Barefoot Running Debate

Kelly:

Thanks for sharing your experiences with barefoot running.

There certainly seems to be a small subset of runners who claim to be able to run with less risk of injury while running barefoot than with running with shoes. However, you are unlike many of the other barefoot running zealots who have frequented this thread with claims that barefoot running is "better" for all runners since you have wisely chosen to not recommend barefoot running to your friends and students.

My educated guess would be that there may be other ways to keep you free from injury while running other than running barefoot. There are many styles of running shoes, many styles of foot orthoses, many styles of strapping/braces, many stretches and many strengthening exercises, and even different running form/running surface options for the injured runner that doesn't involve taking off their shoes. However, since you have found a running method (i.e. barefoot) that works for you and you are happy with, I don't see any point in exploring other methods of treatment for you. In fact, I have a very good friend who is a world-renowned biomechanics researcher who seems to also be able to run injury-free only while barefoot versus in shoes. So there are definitely a few people who respond quite favorably to being barefoot, but, from my 40 years of distance running experience and 25 years of sports podiatry practice, I would estimate this number to be approximately only 1 in 5,000 runners.

Hope you enjoy Podiatry Arena and if you have any more comments or questions, please feel free.

 

Kelly,

Out of curiosity, what types of surfaces do you run barefoot on primarily? Asphalt and concrete, or grass and trails? After 5 1/2 years of doing this, it sounds like you have been properly "acclimated" to running in this fashion.

 

CamWhite,

I'd estimate that is roughly 80% hard surfaces that I run on. My regular running routes near my house are all on asphalt bike paths. Same with the route I generally run when I stop after work on the way home--it is a lakeshore bike path along one of Madison's lakes.

The exception are the hash runs that I do, but even those involve a lot of running on streets. Some of those runs are almost completely grass/trail, including everything from gravel on railroad tracks, to freshly plowed fields, to tallgrass prairie areas.

Kevin--thanks for the nice reply. I'm pretty skeptical of your estimate of how many people can run safely barefoot. For starters, I have fairly high arches, and as I said, podiatrists that I saw insisted that I needed arch supports due to my high arches. But also, after 5+ years of following Ken Bob Saxton's email list, I've heard of hundreds and hundreds of runners, many older than me (like Ken Bob himself) who regularly run marathons barefoot. Occasionally one hears about someone doing too much too soon, and getting a stress fracture (a very rare occurrence) or more commonly, pain on the top of the foot.

I had this top of foot pain too, along with lots of discomfort in my anterior tibial tendon and muscles. I just took my time and used a foam roller regularly, and eventually my lower legs were strong enough that I could run just about anywhere I wanted, for as long as I wanted.

It just doesn't make sense to me that most of humanity would not be able to run barefoot, since we seemed to evolve as barefoot runners, with that running ability as a key survival trait. Just my opinion, of course.

 

Most of humanity can run barefoot. This especially seems to be the case if they grew up walking barefoot or don't regularly wear shoes. However, that does not mean that these same people that can run barefoot can't also run injury-free wearing running shoes. In other words, just because one runner in 5,000 runners thinks they need to be barefoot to be injury free, does not mean that the other 4,999 runners can't run barefoot.....it simply means that they prefer to run in modern running shoes which may be more comfortable and more protective than wearing nothing on their feet.

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/heal...ning_barefoot_has_not-so-obvious_hazards.html

 

Hi, I'm new to posting and to this forum, but I have read Born to Run, done my reading (to the best of my abilities) of revelant scientific papers, and have read about the informal stories of miraculous running injuries by going barefoot. Knowing that some track teams do part of their training barefoot, and but also that injuries occur on both shod and barefoot, I feel stuck in a middle ground. Aside from altered bone structures of the foot affecting a person's gait, for most people, it comes down to whether or not they have learned the proper running form. Irene Davis has done this where she has patients run on a treadmill with a machine that gives realtime feedback on their gait so they can fix it.

