind?

 

Moved all the step frequency, clinical estimate of leg stiffness, left and right differences discusions- to keep this thread barefoot running

the thread and posts can be found here - Step Frequency, Clinical estimate of leg stiffness left/right differences

 

Thanks for the links Craig. I'll be sure to read through those. I'm currently working my way through the overpronation thread, which is also very interesting. Thankfully it's only 4 pages so it won't take so long.

I hear his name thrown around all the time from the barefooters. I guess he validates barefoot running for them because he's the only elite athlete to win a major marathon barefoot.

After all the reading on barefoot running I also have a big problem with the circular reasoning about the cause of running injuries. The barefoot community says when you get hurt running in shoes it's the shoes fault, but if you get hurt running barefoot it's your fault because you did too much too soon. The prospect that barefoot running might not be good for everyone is not even a possibility for them. I didn't get injured while running barefoot, but that doesn't mean everyone can run barefoot because of my personal experience.

Based off of what I've read on the interwebs and a study from the BJSM, I think one of the biggest causes of injury is a result of training, whether barefoot or shod. Huge training volume or drastic increases in volume or intensity are hard on the body. I'm sure it's already been referenced, but the study is Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review.

 

There is no doubt that a lot of those who run barefoot get less injuiries than when they wear running with shoes. There is also no doubt that a lot of runners who attempt barefoot get injuiries. The claims by the 'Church' of less injuires is non-sensical.

And I am not even convinced that those runners who do get less injuiries running barefoot, that its even due to the 'barefoot'.

The gait pattern between barefoot and shod running is different, so is the less injuries that are particular runner gets when running barefoot really due to that change in gait pattern and nothing to do with the barefoot? Can they recreate that same gait pattern and run in shoes?

So it may not really be about shod vs barefoot for a particular runner, it may actually be gait pattern A vs gait pattern B ....

 

I agree that the change is gait pattern could be an explanation of a reduction in injuries and have nothing to do with shoes or barefoot.

I received an email from Terra Plana, which is a minimalist shoe maker, that included a video on learning the skills of barefoot running. Towards the end of the video they start talking about how their new running shoe, the EVO, will allow you to run safely will mimicking barefoot.

Learning the Skill of Barefoot Running

As stated previously, if you are wearing shoes it's shod running and not barefoot running. All these minimalist shoe companies cannot sell barefoot though, so they have to convince you that their shoes are just as good as barefoot. They also charge a premium for "less" of shoe, with the EVO costing $160.

 

:good:

Craig, I really believe that it is all about gait pattern and your question is right on. The problem is that it would be really difficult for Joe runner to put on a pair of traditional running shoes and decide to run with a gait similar to how you would run barefoot or in shoes like Vibrams. I don't think you need to go to the extreme of running barefoot and risking puncture wounds or rubbing your skin raw to learn and practice a barefoot running gait. That is where Vibrams come in. All they really do is provide puncture and friction protection from the ground. My experience has been that my gait IS different wearing Vibrams vs traditional shoes. I know this because I am very aware that I'm landing more forward on my feet and my calves are working harder. I am also seeing secondary differences with my step rate being faster in Vibrams and my heart rate being slower for the same pace.

There is nothing wrong with the gait I use wearing traditional shoes. I have a long injury free running history using that gait. What I believe that I'm seeing using a gait more closely associated with running barefoot is an improvement in efficiency. The possibility of improved running efficiency to a runner is like finding the holy grail.

I have full intentions of doing my heavier training and racing in traditional shoes but my hope is through practicing a "barefoot gait" in shoes like Vibrams that I will improve my running efficiency and gait when wearing traditional shoes.

Would I have been able to learn and practice a "barefoot gait" in traditional shoes without the help of a shoe like Vibram? I don't think so. As soon as I got tired, I'd go back to my traditional shoe gait. If someone like me who has a life time of running experience has difficulty running with a "barefoot gait" without actually being barefoot or in VFF, how could the average Saturday morning runner have a chance at developing a "barefoot gait" while running in traditional shoes? It just won't happen.

I'm sure with time, people will realize that it is so much more practical to wear shoes like Vibrams over going barefoot and that over time, they will realize that if they really want to train to their potential that they will need to use traditional shoes for most of their running.

The goal should be to use Vibrams to learn what it is like to run with a "barefoot gait", then use them once or twice per week to practice that gait. The rest of the time should be spent in traditional shoes that will all the runner to accumulate far more miles and at faster speeds than they could if they just stuck to Vibrams or bare feet.

From my perspective, it is all about efficiency but even more important is for runners who are injured as a result of their running gait. If running barefoot or with Vibrams helps teach a gait that is less conducive to injury, that would be fantastic. Of course I am sure that there are plenty of runners who aren't going to be helped one bit by changing to a "barefoot gait".

