Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Barefoot Running Debate

Discussion in 'Biomechanics, Sports and Foot orthoses' started by Kevin Kirby, Jan 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nickcampi

    nickcampi Member

    My point is that we are all making accusations as to what is right etc and we have no real scientific or medical related literature or evidence to support it. I would like to hear your comments in regards to my 18 questions.
     
  2. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Congratulation Nick! You get the prize (which is really ony kudos) for making the 1000th post in this thread.
     
  3. Nick:

    There are over 1,000 posts in this thread where many of your points are answered. Since I am currently very busy preparing for lectures on biomechanics and sports injuries in Zaragoza and Madrid, Spain for next month, I won't have time to answer all 18 of your questions now. Perhaps if you asked one or two questions at a time, I would be able to find the time to answer them.
     
  4. CraigT

    CraigT Well-Known Member

    I too am trying to figure out your point...
    As Medical professionals specialising in feet it is our job to decipher the information out there and give informed advice to the patient in front of us. This will be based on evidence, but also rationale and experience- you gain this by asking yourself the questions like the ones above.
    If you are well informed you will know if there is a difference between those running shoes, and you will have arrived at this conclusion despite what Runner World says.

    I am not sure whether you are just taking the piss when you are saying things like...
    Judging foot structure based on arch height is something that a shoe store would do. Not a Podiatrist practising evidence based medicine...
     
  5. efuller

    efuller MVP

    I am assuming there are studies that show that using muscles increase their strength. Running uses muscles. I think it is safe to infer that running, as opposed to sitting in a chair, will increase muscle strength. I'll admit that you will probably use your intrinsics less running in a shoe as compared to running barefoot, but I don't think that you can make the claim that running in shoes is equal to sitting in a chair for increasing intrinsic muscle strength. I doubt it has been studied either way.

    Eric
     
  6. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Do you know the logic behind anti pronation running shoes? There are studies that show that shoe geometry influences pronation velocity. This geometry can be explained by examining the location of center of pressure of ground reaction force relative to the STJ axis. I've looked at center of pressure plots of a dual density motion control shoe and they have a more medial center of pressure than non motion control shoes. Therefore, these shoes will create a smaller pronation moment from the ground. They should theoretically decrease stress in anatomical structures that slow or stop pronation.

    Shoes that shift the location don't really control pronation, they change pronation moment from the ground. There are feet that have too much supination moment from the ground and may exhibit late stance phase pronation because of muscular action. An anti pronation running shoe would not theoretically help these people.

    The position of the STJ axis varies across people and this a good way to explain why a treatment may be good or bad for a particular foot. So, if you did a study to examine the effect of antipronation running shoes and injury rate you might find it made some worse and some better and no net effect.

    Eric
     
  7. Injured2010

    Injured2010 Welcome New Poster

    Came across this website and thread in my quest to find out more about barefoot running after a suggestion from another forum to look at barefoot and POSE running to help with injuries I have had (hamstring, lower back pain and shin pain).

    The whole shin problems came about due to my own stupidity running in someone else's XC shoes but also a small tendency to heel strike. The discussion on the other forum has allowed me to look at my running technique and I aim to use barefoot and POSE running to improve this.

    I completed my first barefoot run today with some success (no problems with shin pain) but did end up with blisters on both my big toes and the toes next to them. I had no idea this was a problem during the run.

    To me it shows that I don't lift from the knee enough but I am not sure if it also means I am landing too much on my big toe area rather than 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal but I am not sure about this. What do people think?

    Not sure if I would want to run long distances barefoot but hoping it helps me improve my running technique and helping me to have no injuries for 2011 when running with shoes. There are a few other issues I need to sort out with my posture (pelvis/lower spine) but do people think a gradual introduction of barefoot running would be useful?
     
