barefoot running

[aoxo1]

Anyone here do it?

I got the idea a few years back but never tried, and a recent Daily Show interview with the guy who wrote this book

http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-S ... 0307266303
combined with a knee injury from too much squatting and running at the beginning of the year got me thinking about it again.

There are a quite a few websites out there singing its praises, as well as a burgeoning movement. I just finished my 5th time. First time was just a mile on a treadmill at a real easy pace (10:00 mile), and steadily increasing from there (1.5, 2, 2.5, 3) just going on the sidewalk/street. Calves were really sore after the first time for about 4 days (I'm a regular runner/biker, so this was working the muscles really differently) plus obviously some bad blisters that are becoming less severe as my feet toughen up, 2 days of sore calves after the 2nd time and none after that. Up to 3 miles today at a pretty good pace (maybe 8:00), and except for a hotspot on the ball of my feet, my feet seem much tougher as they barely hurt. They definitely are looking more and more torn up each day, as the dead skin from the huge blisters I go on my toes and balls of my feet is peeling and cracking. But the underlying skin feels TOUGH.

My form is definitely changing a ton to compensate for the lack of padding, and although it is hard to tell because I am not doing my regular distances yet it seems like I am using a LOT less energy. Felt barely winded today, and like I could go 10 miles easily (once my feet can handle it).

[Doc]

So, Braylon was just trying to toughen up his feet last year when he got cleated?

Just kidding. I remember doing 1 mile once on a treadmill barefoot. Hurt like hell. Never thought that it might be a good thing, since my feet killed and were pitch black from the black treadmill. But, it's an interesting concept. I figured you'd be talking about beaches and grass, not treadmills and concrete.

[leadpipe]

Heard much about this book. Personally I haven't had any issues with the ole' shoes on so I have no desire to try, and I'd also be skeptical in regards to those that have pronation problems, as the correct shoe can be a Godsend.

This being said, I haven't read the book and I'm sure quite a few things are addressed. It's interesting enough for me to pick up the book and check it out.

[BDFD]

I'm not much of a runner (I have a car - lol) but I would think that barefoot running would greatly increase the amount of shock your body must absurb every time your feet hit the ground, save the treadmill. Running destroys your knees over time as it is and I would think removing the shock absorbers would only accellerate the process. I didn't read the book so...

That, and you end up with Flinstone feet.

[aoxo1]

Heard much about this book. Personally I haven't had any issues with the ole' shoes on so I have no desire to try, and I'd also be skeptical in regards to those that have pronation problems, as the correct shoe can be a Godsend.

This being said, I haven't read the book and I'm sure quite a few things are addressed. It's interesting enough for me to pick up the book and check it out.

One of the major claim of advocates is that problems with over and underpronation are a result of wearing supportive shoes. The human foot wasn't designed to be supported, and much like walking around with crutches all the time would result in weak legs, walking around with fancy shoes all the time results in a lot of the foot problems that have become common in Western countries over the past 30 years that were nearly non-existent before. Wearing shoes allows people to run with poor form. There are supposedly no studies that indicate a decrease in injury rate associated with high tech running shoes and actually quite a few that indicate the reverse.

I'm not much of a runner (I have a car - lol) but I would think that barefoot running would greatly increase the amount of shock your body must absurb every time your feet hit the ground, save the treadmill. Running destroys your knees over time as it is and I would think removing the shock absorbers would only accellerate the process. I didn't read the book so...

That, and you end up with Flinstone feet.

Not true. This has been measured in labs. People wearing shoes strike the ground harder and with their heels, and any increase in padding results in an increase in this offsetting the benefits. There have been some studies in which it has been found that those runners with more advanced, more padded shoes suffer injuries at a higher rate than those with cheap shoes. Going barefoot (or with a minimal shoe like people used to do even 30 or 40 years ago) forces the runner to use proper technique which results in much less shock. The book linked above is essentially about a tribe in Mexico which regularly runs races up to 300 miles very late into their lives and which has none of the associated foot or joint problems runners in the US face.


Don't just take my word for it, but those are the arguments and claims out there people are using. Basically advanced shoes are a crutch that result in improper form, which results in higher injury rates due to weakening of the foot muscles and increased heel strike. If you know runners, you know that nearly everyone suffers some kind of injury nearly every year. Did the human foot evolve to run in shoes, or did it evolve to run without their support?