Dana

 

At last weeks World Congress of Biomechanics in Singapore, there was a paper presented that showed that the traditional heel strike gait pattern was the most efficient way to run .. I look forward to seeing the details when it gets published.

 

Of interest. That will go down like a sh!t salad with the barefoot church...

 

Craig and Colleagues:

Here is what I wrote on the same subject exactly three years ago today, on August 10, 2007 in the Forefoot Running thread:

Glad to see the research finally come through.

 

I don't have time to type the full abstract from the proceedings, but this is the conclusion:

They used 3d kinematics and VO2

 

I disagree that the running gait used while barefoot is the most efficient footstrike pattern for endurance events. Most people use a forefoot or midfoot footstrike while barefoot, which can be good for sprinting but not the longer endurance events.

In sprinting events, where the distance is so short, efficiency isn't the main goal because peak power output is so important. The elite athletes in the sprinting events use a forefoot and midfoot strike because it helps to generate the greatest amount of peak power. While generating all that power a lot of metabolic energy is used but it doesn't really matter because the event will be over so soon. One way to look at efficiency is to say that forefoot and midfoot striking is the most efficient way to generate the highest peak power. However, when I hear the term efficiency it is usually used in the context of metabolic efficiency.

In the endurance events, where efficiency is so much more important, the majority of elite athletes are heelstrikers, according to a study by Hasegawa, et al. They use this footstrike because is doesn't use as much metabolic energy as midfoot or forefoot striking. The numbers from the Hasegawa study are very one sided and hardly any of the runners used a forefoot strike during a half marathon. I am guessing that the numbers would be even more one sided in the full marathon, but that's just my opinion. Here's the numbers for quick reference:

Heelstrike 74.9%
Midfoot 23.7%
Forefoot 1.4%

Foot strike patterns of runners at the 15-km point during an elite-level half marathon.


Dr. Kirby,

I think you hit the nail on the head with your quote from 2007 and I think it applies to runners at speeds greater than 6 minute mile pace. In the above study there were many runners that were running faster than 5 minute mile pace that heelstrike. Here's the numbers for runners who ran at 5 minute mile pace or faster:

Heelstrike 62%
Midfoot 36%
Forefoot 2%

 

Sorry, as usual I wasn't very clear. It was not my intent to lead people to believe I went from being a rear foot to a fore foot striker or that I thought a fore foot striker was more efficient.

When wearing traditional shoes, I land on my whole foot at the same time, my rear foot, my mid foot and my fore foot. Based on that, I would consider myself a "whole foot" striker but no one has coined the term yet. When I mentioned landing more forward on my feet, I should have pointed out that I am still a "whole foot" striker, but the weight distribution is different, it is more forward. In order to distribute the weight more forward on my feet, I am shortening my stride and resulting in a higher step rate.

It is the higher step rate that is resulting in improved efficiency for me. I assume I'm approaching Optimal Stride Frequency as opposed to Preferred Stride Frequency as discussed in the Hunter/Smith article titled "Preferred and optimal stride frequency, stiffness and economy: changes with fatigue during a 1-h high-intensity run. I know I'm not in a controlled experiment and n=1 but my Heart Rate monitor certainly indicates that there is an improvement in efficiency.

It is a lot of work to run on your fore foot. I certainly can't imagine running 100 miles that way. It makes complete sense to me that landing on your heal first is more efficient. What also makes sense is that there is an optimal distribution of weight and impact across the entire foot and the distribution might be related to stride frequency and length.

I would imagine there are a lot more variables at play in addition to which part of the foot touches the ground first.

Dana

 

Dana:

By definition, if, while running, you truly land on your "whole foot" at one time, then you are a midfoot striker. If you land on your heel first, then you are, by definition, a rearfoot striker, and if you land on your forefoot first, then, by definition, you are a forefoot striker. You really need to have a high speed video of your running gait done from the side at a low angle or you should run over a force plate to determine which pattern your running gait style falls into for each shoe style and running velocity. I think you would be somewhat surprised at the results.

Also, be careful of using only your heart rate monitor for determining metabolic efficiency when choosing different gait styles or different shoes since running speed must be constant to make valid comparisons. This is very difficult to do in overground running and is best done on a treadmill at constant belt velocity. Also heart rate will increase with increased fatigue, increased dehydration (i.e. reduced blood volume) or even with central nervous excitation so heartrate may not necessarily correlate to the rate of oxygen consumption occurring during steady state running and especially won't be accurate for variable speed or faster running.

