News article about barefoot running/minimalist shoes

Sounds about right. Minimalism has some value to its message (like including some barefoot running every week or so), but is ultimately a fad. It's the same as it has always been: everybody wants to find "the secret." We saw it in the 80s with low-mileage, high-intensity training, we saw it in the 90s with high-tech shoes and cross-training maniacs, and now we're seeing it in the 00s with this minimalism. Oh, how we wish we could just wear some magical shoes and train however we wanted!

Until the best runners in the world train, race, and win wearing VFFs, you can find me in my trusty old trainers. Would it be better if I had been born and raised on miles of grassy trails? Sure. But, as the article mentioned, the Kenyans WERE, and they still wear trainers! "But they are sponsored!" you say. Well, even the unsponsored "mediocre" Kenyans (the 28:00 types) still wear trainers. And they still run fast.

The Japanese are commonly referred to as a good example of successful minimalism. While true to some degree (they do, in fact, wear what would be called "flats" in the US), their shoes still have cushioning and support (compared with the VFFs or puma H-streets). Furthermore, the Japanese have no fabled aura of staying injury-free. They get hurt just like the rest of us.

Finally, most of the evidence supporting this has been anecdotal. The only studies that have looked at this have been very poorly designed (for example, one simply analyzed impact while jumping off a 15cm platform, hardly the same as the strain on the legs in the final miles of a 20-mile run).

true.

50 miles with minimalist shoes will not be as good as 100miles in trainers.

777 wrote:

Furthermore, the Japanese have no fabled aura of staying injury-free. They get hurt just like the rest of us.

This offers some insight into Japanese running. Their approach seems to be to throw a bunch of eggs against a brick wall and see which ones don't break. It's brutal, but I guess you can't criticize too much since they have more depth than the USA.

ghjh wrote:

true.

50 miles with minimalist shoes will not be as good as 100miles in trainers.

Thats weird, for several years I could never run over 50 miles a week in trainers without being injured. Now I can run 80 miles a week in minimalist shoes with no problems at all. Which is better?

777 wrote:

Would it be better if I had been born and raised on miles of grassy trails? Sure. But, as the article mentioned, the Kenyans WERE, and they still wear trainers!

Dude, have you ever been to Kenya? There are not miles of grassy trails. At least the place in Kenya where I went there weren't.

777 wrote:Finally, most of the evidence supporting this has been anecdotal. The only studies that have looked at this have been very poorly designed (for example, one simply analyzed impact while jumping off a 15cm platform, hardly the same as the strain on the legs in the final miles of a 20-mile run).

Actually, there is no evidence at all showing that cushioned shoes either decrease injuries or improve performance.

Since we are born barefoot, I think that the burden of proof should fall on the shoe companies.

What studies of that type show are that the body does NOT absorb shock through the soles of our feet -- it's a more complex process requiring lots of muscles and pronation. Putting a soft rubber strip under your feet only interferes with this process, because it makes it difficult for your feet to feel the ground.

I think wearing soft cushy trainers is like handing someone a really thin, fragile wineglass, and saying "hold this as lightly as you can because if you squeeze too tight it will break." And then you say "oh by the way to soften your grip I got you these huge winter mittens." Not the right approach.

turn it around wrote:

What studies of that type show are that the body does NOT absorb shock through the soles of our feet -- it's a more complex process requiring lots of muscles and pronation. Putting a soft rubber strip under your feet only interferes with this process, because it makes it difficult for your feet to feel the ground.

I think wearing soft cushy trainers is like handing someone a really thin, fragile wineglass, and saying "hold this as lightly as you can because if you squeeze too tight it will break." And then you say "oh by the way to soften your grip I got you these huge winter mittens." Not the right approach.

Once you find a well-designed study that actually shows that, please tell me. If cushioned shoes don't help absorb impact at all, feel free to jump off of a 4' loading dock onto concrete, barefoot. Let me know how that goes, what with your "natural shock absorption" and all. Let's turn your wineglass analogy upside down: Get two wine glasses, drop one on pavement and drop one on grass. Guess which one will break?