I think that the idea of barefoot running is to use the plantar nerves to give the runner instant feedback so he can correct his running form automatically, but transitioning to this point can be dangerous for people that have been using shoes all their life among other reasons.

I have a pair of VFFs and am taking the risk of retraining my gait, instead of being completely barefoot. I heard that some people have developed a higher arch from strengthening intrinsic foot muscles, so part of my self experimentation this summer is (since I have flat feet) to take a picture of my foot everyday to track its progress (if any) and am only 1 week into it so far. Of course I'm going to be doing this gradually to try to avoid injury.

 

I'll beat Craig and co to it but I'm sure they are not far away.
Firstly, welcome to PodArena. Developing a higher arch is actually thought to be a sign of muscle weakness of the intrinsic foot muscles. We see this in the diabetes population as the intrinsic minus foot. May I ask why you want your foot to have a higher arch?
Cheers, Tim

 

Yep. you bet me to it. A weakness of the intrinsic muscles does lead to a higher arched foot! Also the instrinsic muscles do not even start working during gait until the weight starts to come off the heel, so even if strengthening did help, there is nothing they can do until late in the gait cycle!

:welcome: Hope you could seperate the fiction from the non-fiction.

Exactly, but those Evangelists from the Church of Barefoot Running claim that there are less injuries in barefoot running when clearly there is no evidence of that and there appears to be an epidemic of stress fractures ocurring in those running barefoot.

Better running form according to who? The Evangelists? I can't recall the thread but in it is a slow motion video of the best of the best triathletes all running with a different technique. There is no such thing as the best or proper running form - its all individual. Pose, Chi, Barefoot, {insert whatever} all have flawed science being used by the promotors of them.

Why can't that happen in shoes? "Correcting" running form requires energy --> muscles need to work harder --> assume a greater risk for injury; any change to running form requires more energy --> can not run as far or as fast.

To put things in context it is important that this thread is read in its totality and other important threads on the "science" and some of the nonsense coming from the Church include:
Barefoot Running Debate (all 17 pages!)
The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques
Vibram FiveFingers Cause Metatarsal Stress Fractures?

 

This may be a topic for another thread, but it is, at best, confusing to say that intrinsic muscle weakness is the cause of high arched feet (i.e. pes cavus deformity). Certainly, in diseases where there is intrinsic muscle atrophy, initially this may lead to less plantar muscle mass and the appearance of a higher arched foot. However, with repetetive loading of the plantar arch with weakened plantar instrinsics, it is likely that the foot will develop, over time, a reduced arch height due to gradual elongation or rupturing of the plantar ligaments and plantar fascia.

In addition, I would tend to doubt that on lateral weightbearing radiograph that these feet indeed have a higher calcaneal inclination angle or higher metatarsal declination angle than a foot with normal plantar intrinsic muscle strength. The plantar intrinsics start firing during midstance and are important for maintaining proper longitudinal arch heigh during late midstance by reducing the passive tensile forces on the plantar ligaments and plantar fascia. These are not insignificant muscles of the foot and certainly, selective strengthening of these muscles has the potential to improve foot function in many individuals, even though this is not a commonly accepted or performed therapeutic option within the international podiatric medical community.

Therefore, the plantar intrinsic muscles, even though they are small, do serve an important function during weightbearing activities and it is my opinion that they likely are much more important to proper foot function than is commonly thought by many podiatrists and podiatric educators.

 

I always find the references to the tarahmara and Bushmen of the Kalahari amusing in that they are held up as the way we should, and always have run. That is barefoot, just like it always was Ma..
There is an amazing David Attenborough clip posted on youtube, showing the Bushmen of the Kalahari persitence hunting a Kudu the way they have for 10,000 years.. by running the sukka down. It is amazing to watch this
view it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUpo_mA5RP8

these blokes aren't silly!

watch carefully, and someone tell me what they see...!!!

 

Lets assume for a moment that this is factually accurate...

So is covering your feet up not removing your ability to percieve this 'instant feedback'? How will you 'automatically correct your running form'?