[aoxo1]

Oh, and of course everyone I tell this to thinks I am crazy and that I am going to step on some glass or a rusty nail.

[Ziner]

Oh, and of course everyone I tell this to thinks I am crazy and that I am going to step on some glass or a rusty nail.

That was my first thought. Bet there isnt alot of barefoot running in my old neighborhood in Chicago

[aoxo1]

Oh, and of course everyone I tell this to thinks I am crazy and that I am going to step on some glass or a rusty nail.

That was my first thought. Bet there isnt alot of barefoot running in my old neighborhood in Chicago

The area I am in is pretty good, but if I was living in a place where I was worried about it I would get these: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

I might get them anyways. Even though they seem kind of against the 'spirit' of the whole thing, which I will admit is a secondary draw for me.

[e0y2e3]

Oh, and of course everyone I tell this to thinks I am crazy and that I am going to step on some glass or a rusty nail.

That was my first thought. Bet there isnt alot of barefoot running in my old neighborhood in Chicago

The area I am in is pretty good, but if I was living in a place where I was worried about it I would get these: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

I might get them anyways. Even though they seem kind of against the 'spirit' of the whole thing, which I will admit is a secondary draw for me.

I was about to post those queer shoes.

Anyone I know that barefoot runs in the city swears by them.

[Erie Warrior]

Those shoes are sweet.

[leadpipe]

Heard much about this book. Personally I haven't had any issues with the ole' shoes on so I have no desire to try, and I'd also be skeptical in regards to those that have pronation problems, as the correct shoe can be a Godsend.

This being said, I haven't read the book and I'm sure quite a few things are addressed. It's interesting enough for me to pick up the book and check it out.

One of the major claim of advocates is that problems with over and underpronation are a result of wearing supportive shoes. The human foot wasn't designed to be supported, and much like walking around with crutches all the time would result in weak legs, walking around with fancy shoes all the time results in a lot of the foot problems that have become common in Western countries over the past 30 years that were nearly non-existent before. Wearing shoes allows people to run with poor form. There are supposedly no studies that indicate a decrease in injury rate associated with high tech running shoes and actually quite a few that indicate the reverse.

I'm not much of a runner (I have a car - lol) but I would think that barefoot running would greatly increase the amount of shock your body must absurb every time your feet hit the ground, save the treadmill. Running destroys your knees over time as it is and I would think removing the shock absorbers would only accellerate the process. I didn't read the book so...

That, and you end up with Flinstone feet.

Not true. This has been measured in labs. People wearing shoes strike the ground harder and with their heels, and any increase in padding results in an increase in this offsetting the benefits. There have been some studies in which it has been found that those runners with more advanced, more padded shoes suffer injuries at a higher rate than those with cheap shoes. Going barefoot (or with a minimal shoe like people used to do even 30 or 40 years ago) forces the runner to use proper technique which results in much less shock. The book linked above is essentially about a tribe in Mexico which regularly runs races up to 300 miles very late into their lives and which has none of the associated foot or joint problems runners in the US face.


Don't just take my word for it, but those are the arguments and claims out there people are using. Basically advanced shoes are a crutch that result in improper form, which results in higher injury rates due to weakening of the foot muscles and increased heel strike. If you know runners, you know that nearly everyone suffers some kind of injury nearly every year. Did the human foot evolve to run in shoes, or did it evolve to run without their support?

Devil's advocate here, but I would be very weary of any study that claims poor shoes cause less injury than advanced. I would buy the barefoot before I bought that.

I think a big issue is people finding the right guy to buy shoes from. As you could imagine, the great majority are looking to sell rather than help. There are an enormous amount of runners that are misinformed ILO.

Secondly, in regards to pronation and injuries, I would agree on the ambuguity of the studies in regard to their injury cause, however, no matter what their effect, they still would fall behind the leading causes of running injuries, which is increasing miles before a base and speedwork. As this relates to the above study, certainly guys with good shoes are going to get injured - they are high mileage, speedwork people for the most part.