You ARE correct in that shock absorption during running is a massively complex mechanism. Next time you're out for a run, put your hand on your quad for a few strides. It actually flexes BEFORE you hit the ground, in anticipation of your footstrike! If you wear shoes all the time (not just while running, but at work and around the house), you will definitely have some problems with muscles atrophying and the like. Yet another wonder of our "modern" lifestyle. Like I mentioned earlier, some barefoot running on grass every week is great. Heck I've even done full workouts barefoot on soccer fields. But I'm not a minimalist. I have normal trainers, and wear them for most of my runs.

If minimalism works for you, great. I'm not tearing you down for that. If regular trainers and orthotics and such don't work for you, minimalism IS an option. Some people have biomechanical idiosyncrasies that become harmful in a high-heeled or supportive shoe. Some others may have idiosyncrasies that don't allow them to train at a high level WITHOUT supportive shoes and orthotics (search this forum for "plantar fasciitis"--you'll find many people who were only cured by custom orthotics) But one of the reasons minimalism "works" for many people is because they are outrageously cautious about making the switch. They up their mileage VERY slowly, take everything at a very relaxed effort, etc, etc. This alone will go a long ways towards keeping you healthy!

Also, what., you are correct. Kenya is more rocky and dusty than grassy. My point was that Kenyans are born and raised mostly without shoes, and yet they still train and race in "normal" shoes.

There is something about nutrition that often doesn't get included in the discussion.

"Runners wearing top-of-the-line trainers are 123 per cent more likely to get injured than runners in cheap ones. This was discovered as far back as 1989, according to a study led by Dr Bernard Marti, the leading preventative-medicine specialist at Switzerland's University of Bern.

Dr Marti's research team analysed 4,358 runners in the Bern Grand Prix, a 9.6-mile road race. All the runners filled out an extensive questionnaire that detailed their training habits and footwear for the previous year; as it turned out, 45 per cent had been hurt during that time. But what surprised Dr Marti was the fact that the most common variable among the casualties wasn't training surface, running speed, weekly mileage or 'competitive training motivation'.

It wasn't even body weight or a history of previous injury. It was the price of the shoe. Runners in shoes that cost more than $95 were more than twice as likely to get hurt as runners in shoes that cost less than $40.

Follow-up studies found similar results, like the 1991 report in Medicine & Science In Sports & Exercise that found that 'wearers of expensive running shoes that are promoted as having additional features that protect (eg, more cushioning, 'pronation correction') are injured significantly more frequently than runners wearing inexpensive shoes.'

What a cruel joke: for double the price, you get double the pain. Stanford coach Vin Lananna had already spotted the same phenomenon.'I once ordered highend shoes for the team and within two weeks we had more plantar fasciitis and Achilles problems than I'd ever seen.

So I sent them back. Ever since then, I've always ordered low-end shoes. It's not because I'm cheap. It's because I'm in the business of making athletes run fast and stay healthy.' "

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html#ixzz0NgupSTS5

just lower the price of the trainers, problem solved right?

777 wrote:

If cushioned shoes don't help absorb impact at all, feel free to jump off of a 4' loading dock onto concrete, barefoot. Let me know how that goes, what with your "natural shock absorption" and all.

I'd be glad to do this any time you wish. In fact, I'll up the ante. Let's do it 100 times, you with your heel-raised, cushioned, stiff, anti-pronated 'state of the art' shoes on. I'll do it with my bare feet. We'll then go run 50 miles the next day and at the end we'll easily be able to see which way works best.

If you add the caveat that we have to land stiff-legged, knees straight, then I'd definitely say that typical cushioned shoes would be better. But that's not how we were desinged to land while either running or jumping.

I routinely take 4-6 foot drops running through boulderfields wearing minimalist shoes (Saucony Kilkenny XC2 flats with the insoles ripped out). My inferior 'natural shock absorption' seems to work just fine.

sidetrack abit..

most supporters of barefoot/minimalism/flats running claimed that by practising all the above will eventually lead to proper running biomechanics, land on forefoot, etc.

running on forefoot is the issue that i would like to highlight on, and hopefully, debunk it based on my observation.

basically, i found out that we do not land naturally on forefoot with barefoot running. what i've observed from kids running about @ swimming complexes was, most kids land with mild heel and more midfoot strikes, with a small group of them running more of heel and less of midf. there's only one out of a 30-50 kids whom i've observed ran on forefoot. hence, i say natural landing = mild heel + mostly on midfoot.