  8. JohnD

    JohnD Member

    That's a very good point--as any coach will attest, changing a runner's form takes a LOT of work! From a treatment perspective, it'd be much easier to use custom insoles or physical therapy (which can in itself alter running form positively, for example by reducing/eliminating Trendelenburg gait by strengthening the hip abductors). Another point that isn't often considered is the body's ability to adapt to a new stress. I'd venture a guess that a 14-year-old just starting to run would be much better at adapting to a new running "style" than a 40-year-old weekend warrior. One thing I worry about when reading many of these studies is that the nature of injuries might be fundamentally different for different types of runners--so, for example, if you have two runners--a 45-year-old "weekend warrior" who runs 20 miles a week, and a 21-year-old collegiate running 90 miles a week--with the same injury (say, plantar fasciitis), it very well could be that, despite having the same injury, the mechanism for that injury is completely different. Having ran and competed good bit myself, it boggles my mind how it's even possible to plenty of folks to get injured running for 30-60 minutes, four times a week. It would seem like those injuries would be more likely to be caused by biomechanical factors like muscular weakness (maybe from sitting all day at a desk for twenty years!). Needless to say, it's difficult to find ENOUGH runners doing reasonably high volumes to study their injury etiology vs. recreational runners.


    I am actually a chemist in the midwest USA--so I have more of an eye for experimental design and data analysis than understanding the consequences of neglecting the subtalar joint in 2d kinematics, but as both a scientist and a runner, I've undertaken a project of sorts to sift though the Literature (capital L, as we say) to try to understand what is known and to properly frame what is NOT. To say that "all the studies show nothing" is a gross oversimplification. Though it IS true that we cannot draw any powerful recommendations from the studies done so far (i.e. "don't heelstrike, always wear shoe X"), there is a wealth of information out there, and some very interesting threads that connect them, but what is lacking is a strong narrative to explain how it all fits together. Perhaps it is my background in physical science, but I am hopeful that one day we will have a robust enough theory of biomechanics and running injury to explain the apparent paradoxes. I'm often reminded of Thomas Edison's famous quote about knowing 3,000 ways to not make a light bulb, or the one about persistence and the stonecutter.


    Not pertaining to footstrike directly. The thought that larger heels would increase the propensity to heelstrike is one of those "stupid questions" that is actually quite important, and nobody ever bothered to publish an article on just how much a heel lift of X mm will affect your footstrike. I know New Balance did some work along those lines for their new "barefoot-inspired" Minimus. Wish I could look over some of that data, or talk to their lead biomechanics guru. There are some studies that control for shoe design and test how variables like heel flare, heel height, and midsole hardness affect kinematics:

    http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A..._of_shoe_design_parameters_on_rearfoot.6.aspx
    http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/A...heel_height_on_ankle_joint_moments_in.18.aspx

    but I don't think they specifically looked at footstrike. In fact, they may have excluded forefoot and midfoot strikers, as many studies do.

    Not exactly true. I posted a study earlier that showed that the Nike Free increases foot muscle strength, and some studies have been posted earlier on custom insoles positively affecting the function of foot muscles too. I suggest you read up on Benno Nigg's theory of the "preferred skeletal movement path" here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176139

    I don't know about you, but I wouldn't jump off a ladder without shoes either.
     
  9. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    Just a follow up to the last comment in the above post. I finally got through Natural Running by Danny Abshire while on holiday and despite the positive reviews it seems to be getting, it was equally disappointing. It was nothing but propaganda, full of unsubstantiated statements and twisting of the science and misrepresenting the science. The section on foot biomechanics was appalling and shows he too knows 'diddly squat' about it (eg talks about forefoot varus and valgus, but clearly does not understand them; thinks that 'mortons foot' causes the foot to pronate, when we know that this foot type is 'normal'!; talks about a dropped anterior metatarsal arch, which we know does not happen!: etc etc). Even the section on injuries is as bad - every injury is linked to impact (which we know is not the case!). If you going to make claims like that, you kinda think there would be some evidence to back it up. I wonder why no references are cited to back up the claims ... could it be because there is none?

