Barefoot Running Debate

I am 53 yrs old, I have been essentially running daily since 1972. In 1982 I started keeping a running log to track my mileage which has accumulated to over 72,000 miles at this point, an average of 2500 miles/year for almost 30 yrs. I do not know how many miles I ran in the first 10 yrs of my running life. Since 1972 with well over 72,000 miles on my feet, I have NEVER had a running injury.

I started as a sprinter in high school and evolved into a distance running. Moving from 10K's to Marathons to 100 mile trail Ultra Marathons which I've spent 10 yrs running in the 1990's to early 2000's. During that time I have had the opportunity to run alongside the Tarahuma in Leadville wearing tire tread sandels and saw the beginnings of the barefoot, minimal shoe running hysteria.

I always wear shoes when I run, in fact I currently own 10 active pairs of running shoes that I rotate daily. I never wear the same shoes more than once per week. My shoes range from 8 oz marathon racing shoes to 13 oz fully cushioned road shoes. I have a mix of road and trail shoes of various weights, levels of cushioning, stiffness, etc. I wear multiple brands and models within brands.

I am convinced that a big contributor to my health as a runner comes from the fact that I use a variety of shoes and that I rotate them frequently. Of course there are many other factors that I'm sure contribute such as, I have fairly good form, I land mid foot and I have low to medium arches which are flexible. I also probably have fairly good genetics that help me stay healthy.

I have been around long enough to see and experience the evolution of running shoes. Like Kevin Kirby, I too have run in Onitsuka Tiger racing flats vintage early 1970's. I agree, the concept of "minimalist" shoes is not a new one. I also agree that you are either running barefoot or you are running with shoes. The notion of "barefoot shoes" simply doesn't make sense.

I firmly believe that there is no one pair of shoes that will fit all of the needs of all types of running. I also believe that running barefoot is far from ideal in all types of running situations. I currently own 10 pairs of running shoes so that on a given day, I have the opportunity to select the pair that I feel will best fit the type of running I'm going to do and the type of surface I am going to run on. Based on my experience, matching the right shoe to the conditions at hand goes a long way towards injury prevention. Given that, if I where to run barefoot every day, it would be a good recipe for injury.

In spite of running shoes supposedly being designed to last 500 or 600 miles, all of my shoes last a minimum of 2,000 miles with some pairs lasting over 4,000 miles before they are retired. For me, the longevity of my shoes has to do with the probability that I run bio mechanically efficient and that I have a flexible foot that helps absorb a lot of impact. I really don't need much in a shoe so I can get away with wearing them down to nothing.

As a lifelong passionate runner, I of course am interested in what is going on in the world of running. No surprise to the readers of this thread that barefoot running is a hot topic. I have read all 18 pages of the "Barefoot running debate" starting with Kevin Kirby's post on Jan 21st. I've read the arguments that people have and would like to weigh in on a few things. Based on almost 40 yrs of running experience, you can consider me a longitudinal experiment of one.

Reading the debate on whether you should wear shoes or not, wear minimalist shoes, Vibram FiveFingers, etc. or about the validity or even the existence of studies supporting a given point of view has been an interesting read for sure. From my point of view, it provides background but what is absolutely most important to me is my own first hand experience. Frankly I find it laughable regarding opinions given about Vibram FiveFingers or any product for that matter from people who have never worn them.

Given that, I saved my opinion and went out and bought a pair of Vibram FiveFingers to see what all of the commotion is about. I have been a big shoe company advocate for almost 40 years and have remained injury free so you can guess where my bias is. In spite of my long history I ignored the claims are for or against, I was interested in is how do they work for me. After putting on the VFF and wearing them around the house it didn't take long for me to notice how good they felt. I went on vacation and just about lived in them for 2 weeks. I started walking in them with my wife and then started running in them. These shoes are coming from an entirely different paradigm which must be worn to be understood.

As I stated earlier, there is NO ideal shoe for all situations, BUT VFF certainly do have a place in my 10 shoe which is now 11 shoe rotation. I will not be rotating in a true barefoot run because I don't think it is safe regardless of the claims. A few observations, after wearing VFF around the house, walking in them, running in them, my feet, legs and back feel really good. I will not support any claims for or against the shoes, I just have my opinion. The VFF opened up an entirely new world to me that has always been right under my feet. The rubber outsoles are there to protect your feet from sharp objects but you can still feel a lot. I quickly became aware of walking on marble floors, carpeting, grass, pavement, concrete, wood, gravel, the grating on escalators, tile floors, molded floors, etc. All of this was there before but with traditional shoes, I was never really able to experience what it feels like to walk or run on all of these changing surfaces. To use and analogy, it would be like wearing a huge pair of down filled mittens your whole life then suddenly putting on tight fitting thin leather gloves and realizing you have this powerful sense of touch. Why would anyone want to deny themselves of that sense? Well folks, in addition to your hands, your feet are also extremely sensitive to touch, enjoy it! Because there are now products out there that allow you to enjoy the sense of touch from you feet, it makes no sense to me to deny myself of this wonderful world from the ground up.

