Barefoot Running Debate

People never cease to find ways to abuse the English language. In all probability, the language misuse was most likely intended to refer to socks with toes in them. Currently, the most popular brand of "toe socks" is Injinji. Injinji labels their product as toe socks, not barefoot socks.

I recently bought a pair to help keep my feet warm in sub freezing temperatures during the Colorado winters while wearing my toe shoes, VFF. The socks are warm, very comfortable and of high quality.

http://www.injinji.com/

Dana, SNMP

 

Did Nike or other shoe companies do studies on their cushioned shoes when they first released them decades ago? If so, what were they trying to conclude and what were the shoes compared to in the study.

Scientific or not, I think the fact that people ran LOOOONG before modern trainers came out says something about humanity's ability to run effectively -- granted, maybe not most efficiently -- without modern running shoes.

 

BTW, I haven't had a chance to look this up in The Barefoot Book, though I intend to. Been busy.

Of course, I also don't know the specific evidence that he was referring to in Howell's book or even if that evidence speaks about barefoot running.

I think it's safe to say, however, that running barefoot does eliminate a lot of the potential for corns, black toenails, fungus and some of the other issues that arise from a foot being stuck inside a shoe. That really applies to all shoe wearing, though.

 

It doesn't actually say anything because we don't really know whether people ran regularly and whether they did long distances or not, and whether or not they suffered injuries similar to what we do today. It's mostly educated guesses and assumptions so isn't really "proof" of anything. Also if you apply basic logic to the shod or barefoot argument, you realise that shoes were invented because people wanted something to cover their feet. If barefoot was best hands down, the shoe wouldn't have been invented at all. The fact that it was suggests a need existed.

That's not to say that modern running shoes are any good or not because that's a whole different kettle of fish. You can't dispute the fact that our ancestors invented shoes for a reason

 

For those of you who are interested, I have been interviewed for two more articles on barefoot running.

The first one is a debate with Dan Lieberman, PhD, from O & P Business News.

http://www.oandpbusinessnews.com/view.aspx?rid=70460

The second one is a debate with Dr. Mark Cucuzzella, Associate Professor at the West Virginia University School of Medicine from Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine.

http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/current-issue/features/is-barefoot-better-two-running-docs-debate/


Bring 'em on!!:boxing::deadhorse:

 

Kevin, a couple of observations about the debate. It seems that over the past year the discussion is evolving somewhat. In the beginning it was more of a polar discussion, to run barefoot or not to run barefoot. Now I'm seeing a lot more discussion around the use of barefoot running or running with minimal shoes as a training tool or technique. Of course the tool should be used by those with acceptable biomechanics, (however that might be defined) and the purpose is to attempt to strengthen muscles and encourage good technique.

I don't think there will ever be a complete meeting of the minds because there will always be people who think this training tool or technique should be used 100% of the time. There was a comment that I liked at the bottom of the 2nd article. It said the body doesn't lie and this will all sort out. I completely agree with that comment.

The other observation I have has to do with the distinction between experienced runners and new runners. The concern is with new runners. Regardless of what the new runner wears on their feet, it is always difficult to keep a new runner from becoming injured. They don't know how to interpret what their body is telling them and with the excitement of something new, it is hard to keep them from doing too much too soon. With all of the hype about barefoot or minimal shoe running, it is unlikely without coaching that they would be able to use this properly as a tool to improve their running. It doesn't even make sense because they don't even have a baseline to improve. They also haven't discovered if they have biomechanical issues that need to be addressed.

If this discussion was a book, I would have a hard time keeping myself from skipping to that last chapter to see how it turns out. If it's like everything else, people will lose interest, life will move on, running shoe companies will remain in business.

Dana

 

I have come across this statement a few times lately:

Anyone know what the source that they are using for this?
In all my reading I can not find the actual research. ....or is this just another one of those myths someone in the barefoot community made up?

(in fact, the only evidence I can find is the opposite!)

 

How would you define efficiency? I remember reading a study showing that reducing the weight in shoes resulted in lower oxygen consumption and thus increased efficiency. I can't remember if it was a barefoot study or merely about shoe weight. Logically you would assume that if lighter shoes result in lower oxygen consumption, then no shoes would theoretically reduce it even more. That said there's many other factors to take into account so it probably isn't as clear cut as that.

I would also imagine that the reduced oxygen consumption test would have been performed on a treadmill and therefore wouldn't be an exact comparison to road running.

there's a mention of it here in the economy section but I don't have access to the original research.