 

Kevin, I do know one thing, I'm not pounding on my heels when I land regardless of pace. The wear on my running shoes is consistent from the lateral heal, lateral mid foot and across to the 1st and 2nd metatarsal heads. I struggle with the term midfoot striker because it is kind of hard to land on the middle of your foot without touching the heel and/or toe as well. I'm sure a high speed video would solve the mystery but I'm not sure it matters. I'm sure my heel hits the ground first but my mid foot bears most of the weight/impact.

With respect to the Heart Rate monitor. I run on exactly the same route every day. I measure my average HR for the run and plot it against my average pace. I have hundreds of data points collected for that same run. I used the data to plot a straight line using linear regression. I agree, there is variation due to the shoe I'm wearing, the weather, how much coffee I had, my fluid levels, how hard my training was the day before, etc. But.... over time and with hundreds of data points, that variation sticks within 3 or 4 beats per minute of the line for a given pace. It is so predictable, I can look at my average pace which my garmin calculates and tell you what my avg HR was within a few beats.

Now I put on a pair of vibrams and all of a sudden, my average HR is 5 or 6 beats per minute below the line for a given average pace. WHAT HAPPENED? I don't have hundreds of data points while wearing the Vibrams just yet but I will. The run is 6.7 miles of trail at 5200 feet altitude. What I haven't done yet is compare my avg HR wearing vibrams on a 14 mile trail run that I've also collected 100's of data points on. The line for that run ranges 3 to 5 bpm higher than the 6.7 mile line depending on pace. Due of course to more fatigue and dehydration which you pointed out and what I've heard referred to as Cardiac Drift.

I could just go into a lab and have my VO2 measured wearing traditional shoes vs Vibrams but that would be too easy.:drinks

Dana

 

Heelstriking does not mean heel pounding. You can heelstrike and have a soft smooth landing.

The wear on the bottom of you shoe is a good indicator of footstrike patterns, but it doesn't have the accuracy of a high speed camera.

Midfoot striking just means you land with the entire foot landing at the same time. It doesn't mean only the midfoot lands while the heel and forefoot are off the ground. I don't even think that is physically possible.

It doesn't really matter, which I think it the main point. People should run with their natural footstrike pattern. If you do in fact land with your heel striking the ground first, you are by definition a heel striker. When you say you are a midfoot striker, I think you are referring to the stance phase of running which is different from footstrike.

 

My initial reaction is to be skeptical that you have a higher stride rate and lower heart rate (with all other aspects being equal - as Kevin alluded to) when barefoot/in VFF's. Your gait in VFF's would have to show an appreciable increase in efficiency in order for the higher stride rate to yield a noticably lower heart rate. I would be surprised in someone like yourself who has a significant running history if your gait can be improved that much in efficiency to yield such a result since it is likely probably pretty refined already. Seems a bit counterintuitive but at least it will give me something to knock around in my head tonight. :bash:

 

Dana:

If you have lateral-posterior heel wear, then you can bet your sweet bippies (remember Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In?) that you are a rearfoot striker, just like 80% of all other runners. This does not mean you "pound" your heels when you are found to first contact the ground on the rearfoot aspect of the shoe sole. It simply means that you contact the ground first under your heel. Midfoot strikers simply means that, on a force plate, the center of pressure (i.e. center of force) at initial ground contact is located in an area that is approximately in the central third of the shoe sole. Center of pressure is determined by averaging the forces under the whole foot and then finding an "average" point where the ground reaction force can be thought to be acting on the plantar foot. Center of pressure is a standard measurment on all force plates, pressure mats and pressure insoles.

In addition, you can forget about all the propaganda that has been advertised by the Chi running crowd and Pose running crowd and Dan Lieberman that rearfoot strikers suffer terribly from striking their rearfoot first while running. About 80% of runners are rearfoot strikers. There is safety in numbers. There is absolutely no research that supports this view that rearfoot striking is bad and, as I said quite plainly three years ago, this notion that rearfoot striking is somehow harmful or inefficient will eventually be shown to be untrue by scientific research.

 

Bobba, good observation there. Its not the same observation that I have seen others make!

If you want to read a classic on the misue and misinterpretation, have a read of this:

Even funnier, they have just responded with another one today:
Definitive Evidence that Barefoot Running Really Does Make You Blind

The reason that they are 'classics' is the appalling way that the research has been misued to reach a conclusion. Dr Nirenberg is a member here and he should be holding his head in shame for how he has totally misrepresented the research. I have never seen anyone get it so wrong in a very long time.

 

I have not been motivated to post in a while, but this has caught by eye. I know Dr Nirenberg and am absolutely horrified at how wrong he has got it. All he appears to have done is make a statement that is not correct and attach a reference to that statement. he must have been hoping that no one actually checks the references to see that is what they do not say. I not much of a research DPM, but even I can see the research does not support his bizarre claims. I will chat to him about this the next time I see him.