As far as my experience with running in these shoes. It is an absolute requirement to land either mid or forefoot when running in them. This puts a fairly big demand on your calf muscles. Since the shoes have little in the way of supportive integrity, there is also a big demand on the muscles in your feet. I found that after 5 or 6 miles, my feet and calves grew pretty tired and the ground started to feel really hard. Once I finished running in them, I could not believe how good my feet, legs and back felt. It was completely amazing and must be experienced to be appreciated.

At this point, I can certainly run faster and farther wearing traditional running shoes, I don't know if that will change as I strengthen my feet and calves, I don't know if I care. I have also noticed that after wearing VFF then going to traditional running shoes two things are very apparent. First, the cushioning in traditional running shoes feels good, especially after not having it and second, traditional running shoes also feel very confining. That is not necessarily a good or bad thing. Cushioning certainly helps bare the brunt of impact, unfortunately it invites runners to land on their heels. Once they do that, the cushion is unstable and allows the foot to roll inward or outward if it is prone to do so, certainly not a good thing. I thought the toe thing was really gimicky but after wearing the shoes, I realize that by having toes in the shoes, they do not need to scrunch and confine the forefoot. The toes are allowed to spread and combining that with landing on the forefoot provides a very stable platform. Since the heel barely touches the ground if at all, it really doesn't have the opportunity to rotate. I don't know how these would work for someone with rotation problems.

I fully recognize and it certainly can be argued that the Vibram shoes are a fad at this point. I would expect that the thinking behind these shoes will influence the big shoe companies in how they design their shoes. With time, we may see a trend towards less shoe and then back again, who knows. Regardless of where the trend goes, and what the latest fad is, I would argue that a dedicated runner should take advantage of what is offered, from shoes that mimic slippers to shoes that mimic armored tanks. The responsibility is on the runner to wear the shoe that best fits the type of running they are going to do on a given day. We are very fortunate to have the choice of going from running barefoot through a huge range of shoes to running in highly protective, supportive, motion controlling shoes. The argument should not be over what is best or the validity of studies but rather about how to fit the right shoe or no shoe to the specific type of running to be done. I would also suggest that people open their minds a little and try some of the innovative products that are out there. You might be surprised by what you find.

 

Zimmy:

I like the term "paw-back motion". Sounds like you need to a primer on foot and lower extremity biomechanics terminology to me, Zimmy. By the way....in humans, we call them "feet", not "paws".

No matter how many calculations and graphs you present on theoretical possiblities for running and frictional forces, nearly a half century of scientific evidence on running biomechanics has shown us that frictional forces are a necessary part of normal running. In all the runners that have been measured on a force plate, to my knowledge, not a single one of them was able to run without generating both medial-lateral and anterior-posterior shearing forces. Therefore, the scientific evidence suggests that without frictional forces, we could not run, unless it was up and down, without forward movement, as Dr. Spooner stated.

BTW, please let me know when you do attempt to run a 6 minute mile pace across an ice skating rink in treadless shoes so that any frictional forces may be minimized.... we will be able to see much better how accurate your calculations are at explaining your kinematics and kinetics when your bipedal locomotion system is confronted by trying to run at 10 MPH over a surface with minimal friction.....should be quite entertaining.:drinks

Remember, we humans have two feet to locomote with.....not wheels!

 

Here are two papers describing the ground reaction shear forces during running. The one by Cavanagh and Lafortune from 1980 is a classic.

 

In my previous post, I missed a key point regarding shoe rotation. Running is taking a repetitive act to the extreme. Your feet impact the ground thousands of times with the same movement, over and over again. We are human, therefore I would assume some level of anatomical and biomechanical imperfection. Constant repetition will most likely put stress on imperfection and the effect will be cumulative. With time this equation will result in greater and greater risk of injury. By regularly introducing a change of shoe model, you are introducing variation into the repetitive equation. Each model has several different properties that can vary such as sole thickness, traction properties, forefoot-rearfoot height differences, cushioning vs firmness, flexible vs stiff and the uppers can also vary greatly in support properties. If a weakness is being stressed through repetition, changing shoe models may change the relationship between the weakness and the stress allowing for recovery.

I see the shoe option as a continuum with barefoot being on one end and possibly the heaviest, stiffest hiking boots you can find on the other end. There are thousands of options in between. There are a least two dimensions with respect to picking options. The first is to select a shoe that gets the job done most effectively. To me that is finding the right balance between weight, flexibility, support and protection. From there the second dimension is to vary the model from the first selection. In other words, find the ideal model for you, then find alternative models that have varying properties.