 

I would tend to agree with this 4% figure from the available research. "Efficiency" in this case would be referring to metabolic efficiency, with the studies that tend to support this number, to the best of my knowledge, have all been done measuring oxygen uptake in runners, running at a constant velocity on a treadmill with shoes, without shoes or with masses added to the shoes and/or feet.

The reference by Flaherty looks the best since he actually compared running in shoes to running barefoot (Flaherty RF (1994). Running economy and kinematic differences among running with the foot shod, with the foot bare, and with the bare foot equated for weight. Microform Publications, International Institute for Sport and Human Performance, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon) but unfortunately, I don't have a copy of it. It appears Flaherty found in his research (a thesis?) a 4.7% decrease in oxygen uptake running at 12 km/hr barefoot compared to running in 700 g shoes. Catlin and Dressendorfer also found similar increases in oxygen uptake with masses added to shoes (Catlin MJ, Dressendorfer RH: Effect of shoe weight on the energy cost of running. Medicine and Science in Sports. 11: 80, 1979). Burkett found a 3.1% increase in oxygen uptake when masses were added to runner's shoes of 1% body weight which would equal 700 g in a 70 kg individual (Burkett LN, Kohrt M, Buchbinder R (1985). Effects of shoes and foot orthotics on VO2 and selected frontal plane kinematics. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 17, 158-163).

In my own personal experience, running mile repeats on a grassy field, both barefoot and in training flats with orthoses probably (weighing abour 850 grams per pair) when I was a college cross-country athlete (weighing 70 kg), I observed that for the same perceived exertion, a 5:09 mile in shoes would be equivalent in effort to a 5:04 mile while barefoot (5 seconds per mile difference). How this translates to metabolic efficiency, I don't know. If I had been running the same mile repeats in my racing flats without orthoses (probably 400 grams per pair), I'm sure my times would have been closer to my barefoot times.

 

The problem with all those studies is the weight of shows. If you look at weight of the running shoes used in those studies (they were 14-20+ yrs ago) and look at the weight of the typical running shoe today ... the typical running shoe on the market today weighs about half of the weight of the shoes were used in those studies .... so its a nonsensical argument to continue to use it.

 

That's a fair point, I did say it wasn't as clear cut as that but I never thought about the actual weights used. You could also argue that using heavier shoes whilst training would have an increased training effect and allow for a much faster pace on race day when wearing ultralight racing flats (in much the same way that fell runners often train with weighted backpacks). So in effect the heavier shoes would actually work in the athletes favour provided they wore lighter racing shoes for events.

Just a thought.

 

Can't agree with you here, Craig. Shoes add mass to the foot, barefoot doesn't. Added mass to the foot increases the moment of inertia of the lower extremity so that during forward recovery phase, it requires more metabolic energy to swing the leg forward with a shoe on, than while barefoot.

And I also can't agree with you on the weight of running shoes. Some of today's shoes are heavier than shoes from 15-20 years ago. Remember, that the 700 gram weight used in these studies is for both shoes, not for one shoe. We had shoes back in the 1970s that I ran in that were as light as some of the lightest shoes being made today. Also, one must consider that the weight of the shoe correlates to shoe size, so my size 12 shoe is significantly heavier than the size 9's they use in the running shoe advertisements. No nonsense....just fact.

Here's a good article by a friend of mine that owns a running shoe store in Davis, California (my college town) on running shoe weight. I agree with nearly everything JD says in this article.

Sweating the Ounces

 

Here are some shoe weights over the last 40+ years for those of you who still believe that shoe weights have declined signficantly over the last four decades. (men's size 9)

1962 - New Balance Trackster - 10.9 oz

1970 - Tiger Cortez - 10.4 oz

1970 - Tiger Boston - 8.2 oz

1972 - Adidas SL72 - 9.5 oz

Early 1980's - Saucony Jazz 3000 - 10.5 oz

1985 - Nike Sock Racer - 6.4 oz

2010 - Asics Gel Foundation - 12.9 oz

2010 - Saucony ProGrid Omni 9 - 13.0 oz

2010 - Adidas Response Cushion 19 - 11.3 oz

2010 - Brooks Ghost 3 - 11.0 oz

2010 - K-Swiss Blade Light Run - 9.8 oz

And here's a section from Peter Cavanagh's Running Shoe Book, published in 1980, that shows the average men's trainng flat weight was about 320 grams (11.3 oz) and average men's racing flat weight was about 235 grams (8.3 oz). That was 30 years ago!!

Great discussion!