Little tip for you - running in VFFs is not barefoot running. It is what we in the Podiatric community refer to as 'running with shoes on'.

 

He shod and his strike pattern is variable- sometimes forefoot, sometimes rear/midfoot.

 

I shall be express posting your prize of one packet of blue M+M's as the first correct answerer immediately.. well played!

 

Do you have one of a kalahari bushman knocking off from his 9 to 5 desk job as a sedentry IT consultant and going for a 5 mile jog on hard flat uniform tarmac with little or no change in direction or speed and a steady even cadence so we can see the right way to do that?

Oh yeah thats right. Kalahari bushmen don't have sedentry jobs as IT consultants and don't run on hard flat uniform surfaces in one block of time 3 times a week in otherwise shod and seated lives. So why the hell such people think there is something inherently primal about it is beyond me.

Watch out for my new book, "Born to quit my job, ship out to a hot contry and run down Kudo". Its a bit more honest, although I don't think people will find it so applicable.

 

It is an interesting video for various reasons. More importantly it is interesting as the film makers did not have any vested interest in foot covering & running foot strikes... it was filmed as a nature documentary... Kalahari Bushman against the Kudu. This means they wouldn’t realise the implications of this footage from a barefoot running topic perspective.

I must admit I was surprised to see all three Bushman wearing shoes... different from the Kalahari Bushman in the 1980 movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy". I was also surprised of the fact that I feel the Bushman didn't look to run too well - just didn't seem to move with a smooth, effortless, flowing form... unlike Xi in the above cited movie. Things seemed to have also changed for the Kalahari Bushman since 1980.

The left foot tended to forefoot/midfoot strike whilst the right foot tended to heel strike. The following are shots taken from the doc.

Left foot...


Right foot...


Following left foot...


I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the feats of the cameraman. What an effort to do that for 8 hours with a camera . Rumour has it he was running barefoot... & of course striking at forefoot .

I found the end quite touching. Wouldn't it be interesting if it was compulsory for all who choose to eat meat to go through the same process to get their meal? Alas, today’s meat is usually wrapped in plastic & just sitting there... waiting to be caught.

 

This thread had seemed to stagnate for a bit but just took a couple interesting turns in the last several posts.

I'm anxiously awaiting the diehards to check-in again, now proclaiming Kevin as their prophet for seeming to offer some theoretical support for their dogma and denouncing toomoon as a heretic for speaking blasphemy against the Kalahari Bushmen.

 

I don't like the blue ones, they make me (more) hyper.

 

I'm kinda upset that Bartold (toomoon) isn't going to be sending me some blue M & M's also......

 

To be honest, I was hoping for a new pair of DS racers.

 

Sorry, Dr. Spooner...you will need to glue the blue M & M's to your feet....this is going to be the latest running fad that provides better tactile sensation with your running environment that will render Vibram FiveFingers obsolete.......plantar candy tactile (PCT) running!

 

Wow, well I just read through the whole thread. Took me about 3 days. I'm going to digest this information tonight and come back tomorrow with my thoughts. Just wanted to grab reply number 500 on this epic thread!

Thanks for holding up the other side of this "debate"! One-sided fanaticism fueled by media idiocy is never good for anybody.

 

Just thought I would refer the readers to my response on my consumer podiatry blog--http://www.drblakeshealingsole.com/ Check Barefoot Running Controversy. Rich Blake

 

Just reading a thread on Runners World UK forum entitled: Volunteer Barefoot Runners (and writers) Wanted. Full thread here for those interested, but it was two posts by one individual just 3 days apart which caught my eye:

 

Obviously this individual would be told by the barefoot running zealots that he got injured because "he wasn't running light enough". Couldn't be that barefoot running isn't meant for everyone.....now could it?!....... What a joke!:bash:

 

It gets better... in order to avoid further blistering the poster is advised to try to hold his toes off the ground.
"Re - lifting the toes. I don't mean pulling them as high as you can, just try not to scrub them on the floor/belt when running. The ultimate goal is to place your foot down and pick it up again with very little friction."