    I don’t suggest for one moment that ‘running naturally’ (whatever that it) is a good or a bad thing, I just do not understand why so many people are that gullible that they actually fall for the propaganda.

    It would be good to see a barefoot/minimalist/natural running book from someone who actually understands foot biomechanics and can actually properly interpret the science rather than misrepresent it.
     
  10. DrPod

    DrPod Active Member

    I had to go and look that up.

    did·dly-squat also did·dly·squat (ddl-skwt)
    n. Slang
    A small or worthless amount.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diddly-squat
     
  11. BarefootPT

    BarefootPT Welcome New Poster

    I am going to wholeheartedly agree with you. I posted earlier in this thread. I am a physical therapist and a strong advocate of barefoot running. I do however continue to be embarrassed by the barefoot “gurus” and the claims they make and yes, they are hurting the cause. They continually show what a poor understanding they have of basic lower limb anatomy and biomechanics. Like you, I am appalled that so many fall for the propaganda and the misuse of the science. To me, that does not make barefoot running as something that is not good for you. It just means we need to see past the false claims.

    I was eager to read Howell’s book on barefoot running as I thought finally, someone who teaches anatomy and has a PhD can get it right. It was a major disappointment. He has an extremely poor understanding of foot anatomy, biomechanics and lower limb injuries. I just wish those praising the book had a better understanding of these topics so they can see that it is all as you said, propaganda.

    Dr Payne, I have emailed you. Maybe we should collaborate on something.
     
  12. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Some thoughts from Benno Nigg on barefoot running published on the Runners World website yesterday: http://bit.ly/gLLWRu
     
  13. I am a novice barefoot runner. This is my 5th year. It took me 3 years before I ran any marathon. Last year I ran 40-60 miles per week, outside, on the road.
    The reason why I started barefoot running is I was getting knee & back pain when running with shoes. I do not have any knee or back pain. Since we are in the winter, I am running barefoot inside track, 15 miles per week. In 2009 I ran 3 marathons in three months, barefoot. In my opinion, there is no debate in running barefoot. If you like something and it works for you, DO IT! Yes, it is different, and it has done me good. I am not a fast runner, and it has done me good. Yes, I recommend it to anyone, but you have to do it right! You cannot run barefoot the same way you walk!
     
  14. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Care to explain why we are seeing so many injuries in barefoot runners?
     
  15. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi,

    I baven't trawled through all the posts on this thread (just most of them) so if I make any points which have allready been made I apologise in advance.

    Declaration - like Kevin K I was associated with Runners World (UK) for a while. I wrote an article or two, answered letters on the Problem Page etc. I have no involvement with RW now, or any shoe manufacturer either. I do know a little about running. I'm also aware of the recent history of running, and of course I'm a strong proponant of "we haven't adapted for life on a hard, flat surface" theory, so that's where I'm coming from in answering CBR (above) and the thread generally.

    First off, to CBR it sounds like you enjoy your barefoot running, so I say go for it.
    This is not to say barefoot running is good for everyone.
    I can only think of three notable barefoot runners in recent running hstory - Zola Budd, Emil Zatopek (in the 50's) and a Nigerian runner whose name I can't remember just now. That's it - three. There may have ben another couple I missed, but compared to all those great runners who l wore/wear shoes I think we all agree that the barefoots were in the minority?
    They were undoubtedly anatomically suited to running barefoot, but most people aren't.


    My second point should make that clearer.
    There is no - repeat - no - evidence that our lower limbs have adapted for life on a hard, flat surface, anywhere.
    If anyone has any evidence please post it, since it would strengthen the barefoot argument and make this debate much more balanced. I'm pretty confident it doesn't exist.

    There is an assumption, strengthened by the fact that most gait studies are carried out in labs and not on flat/undulating/soft/hard surfaces that a flat, hard surface is normal for us, and for most of us it is, since in the West that is what we live, work and play on, but we haven't adapted for it, which is why most of us find footwear - an interface between the foot and the ground - comfortable.