The barefoot, "minimalist" shoe advocates really missed the boat in their excitement to share their "discovery" with the world. They proclaimed physical benefits of running barefoot or with minimal shoes. That led to a huge debate about substantiation of the claims with both sides really missing the point. Regardless of whether there are true physical benefits or not, there is an aspect to running with minimal protection that certainly has gotten my attention after running for almost 40 yrs. That aspect is the sensation you get from being able to feel the ground with your feet and combining it with using your feet and calves to mitigate impact. The sensation is something that must be experienced to be understood.

I will not run barefoot because I learned the risks the hard way by stepping on broken glass in Junior High and ending up on crutches for several months. I will run with shoes that offer just enough protection from sharp objects but still allow me to feel the ground. After all of my years and miles of running, I still find it really exciting to find alternative ways to explore the joy of running.

 

Welcome & thanks Dana for your views. The pathophysiology of running injuries is multifactorial. From what you have said, it seems to me you have eliminated a large percentage of possible factors which could contribute to injury. If more runners were a bit wiser & learnt a bit more about the workings of their own body the incidence of injury would greatly reduce.

Hmmm... got me thinking... what if we combined both?...



I have modelled the barefoot pin-up boy of Abebe Bikila in what I call the BRW - Barefoot Running Wheel (a turf lined wheel). It is speculated that this apparatus could to a large degree eliminate the following:

- Cuts & puncture wounds.
- Blisters.
- Bruises.
- Bone ailments i.e. stress fractures.
- Shearing stress (currently under examination).

It has been rumoured (from secret independent studies) that this apparatus can also improve performance times.

It is waiting for approval from the IAAF.

 

For the record, I doubt that the GRF vector is constantly coincident with the COM during running since it is not during walking. It's probable that it will be posterior to the COM during braking and anterior to the COM during propulsion. But neither is the GRF vector constantly vertical, without shear components!

See here:
http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/teach-in/grv/index.html

 

Haven't you heard....the author of Born to Run, Chris McDougall, has claimed that glass poses little risk for the barefoot runner.....??

 

Kevin, I am very aware of Chris McDougall's book but I have not read it. When I see quotes like the one you posted from him about glass, it further supports my idea of saving the $24.95 price of his book and putting it towards my next pair of running shoes.

Running is very much a part of my being and has been a life long passion of mine. I see my feet as the means to enjoying that passion and putting them at risk of injury would be irresponsible and down right idiotic.

Years before Born to Run was published and the barefoot craze became as popular, I had several e-mail exchanges with Barefoot Ted McDonald. We where both subscribers/contributors to an Ultra Running forum. I spoke to runners about considering lighter shoes vs heavier which is where the trail shoe market was headed at the time. He agreed but took it further to running barefoot. Running barefoot seemed so impractical to me that I sincerely felt he was just doing it to prove his point. Living and running in Colorado, a lot of my running is done on trails full of sharp granite rocks, running on that stuff would turn bare feet to shreds in no time. In the winter, most of my runs are in the dark, in 10 degree weather on crusty snow and ice, bare footing it would simply be impossible.

When running the Leadville Trail 100 miler in 1994, it was one of the several years that the Tarahumara where there. During 3 or 4 of those years, Rockport shoes was the prime sponsor. If you agreed to run the race in their shoes, they would send you multiple pairs of great shoes free of charge and just asked for your feedback. The problem was that Rockport was not into the running shoe market at the time so they were sending goretex lined, casual oxfords with uppers made of nubuc leather. Not even close to resembling a running shoe, they looked like something right out of an LL Bean catalog. I was determined to run the race in these shoes to prove that I could run 100 miles in the mountains in just about anything and in this case, in shoes that you would wear to a Saturday BBQ.

Next to the starting line was the Leadville City Hall which was open so I went in before the race to stay warm. Inside I found 8 or 9 Tarahumara standing there talking, also waiting for the start, all dressed in their traditional cotton robes and headbands. On their feet, they were all wearing bright, brand new Rockport shoes. I had to laugh, the shoes looked so out of place with the rest of their wardrobe. After the start of the race, by the time we reached the first aid station at mile 13 all of the Tarahumara had dumped the Rockports and were now donning their huaraches made from tire treads and rawhide. Later I saw videos of the Tarahumara in the Leadville dump. They were getting tires for new soles on their huaraches before the race. Apparently they where thrilled because Americans throw tires away with far more tread than they do in Mexico.

While running the race, out of fascination, I ran several miles alongside several of the Tarahumara. I found it amazing that they could run so easily on nasty trails with so little on their feet. What I did notice about their feet was that they did not look at all like mine. Their feet looked really tough, rugged, strong and certainly able to take a beating. Their feet reminded me of how tough and rugged a construction workers hands can be. Both the result of using them unprotected. When I think of my feet, they appear thin skinned, whimpy with bony toes that could get chewed up walking on carpet! I quickly understood the difference.

The Tarahumara have influenced the barefoot running advocates and now the advocates are trying to push this on people who live in an entirely different world. When I think of what I saw in their feet vs mine, we are talking two entirely different situations. I have spent my life in shoes, they have not, we have both adapted to our situation. They can not run 100 miles in Rockports just as I can not run 100 miles in huaraches.

I not only ran the entire 100 miles in casual Rockport picnic shoes but it turned out that after running Leadville for 9 yrs, the year I ran in the Rockport shoes was my fastest year. What that proved to me long ago was that I just don't need all of the bells and whistles that are common in today's running shoes. It also taught me to keep an open mind with respect to shoe technology or lack of it.

I have read the concerns of several of the podiatrists on this forum are with the unsubstantiated claims made by a few vocal people and also by those companies trying to sell their "minimalist" products. I fully understand the position but I would also suggest that before attacking the ultra light footwear products that are hitting the market, it might be worth a test drive to see what they are talking about.

I do not support wearing super light footwear all of the time, I would expect that to lead to injury. Rather, I would suggest inserting a run or walk from time to time into your routine while wearing shoes like Vibram Fivefingers or similar. There is a good chance you might discover the wonderful sensation of feeling with your feet. There seems to be a bit of irony in telling a podiatrist about the sensation the feet can deliver when allowed to. It is a wonderful feeling that I refuse deny myself of going forward regardless of what claims are made or what the trends are. It is about taking advantage of a sensory experience.

 

Dana:

I am enjoying your distance running stories since we are the same age and share similar experiences being also a competetive long distance runner for many years. I ran some pretty hard miles as a high school and college distance runner but haven't been as fortunate as you at staying injury free, especially recently.

I treat many of the best distance and ultra-distance athletes here in the Sacramento region and the Western States trail is just about 45 minutes up the highway from me. A few of the early record breakers for the Western States 100 in the late 1970s were guys I trained/raced against during my UC Davis Aggie days but the marathon was the race that I seemed to do best at. The guys I trained with during college were some of the best marathoners in the nation at the time even though my best was only 2:28.

Probably my biggest claim to fame as a runner here was that I helped invent and took part in the very first Aggie Running Centipede in the Bay to Breakers Race in 1978. Those were the days.........

By the way....welcome to Podiatry Arena.:drinks

 

Dana thats the intersting thing about running, biomechanics and lots of things we discuss here, the foot- shoe-ground interface is always slightly different. So we can say movement, motion, moments are generally simliar but not the same.

 

The Major Health Benefits of Going Barefoot (Really!)

 

I was skeptical at first until I followed the link at the bottom of the page that reads:

"Emu Oil: The Amazing Arthritic Pain Relief Secret of the Australian Aborigines"

which removed all doubt as to the veracity of the site.

 

Despite most of us acknowledging the potentially erroneous rationale for trainer recommendations historically made (i.e the death of the wet foot test etc), it seems to keep his 'followers' thirsty for more Mr McDougall has announced he has uncovered a consipracy!

Here he has taken a few choice quotes from some recent research and spun them to shine a favourable light on barefoot running. Most unlike him....

http://chrismcdougall.com/blog/2010/07/breaking-news-from-nike-weve-been-talking-a-lot-of-crap-and-selling-it/

 

evening all,
Barefoot Ted interview on the link below (hopefully) i've copied the link straight from itunes so i hope it works. its from a podcast called marathon talk (which i quite like).
i actually quite like Ted. he is really enthusiastic and genuinely seems a nice fella. usual nonsense sprinkled throughout the interview mind you.
he makes a sensible point not commonly attributed to barefoot runners though in that he says if your running in shoes and doing ok - why change.
cheers
JB


http://marathontalk.libsyn.com/rss

 

Hi

Just though would report back on the World champs Triathlon at Hyde Park this weekend.

Although I didn't see every competitor I saw the elites and majority of the age groups.

Alas - I did not see one barefoot runner - not one, honestly after all the hillbillies had been banging on about how much it was like running on air….

Come on, these guys are techo's freaks and any biomechanical advantage is King – When you consider it takes a Tri-athlete 5 second to put on a pair of running shoes I though everyone would be doing it. In fact as Tri-athlete’s cycle on their forefoot surely transitioning from cycle to barefoot/forefoot running would be the go?

BBC
I understand that this debate has caused an uproar in running communities that the BBC is piloting a new series call ‘Barefoot Watch’ – apparently bare-footers are dying species and now the NH winter is coming it is believe they will be extinct with the first frost/snowfall.

 

Actually that is a very good point... in addition you would also think that many of the barefoot risks- broken glass etc- would be minimised on a race course. There is no compelling reason not to go bare foot unless perhaps they might be slower or get injured... just a couple of minor reasons.

 

Craig - there was one dude giving it a go with a pair of supermarket trainers and a sturmey-archer three speeder - I was in awe of him especially as he was a good swimmer - the faces of the serious athletes who had spent easily 2-3K on their biomechanically fitted whathaveyou 's passing this eccentric on his delivery bike just priceless.

 

Barefoot running in the eyes of the industry:

Attached July 2010 PSR (PERFORMANCE SPORTS RETAILER) magazine (see page 8 to 13).

 

Paulo, thanks for attaching this, I really enjoyed the article. I particularly liked the analogy of trail running shoes and how they went from non existent to a major segment. The implication is that lightweight shoes may do the same. What I find exciting about this is that with the new materials and technology the shoe companies have, and the money, we might see some interesting products roll out. It will also be fun to watch how this segment of the shoe market plays out.

People like to buy new stuff, the "minimal" shoe is now a reason for millions to go out and update there casual or athletic shoe wardrobe. You better believe the shoe companies are going to jump on this marketing opportunity.


Dana

 

They will, and time will tell if this is a good thing or not in terms of injury prevalence.

I really do hope that we can reduce the injury rate among runners through adopting minimal footwear. However, I do believe that those who are already functioning with reduced leg stiffness will find the transition too much, which will push them below their zones of optimal leg stiffness and result in injury. Unless of course we can take them off the roads and on to much more compliant surfaces

 

Just got interviewed yesterday over the phone by an author that is doing a book on barefoot running. He wanted the "anti-barefoot running" side of the story. I think he was surprised to hear that I ran barefoot some in college and enjoyed it. He also seemed somewhat surprised that I have no problems with barefoot running in my patients that can do it safely and that I thought that barefoot running may a good training aid, especially for runners doing lots of miles, since running barefoot would tend to make the runner run differently than in shoes. I told him, that if people can run barefoot without hurting themselves, then I was all for it and it may, indeed, be beneficial for some individuals, but not for others. We also talked a lot about the Vibram FiveFinger, which he says many true barefoot runners think are a mistake and will increase the injury rate in some runners. Hopefully my words won't be twisted around by the time the book comes out.

 

Simon, I agree completely. Even when running off road and on more compliant surfaces I see a lot of opportunity for injury wearing these types of shoes. While running off road, the surface is often uneven, has rocks, etc. It doesn't take much to torque the foot, especially with nothing to support it. This of course is in addition to the impact equation.

Dana

 

Kevin, you know your words most likely will be twisted. You probably know this but the reason some barefoot runners think VFF are a mistake is because they take away the pain sensation from the skin and allow the uninitiated to run too far to soon in a shoe that offers very little support and protection. Your arches, toes, achilles, calves and general foot flexibility need to catch up. Here is a transition strategy from a barefoot runner to VFF. http://www.runbare.com/446/how-to-transition-into-vibram-five-fingers/

I actually think I saw the author of this site on the trails in Boulder this past Saturday. Not only was he running without shoes but the trails where really nasty with all kinds of sharp rocks, ruts, erosion and gravel. What was amazing is how fast he was moving and how far we where from civilization. Meanwhile, I was wearing my big Asics stability shoes for all of the protection I could find.

Dana

 

Experience suggests that single traumatic events come more frequently with off-road running than road running. Over-use injuries seem to come more frequently with pounding the streets. Pounding the streets in a shoe which does not offer enough compliance to a leg that is already functioning at the lower limits of it's zone of optimal leg stiffness (ZOOLS) is recipe for disaster, as is increasing the cushioning under a leg that is functioning at the upper limits of its ZOOLS. Although, you might get away with either one of these situations by modulating stride length and step frequency...

Torque is pretty much the same as moment= force x distance from axis. Hence the foot is is subject to "torque" on each and every step. What I think you are talking about is an excessive external moment from ground reaction force which leads to traumatic injury.

 

How do they take away the pain sensation from the skin? Do they induce neuropathy?

Need to catch up with what?

Research has demonstrated that the body is able to modulate leg stiffness upon the first step onto a surface of different stiffness. So if it can do it within the first milliseconds of stepping on to a a new surface, why would it need time to "catch up" when wearing a pair of different shoes? The answer lies in the concept of ZOOLS.

 

Also, you might try rotating shoes of various levels of cushioning, or was that rotating your bed?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Dana

 

Let me rephrase. They don't take away pain sensation, they provide a layer of rubber between the skin and the ground. This layer lengthens the time it takes for skin to become raw and tender.

ZOOLS and a bunch of other stuff the author of the site mentions that I doubt you would agree with.


Dana

 

Why? You seem to have one singular point to make and that is: "rotating shoes is good", to evidence this you give a case series of n=1. Rotating shoes could be exceptionally bad for the reasons that I have previously outlined regarding zones of optimal leg stiffness. Moreover, you seem to assume that shoes and shoes alone define the kinetics and kinematics. One of my colleagues, it may have been Mike Weber, made the point to you some time ago that the kinetics and kinematics will vary from step to step regardless of footwear. So lets go back a step: why do you think that running in one pair of shoes on one day and another on the next is a good thing, in biomechanical terms if you can... if not lay-mans terms will do and we'll decipher as we go...