Hmmm, lets try running with very little friction. I'm off to the ice-rink to try barefoot low friction running- you'll all be doing it next week, it's the way forward (but not very quickly).

 

evening all,
there is just no begining to some folks intellect. what did he really think was going to happen...... i mean honestly - what a twat.
I'm off to the ice-rink to try barefoot low friction running- you'll all be doing it next week, it's the way forward.
i can see that being on channel 5 soon.

JB

 

I love the contrast of the post treadmill analysis between the 2 sessions...

Session 1 - Getting off the 'mill and walking back to the changing room felt awesome - I felt that my walking form was the best it's ever been - my foot strike felt so natural. My form soon deteriorated once I got back into shoes.

Session 2 - I can't even walk, let alone run now. I was signed up for training at the club tomorrow, and for a race Saturday... No hope. Absolute agony.

Classic.

 

All I can say is: Thank *** it wasnt the "pronation" because I hear that if that gets hold of you its a bugger to get rid of!!!!

Note: *** Please insert religious denomination/diety of worship or swear word of preference here.

 

If you know a bit of newtonian physics you will know that what makes you accelerate, decelerate or change direction when you run is being out of balance (you lean forward, backward or to the side). In these circumstances you need friction to be able to accelerate/decelerate quickly - otherwise your feet will slip away beneath you. However, on flat terrain, once you have reached a steady speed you need very little friction to keep moving provided that you run with a high cadence with your feet supporting the weight of your body underneath you close to your center of gravity. To a good approximation, the only friction you need is to overcome air resistance.

This is nicely illustrated in the video. Another nice analogy is riding a unicycle.

I don't think minimising friction (both static and kinetic) when you run is such bad advice. It gives you a smoother run.

 

Zimmy:

Sorry. You are wrong on this one. Newtonian physics dictates that friction between the foot and ground is critical to even barefoot running, regardless of the velocity of running. Sounds like you have been reading too much propaganda from the internet rather than studying papers on running biomechanics. Back to the physics books.

 

Here's a paper that shows the frictional forces being a normal part of the running gait cycle, running on an instrumented treadmill at 3.0 m/s (8:56 mile pace). The frictional forces will increase with increased running velocity.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/85/2/764

Note the rather significant horizontal frictional forces in these runners.

By the way, friction isn't a bad thing in running, since surfaces with higher friction allow you to run faster. Just try running across an ice skating rink if you think that friction isn't necessary for running.....BTW, can I video tape you doing this??.....would be a great show on youtube!

 

Thanks Kevin, very interesting, I was looking around for something like this! Yes, the guy running here would definitely slip during push off if running on ice since since the horisontal force exceeds the vertical force by a factor of about 0.25 and rubber on ice has a static friction coefficient of about 0.15.

Actually I did some simplistic theoretical computations assuming that the sum of the vertical and horisontal force vectors always points towards the runners center of gravity. This admittedly naive assumption combined with one of the graphs from Lieberman's 2010 paper and v=3m/s leads to a maximum horisontal ground reaction force of about 20% of the maximum vertical ground reaction force.

Interestingly, in Kram et. al., the horisontal force peaks at about -200N during landing and +120N during push off which is at most 12.5% of the maximum vertical ground reaction force (1600N).

It would be interesting to see the same type of graph for a barefoot or forefoot running gait. I suppose Lieberman's lab must have measured this sort of thing...

Btw, I did post a video of a guy running on ice (see previous posting).

 

In which you can clearly see lots of translation of the foot on the ice. Why do the majority of track runners wear spikes?
Masters thesis here:
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:157980

 

This is only true if the angle of attack of the leg is close to vertical, i.e. you are hopping vertically up and down from one foot to the other (running on the spot) rather than running forward. So hopping up and down with a high cadence may move the COM up and down at a high frequency and give you a high vertical stiffnes (kvert), but it doesn't move the COM forward in the sagittal plane very swiftly. As the angle of attack of the leg increases frictional force is quintessential during the braking phase, otherwise you'd fall on your ass as your contact leg slipped out from under you; if the friction was too low during the propulsive phase you'd fall on your face.