    Running barefoot on uneven surfaces which are also a mixture of soft and hard is what we were designed to do. Today the risks to the barefoot runner are different to our forebears. Not so much wild animals as litter (think broken bottles - ouch!).
    But running barefoot on roads - for most people - puts uneven, unequal strain on our lower limb geometry components, leading in many cases, to micro-trauma initailly, then injury.

    Thanks for reading.

    Davidh
     
  16. UDRunningLab

    UDRunningLab Welcome New Poster

    Barefoot Running Study

    Attention barefoot runners! The University of Delaware Running Laboratory would like to invite you to take part in a web based running survey in order to better understand the habits of the barefoot runner. Your participation will involve 15 minutes of your time each month to fill out an online survey. You will fill out one survey a month for a year, upon which your name will be entered into a raffle to win a GPS! To qualify for this opportunity you must be relatively healthy, between the ages of 18 and 50 and run more than 10 miles/week. You also must have been running barefoot for more than 6 months, and at least 50% of your mileage must be done completely barefoot. Please contact Allison Altman at 302-831-4646, or coordinator.runsurvey@gmail.com for more information.
     
  17. Re: Barefoot Running Study

    Would have been a classic if they would have won a pair of running shoes.
     
  18. Griff

    Griff Moderator

    Re: Barefoot Running Study

    Who is leading this sort of research at Delaware now that Dr Davis is Harvard bound?
     
  19. Guddi

    Guddi Welcome New Poster

    The Journal "Footwear Science" has a new issue out on Impact and Cushioning.

    This article seem relevant regarding Libermans study:

    The 'heel impact' force peak during running is neither 'heel' nor 'impact' and does not quantify shoe cushioning effects
    Martyn Shortena; Martine I. V. Mientjesb
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a933401087~frm=abslink
    I think it was mentioned earlier in one of Kirbys post.

    The same issue also have a study named
    Impact characteristics in shod and barefoot running
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a933410094~frm=abslink
     
  20. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Impact characteristics in shod and barefoot running
    Joseph Hamill; Elizabeth M. Russell; Allison H. Grubera; Ross Miller
    Footwear Science, Volume 3, Issue 1 March 2011 , pages 33 - 40
     
  21. I believe we are now starting to see the beginning of the end to this "barefoot running fad". Why? I haven't had a reporter or book author contact me for the past two months regarding barefoot running, whereas, for the 10 months prior (ever since my Runner's World "Barefoot Running Debate"), I was often being contacted for requests for interviews on barefoot running 1-3 times a month.

    Now, Chris McDougall will need to find another source of income by writing a new book since interest in barefoot running will diminish over the coming months and years.

    His next book?.....Born to Run, In Shoes. ;)
     
  22. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    I did one interview last week and turned one down the week before.

    The nonsense never ends. The reporter from last week read some quotes out to me and asked for my responses. She was genuinely shocked at my replies and the BS that she has be spun from the Evangelists. She burst out laughing several times!

    One of the classics was that motion control running shoes weaken the foot and that is why runners pronate and get injuries. I simply pointed out:

    1. There is absolutely no evidence for that (and also pointed out that there is no evidence either that its not the case)
    2. If it was true, then you would expect that the incidence of flat feet or pronated feet in runners would be higher. There is no evidence that there is more pronated feet in runners than non-runners and absolutely nothing to indicate that might be the case if the research was done
    3. If that is what causes a pronated/flat foot, then what causes the pronated/flat foot in those who are not runners and do not wear motion control shoes?
    4. If someone was a non-runner, then started running in motion control shoes, then surely they are actually using their muscles more by taking up running, so the muscles actually get stronger rather than weaker.
    5. We know from Lizis et al work, that there is NO relationship between muscle strength and arch height

    She thought this was really funny and could not understand why so many fall for the propaganda and genuinely wanted to know why I thought so many were uncritical of the propaganda and the misuse of the science (I directed her here to read the 1000 or so posts). She laughed again when I pointed out the age difference in the two groups in Leibermann's study in nature - based on that alone, she could not undertsand how it even got published and why so many fall for it.

    It will be interesting to see what the article comes out like...
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2011
  23. DaVinci

    DaVinci Well-Known Member

    Thats a very good point that I have not seen been made before. I wonder how the evanglists respond to it?
     
  24. Maybe we would see a higher arch as well ..... :rolleyes::wacko:

    Cause thats important you know ...:deadhorse:
     
  25. Craig:

    Good to hear that you are carrying the "barefoot running torch" for me now....from here on, I'm referring you all of my barefoot running interview requests .....:rolleyes::drinks
     
  26. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    6
    But they get so tedious and time consuming.

    As well as the above muscle strength issue, another one that came up in this interview was runners using running shoes get more ankle sprains. The other person interviewed (I not sure who they were), quoted Warbutons article as the reference. That whole article is so easy to drive mac trucks through (and this has been done). I pointed this out to the interviewer:

    1. Warbuton based his argument on this research done by the late Alex Stacoff about ankle joint torques with running shoes with large lateral heel flares. The interviewer laughed when i pointed out that it was not even a study on ankle sprains and was not even done running and she laughed again when i pointed out that running shoes have not been made that wide in the heel for years, and many now have those 'crush pads'!

    2. I also pointed out that if you look at all of the epidemiological studies on running injuries, ankle sprains do not even get a mention as they are so uncommon, so how can running shoes be increasing the risk for ankle sprains. She laughed again.

    She asked me again why I think they keep falling for this stuff.

    I also made my position clear, its not about barefoot running being a good thing or not; its about the misuse, misquoting, misrepresentation of the science and the illogical use of propaganda. This example and the one above on strength are classics.

    I am doing my best to understand. I have now read 4 barefoot running books. I still can’t believe that there were so many that were that gullible they fell for the misappropriation of pseudoscience in Born to Run, but apart from that it was a good yarn. The Barefoot Book from Daniel Howell and Natural Running from Danny Abshire (I had high hopes for this later book) were both useless. Just go to the foot biomechanics sections and they still talking about things like tripod model of the foot (I did not know anyone still believed in that) and things like mortons foot pronating the foot (I thought that myth was dealt with >30 yrs ago). If the foot sections are that bad, how can the rest of the book be trusted? (I talked about these books earlier in the thread).

    One book I would recommend, is Craig Richards, The Complete Idiots Guide to Barefoot Running. It covers the transition to barefoot running really well; does not reek of propaganda and when it come to the foot biomechanics section, even though it is very superficial, nothing stated is contrary to the research evidence (except for the lack of critical apprasial and blind aceptance of Leibermann's work in Nature).
     
  27. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    nothing new here! This is why pressure studies and accelerometry are way more accurate in terms of quantifying the efficacy or otherwise of cushioning
     
  28. toomoon

    toomoon Well-Known Member

    I think it would be wise to be cautious though Craig.. Dr. Richards is in the process of marketing a 'new" style of running shoe called "running barefoot on grass" or something along those lines. Until quite recently he had a website where he claimed the human running action was similar to a cheetah... no mention of the very slight and probably unimportant anatomic and biomechanical diffreneces between homo sapiens and cheetahs...!?
    Attached is a picture from his website of his "new" shoe. Unfortunately he forgot to remove the reebok branding..!

    For those of you still getting asked for interviews on barefoot running.. an interesting statistic.. as we all know, barefoot running is conquering the world. Or is it..?? As of November 2010, there were 19,000 registered mountain unicyclists in the world. That is, crazy but interesting people who ride up, or down, a mountain on a unicycle.
    There are approximately 10,000 saints in the Catholic Church, and it 'aint easy to become a saint.. trust me I have tried..
    As of November 2010, there were 1345 member of the Barefoot Running Society. Keep in mind this is in a USA popolation of 35,904,000 runners with a subset of 14,900,000 who run at least 100 days a year...look out world, the barefooters are takin' over.