Lastly, from a personal standpoint, when I began running, on and off for a few years, I was just using it as workout cardio, not many serious miles. I had sort of a trail shoe, and even though miles were short I would exprience foot and knee pain. When I took it up more seriously two years ago I went to a recommended guy. My old shoes were worn on one side, an obvious sign of pronation. I tired in a half dozen pairs, and long story short, my tread pattern has been neutral now for two years, and the pain has been eliminated. Currently between 40-50 miles a week, training for Columbus in a month. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't be better off being barefoot the whole time-who knows, but I do know I'm better off now than I was two years ago because I upgraded my shoes.

Again, interesting - I'm going to get the book.

[aoxo1]

Heard much about this book. Personally I haven't had any issues with the ole' shoes on so I have no desire to try, and I'd also be skeptical in regards to those that have pronation problems, as the correct shoe can be a Godsend.

This being said, I haven't read the book and I'm sure quite a few things are addressed. It's interesting enough for me to pick up the book and check it out.

One of the major claim of advocates is that problems with over and underpronation are a result of wearing supportive shoes. The human foot wasn't designed to be supported, and much like walking around with crutches all the time would result in weak legs, walking around with fancy shoes all the time results in a lot of the foot problems that have become common in Western countries over the past 30 years that were nearly non-existent before. Wearing shoes allows people to run with poor form. There are supposedly no studies that indicate a decrease in injury rate associated with high tech running shoes and actually quite a few that indicate the reverse.

I'm not much of a runner (I have a car - lol) but I would think that barefoot running would greatly increase the amount of shock your body must absurb every time your feet hit the ground, save the treadmill. Running destroys your knees over time as it is and I would think removing the shock absorbers would only accellerate the process. I didn't read the book so...

That, and you end up with Flinstone feet.

Not true. This has been measured in labs. People wearing shoes strike the ground harder and with their heels, and any increase in padding results in an increase in this offsetting the benefits. There have been some studies in which it has been found that those runners with more advanced, more padded shoes suffer injuries at a higher rate than those with cheap shoes. Going barefoot (or with a minimal shoe like people used to do even 30 or 40 years ago) forces the runner to use proper technique which results in much less shock. The book linked above is essentially about a tribe in Mexico which regularly runs races up to 300 miles very late into their lives and which has none of the associated foot or joint problems runners in the US face.


Don't just take my word for it, but those are the arguments and claims out there people are using. Basically advanced shoes are a crutch that result in improper form, which results in higher injury rates due to weakening of the foot muscles and increased heel strike. If you know runners, you know that nearly everyone suffers some kind of injury nearly every year. Did the human foot evolve to run in shoes, or did it evolve to run without their support?

Devil's advocate here, but I would be very weary of any study that claims poor shoes cause less injury than advanced. I would buy the barefoot before I bought that.

I think a big issue is people finding the right guy to buy shoes from. As you could imagine, the great majority are looking to sell rather than help. There are an enormous amount of runners that are misinformed ILO.

Secondly, in regards to pronation and injuries, I would agree on the ambuguity of the studies in regard to their injury cause, however, no matter what their effect, they still would fall behind the leading causes of running injuries, which is increasing miles before a base and speedwork. As this relates to the above study, certainly guys with good shoes are going to get injured - they are high mileage, speedwork people for the most part.

Lastly, from a personal standpoint, when I began running, on and off for a few years, I was just using it as workout cardio, not many serious miles. I had sort of a trail shoe, and even though miles were short I would exprience foot and knee pain. When I took it up more seriously two years ago I went to a recommended guy. My old shoes were worn on one side, an obvious sign of pronation. I tired in a half dozen pairs, and long story short, my tread pattern has been neutral now for two years, and the pain has been eliminated. Currently between 40-50 miles a week, training for Columbus in a month. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't be better off being barefoot the whole time-who knows, but I do know I'm better off now than I was two years ago because I upgraded my shoes.

Again, interesting - I'm going to get the book.

Oh sure, in fact you should be wary of any of the stuff I said. There is very little evidence either way, few controlled studies, and certainly nowhere near enough for anyone to draw real conclusions. Nearly everything is anecdotal.

You might recall when Nike came out with the Free a few years back and advertised it as "run barefoot". I guess that was in response to them sending a couple guys to Stanford to see which of the Nike shoes they were supplying the teams were using to train in. Turned out the coaches had the runners training barefoot, basically with the explanation that "I can't prove it, but my guys seem faster and get injured less this way".

