Text Size

No Holds Barred

barefoot running

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:02 pm

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
Image
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).
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Doc » Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:00 am

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.
Doc
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:42 pm
Favorite Player: Matthew Dellavedova
Least Favorite Player: Chris Bosh

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby leadpipe » Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:38 am

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.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby BDFD » Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:58 am

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.
User avatar
BDFD
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:06 pm
Location: Ohio's Fightin' 14th
Favorite Player: Nuke LaLoosh
Least Favorite Player: Duke Temple

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:14 am

Lead Pipe wrote: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.
BDFD wrote: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?
Last edited by aoxo1 on Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:24 am

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.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:26 am

aoxo1 wrote: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
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7058
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:27 am

Ziner wrote:
aoxo1 wrote: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 know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby e0y2e3 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:57 am

aoxo1 wrote:
Ziner wrote:
aoxo1 wrote: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.
“Irony is wasted on the stupid” - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
e0y2e3
Et Tu, Brute?
 
Posts: 13982
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:41 pm
Favorite Player: Prosecutor
Least Favorite Player: motherscratcher

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Erie Warrior » Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:20 am

Those shoes are sweet.
This natural coozy comes free with every Miller Time
Image
User avatar
Erie Warrior
Goose Slayer
 
Posts: 6433
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:50 pm
Location: Hampton, VA
Favorite Player: 1995 Indians
Least Favorite Player: Global Warming

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby leadpipe » Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:39 pm

aoxo1 wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote: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.
BDFD wrote: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.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:40 pm

Lead Pipe wrote:
aoxo1 wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote: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.
BDFD wrote: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".
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:46 pm

Erie Warrior wrote: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.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby dmiles » Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:55 pm

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.
On Twitter @DaBashers
User avatar
dmiles
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:36 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby leadpipe » Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:45 pm

aoxo1 wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote:
aoxo1 wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote: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.
BDFD wrote: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.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Orenthal » Mon Sep 14, 2009 10:42 pm

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!
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:34 am

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:17 pm

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.
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:31 pm

Zé Apelido wrote: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.
Zé Apelido wrote: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.
Zé Apelido wrote: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.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:59 pm

aoxo1 wrote:Yes, it's a letter. It's short and preliminary.


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

aoxo1 wrote: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.


aoxo1 wrote: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...
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:29 am

Surely you can appreciate the differences between impact and push forces.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:16 am

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.
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:30 am

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?
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6557
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:46 am

Zé Apelido wrote: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.
Lead Pipe wrote: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).
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:01 pm

aoxo1 wrote:
Zé Apelido wrote: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.
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:11 pm

Zé Apelido wrote:
aoxo1 wrote:
Zé Apelido wrote: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.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:15 pm

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.
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:19 pm

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.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Zé Apelido » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:39 pm

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...
Zé Apelido
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Os Anjos
Favorite Player: Manute Bol
Least Favorite Player: Romanowski

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby aoxo1 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 8:53 pm

Zé Apelido wrote: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.
I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime
User avatar
aoxo1
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:23 pm
Favorite Player: Hover Jetski
Least Favorite Player: Eric Wright

Re: barefoot running

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:57 pm

dorks... :hide:

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...
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest