Why barefoot isn’t best for most runners

[John S.]

Agree with that.

[Luke Schmidt]

Ancient people seem to have made shoes whenever they could. The thickness of the soles seems to have been limited by materials. Its hard to make Nike shoes with leather soles.

[Luke Schmidt]

I tried running in a variety of somewhat minimalist shoes and did okay but I was mostly getting sore muscles after 2 miles or so.

One day I went out and more for the heck of it then anything else I tried my Trail Gloves which were more minimalist then what I'd been running in. I ended up doing four miles and feeling pretty good afterwards (first time I'd done that in a while).

I'm not completely sold on "barefoot" running. I tried on a friends Five Fingers with 2 mm soles and they weren't enough for me. The Trail Gloves are barely enough. So some cushion is nice. But too much is a problem too. I tried Altra Lone Peaks once or twice on that route and thought they were a bit stiff for forefoot strike running, it was hard to get the technique right.

I can say I definately ran better in my "barefoot" Trail Gloves compared to my NB101s.

[Daniel Pittman]

I was talking to my Crow Indian uncle about teepees, and I asked him why they switched from buffalo hide to canvas. He said that the hide ones lasted much longer than canvas, but were heavier and took a lot more work to make. Every couple of years, you would have to cut the bottom few feet off and sew on fresh hide, as the bottom tends to rot and wear out faster from dew, snow, tension from the stakes, etc. They would use the cut-off portion to make bags, leggings, and other items that need soft leather. I asked him if they made shoes out of it, and he said no, that they used leather from the tops of the teepee for that, when a whole teepee cover was scrapped. The upper sections would be almost black, seasoned from the small fires that warmed the teepee's interior. The smoked buffalo hide in one or two layers made an excellent moccasin sole, long-wearing and nearly waterproof. The sinew used to sew them would also swell when wet, working to seal the needle holes.

My grandma added that if an Indian girl went around with too many boys and did bad things, they would say, "Look at dat girl over derr… she's got a hole in her moccasin."

[David Thomas]

Daniel: Great story. When in Barrow, I we got tossed in the air on a walrus skin. It was easy to see that it was quite a project to stitch a walrus skin into a round of leather with hand loops for 30 people to hold.

[Daniel Pittman]

You know the Walrus has the second-largest penis in the animal kingdom?

[Luke Schmidt]

I saw a buffalo hide at Bent's Old Fort and the leather was about 1/3 inch thick in places. A pair of moccasins from that would have been pretty nice, I'd guess about as protective as Trail Gloves or thicker Five Fingers. I believe most plains tribes used separate piece of leather for the sole. Makes sense when its thicker, stiffer leather.

Sleeping on that hide would have been very comfy to. A re-enactor showed us how you could fold a buffalo hide over on itself (fur in) to make a very comfortable mattress. Not UL though.

[Daniel Pittman]

Teepees were originally quite small and crowded. It wasn't until the Spanish brought horses to the New World, that Plains Indians were able to make and transport large shelters. I've slept in large teepees constructed with more than a dozen poles, each 25-30' long. Slept four adults and three kids, plus all kinds of gear, no problem. To move a lodge that size would require at least two strong horses just to drag the poles. The Crow Indians, known for having the largest teepees, accordingly also had the most horses. The covers are canvas now, much lighter, but there's no getting around having to lug a bundle of lodgepole pine teepee poles. It's a shame too, because the Plains Indian teepee is the finest shelter I have ever slept in (including traditional houses). If I could live in one year-round I would. I would probably choose something smaller, with poles around 10-12', just big enough for me and my mate and our baby. Don't think she'd go for a house with no running water though….

[W I S N E R !]

One thing that many people are failing to mention is the design of ancient shoes vs. modern footwear.

Ever see a pair of ancient 12mm+ drop woven sandals with pronation control, a narrow, pointed toebox, tons of cushioning, and generous arch support?

Neither have I.