 

This is an extract from an informal paper I wrote about barefoot running recently. I know you have read it Kevin, but if anyone else would like the full article please email me clifton@sub-4.co.uk

'Lets conduct a hypothetical experiment and take one hundred average runners who wear traditional running shoes and ask them to run one mile at their normal steady state pace along a flat piece of road. Lets now ask the same group of runners to run the same mile at the same pace along the same piece of flat road, but this time unshod, without their traditional running shoes. This is what would happen: Shod in the comfortable traditional running shoes the largest majority of runners would land heel-to-toe due their natural intrinsic foot and leg mechanics which is based on their inherent joint axes. The rest would either land on their midfoot or forefoot, again determined by their intrinsic biomechanics. In other words the running shoes have offered a level of comfort and security, which has been recognized by a complex proprioceptive mechanism involving our visual senses and learned experience. The body feels secure enough to employ the correct running style to suit each individuals runners needs.
When the same runners run the distance barefoot unshod something strange happens – every one of the runners who when shod ran either heel-to-toes, midfoot or forefoot, now all run on their forefoot which clearly from a biomechanics point of view would not suit many of them for a variety of reasons. So, what has happened to make all runners perform in this way over exactly the same distance and speed? Well this is what you are not being told by those that blame traditional running shoes for your injury – often the same people who recommend you run with your torso leaning forwards whilst you run.
During barefoot running the body again recognizes that you are about to perform an activity which could potentially cause damage, by using the same complex proprioceptive mechanism involving our visual senses and learned experience. This time however, this mechanism now identifies the same hard surface a threat because of the potential to damage the heel if you ran heel-to-toes unshod. The body therefore protects itself by going through a series of mechanical changes, including bringing the forefoot down below heel level before ground contact, and increases flexion at the knees, hips and torso to brace itself for impact. This involves a high level of pre-emptive contraction and stiffening of the muscles prior to impact and requires a certain amount of mobility and intrinsic muscle strength to carry out this action. In fact this process occurred during a state of heightened alert, for when our ancestors were required to sprint over short distance. It did not offer running style choice nor was it meant to be completely comfortable. In fact prolonged running on the forefoot increased the risk of injury for our ancestors and for this reason hunter-gatherers would have spent 80% of their time gathering food and only 20% hunting, much like the few hunter-gatherers that still exist today. I would like to bet that if you offered our ancestors a comfortable pair of traditional running shoes to help them in their brutal daily battle for survival, they would have done so'.

 

The problem with a lot of the arguments that get advanced is that they are based on the assumption that heel impact is problematic. Not one study has linked high impacts to injury. If you look at all the risk factor studies done on patellofemoral pain, medial tibial stress syndrome, plantar fasciitis, stress fractures, etc (ie 90% of the most common running injuries) .... none of them have linked to high impacts at the heel to the injury

We need impact to prevent osteoprosis. I do know one one study that is soon to be published that shows the bone mineral density in the heel of forefoot strikers was lower than heel strikers - I did ask the author if that was pathologically lower (ie in the osteoporosis region), but they said no. But never-ther-less if other osteoprorsis risk factors are present, a lack of heel strike is theoretically asking for problems to develop.

 

I totally agree Craig.
What do I mean when I say running barefoot is a ‘high risk strategy’? Well, there are many different types of repetitive sports injuries, which occur for many varied reasons. However, injuries associated with barefoot running tend to be very focal and often in the sagittal plane (flexion and extension e.g. bending the ankle or knee). These include forefoot injuries; Achilles tendonitis; plantar fasciitis (ligament along the arch of the foot) and calf muscle issues. Having said that barefoot running can reduce shock into the lower back, but because functionally the legs are sacrificed by absorbing impact forces and asymmetry by their ability to flex and extend.
There is another very good reason why humans may not be suited for barefoot running on harder modern surfaces, and this is Forefoot equinus.
This foot type would rather be on a natural surface for which it was evolved. It is also incredibly common in the population and functions best when raised slightly at the heel, which is why traditional running shoes with a graduated midsole (higher at the heel than toes) and sandals like ‘Fit-flops’ are so successful.
Despite the Essentialists view that there exists a perfect neutral foot type that does the correct amount of pronation and supination and that has a vertical heel at midstance and anything other than this is abnormal, is simply not correct. A Forefoot equinus, which is considered to be abnormal by the Essentialist, for me is a normal foot type by virtue of its evolutionary origin and commonality amongst the population. Flat geometric surfaces are abnormal to us, not foot types like this one!
The reason why a Forefoot equinus foot type would function better on soft surfaces like sand rather than concrete is because the forefoot would drop into the sand and little stress would be placed on the Achilles tendon and calf muscle. However, if you did run barefoot with this foot type on a harder flat surface, the heel would be forced to rapidly drop towards the ground potentially over stretching the connective tissue in the Achilles tendon. This is exactly what has happened to my own Achilles tendons over 35 years of forefoot running, and is why I say that for a natural forefoot runner there is a window of time (say, 10 years) when you can get away with it injury free. However over many years of forefoot running you may eventually over stretch the connective tissue of certain structure including the Achilles tendon, and this is what happened to me. Once this happens and if you want to continue to run you, there are a few rehabilitation tasks you need to keep up with. My own weekly rehab includes eccentric load strength work for my calf muscles and wearing orthotics with a heel raise on both sides, which controls heel drop after landing on my forefoot. I can’t change my running style because running forefoot is an inherent part of my gait and so I have to work with what evolution gave me. They don’t explain these risks when you buy forefoot running shoes, and this is the whole point. If anti-traditional running shoes were sold with thorough advice after an assessment of some sort, for example assessing the timing of heel lift on a pressure plate. If your heels lift later than 65% of the contact phase of gait when you walk over the plate at 4km/hr, an advice sheet is dispensed explaining the risks. However, this is not the case and I continue to see injured runners who are given incorrect advice.

 

Clifton - Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you work closely with ASICS? I don't mean to sound negative but discussing the pitfalls of barefoot running with somebody that works for one of the largest shoes manufacturers in the world seems a little bit pointless.

Just in case you're interested. When I run barefoot I run more or less midfoot unless I'm sprinting at which point I run more towards the forefoot. This pattern is pretty much the same as when I run in shoes. I will occasionally heel strike in shoes but it is not my normal gait pattern.

 

I hope at the end of it all (No that I intend leaving this life any time soon!) I'm known for more than consulting for Brooks, ASICS and Nike. This has been a tiny percentage of my working career. I'm also an ex-international athlete for England and Great Britain. I ran a sub-4 minute mile in 1985 and as a 'has-been' and runner for the last 35 years (I'm 46 now!), does this no give me the right to comment on the field I love so much-biomechanics and running?
For the reasons stated above you will run more mid/forefoot whilst unshod however, you will find your true normal initial contact running style whilst at a steady state pace, all things even in your MSK. True forefoot running suits very few runners, and for them a very short of time in their lives before they increase their risk of injury especially in the sagittal plane. Actually, I feel midfoot running is the most dangerous because heel-to-toe and forefoot strike at least have inherent shock attenuation, however midfoot running tends to be over a more extended knee increasing shock at the knee and reduced eccentric load muscle control from the quads. If the knee does not flex enough and quads firing efficiently the pelvis and head will not move on a optimal sinusoidal curve and injury risk increases.

Sincerely
Clifton

 

I'm well aware of your credentials and I appreciate your insights, but I'm also well aware of your affiliation to large shoe manufacturers which puts you in a possibly biased position. I'm not picking fault with your past achievements however.

If a someone working for Vibram or Vivo came on here and started promoting barefoot running everyone would agree that they would be considered biased.

Just an observation.

 

I do understand and accept your point, and when I get this feedback it does keep my feet firmly on the ground, so thank you for your honesty. But trust me I feel the same way about many of the shoes out there as you and my colleagues do. In fact again trust me, when I work for a company involved in the shoe industry or otherwise I do it on my terms when it comes to my opinions and comments. I have told each of these companies that there are certain shoes I do not like in their ranges, and hopefully they respect that and it gets fed back head office. I'll be honest with you I do not do any work for NIKE now since I tested the Nike Pegasus when it was re-introduced back into the UK. I have run since I was a child, and I am now a very slow has-been. I have never had MTSS in the 35 years I have been running; apart from the two trials I did using the NIKE Pegasus. Those shoes gave me MTSS twice; I have never had it before and never had it since, only in those shoes. I wrote my report to NIKE, they did no like it and I never worked for them again. If a shoe company does not like what I say, then I would rather not work for them. I've been involved in running most of my life and working in sport every day for the last twenty-two years and I hope they trust what I tell them. Like I hope my patients and my colleagues trust me too. Now lets stick to the biomechanics, because I'm filling-up here lol

 

If you send me an email to Clifton@sub-4.co.uk and you are interested let me send you an informal paper I wrote about barefoot running, and let me know your thoughts.

Sincerely

Clifton

 

Hey Clifton,

Hope you are well. Could you send me a copy of that article please mate?

