New Barefoot Running Research From Harvard

Cool Beans, thanks for the concise and well thought out website. The videos are great evidence.

Another thing to warn barefoot runners about -- get a good source of iron because more red blood cells are destroyed when running barefoot. I don't have any research to back this claim up, I just know from personal experience that I became very anemic after a couple 80+ mile weeks barefoot.

I think it is irresponsible to promote this type of research in this forum, especially when it's done by one of the authors (though kudos for owning up to the self-promotion). You are, in effect, implicitly encouraging people to change their behavior based on upon a single initial study. That's risky.

After a quick read of the paper, I'd point out one limitation - the data were generated from subjects while they ran 25 meters at most. That is probably due to logistical limitations (high-speed filming and the like aren't easy), but it still leaves open the question of how much the parameters they are examining may vary during longer runs. After all, they are explicitly trying to look at endurance running, not sprints.

Plus, from an initial glance at the tables, it seems like there could be significant variation *within* each of their categories (habitually shod, etc), though some of the data which might show variation don't seem to be included (e.g., different runs by same individual). The abstract of the actual paper (contra the OP), is careful to note that some habitually barefoot runners do heel strike. And it seems that some habitually shod runners do use a forefoot strike. So it's not as clear a distinction as the OP implies.

Also of note: Vibram USA provided funding for this study (and also gets an unnecessary plug in the methods section "who run either barefoot and/or in minimal footwear such as Vibram FiveFingers shoes"). That alone doesn't invalidate the findings, of course, but it is worth noting as a possible conflict of interest.

Finally, the very first sentence of the abstract is an assumption stated as fact ("Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years"). Where is the evidence for that??

None of the above necessarily invalidates the conclusions of the study. With a closer read, other issues may emerge (and I wonder what the peer reviews looked like). Getting a paper into Nature often has more to do with the sexiness of the topic and the status of the authors (Harvard never hurts), rather than the reliability of the data (which may or not be fine, depending).

Could you do a study with varying levels of heel lift/no heel lift, to support the hypothesis that a heelstrike is caused by the heel lift in shoes? I strongly believe if shoe companies eliminate the heel lift, it will force people to adopt a midfoot/forefoot landing.

make better shoes wrote:

I strongly believe if shoe companies eliminate the heel lift, it will force people to adopt a midfoot/forefoot landing.

Per their study, some habitually barefoot runners actually heel strike. So my guess-answer to your question is probably not, at least not for everyone.

One study means nothing there is NO statistical evidence worth looking at from one study. Who funded the study and maybe there was a little bias the other side of this discussion has significantly more scientific evidence to prove this study wrong

I heard about it on NPR this afternoon.

I welcome research in this area, but I am really troubled by the funding by Vibram, which, in my view, seriously undermines the credibility of the study and any conclusions that you might draw from your research. I have nothing against Vibram at all, and I'm glad to see more attention being paid to "minimalist" footwear, but the conflict of interest here is staggering. I also think that you should publish precisely what financial or other support was provided by Vibram, and should make that information prominent in any future publication (including this message thread) of your research.

And yes, I am well aware that the world of university-related research is rife with similar conflicts of interest.

Please tell me you're not serious. I would have never guessed that a study that was done with the intent of finding a specific result...did just that. I am also astounded that a research study done that was funded partially by Vibram (and plugged the shoe as much as possible) would find that wearing minimalist shoes and running "barefoot" is better than running in shoes.

Who cares that the runners in the study ran short distances? Why would only measuring foot strikes over a short distance matter? I'm sure that the barefoot runners will hit just as far forward on their forefoot after 26 miles as they do after 25 meters. Its not like muscle structures like the gasto/soleus complex fatigues...

I so enjoy when people use terms like "over-pronation"... since it doesn't exist. I especially love that the authors state that shoes prevent "over-pronation"... well if they had done a bit more research before they typed up their "i love vibram because they gave me money to play in the lab" article... they would have found several studies that show that shoes infact do not alter the amount a foot pronates...but instead slow the foot motion down.

