Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article7045833.ece

by alexandros • 16 years ago

41 41 16 years ago

timesonline.co.uk

That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of thing:

Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.”

World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?

My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary. Most of the benefits of barefoot running come from changes in running form. Shod runners have plenty of padding, so they can get away with letting their heel strike. An occasional barefoot run on grass will help you learn proper form while avoiding the disadvantages of constant barefoot running. At the end of the run, you can look at the grass stains on your feet to get an idea of how much your heel is striking the ground. Once you learn proper running form (no grass stains on your heels), you can practice that same form while wearing shoes.

There is one oft-forgotten side-effect of barefoot running: massive callouses. See http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-running-l... for before and after pics.

Edit: I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.

spamizbad• 16 years ago

> World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?

Actually "foot defects" would appear more in world class athletes: the strain they put on their feet will expose any small defect that would normally go unnoticed by someone with a sedentary lifestyle. As long as the problem isn't too serious, their running career is not jeopardized.

AngryParsley3• 16 years ago

And if their running career is jeopardized, they're no longer a world-class athlete.

andymism• 16 years ago

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life.

This behavior is a common pattern with groups on the margins. Although it can be annoying, it doesn't have any bearing on the merits of barefoot running. The Ruby community is a good example, as are vegetarians.

I'm failing to see how callouses would be such a show stopper with barefoot running. Any of the minimal shoes available on the market are enough to prevent callouses if you're concerned about them. I've never owned a pair of traditional running shoes that didn't give me agonizing arch pain within 5 minutes of running, but I've been running for 6 months in a pair of Vibram Five Fingers with no pain at all--I've also got no ugly callouses.

> Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers.

You're probably right on this point. But, to me, it's a lot like saying that our cardiovascular system is not properly evolved to transport blood with high levels of cholesterol.

Edit: The callouses bit.

rue3• 16 years ago

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary.

Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?

> I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.

It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the obese.

AngryParsley3• 16 years ago

What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?

I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet.

As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows?

I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces.

I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law.

I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.

xiaoma3• 16 years ago

>>Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.”

>World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?

A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.

gwern• 16 years ago

{{fact}}.

And which are not caused by their occupation?

oscardelben• 16 years ago

I have recently wrote an article about barefoot running http://www.freestylemind.com/barefoot-running

I don't have years of experience, but when I run with minimalist shoes (now always) I never feel arch or knee pain. It's worth at least a try.

starkfist4• 16 years ago

Is anyone else suspicious that all these articles about barefoot running started appearing at the same time a bunch of companies came out with specialized "barefoot" shoes?

leej• 16 years ago

Nike has Free for 4-5 years. It had even added some cushioning to original Free over the years.

Retric• 16 years ago

added some cushioning to original Free

Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?

ErrantX• 16 years ago

They've been about for a while now.

It all started a couple of years ago when that research into how expensive/fancy trainers were actually not as good for athletes as bog standard "normal" ones.

And that progressed into bare footed is even more beneficial / less injury prone.

With that said I admit that I also remember seeing ads for a barefoot style "shoe" too. So you could well be right.

(as it stands I recall the science and research was pretty solid - especially the stuff about cheap trainers over expensive ones)

Groxx3• 16 years ago

Can't buy? Perhaps not actually barefoot, but my wife got a pair of these [1] and I'm planning on getting some soon myself.

(For those not interested in clicking, think toe-socks with +5 armor rating)

[1] http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

edit: as to starkfist's comment, these and other "barefoot" shoes have been around for quite a while. Maybe if there were more correlation, but as-is I don't see any marketing stunt.

GFischer• 16 years ago

I'd seen them before, and they do look like a good idea.

Edit: here, I found where I'd seen them, at Wired:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/07/barefoot/

warfangle• 16 years ago

I'm a huge fan of VFF. Extremely comfortable (I dislike the pressure most shoes/socks put on forcing my toes together laterally), and great for running. I've been running with these on asphalt for the past six months, and feel the best I have in years.