besides that, i'd like to add that running on slow speeds (anything tt's less than an individual's sprint to 1500m speed) should not be ran on forefoot because it's too slow to produce a forward lean.

why the forward lean? i've seen runners doing forefoot @ their slow speeds and it always seem like they are applying brakes to their forward motion rather than what some people say of a natural landing.

sprinting, 1500m speed of an individual it's fast enough to produce a forward lean and forefoot will therefore, be able to produce a forward spring.

i do not/not intending to carry out any research on the example i'm going to give below. but observe usain bolt.. he's running on forefoot for his sprint races and look what it has gotten him to.. he's prob alittle more talented, but i believe @ that speed, the forefoot actually helps.

what's my view with minimalism? i do not think it helps to correct biomechanics.. rather i see going minimalism as a way to let our feet get used to racing conditions and keep our training simple. i've seen some of my frds have so many different type of shoes that goes with the different kind of training, trail/asphalt. i think it's a waste of money..

i'm open to healthy argument.. particularly on the observation i've made on natural landing = mild heel + midf.

just my 2c. i got no research or experiments whatsoever to back me up.. but think for a moment, those kids (or most) probably never read POSE, CHI (correct me if i'm wrong), read LRC. they ran because they simply just want to get from point A to point B.

Go watch anyone who has been running barefoot for a long time and you will notice that they all have very similar foot strike. In real time it appears that barefoot runners land midfoot. However, if you video tape them and play it back in slow motion you will actaully find that they are generally landing first slightly on their forefoot. This only changes when the surface they are running on requires a change.

"During barefoot running, the ball of the foot strikes the ground first and immediately starts sending signals to the spinal cord and brain about the magnitude of impact and shear, getting most of its clues about this from the skin contact with the surface irregularities of the ground. Take away this contact by adding a cushioned substance and you immediately fool the system into underestimating the impact. Add a raised heel and the shod runner is forced to land on it. Strap the cushioning on tightly with the aid of a sophisticated lacing system and you block out shear as well, throwing the shock-absorption system even further into the dark. The system responds by landing harder in an attempt to compress the cushion and 'feel' the ground. The weight is then transferred to the outside edge of the foot, completely by-passing the skin of the arch. The heel then touches down and the weight is transferred to the ball again with final push-off through the toes. While the weight is being transferred, the arch carries out its function as the suspension system of the foot and flattens under the active control of the intrinsic muscles. The ankle, knee and hip joints flex to absorb impact in response to information flowing in from the foot. The cushioned midsole of the modern running shoe robs the system of important sensory information necessary for ankle, knee and hip response to impact. The arch support (or orthotic) in modern running shoes not only prevents the arch suspension system from absorbing energy by preventing flattening but eventually leads to intrinsic muscle atrophy and complete loss of active muscular control of the arch leaving only the inelastic plantar fascia as a checkrein to flattening. The barefoot runner's 'foot position awareness sense' which relies heavily on sensory input from the sole of the foot minimizes his risk of sustaining an ankle sprain on uneven ground. The shod runner is at marked increased risk of ankle sprains because his 'foot position awareness sense’ is handicapped by the paucity of sensations coming from his soles. The barefoot runner is constantly alert scanning the ground before him for irregularities and dangers that might cause him injury. The barefoot runner is a cautious runner and actively changes his landing strategy to prevent injury. He treads lightly. The shod runner is bombarded by convincing advertising stating or implying that the shoe he is wearing will protect him well over any terrain and he becomes a careless runner. He is heavy footed. Finally, certain diseases in humans can cause a gradual destruction of the sensory nerve endings in the foot (and elsewhere) resulting in a significant increase in lower extremity injuries. Diabetes and tertiary syphilis are two. Extremities so affected are termed 'neuropathic'. The shod runner, because of his sensory deprivation and high risk of injury may be termed as having 'pseudo-neuropathic' feet, a term coined by Robbins."

Read More at:

http://www.quickswood.com/my_weblog/2006/08/athletic_footwe.html

That's precisely the poorly designed study I was talking about, thanks for finding it for me. From the text of the actual study:

Do really think that stepping off a 4.5 cm platform is even CLOSE to the impact forces and patterns that occur during running? Also, they weren't wearing shoes...they were ALL barefoot! They were falling onto platforms covered in shoe sole foam.

This study is interesting in that ALL platforms were identical...the thing that changed the impact forces was the participants' perception of it. So, the jumpers told that they were landing on an extra-cushioned surface landed harder than those told they were landing on an uncushioned surface, even though they were landing on the same thing! If anything, this study shows an interesting cognitive bias.

***

Oddity, that article you found is simply not true! In fact, it falsifies much of the information it claims to be true. Here's the text from the REAL study by Dr. Marti, which was done in 1984 (not 1989) and published in 1988.

Marti's study found that running shoe characteristics are NOT a significant factor in injuries! I've noticed that most of the news sources blaring the benefits of minimalism don't tend to be very reputable. This might be why.

That same article also refers to a "1991 followup study," which I have located (

) This study deals with the perceptual problems with shoes, not actually evaluating injuries in expensive and inexpensive shoes. Again, it was relatively poorly designed. Participants stood barefoot on one of two panels, either a flat one or a bumpy one. Forces were applied to their feet via the panels, and the participants were asked to rate their discomfort. There was no objective measure of impact forces or amelioration thereof.

However, this study DID spur further investigation into textured insoles, which I think we will see more of in the future. Check out this study:

(http://www.physicaltherapyinsport.com/article/S1466-853X(00)90020-8/abstract) (sorry, you'll have to cut and paste this link)

Now, the good news for the minimalist crowd is that this study does reenforce the position that shoes "deaden" the foot's impact-sensing abilities, causing excessive impact forces. Here's the bad news: They were wearing soccer shoes, which most runners would call "minimalist" to begin with! Soccer shoes have a low heel, little cushioning, no medial posting, and so on. Just like your beloved Onitsukas . So even your custom-imported, no-heel-wedge, no-medial-posting flats from Japan deaden your feet to impact forces vs. barefoot.

***

As far as heel/forefoot striking goes, despite claims by forefoot fanatics, Pose technique advocates, and ChiRunners (not to mention Newton Shoes), forefoot striking at slow to moderate paces is not faster or more economical. In fact, in a survey of elites in a half-marathon (presumably wearing racing flats), 74% of the elites were heel-strikers!

Also, here's some more info on what really happens when you change footstrike patterns:

Pose technique (which advocates forefoot striking to decrease impact forces) DOES decrease eccentric loading on the knees. However, as Science of Sport writes, it doesn't just go away. It goes to the ankles. Check out the final section:

You're reference also left out a key part of Dr. B. Mari's study.

Here's what he found: The incidence of injuries in runners using shoes costing more than $95 was more that twice as great as in runners using shoes costing less than $40. (this result includes correction for other influencing factors such as training mileage and history of previous injury)

You cited pgs. 285-294

When this actual report is on pgs. 256-265

You also should try reading this report:

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/0103/mw.htm

As it concludes:

-Running in shoes appears to increase the risk of ankle sprains, either by decreasing awareness of foot position or by increasing the twisting torque on the ankle during a stumble.

-Running in shoes appears to increase the risk of plantar fasciitis and other chronic injuries of the lower limb by modifying the transfer of shock to muscles and supporting structures.

-Running in bare feet reduces oxygen consumption by a few percent. Competitive running performance should therefore improve by a similar amount, but there has been no published research comparing the effect of barefoot and shod running on simulated or real competitive running performance.

-Research is needed to establish why runners choose not to run barefoot. Concern about puncture wounds, bruising, thermal injury, and overuse injury during the adaptation period are possibilities.

-Running shoes play an important protective role on some courses, in extreme weather conditions, and with certain pathologies of the lower limb.

777,

the whole thrust of yout admirable debunking effort seems based on your invidual reality, which could of course also apply to a whole lot of other people in your frame of reference, in your box if you will.

Now irrespective of demographics: try to stop thinking "i/we am/are right" for a couple of breaths, put aside your understandable distaste for codified behaviour (POSE, Chi ect.) and take into consideration the experiences of successful minimalists.

On this board, Jaguar1 just to make one very concrete example.

Also, take into consideration that some wonderful advice for the injured on this board, involves the minimalist "fad" (as you call it) for example, to run ONLY on soft surfaces, to strentghen your feet with specific exercises, to run barefoot.

Now if you do this with intellectual honesty, you will see that minimalism is about the wish to run the most desirable surface-to-foot experience available. And spending more energy in that mindset as opposed to trying to conquer the concrete jungle to be the king and queen of the local roadrace.

Minimalism in running is about learning, possibly re-learning the basics - as in what is at the base of the motion - stopping if need be, and understanding what you are doing with your feet. And racing, and trying to go fast in geenral in fact provides a wonderful, natural occasion to put a bit of pressure on the learning process.

While you acknowledge that barefoot running can be beneficial in a standard training regimen you seem to miss that minimalists likely want to enlarge that dimension into something greater than just a weekly slot.

All this science is really interesting and will add to the archive for debating purposes. Thank-you for sharing. Minimalism is not a fad.

In good faith, i think you are missing the point.

some of these idiosyncrasies you mention are CAUSED by the motion control/stability/cushion puff shoe. we grow up sheltering our feet instead of building them up. So, by the time we are 30 the only reason we have achilles and pf problems are because our feet are so week!

We need to incorporate barefoot running into our training. We run hills to strengthen our quads and glutes, we do pushups to strengthen our arms, so why is it that we neglect the muscles and tendons in our feet?

Minimalism is not a fad, it is a needed(and neglected) part of our training.

You may be entirely correct. I am looking at minimalism from an entirely competitive standpoint. My approach to running is strictly utilitarian, with an end-goal of racing faster. I look for ways to manipulate and take advantage of natural biological processes that can make me faster, and I attempt to circumvent those that will make me slower. In that light, I view minimalism as a "fad" in that it is not an effective method of training to race. Given the option between an injury-riddled career with great achievements or an injury-free career with more moderate results, I would choose the former.

I do realize that many runners, even fairly serious ones, really ARE looking to enlarge that more spiritual and ethereal dimension you talked about. And for that, minimalism is great. We know that minimalism IS possible for many people. Before the advent of "modern" shoe technology, EVERYBODY was a "minimalist." Even today we see individuals like Barefoot Ted who can and do run prodigious volumes either barefoot or in very flimsy shoes.

However, and I have pointed this out in the past, if we look at what the best in the world are doing, and have done in the past, hardly any elites train exclusively barefoot or exclusively in minimalist shoes. Even Abebe Bikila wore shoes when he won his second gold medal. Again, minimalism is a viable option for many people, but I do not think it is worth making the switch if your goal is to race as fast as possible. I also do not think that wearing low-heeled, non-posted trainers will result in fewer injures for most people, unless they have a specific biomechanical idiosyncrasy that is aggravated by traditional shoes. At the same time, I think there are people who will be at a greater risk of injury if they try minimalism because they have a biomechanical defect that prevents them from running as much as they want to. Traditional shoes and orthotics may be the only way for them to train. Despite what the Daily Mail and runningbarefoot.org would lead you to believe, there is a large body of scientific evidence supporting shoe technology like orthotics, flared heels, etc. (this one for example:

)

I don't currently have access to the entire Marti article, just the abstract. Can you copy and paste the actual text from those pages? Otherwise, I should be able to get full access during the next week. Assuming you are correct, however, I find it troubling that Marti did not report this in the abstract. Clearly, if cost had a significant effect on injury occurrence, why did he report that "running shoe characteristics" had no influence on injury? We'll resolve that later.

I agree with the second study: barefoot running is extremely economical, has less impact forces associated with it, and, as I mentioned before, would be ideal if we had access to miles and miles of hilly, grassy trails, and had been born and raised in a society that did not require footwear. However, there is NOT any evidence that minimalist shoes are "closer" to barefoot than traditional running shoes, as far as your body can tell. It seems that most of the impact attenuation that happens when running barefoot is a result of your body sensing the ground (cf. the study with the textured and non-textured force plates in my previous post), NOT heel-height or cushioning thickness. GIVEN that you will be wearing shoes on your daily 10-mile route over pavement and gravel, research seems to indicate that modern running shoe technology can help you avoid and overcome injury. Also, the results of the Science of Sport study on Pose Technique (see my previous post) indicate that unnaturally forcing a change in running technique carries a very high risk of injury. This is why I do not think that switching to minimalism, or complete barefoot running, will be productive for most people. At the same time, I suspect if we were to travel back in time and make a runner in the early 60s wear the latest, greatest running shoe by ASICS or Nike, he would become injured fairly quickly. Why expect anything different in the other direction?