The problem with arch collapse (ie unlocking of the midtarsal joint) is that it destructs timing...and proper timing for the sequence of events is what biomechanics is all about. When the midtarsal joint unlocks finds itself in a pronated position...and recovering from such a position to supinate the foot (which is necessary to move forward) becomes less efficient and more stressful.

Now every barefoot sympathizer is going to point to "a harvard study" that says they're right...and have been right all along. But tell that to the 5'9", 250lb guy that started running barefoot after he read "Born to Run"... and got bilateral stress factures in his metatarsals. But i'm sure he was just doing it wrong. Because barefoot running is better for everybody! Or the 40 year old lady whose barefoot running "trainer" talked her into training for Disney Marathon barefoot...and despite the stress fractures in both feet and her right fibula...she still ran. Yes she's an idiot for running... and its unbelievable that her trainer is still allowed to talk.

Don't worry - Asics or another similar company will soon fund a study saying that barefoot running causes injuries.

Avocados Number wrote:

I heard about it on NPR this afternoon.

I welcome research in this area, but I am really troubled by the funding by Vibram, which, in my view, seriously undermines the credibility of the study and any conclusions that you might draw from your research. I have nothing against Vibram at all, and I'm glad to see more attention being paid to "minimalist" footwear, but the conflict of interest here is staggering. I also think that you should publish precisely what financial or other support was provided by Vibram, and should make that information prominent in any future publication (including this message thread) of your research.

And yes, I am well aware that the world of university-related research is rife with similar conflicts of interest.

The point is "some", but how does a "collection" of study subjects adapt to varying levels of heel lift/no heel lift? Are these "some" going from mostly lifelong shoe wear, and thus their bodies are still neuromuscularly adapted to the heel lift (present in most shoes)?

Why, do you somehow think they're going to start landing with a more stressful heel first landing?

Wait a minute, this is definitely NOT the first study to draw this same conclusion. This article, written 6 years ago (before Vibrams came out) is full of citations supporting the same conclusion by Lieberman:

While were at it, here's the actual abstracts:

And another (again, before Vibrams came out):

The study was also funded by the NSF, which makes Vibram funding look like mashed potatoes. Again, lots of other studies found the same conclusion, before Vibrams even existed. This study just happened to get more attention because it was done by a well-respected Anthropologist at Harvard.

Horray for Bad Research wrote:

Now every barefoot sympathizer is going to point to "a harvard study" that says they're right...and have been right all along.

That's another thing that bothers me about this thread. Instead of "New Barefoot Running Research From Harvard," how about "Student Project on Barefoot Running Funded by Vibram FiveFingers"?

Don't be discouraged.Most significant breakthroughs in this world were made by some dude "fiddling" in his garden shed.

Avocados Number wrote:

Horray for Bad Research wrote:

Now every barefoot sympathizer is going to point to "a harvard study" that says they're right...and have been right all along.

That's another thing that bothers me about this thread. Instead of "New Barefoot Running Research From Harvard," how about "Student Project on Barefoot Running Funded by Vibram FiveFingers"?

I share the concerns about Vibram's funding of the study, but what does any of that have to do with the three graphs at the bottom of this page:

Unless you think Vibram paid them to blatantly lie those graphs should speak for themselves. Combined with the "We have found that even on hard surfaces (a steel force plate) runners who forefoot strike have impact forces that are 7 times lower than shod runners who heel strike. Rates of loading are equal to or less than rates of loading for shod runners." excerpt, one thing should be plainly clear: forefoot landing is a much smoother, cleaner way to run.

And that really shouldn't surprise anyone. Jump up in the air in your shoes and land on your heels. Take off the shoes, jump and land on your heels again. Now jump and land on your forefoot. Even the marshmallow like properties of a Nike Vomero don't come close to the impact absorption of the arch of the foot.

The reason we lack evidence-based studies that make determining claims as to whether running in specific shoes or without shoes or in certain ways (footstrike) is because there is no funding to do so. There was never a benefit for running shoe companies to find from longitudinal studies that chart injury as related to suggested footwear.