    :pigs:
     

    Attached Files:

  29. Simon:

    As I said in one of my barefoot running interviews, barefoot running is only growing online and is a "virtual movement" not something that many people are actually doing.

    http://www.podiatrym.com/pmnewsissues.cfm?pubdate=09/22/2010

    I think your job with Asics is safe......for now.....:rolleyes::drinks
     
  30. Griff

    Griff Moderator

  31. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    This looks to be a very interesting book.

    The above got me to thinking...

    Thinking out loud... what is the incidence of injuries or niggles in these Kenyon school children & how does it compare to the western (more developed) world? My guess is that injury rates (that is running related overuse type injuries) would be lower; however, I realize that there probably isn't the facilities & knowledge available in many places for stats of this nature to be available.


    If the incidence of injuries/niggles is low, then why is it? There are many possible factors which I feel may go a long way in helping runners from western (developed) nations understand the causative & thus the more important preventative factors of running injuries i.e. some of which include:

    - active lifestyle from a young age developing general good health & strong muscles/tendons/ligaments... & developing the neuralpathways for good technique/form,

    - a running conducive environment of varied natural terrain (dirt roads/trails, fields),

    - little of the common harder unnatural terrain characteristic in developed nations (i.e. asphalt roads, concrete footpaths),

    - little private & public transport (hence running may be a viable option to get from A to B faster),

    - genetic predisposition of efficient biomechanics (via good structural alignment) due to a history of a nomad type lifestyle,

    - not usually having/wearing footwear & thus the higher incidence of barefoot running from an early age.


    The above possible factors which stand out the most for me are the last two points i.e. genetic makeup & footwear attire. By genetic makeup I am primarily thinking about the lower limb alignment/structure & thus biomechanical efficiency. I wonder if there is a higher percentage of what I would consider to be an ideal foot posture in these Kenyon children as opposed to children in Australia, Europe & North America. I don't believe a study of this nature has been conducted & I would certainly think it would be of more practical use & relevance on the issues of running performance & injuries than the discussed Lieberman study. The large majority of runners I have come in contact with in relation to a running related injury has had a less than ideal foot posture (unconducive structural alignment) which has contributed to reduced support/function, thus excess adverse motion contributing to inefficient energy expenditure & excess adverse forces directed unevenly to a certain region which eventually weakens &/or contributes to another area weakening & thus injury.


    Would a research using something like a Foot Posture Index or Foot Function Index be suitable in analysing/comparing the lower limbs of East African children to Australia/Europe/North American children? Would it be a good research topic? Has it been done before (in this nature)?


    Is the childhood barefoot running helping the integrity of the lower limb biomechanics (good grounding during the developing years), or is the already present ideal lower limb integrity enabling the successful dominance of barefoot running; or is it a combination of both with each factor conducive to the state of the other??? I am more inclined to believe it is likely to be a combination of both to varying degrees from one individual to another. Hence I suspect the same to be the case for runners all over the world. I think research comparing the lower limb structural comparisons of regions like Kenya & Ethiopia between those of the western world would go a long away in helping understand to some degree the dominance of East African running & the association with higher running economy/biomechanical efficiency & injury rates... not to mention the realistic relevance of barefoot running on the whole.


    I have said before, the act of running is very good at weeding out the inefficient individual. Some runners can handle large volumes of training until a niggle/injury surfaces, whilst some can only handle a relative small amount of running before they meet their injury threshold & left sidelined for days or weeks. The issue of whether or not to go barefoot & at what degree (i.e. adaptation rate, duration, frequency) is just one aspect of this topic as there needs to be consideration of the individual's structural alignment, muscle/tendon integrity & running experience (age started regular running & years running). This type of information could potentially be of more help for runners who are confused about what level of barefoot running &/or the degree of support which is ideal for them to start off on without having to experience too many setbacks before appropriate running strength/fitness takes hold.