Because ancient peoples wore some iteration of shoes does not negate much of the thinking that has come from the "barefoot" community and trickled into shoe design: zero or low drop, low center of gravity, minimal enough cushioning to still be responsive, ample room to spread the toes, and no "stability", arch support, or "motion control" gimmicks.

Most ancient footwear that I've seen serves no purpose but to protect the sole of the foot from sharps, heat, and cold. Other than that, it lets the foot behave as a foot.

That's the exact same thinking behind most of the "barefoot" and minimal inspired footwear out today.

[Ike Jutkowitz]

+1 Craig. Well stated.

[Miguel Arboleda]

+1 to Craig's post.

I also feel that most of the criticism of the barefoot thinking comes from people who haven't actually tried it, and most of the support for it comes from people who have at least given it a go. Once you take some time to let your feet adjust, you'd be surprised by how much your feet adapt.

[Jennifer Mitol]

Much of my "criticism" of it comes from the notion that just because something is good for some people means it's good for everyone. Not everyone needs orthotics (and I'm talking to you, all you darned podiatrists!!), and not everyone can go pure barefoot. Yes, people should try; yes, it's a great workout; and yes, you have to work at it. But the fact is, despite all the purely anecdotal evidence that it helps people avoid injury, we really don't know that yet.

So I am simply reserving my professional judgement until I have some more randomized controlled trials to study (the few that are out there actually don't look good for the wonders of barefoot running); I show some of my patients how to train barefoot, and I put a few of them in orthotics. Most need a happy medium.

I do really get annoyed by the argument that we evolved without shoes, therefore we don't really need them. Well, YOUR bones developed with cushion under your feet, and the muscles in YOUR lower kinetic chain developed with support under your heels. Homo sapiens evolved without clothes or covering, yet if I don't cover every inch of my skin either with cloth or with chemicals, I burn like crazy.

I am not arguing against barefoot running/hiking, I just think it's not the be-all end-all some say it is, and moderation is key.

[Richard May]

> I am not arguing against barefoot running/hiking, I just think it's not the be-all end-all some say it is, and moderation is key.

Thank you. Panaceas have a habit of turning out not to be.

The problem with the evolution argument is that proponents on both sides feel they are being told that everybody has 'perfectly formed feet' (and your are wuss for not going barefoot) or, we have evolved to be 'congenitally deformed' (and you are stupid for trying to go barefoot). Frankly, both extremes are wrong.

The adaptation argument holds more water. It assumes that at birth your feet are 'good enough' to go barefoot (that doesn't mean you've got the mechanics of Usain Bolt) but wearing shoes can change them enough to create a dependency on shoes. Muscular deficiencies can be worked on, skeletal changes probably not. So duh, bare feet are not for everyone.

But then neither is music, painting, mathematics, literature, business management, etc. Some need warmer sleeping bags than others. Why should bare feet be any different?

edit: clarified last sentence

[Justin Baker]

Well put Craig, I was just about to post the exact same thing.

[spelt with a t]

You are all neglecting to address the most important issue here, which is that running sucks.

[Diane “Piper” Soini]

+1 to Craig as well.

I've been wearing minimalist shoes for several years now and I just love them. When I go hiking or backpacking I prefer a bit of cushioning but I feel best without the heel rise and narrow toebox of 99% of shoes out there. I've even found that it's not necessary to have lugs to hike and backpack. Street running shoes do just fine.

And I'll agree that running sucks. The only "running" I do is once or twice a week I do all-out 22-second sprints with 1:30 rests in between x 8. I do them on a stationary bike so I won't trip and fall. That plus weight lifting seems to be enough to keep me in better shape than I ever was jogging, walking and bike commuting.