And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome attention :)

jackfoxy2• 16 years ago

After reading a HN linked article on barefoot running I did some research and bought my first pair of VFF about 2 months ago. Bought my second pair, Treks, two weeks ago for every day and use the first pair for running only. For me it has been a lifestyle changer. My feet and legs want to walk or run all the time. I'm frustrated by rainy days that leave me cooped up in the office. My wife says I get grumpy if I don't wear my "duck shoes".

lliiffee• 16 years ago

Another anecdote for these. I started running regularly a year or so ago. I'm no natural athlete, and even with relatively short runs of just a few miles, I would struggle with knee pain. (I'm quite tall.)

After reading some of these articles, I decided to give the five fingers a try. At first, my hamstrings and feet were so tired I could hardly walk after running. (You don't realize how many muscles you have in your feet, because you don't use them unless you land on the balls of your feet.)

Now, at about the 1 month point, my hamstrings have strengthened, I still feel a lot of soreness in my feet, but the issues with my knees are completely gone.

Maybe placebo, I know, but I don't mind placebo if it works...

Groxx3• 16 years ago

Same. If placebo cures X, doesn't that mean that, for them, the placebo is a cure for X?

starkfist4• 16 years ago

these and other "barefoot" shoes have been around for quite a while

so have the articles about barefoot running.

Groxx3• 16 years ago

I'd be willing to bet that barefoot running articles have been around since significantly before the internet. Including research, not just the drug-induced-belief associated with hippies.

The "big" hype over this is relatively recent from what I've seen, though, and far trailing what would be needed for a shoe company to develop and start selling a specialized shoe if they were hoping to jump on the hype.

tgerhard• 16 years ago

The benefits of barefoot running can be obtained without going totally shoeless.

I haven't started running barefoot yet, but my beefy New Balance running shoes have been relegated to mucking about in the yard. I now run in a well-worn pair of Chuck Taylor hightops. Just going to a much more minimal shoe forced me to concentrate more on forefoot/mid-foot striking, a light, quick stride, and proper posture.

What many people overlook is that running is a skill that must often be relearned as we get older and run again for fitness (ever see any nine-year-olds with shin splints, runner's knee or ITB syndrome?). Cross-country skiing, cycling, and swimming all have skill components, why not running? Going minimal on footwear forces that attention to form.

mattmcknight• 16 years ago

The Newton Running [1] shoe is also designed with additional padding on the forefoot to support forefoot based running styles, like barefoot running. I like them quite a bit. Barefoot really seems appealing to Luddites. The benefit of cushioning simply can't be denied. Even the supporters negatively compare the feeling of running on concrete barefoot to running on soft dirt. There is simply less impact on the body.

[1] http://www.newtonrunning.com/

nazgulnarsil2• 16 years ago

WRT healthier walking and posture: what shoes can be purchased that don't look completely ridiculous?

RyanMcGreal2• 16 years ago

You know what looks ridiculous? Hobbling because cool looking shoes have smashed your feet and wrecked your knees.

nazgulnarsil2• 16 years ago

some of us have jobs where we cant wear toe shoes. be realistic.

rue3• 16 years ago

Feelmax makes shoes that look a bit less odd than Vibrams.

starkfist4• 16 years ago

I compared my chuck taylors to a pair of nike frees and thought the soles were equivalently flexible. Looking ridiculous is a matter of taste, but any plimsoll-inspired sneaker will probably work the same as a nike free. Vans, Chucks, Keds, etc. Even soccer trainers like adidas gazelles have hardly any sole to them. Haven't seen a "dress" shoe with these concepts that didn't look orthopedic, though.

chapmanb• 16 years ago

Sanuk sells thin flexible shoes. They are a bit casual, but a few styles are work friendly:

http://www.sanuk.com/products/341027

VivoBarefoot is another alternative, although a bit more expensive:

http://www.terraplana.com/vivobarefoot.php

RyanMcGreal2• 16 years ago

I'm about three-quarters through Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, and it already feels life-changing.

ajscherer• 16 years ago

If nothing else I think we can be certain of one fact regarding barefoot running: it is a very appealing story. How many publications that don't typically cover running have written the same story now, and how many times has it made the front page of hacker news?

jamesshamenski• 16 years ago

I just bought a pair of vibram's last week. That's crazy enough for me.

I did notice that running down hill requires new technique. You cant use your heel as much or at all when barefoot.

tynman• 16 years ago

I recently wrote about my experience in transitioning to barefoot running. http://suburbiarebooted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-became-ba... Bonus-- I was doing it before it was cool. :-P

Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy

Related Stories