[Orenthal]

Those shoes are sweet.

Agree, may look to pick up a pair 2morrow. Running barefoot was something I have always thought was better, at least I always felt better after runnning barefoot, felt faster and less winded. Again not scientific; will be nice to avoid the asphalt and rough concrete sidewalks.

[dmiles]

When I was lifting I tended to do all my deadlifts/squats/lunges/step ups barefoot. Well I should say I lifted barefoot regardless of what I was doing. A couple of times I took off for a walk right after, and went barefoot (around 40 min. or so). The streets were a little rough so it was nice when i had a sidewalk, but other wise it felt good.

[leadpipe]

Heard much about this book. Personally I haven't had any issues with the ole' shoes on so I have no desire to try, and I'd also be skeptical in regards to those that have pronation problems, as the correct shoe can be a Godsend.

This being said, I haven't read the book and I'm sure quite a few things are addressed. It's interesting enough for me to pick up the book and check it out.

One of the major claim of advocates is that problems with over and underpronation are a result of wearing supportive shoes. The human foot wasn't designed to be supported, and much like walking around with crutches all the time would result in weak legs, walking around with fancy shoes all the time results in a lot of the foot problems that have become common in Western countries over the past 30 years that were nearly non-existent before. Wearing shoes allows people to run with poor form. There are supposedly no studies that indicate a decrease in injury rate associated with high tech running shoes and actually quite a few that indicate the reverse.

I'm not much of a runner (I have a car - lol) but I would think that barefoot running would greatly increase the amount of shock your body must absurb every time your feet hit the ground, save the treadmill. Running destroys your knees over time as it is and I would think removing the shock absorbers would only accellerate the process. I didn't read the book so...

That, and you end up with Flinstone feet.

Not true. This has been measured in labs. People wearing shoes strike the ground harder and with their heels, and any increase in padding results in an increase in this offsetting the benefits. There have been some studies in which it has been found that those runners with more advanced, more padded shoes suffer injuries at a higher rate than those with cheap shoes. Going barefoot (or with a minimal shoe like people used to do even 30 or 40 years ago) forces the runner to use proper technique which results in much less shock. The book linked above is essentially about a tribe in Mexico which regularly runs races up to 300 miles very late into their lives and which has none of the associated foot or joint problems runners in the US face.


Don't just take my word for it, but those are the arguments and claims out there people are using. Basically advanced shoes are a crutch that result in improper form, which results in higher injury rates due to weakening of the foot muscles and increased heel strike. If you know runners, you know that nearly everyone suffers some kind of injury nearly every year. Did the human foot evolve to run in shoes, or did it evolve to run without their support?

Devil's advocate here, but I would be very weary of any study that claims poor shoes cause less injury than advanced. I would buy the barefoot before I bought that.

I think a big issue is people finding the right guy to buy shoes from. As you could imagine, the great majority are looking to sell rather than help. There are an enormous amount of runners that are misinformed ILO.

Secondly, in regards to pronation and injuries, I would agree on the ambuguity of the studies in regard to their injury cause, however, no matter what their effect, they still would fall behind the leading causes of running injuries, which is increasing miles before a base and speedwork. As this relates to the above study, certainly guys with good shoes are going to get injured - they are high mileage, speedwork people for the most part.

Lastly, from a personal standpoint, when I began running, on and off for a few years, I was just using it as workout cardio, not many serious miles. I had sort of a trail shoe, and even though miles were short I would exprience foot and knee pain. When I took it up more seriously two years ago I went to a recommended guy. My old shoes were worn on one side, an obvious sign of pronation. I tired in a half dozen pairs, and long story short, my tread pattern has been neutral now for two years, and the pain has been eliminated. Currently between 40-50 miles a week, training for Columbus in a month. Now, this doesn't mean that I wouldn't be better off being barefoot the whole time-who knows, but I do know I'm better off now than I was two years ago because I upgraded my shoes.

Again, interesting - I'm going to get the book.

Oh sure, in fact you should be wary of any of the stuff I said. There is very little evidence either way, few controlled studies, and certainly nowhere near enough for anyone to draw real conclusions. Nearly everything is anecdotal.

You might recall when Nike came out with the Free a few years back and advertised it as "run barefoot". I guess that was in response to them sending a couple guys to Stanford to see which of the Nike shoes they were supplying the teams were using to train in. Turned out the coaches had the runners training barefoot, basically with the explanation that "I can't prove it, but my guys seem faster and get injured less this way".

As an in between, there is an interesting article dealing with this issue by Amby Burfoot on the Runner's World site. Basically, he states as you do, that shoes might cause overcompensation in some areas, and that basically, our feet weren't designed for shoes, however, the caveat being that studies indicate that simply walking barefoot around the house is more than enough to counteract the shoes interference, so when you go out and run, use shoes, because any "damage" is easily repairable.

When it's all said and done, it's probably a pretty individual thing. Who knows.

[Orenthal]

I picked up a pair of those shoes, and they are sweet! The KSO's... They are as close as the get, and no fear of messing up the lil toes while running the sidewalk/street/lava pit!

[aoxo1]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 28-08.html

[Zé Apelido]

I read the paper and honestly it doesn't really provide any new information, and they don't really make any conclusions on the impact force results (lower in barefoot running) because the differences are kinda weak.

The gist is, when you run barefoot, you land forefoot first. This means you can absorb energy about the ankle as it dorsiflexes.

With running shoes (especially with thick soles under the heel), people generally strike the ground with the heel, meaning that they can't use the ankle rotation to absorb energy. So in that case the impact force may be higher.

In actuality, the differences in impact forces between barefoot and shoe are small, and both are less than the highest force that occurs during stance. Also, the rate of force production (possibly more important with injuries) is similar in both cases.

There is a lot that needs to be studied about this stuff. But basically, running barefoot allows you to use your foot and calve muscles a lot more, and is probably better in "natural" situations (like on grass, dirt, etc...). Running barefoot on concrete is not "natural" so who knows.

I ran 2 miles barefoot on the artificial turf on the track today. That stuff will jack up your calves.

[aoxo1]

I read the paper and honestly it doesn't really provide any new information, and they don't really make any conclusions on the impact force results (lower in barefoot running) because the differences are kinda weak.

Yes, it's a letter. It's short and preliminary.

The gist is, when you run barefoot, you land forefoot first. This means you can absorb energy about the ankle as it dorsiflexes.

With running shoes (especially with thick soles under the heel), people generally strike the ground with the heel, meaning that they can't use the ankle rotation to absorb energy. So in that case the impact force may be higher.

In actuality, the differences in impact forces between barefoot and shoe are small, and both are less than the highest force that occurs during stance. Also, the rate of force production (possibly more important with injuries) is similar in both cases.

3-4x the force is a small difference? If you say so.

There is a lot that needs to be studied about this stuff. But basically, running barefoot allows you to use your foot and calve muscles a lot more, and is probably better in "natural" situations (like on grass, dirt, etc...). Running barefoot on concrete is not "natural" so who knows.

I ran 2 miles barefoot on the artificial turf on the track today. That stuff will jack up your calves.

It only jacks up your calves because you haven't been using them in that manner. Start slow (2 miles is probably too much) and infrequently and build up. You'll be perfectly fine, if you choose to continue.

[Zé Apelido]

Yes, it's a letter. It's short and preliminary.

And doesn't say anything new. Except its in Nature.

3-4x the force is a small difference? If you say so.

When the impact force is less than the push force? Yeah. Not saying it doesn't mean anything, but there isn't definitive evidence that impact forces of such low levels are a big deal. Not definitively saying they don't matter, either.

It only jacks up your calves because you haven't been using them in that manner. Start slow (2 miles is probably too much) and infrequently and build up. You'll be perfectly fine, if you choose to continue.

Yeah exactly its just muscle soreness due to eccentric contractions, which calve muscles are not used to seeing. The question is, do I choose to continue on rougher surface like dirt trails...seems like the Vibrams would be in order for that...

[aoxo1]

Surely you can appreciate the differences between impact and push forces.

[Zé Apelido]

yes, and the difference is in the rate of force production i.e. slope of the force curve.

which, in this case, was not different between the two styles.

[leadpipe]

This is definitely the hot topic in the running community as of late.

Another article last week on the Runner's World site.