    However, I feel there is definitely a need for footwear as a means of protection & efficiency i.e. particularly over the harder surfaces in a race environment. By this I mean, there is greater muscle activity acquired (which is less efficient) to determine the appropriate balance of 'limb stiffness' as an effective lever/cushioning moderator whilst on a harder surface. Therefore, running on an unforgiving surface (which generally isn't natural i.e. concrete) with little of the appropriate cushioning required isn't ideal; hence at these times appropriate footwear to accommodate the desired cushioning may be ideal. We just need to have footwear that doesn't inhibit the natural foot function i.e. heel/toe flat/parallel to surface, midsole not too thick/stiff (which contributes to longer/slower ground contact time thus also reducing running economy), inhibit proprioceptive feedback for the appropriate 'limb stiffness' (lever/cushioning moderator) to take place.


    I'm lead to believe that one just needs to make the appropriate changes for the given circumstances in relation to the state of our individual body type (i.e. biomechanics), running experience & the environment we are to be running in (i.e. running surface) than to be ignorantly stubborn & push for nothing other than barefoot running!
     
  32. zimmy

    zimmy Member

  33. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Maybe it's just me zimmy, but I think it's probably best to apply your one word in a sentence format so one (at least I) can gain a clearer understanding of the nature/context of your point i.e. the intensity of the jerk lead to the calf injury. However, I can't really see how this word is all that relevant... there are probably better words to use. Anyway, I shouldn't speculate... I'm sure you will explain.
     
  34. JB1973

    JB1973 Active Member

  35. podtiger

    podtiger Active Member

    JB, Thanks for that. In the process of getting a look at the book "More Fire"now.
     
  36. podtiger

    podtiger Active Member

    I'm with you Ben Hur. I think I'd like more than a 1 word reply. Rather than just 'jerk' as zimmy put it. A sentence or paragraph at least?
     
  37. dougpotter

    dougpotter Active Member

    I wore several pairs of Onitsuka Tigers earlier in my 40 year running career. They were akin to sunglasses for your feet. Funny thing - - I never had any foot problems with them, and, it was only when the shoe boom of the mid-1970's came about that I started having running related injuries wearing higher-tech shoes. If your feet are genetically geared to wear minimum weight shoes, wonderful. But a small percentage have the feet that can run many years in light weight shoes - - to run barefoot is asking for disaster.
     
  38. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks podtiger for expressing your views on this side issue. In the past zimmy & myself haven't seen eye to eye on some issues, hence my questioning of that single word post after mine. As yet, zimmy hasn't explained himself - which may be perceived as an answer in itself.

    I think most of us here are aware of the general use of the term "jerk" - albeit zimmy did associate the term with a Wikipedia link ascribing its use in physics.

    I like (& do) see this forum as an education/academic related forum which is open to sincere points of view being examined against the known & understood evidence/logic we have before us... thus dare not speculate on this matter further.

    Getting back now to the topic in question: ... well, somewhat :rolleyes:
    Not wanting to contradict the above paragraph ;) ... last night I ate my dinner with my bare fingers. Rather enjoyed the experience; found it quite liberating than be confined to the usual metal utensils, which after thinking about it, hardly seemed all that natural to me - after all, we were [strike]Created[/strike] (whoops) to eat with amazingly [strike]designed[/strike] (whoops) structured fingers. Hence eating food with bare fingers (or should that be now termed barefinger) is the way to go - regardless of who you are & the circumstances of your eating environment.

    Regards,
    Barefinger Matt.
     
  39. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

    Articles:
    1
    Oxygen Cost of Running Barefoot vs. Running Shod
    N. J. Hanson, K. Berg, P. Deka, J. R. Meendering, C. Ryan
    International Journal of Sports Medicine (in press)
     
  40. This isn't news....we have known, for over three decades, that added mass to the foot decreases the metabolic efficiency of running (Catlin MJ, Dressendorfer RH: Effect of shoe weight on the energy cost of running. Medicine and Science in Sports. 11: 80, 1979).
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page