So, I wear one pair of shoes to run in today, lets say a pair of Asics 2140's and the day afer tomorrow, I'll wear my Vibram five fingers, what positive effects will this have on my body?

 

The author mentions ZOOLS, where? It's fine to admit when you don't understand something, Dana.

P.S. not that it really matters, but is Dana a male or a female name? I'd assumed it was a female name, but talking to Prof. Kirby last night, he spoke about you in the masculine. I really don't know, so don't take this as an insult, but are you male or female?

 

Simon, please, I didn't say the author mentioned ZOOLS. I don't know what you mean about not understanding something. I don't understand what? ZOOLS? Or what the author of the website said? I don't understand what you mean. Why am I reverting to rudeness?

If it has to do with the comment that I don't think you'd agree with what the author of the site is saying? I'm sorry for being rude and making the presumption. Out of curiosity, do you agree with the author's comments about weak feet?

Dana

 

Do you understand this concept?

"In short, our feet have been asleep for years, trapped in a dark, narrow constrictive boot that’s shortened, weakened, and stiffened our muscles, tendons, and ligaments, and left our bones weak and brittle"

That's a bold statement with lots of unknowns, so show me the evidence... lets look to comparative studies of unshod versus habitually shod populations of the same ethnic groups, is there any evidence to support the contentions made in the above statement?

 

Simon, Please bear with my simple explanations, I am trying to learn. I have selected Asics 2140 for day 1. The reason for selecting these shoes is because I will be running long, 19 miles, on trails that have an uneven surface, that have a lot of rocks 1 inch in diameter and have a lot of sand and sinking surfaces as well. I don't not expect to be running very fast because of the technical terrain and the length of the run. The Asics 2140's are a heavier, stiffer, firmer shoe with uppers that are far more reinforced than some of my other shoes like Nike Vomero 3 for example. The stiffness will protect my feet from the potential trauma of landing on small, sharp rocks which are often unavoidable. The firmness will provide a foundation for when I'm running through soft sand. I know this has to do with the zone of optimal leg stiffness required to compensate for the soft sand. In my language, when I wear soft shoes in soft sand, my legs and feet get tired much faster. The uppers which are covered with reinforcing overlays help keep my feet firmly positioned in the shoes while running on uneven surfaces. This will help prevent "an excessive external movement from ground reaction force which leads to traumatic injury." The features of this shoe combine to add considerable weight, a trade off I am willing to accept for that run because I plan on running slow anyway. I complete the run safe and sound, no injuries.

On day two, I plan on running a much shorter distance, 7 miles, on a well groomed, well packed hilly surface composed of crusher fines. This is crushed rock that forms a smooth, firm, well drained surface. I will be running much faster, I expect my stride rate to be greater and on the downhills I expect my foot impact with the ground to be greater. For this run I will choose Nike Vomero 3. They are relatively light, offer less upper support, essentially no motion control properties but are the most cushioned shoes I have. The lightness will help me maintain my speed, the cushion will protect me from the impact if I get tired and happen to leave the zone of optimal leg stiffness while on the way down hill. Maybe it actually broadens the zone, I don't know. The goal is protection from impact. Since my leg muscles are tired from the run the day before, the lighter shoe will help lessen the burden on my leg muscles so that they might have a easier time remaining in the zone of optimal leg stiffness. My feet are also tired from the day before so the cushion provides a softer landing for achy feet. Since the surface I am running on is even, I don't need to worry as about the level of support to protect from excessive ground reaction force. If I wore the Asics 2140 on day 2. A stiff, firm shoe, it may not offer enough compliance for the pounding I plan on taking and my feet will ache big time.

On day 3, I plan on doing a similar 7 mile run but far less aggressive. The point of this run is to recover from the prior 2 days runs. I will pick a pair of shoes almost randomly for this day as long as it is a different pair than the other two days. Let's say the Nike Junga 2. The point of the run is to get the blood flowing, stretch out and recover. I choose a different pair of shoes so that my feet have a chance to recover from possibly a developing hot spot or rubbing that may lead to a blister from the other shoes. The different shoes will grab my feet differently with different support characteristics. If there hasn't been sufficient upper support around a given muscle, tendon, ligament in my foot, adding yet a 3rd shoe might provide the support that the other shoes where falling short on and give the stressed foot muscle a chance to recover and not injure. The Junga 2's are a supportive trail running shoe. The point is to add a new variable to allow parts of my feet that might be stressed from weaknesses in my other shoes a chance to recover before I continue with my running on day 4.