The other point is that by increasing the step frequency and shortening the step length you are effectively increasing the leg stiffness, Ok, if you are functioning low down within your zone of optimal legs stiffness, perhaps not the best if you are already near the upper limits.

P.S.

Thanks for that. I'm no expert on Newtonian mechanics, but I do dabble with biomechanics of the lower limb. As such, I do know that the foot and lower limb segments constantly accelerate and decelerate during running, so I guess, if your statement above is correct, then we do need friction especially if we want to run quickly. As oppose to bouncing up and down on the spot.

So, the questions then become: what role does friction have on the loading rate of the tissues? And what influence does loading rate have on tissue stiffness and moreover, leg stiffness? What influence does leg stiffness have on injury risk, performance and metabolic cost?

 

Correction: If assuming that the runners center of gravity is h=1 meter above the ground, and that the foot makes contact with the ground for t=0.23 seconds during which the the center of gravity (COG) moves xmax=v*t = 3m/s * 0.23s = 0.69 m, then based on the above assumption the horizontal ground reaction force at a given point in time

F = N * x/h

where x is the horizontal displacement of the COG away from the point of support and N is the vertical ground reaction force. Approximating N by

N = 2.5 * cos(pi*x/xmax)

(see Fig. 1c in Lieberman et.al. 2010) the vertical and horizontal ground reaction forces becomes as follows:



So, based on these assumptions the maximum horizontal force (+/-0.3) is only about 13% (not 20%) of the maximum horizontal force (2.5), which agrees better with Kram et.al.

 

Try modelling the friction as zero and the anteroposterior forces as zero see what happens to the horizontal (sagittal plane) displacement of the COM? (double integration of ground reaction force, if memory serves) Vertical line up and down- running on the spot- right? As Kevin has pointed out, as forward velocity increases anteroposterior forces increase, with friction too low we start to "skid" during braking and "wheel spin" during propulsion. "If you know a bit of newtonian physics you will know that".

What's interesting from the master's thesis that I posted earlier, is that the better sprinters had a braking followed by propulsive anteroposterior shear strategy during their drive out of the blocks while the lesser (slower?) athletes had alternative ground reaction forces during drive. Braking = loading of the leg spring = store of elastic energy, propulsion = rebound of leg spring = return of elastic energy.

 

From the point of view of physics, it is not necessary that the sum of the vertical and horizontal force vectors points towards the COM. If you make a paw-back motion as your feet makes contact with the ground somewhere in front of your COM so that the net effect is a zero horizontal ground reaction force and do the opposite as your foot leaves the ground during toe-off (perhaps by "not actively pushing off.."), this will create a torque acting on your body being equal to the product between the horizontal ground reaction (N in the above model) and the displacement of the COM from the point of support (x in the above model). Keeping in mind that N is small when x is large this torque is not going to be very large so it is only going to create some small oscillations in the angular momentum of the body.

I have no idea if it is desirable to run like this but I have noticed that if I run fast with a forefoot strike my feet sort of makes this paw-back motion as they make contact with the ground. Then again, I have also noticed the "skidding" and "wheel spin" you mention when running on certain types of snow...

It would be interesting to see more measurements of this at higher speeds for different running gaits.

 

Once again, thanks for the physics lesson, but you'd previously made this assumption:

So lets continue the assumption which you started...

Any luck with that model of zero friction and zero anterior shear yet? What's the horizontal velocity of the COM in this situation?

Zero-right?
And if the GRF vector doesn't point vertically, whether the CoM is above it or not, we'll see anteroposterior shear- right?

When I see a GRF vector that points at a constant vertical during forward ambulation, you'll be the first person I contact.

 

All I'm saying is that this is one theoretical possibility. Another theoretical possibility is the GRF always pointing towards the COM. Kram et.al. suggest that the truth may lie somewhere in between.