Cheers

ian@sportspodiatryinfo.co.uk

 

Why not just post it up here much less wrok than sending out emails all the time.?

 

OK. My thoughts on barefoot running. BAREFOOT RUNNING ARTICLE.pdf

Sincerely
Clifton

 

Up-load of the pdf failed. It's large article but still within the up-load limits?

 

Clifton:

Just copy it as text into the body of your next posting here. That should work fine.

 

No, they don't all land on their forefoot. Some will continue to heelstrike midfoot strike. Seen it many, many times. The question is: what is different in these people?

 

This very much depends on the surface Simon. On concrete or similar, all would land on their forefoot. The comment above says if you run them down a flat piece of road. If you ran this group from the road and on to grass barefoot, most would the switch back to the inherent initial contact style i.e. most would land heel-to-toe. If you then ran them again onto the road they would adapt yet again and alter their gait and MSK response back to deal with the hardness of the surface. Much like someone would change their posture if you hit them over the head with a child’s soft toy hammer, if you then attempt to hit them with a real hammer an automatic defensive reflex kicks in based on the anticipation of pain. It’s an evolved ability to protect ones tissues in the presence of danger. This reflex would have developed quite early on in evolution of bipedality when Homo erectus was faced with harder terrain. This is why Ethiopian and Kenyan athletes etc cope better. We as Westerners have lost this adaptive reflex to some extent, which is why barefoot running for many of our patients often leads to focal sagittal plane injuries.

 

Here is Clifton's nicely done article in text format.

 

Thanks Kevin,

Hope you are well.

I was a little nervous about putting it up, as it is a very informal paper aimed at the consumer in an attempt to offer them a more balanced view about barefoot running, as opposed to all the commercial hype they being spoon-fed.

Many thanks

 

Clifton:

It's a little long, but I re-read it again this morning and I still like it. As I said earlier, given your running-racing and clinical background, your opinions will carry far more weight than that of most people who write on this subject.

Good luck on the PhD.:drinks

 

I haven't had time to give that a good read yet but it seems a very good article.
Nice work

 

Thank you, I’m new to the arena but have quietly observed for a few years, not sure how some of my work would be received. It’s now time to take part in the discussions I think. Kevin, I have something really important to share with you about my research. It’s not quite ready yet, but I think its really important and cold have a wider impact for MSK clinicians. I’m email you. Kevin, do me a favour. I’m interested to hear you views on what I written in the General issues and discussion forum –Foot to jaw problems. We should get that run in and then a beer when you are over next June.

Kind regards

Clifton

 

I think the Zola Budd quote from the 2005 Guardian article perhaps may be a bit misleading. Here is more recent interview. Make of it what you will.

 

Yep, the writer's background gives this piece of opinionated, unsubstantiated work of fiction much more weight.

Dana

 

Clifton:

I'll plan on seeing you next in June in Manchester, I hope.




BTW, I'll be wearing my Vibram FiveFingers and I'll also be sure to be collecting my data points along the way during our run.... NOT!!:drinks

 

I am not sure what you think is misleading.
From the Running Times article there are a couple of sections which may be relevant to this discussion-

---------------------
“[Barefoot running] is a great movement, but you have to approach it conservatively,” she says. “You have to do it gradually. For kids, I recommend running on grass and safe surfaces. I would not recommend running on the roads barefoot. I never did.”

---------------------
She elaborates on her early years running and the benefits of barefoot running, explaining that most of the group’s training was on grass and dirt road. “I wore shoes only for distance runs on the roads. Runs would be 1K laps on the grass, and all our races were barefoot as well. It is the way we grew up in South Africa. Even today, kids are encouraged to go barefoot. It all starts with the foot; if the foot is strong, the body posture will be the same way.”

When Budd finally did put on shoes to run on the road, they felt, “so sluggish and uncomfortable. I had more injuries running with shoes than I ever did barefoot. I always felt so restricted in shoes. It felt like they weighed 200 pounds. I am so glad it [natural and barefoot running] is being rediscovered.”

-----------------------

Both quotes suggest that she is in agreement with the essence of what Clifton is saying... that barefoot is only really natural when it is on a natural surface, and it is not for everyone. She states that she had more injuries in shoes, but also clearly states that she did distance road running in shoes...
I don't think that conflicts too much with what most athletically minded Podiatrists have said in this forum. That along with the softly softly approach if you do wish to try barefoot....

 

The misleading point was that the other article suggested that she no longer runs barefoot whereas this one seems to suggest that she does (although it's a little vague on the subject). That was all I think