[MFR]

I'm sorry, but this is a rather poor study. How can we tell? Most advocates of barefoot running would fully agree with the results, but from a very different perspective. Few, if any, barefoot running advocates would think that 10 weeks is enough time for one's body to recover from a lifetime of using modern shoes. In fact, the injuries described are exactly the kind that many of the more sober and realistic proponents predict for those who try to transition too quickly. They would simply say that this is evidence of how pervasive the impact of modern shoes on human abilities is. Moreover, Vibram FiveFingers represent the extreme end of the minimalist perspective in running, one that is controversial enough in its own right. (Besides, relying on Vibram's marketing spin is specious at best.) While some may regard FiveFingers as something to attain to, few would recommend it as a first step, and never in the way that the study was conducted. In other words, barefoot/minimalist advocates would agree with the study's results, but from a fundamentally different starting point and towards a fundamentally different goal.

Another way to say this is that this study was poorly designed enough to be entirely inconclusive, leaving those of us who make efforts to be data-driven to rely solely on anecdotal evidence. What would be far more effective would be a long-term, longitudinal study of minimalist style running that does not rely on methods even that community would regard as suspect.

In the end, all we are left with is fuel on the fire that produces smoke but little of substance.

[Dean F.]

Speaking as one who is forced to run, I must endorse the RunningSucks position. Once I leave the Army I intend to never exceed 3mph in my LPCs again.

Regarding the rest- insufficient data.

I agree- absolutely- that minimalist isn't for everyone. If nothing else, someone who doesn't run mid-double-digits miles per week will probably never develop the physique to support it safely. If you DO run mid-digits per week well then kudos to you, but stop trying to injure those who don't by putting them in minimalist shoes.

Whether minimalist running really reduces injuries remains to be seen. The minimalist crowd will criticize this study for not being rigorous enough to truly prove higher injuries but the TRUTH is that no one has proven the converse, either, despite their shrill screeching. ALL of those benefits are just scientifically unsupported hogwash at this point. Marketing. Nothing more. Why people get fanatical about it is beyond me. Heck, I like minimalist shoes, too, but I'm smart enough not to run in them when I'm not (and never will be) properly conditioned to do it. Especially when there's no proven benefit to it.

I doubt that anyone will ever study minimalist-footwear HIKING, though, so that issue will probably always remain conjecture. Hiking a load is different than running.

EDIT– I also agree that it is rather hilarious when the minimalist fanatics spout off about being "natural" while running 50+ miles per week on pavement…

[John S.]

If you run for recreation/fitness for any length of time, you will get injuries (minor or more significant), no matter what footwear you use.

[W I S N E R !]

Too bad for those who think it does. I guess there's always lawn bowling, right?

If you need science to believe me:

"The science is very complex," says Dr. Ted Fenske, an Edmonton cardiologist who ran the Boston Marathon this year. "But running will improve vascular health and vascular health is necessary for a male to have proper sexual function."

"Mike Finch, editor of Runner's World's South African edition, says marathoners are "like sexual gods.""

"A 2003 study out of Harvard University found men over 50 who run at least three hours a week have a 30% lower risk of impotence than those who do little or no exercise."

"Runners are fitter, healthier and have a good self-image," says Mr. Finch. "That makes them more eager to have sex, makes them more desirable and gives them more endurance."

And there you have it. SCIENCE.
Poor non-runners.

[Larry De La Briandais]

I'm over 50 and have been running 5+ miles for almost a year. No viagra for me! ;^)
My overweight and out of shape friends who are over 50 don't have the same "luck".

[peter vacco]

real question :

is it possible to effectively run with a pack ? i know for a fact you can run with things in your hands, but how about wearing a pack ?
i have seen the Best Ranger trials on u-tube, and it looks just terrible with the rigs they use.

cheers,
v.

[jscott]

"marathoners are like sexual gods". In Runners World magazine. Puhleeze. That's not science, that's marketing. You've been had.
Anyway, everyone knows that swimmers are the true sex gods.

[W I S N E R !]

I swim too.
Don't even get me started on the benefits of surfing.

[Stephen Barber]

"A 2003 study out of Harvard University found men over 50 who run at least three hours a week have a 30% lower risk of impotence than those who do little or no exercise."

So the REAL difference is likely between men over 50 who get little or no exercise and men who get three or more hours of cardio per week. Running is just one choice among many.

[Author]

Posts