On day 4, I am rested, the muscles in my feet and legs are rested, I am ready to go. Today I will choose VFF Bikilas. I could have chosen KSO but I'll choose Bikilas because they add a little more protection from gravel than the KSO's do. Other than protection from the ground surface, these shoes don't offer much more. When my foot hits the ground, regardless of what shoe I wear, my heel, midfoot and forefoot pretty much land at the same time. I have not really had to learn how to run in these shoes. To avoid injury, it is critical that my zone of optimal leg stiffness match the surface I am running on. That my foot placement is such that ground reaction forces don't over torque my feet causing injury. It is critical that I land such that the impact force does not send a jarring force through my heels, knees, hips, lower back and teeth.

By wearing the Bikilas, I am focusing on optimal foot placement, on optimal stride rate and stride length, on optimal leg stiffness all to minimize the negative affect of sending shock waves through my entire body. By doing so, the muscles in my feet are becoming stronger by reacting to a changing ground surface. They aren't required to do this in traditional supportive shoes. Repeating this over and over which is what running is, provides an opportunity for muscle memory. Because the Bikilas do not artificially lift my heal higher than my forefoot, my posture and back does not have to compensate to maintain balance around my center of gravity. Without that added strain on my back, it feels great.

On day 5 I will again be doing my usual weekday 7 mile run but I will be wearing my Under Armour Mirage trail shoes. I could have went back to one of the other pairs but why not have a different feel every day of the week if you can. Running is repetative enough as it is, why not mix it up a little? Today I am running with form influenced by residual memory from running in the bikilas. My zone of optimal leg stiffness is right on with the ground stiffness, my stride rate and stride length is optimal relative to the speed I'm running. This translates somewhat into my foot placement. Essentially, the Bikilas have helped me with my running mechanics and I am doing it with the added safety of protective shoes. Any pounding my feet took in the Bikilas are now protected in the Jungas.

On day 6, I plan on taking to the roads on a 14 mile run. I will be running a road marathon soon and don't want my muscles to forget what it is like to run on pavement. For this run, I will use the Nike Air Max 2009. It has a full air sole that is fully visible. It looks like you are running on an air mattress. If there is a shoe out there that will protect you from the pounding of pavement, it will be these. Of course we need to remember the zone of optimal leg stiffness. If I chose the Asics, they would be too firm and stiff and a possible risk for impact injury. If I chose the Nike Vomero, I find those too mushy for long runs and they make my legs tired. I wouldn't dare run 14 miles in the Bikilas on pavement or otherwise. The other shoes would work but the air max will work the BEST for a 14 mile pavement run.

On day 7, I plan on a tempo run on pavement. I will use the Nike Zoom Marathon racers. An 8 oz racing flat. They are light, flexible and FAST. I crank it out but find my feet ache by the end of the run. For the speed I was running, the firmness of the pavement and the minimal cushioning, my feet took a pounding. Not injured but they hurt.

On day 8, I'm back to the long trail run like the week before. Today I'll use the Adidas Trail Response 14. A lighter, more flexible shoe than the Asics but still fairly protective. I plan on running faster than last week so I will compromise protection for less weight.

On day 9 -11, I could use even more pairs of shoes or go back to shoes I've worn last week. It will depend on what I plan for distance, speed, the surface I'll be running on and how my legs and feet are doing from what I've done in the days leading up to the current day.


Or I could have worn one pair of shoes for every single one of those runs. I would say if I picked VFF, I wouldn't make it through the week. I could pick the Air Max but who want's to wear big clunky, slow shoes every day of the week? I would rather dial in the type of shoe with the run I'm doing.


Dana

 

I agree with Dana about the concept of shoe rotation. Even though there is no hard data that this works, it is something that many runners practiced and coaches recommended even in the 1970's. I probably read about the concept of shoe rotation in high school in Runner's World in the early 1970's.

When I was in my more competetive days, running my best marathons at about 70 -90 miles per week during the 1970s and early 1980s, I had three pairs of running shoes that I ran in, alternating them each day. The shoes were purposefully selected to have slightly different midsole and upper constructions, rather than having three of the exact same types of running shoes.

My theory (formed during my pre-podiatry school years and continuing to this day) was that each shoe would cause a characteristic set of stresses throughout my feet and lower extremities that could produce more risk of injury if the same shoe was used for training on a daily basis. However, by using different shoes each day, the stresses on any one anatomical structure would theoretically be lessened since each shoe would produce different magnitudes of stresses on different anatomical structures each day. In other words, shoe rotation is a kind of a "hard-easy" type training program for foot and lower extremity anatomical structures, accomplished not by running hard one day then easy the next (i.e. the traditional "hard-easy" training method), but rather by switching shoes from day to day.

I currently recomend two pairs of shoes to any runner doing over 30 miles per week and three pairs of shoes to any runner doing 70 or more miles per week. I think shoe rotation helped me in running with less injury and less pain. The common practice of shoe rotation certainly makes good biomechanical sense, however we really don't have the research evidence yet to support or refute whether it actually makes any difference in injury rates.

 

This relies on the premise of repeated kinetic patterns, which may work in a track / road environment. But in trail running the surface variation will be so great as to negate these kind of effects. Hence the vast majority of trail shoes have a neutral midsole and serious fell shoes have very little midsole, but deep rubber cleats for traction.

 

Dana read this thread - leg stiffness. Barefoot running, minimal shoes, high cushioned shoes etc will be good for some bad for others, good for some in certain conditions bad in others. Read this thread and you will start to see why. There is 30 attachments as well.

ps barefoot running v´s shod running it´s not really about the strength of the intrinsic foot muscles, it´s something much more interesting.

 

Day1, you've picked a shoe designed for road running with a dual density midsole designed to increase external supination moment to go trail running in. Why not just use a shoe designed for trail running which will afford the protection from sharp rocks? You don't need the dual density midsole because of the variation in terrain, indeed rather than preventing an "excessive external MOMENT from ground reaction forces", if anything they should increase the risk of an inversion injury. Your body will compensate for the terrain regardless of whether the shoe is stiff, heavy etc. BTW what's the difference in weight between a 2140 and a cumulus?

MAYBE YOU SHOULD JUST REST TODAY. Regardless of the shoes selected you're body would still needs to modulate your leg stiffness. This is the real protection from impact. The key is the level of fatigue in the muscles to enable them to do this adequately. What you should be aiming for is an effective surface stiffness of around 75KN/m.

Since you didn't rest yesterday, you really should think about resting today. I've never had a blister from running in my life- I don't rotate my shoes. I do wear dual skin socks. Maybe you should have worn your trail running shoes to run on the trails in day 1 and 2. The point is that the variation in the terrain you have been running on will mean variation in the stresses has and is occurring on each and every step. You don't need a different pair of shoes to achieve this in the environments you are talking about so far.

You could have chosen any shoe you like. To avoid injury it's critical that you are able to modulate your leg stiffness to maintain it within ZOOLS in any shoe and even barefoot. It does not suddenly become more important because you are wearing shoes which were designed for sailing to run in. Leg stiffness is modulated partly by stride length and rate. So if I ran in barefoot on concrete I should need to reduce my leg stiffness accordingly to maintain it within ZOOLS, if I run with a pair of foam mattresses attached to my feet, in order to maintain ZOOLS I would have to modulate my leg stiffness. Your body does all of this for you without you having to think about it whether you are barefoot or shod. The muscles in your feet have been compensating for variations in surface stiffness and angulation everyday of the week, they don't suddenly start doing that because you are wearing a sailing shoe. Running down a mild incline lifts your heel higher than your forefoot even if you are running barefoot. So your "posture and back" will have to compensate to maintain balance around your centre of gravity indeed it does this even when you are barefoot and standing still.

Take a break , etc.

The point is that you could probably run in 2 pairs of shoes- one for road and one for off-road and maybe a light-weight pair for racing.

Here's me:
Day 1: I run in Asics DS racers around central park Plymouth it's tarmac but hilly.
Day 2: I rest
Day 3: I run in Ascics DS racers around central park Plymouth it's tarmac but hilly
Day 4: I rest
Day 5: I run in Ascics DS racers around central park Plymouth it's tarmac but hilly
Day 6: I rest
Day 7: I rest

repeat as necessary. I wear the same shoes each time I run, no problems.

 

Lies travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on - Churchill

 

Can't agree that trail running would necessarily negate the effects of alternating shoes on injury prevention, but if trails were available, running in only one shoe would certainly be more reasonable for a higher mileage runner than if the runner were running only on roads. Unfortunately, most of my miles over the years have been on roads so rotating shoes seemed to work very well for me and other road runners as well. One added benefit is that having more shoes allows your shoes to dry out between runs, especially when you are doing double workoiuts.

 

Kevin, your statement appears to make the assumption that rotating shoes prevents injury. While I seem to recall a reference to this many years ago, I'm not sure that we evidence to support this, do we?

Let me try and explain my point. Lets say I send you out on a trail run today and measure the kinetics for every step that you take 1, 2, 3,..n. Tomorrow we send you on the exact same route in the exact same shoes and again measure the kinetics for every step you take. If we compared the paired, between-day data would we find significant differences. I think we probably would because unless you could manage to make identical foot falls onto exactly the same piece of ground with each step the ground reaction forces would differ. So what if we now send you out on the trail again but this time in a different pair of shoes... we'd still see between day differences and step to step variation so what has been gained through changing the shoe? Lets say the shoes you wore on day one were neutral shoes and on day 3 they were shoes with a 5 degree varus midsole- as there is likely to be greater than 5 degree variations in the terrain what difference does this really make?

I agree that rotating shoes allows them to dry out, but why not just have multiple pairs of the same shoe?

 

Trails are one thing, but I would hypothesize that this would make a significant difference, distance and speed issues considered, on a street runner, running the same route on the relatively "flat" surface of our roads and sidewalks.

Perhaps!