As of now, it seems inconclusive as to just how much barefoot is superior compared to those running with the correct shoe. And in my personal situation, I'm combining this with the facts that A) While I get on the trails as much as possible, it's not always reality - and I'm nowhere near convinced that barefoot asphalt running is the way to go - not to mention safety in a city. and B.) from November to April, it's friggin' cold. Not sure how easily you barefoot thru the snow.

Anyway, I'm sure we're going to see more ddetailed studies.

By the way aoxo, you were trying the barefoot deal, weren't you. How's it going?

[aoxo1]

yes, and the difference is in the rate of force production i.e. slope of the force curve.

which, in this case, was not different between the two styles.

Yeah, actually that's not what I meant.

By the way aoxo, you were trying the barefoot deal, weren't you. How's it going?

I have been since August and it's great. I started using the vibrams after about a month or so. No problems at all, either with high frequency (every day) or high mileage (don't keep track, but probably around 10-12 miles is the farthest I've gone).

[Zé Apelido]

yes, and the difference is in the rate of force production i.e. slope of the force curve.

which, in this case, was not different between the two styles.

Yeah, actually that's not what I meant.

Do you know what an impact force is? I could explain it several ways for you.

[aoxo1]

yes, and the difference is in the rate of force production i.e. slope of the force curve.

which, in this case, was not different between the two styles.

Yeah, actually that's not what I meant.

Do you know what an impact force is? I could explain it several ways for you.

I'll take that as no, you don't realize how they are actually different.

Done here.

[Zé Apelido]

holy hell dude, I don't know what you got attitude about.

I do understand impact forces quite well, from the theoretical to the applied (impact forces in biomechanics) from the frequency response, duration, magnitude, etc...

A theoretical impact force is almost instantaneous, covering infinitesimal time duration to rise from 0 to peak force, and then back down to 0. The impulse generated during impact is indicated as the area under this curve and is equal to the sudden change in velocity of the object to 0.

but running isn't bone on bone. heel fat pad is viscoelastic and dampens and delays energy absorption, so that the "impact" has a duration of say 20 - 50 ms. Whereas a "push" force would have a much longer duration, say 200-500 ms.

Two facets distinguish impact forces from 'normal' forces in this case: magnitude (increased) and duration (decreased).

In this study, they reported relatively smaller magnitudes of impact forces in barefoot running, but similar rate of force production (i.e. dF / dt). So the barefoot case had a smaller duration.

[aoxo1]

Please continue focusing on force rates and ignoring how that force is transmitted and absorbed and how it can clearly be different in the case of landing (and though not thoroughly addressed in this letter, significantly different between shod and unshod) and takeoff.

[Zé Apelido]

ah you mean the difference of impact / push forces on force transmission, well why didn't you say so.

I suppose you are speculating that the foot / ankle acts as a damper of the high frequency impact, whereas heel contact does not, and therefore higher impact force transmitted to the knee and up. I would agree with that.

In terms of measuring it, most likely people would calculate moments and forces about each joint; however, they would likely underestimate the peak accelerations in the foot / ankle (filtering).

I think it would be interesting to simply attached some accelerometers to the tibia / knee and compare peak accelerations between barefoot and shod...

[aoxo1]

ah you mean the difference of impact / push forces on force transmission, well why didn't you say so.

I suppose you are speculating that the foot / ankle acts as a damper of the high frequency impact, whereas heel contact does not, and therefore higher impact force transmitted to the knee and up. I would agree with that.

In terms of measuring it, most likely people would calculate moments and forces about each joint; however, they would likely underestimate the peak accelerations in the foot / ankle (filtering).

I think it would be interesting to simply attached some accelerometers to the tibia / knee and compare peak accelerations between barefoot and shod...

Well, yes, but mainly I was speaking to your comparison of impact/push and how the difference between between the impact forces of shod/unshod being relatively insignificant when compared to the force used to push or take off; impact/push can be distinguished in a similar manner (ie: landing is more damaging than taking off). Even assuming that a shod runner distributes the impact/landing as efficiently as an unshod (unlikely, but not addressed here), a direct comparison between take off and landing is not valid. That was my main point.

[Orenthal]

dorks...

I have the Five Fingers and feel much better running with them then the overpriced running shoes I used to own. I am not a hardcore runner, just like to get out there when I can...