Finally, one shoe company, Vibram, has a possible benefit, and is funding research. With as little as we know about running shoes, and as much as the latest studies call into question the efficacy of shoes, we need any research we can to fill the hole. This study has taken the first step in doing so.

Would you rather Vibram not sponsor the research, and us not have any new information, so that we all continue running in shoes without question as to their reliability, or would you rather test the shoe and barefoot hypotheses?

If shoe running is the way to go, then we shouldn't be worried about the future results of studies, as they will tell us just that. But if barefoot running is the way to go, we need more research to tell us that indeed it is a good idea, before we sway the whole populace to run out "naturally."

As our lab a part of the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, we were essentially motivated by a single question: how were humans and our ancestors able to run safely and effectively for 2 million years without shoes? (The evidence for the role of endurance running in human evolution can be found here

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2004e.pdf

) We found that barefoot runners adopt a forefoot strike gait and hypothesize that this may be how our ancestors were running. We DO NOT conclude that barefoot or minimalist footwear is better for running. More studies need to be done in order to answer this question.

We do not make any conclusions about what type of running style or footwear is best. Please read our paper for OUR conclusions as the journalists often jump to conclusions to appeal to the masses. We report our finding that forefoot striking generates reduced impacts compared to heel striking and we analyzed the biomechanics to show why this is the case. You can forefoot strike with or without shoes of all sorts, your choice. You can also choose to heel strike with or without shoes.

It’s correct that the subjects ran approximately 25 meters which was done for logistical reasons, but the runners ran at endurance speeds. Approximately 10 meters is a sufficient distance to finish accelerating and begin running with a consistent endurance gait. The average speed for each group studied was reported. The subjects were not doing a 25 meter stride.

I suppose I could have said in the original post that the study was partially funded by Vibram USA. I had simply never considered it an issue while conducting research. Harvard strictly enforces that the right of free scholarship (to choose the nature and direction of research inquiries) cannot be compromised

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~research/managing_your_research/managing705.pdf

. We had multiple funding sources for this study. Along with Vibram was the National Science Foundation, American School of Prehistoric Research, The Goelet Fund, and Harvard University.

I used the words “promote my own research” in my original post. I should have used the word share. I am not going to gain benefit from this being noticed. I simply wanted runners to be aware of this research and I knew that there would be some great comments and questions generated on this forum. I don’t see it as irresponsible for me to post. People should read through the entire paper or entire website carefully. I think runners should consider this and make their own choice about how they want to run after learning as much information as possible.

Horray for Bad Research, I understand you so much more than you know. I think that the “barefoot running movement” has the potential to be incredibly dangerous without proper research and instruction. I also think that it maybe should not be a BAREFOOT running movement but, if anything, it should be about forefoot striking, but we emphasize that no studies have been done considering foot strike type and injury rates. Practically every runner in the US grew up wearing shoes and ran all their lives in shoes. The muscles, tendons, and ligaments of the foot and lower leg are not developed in the same way as in a person who has run barefoot all of their life.

Personally I run in 3 different racing flats right now, no strong preferences between them, and converted to forefoot striking over a 3 month period this past summer. I do not plan on running completely barefoot in the near future.

Keep the comments coming.

I am on board with the barefooters. They are right. The shoe companies need to wake up.

I am going to buy me some Vibrams this week.

Out.

Amby Burfoot takes an interesting look at it:

http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2010/01/the-barefoot-running-debate-continues-to-make-headlines-in-the-running-media-the-mass-media-and-the-scientific-press-in-fa.html

SomeActualData wrote:

Finally, the very first sentence of the abstract is an assumption stated as fact ("Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years"). Where is the evidence for that??

Anthropologists have widely accepted this for eons.

All the great findings in the world won't change the fact that if you live in a place like the southwest you really won't be able to run barefoot any way due to rough terrain, thorns, etc.

retard trap wrote:

All the great findings in the world won't change the fact that if you live in a place like the southwest you really won't be able to run barefoot any way due to rough terrain, thorns, etc.

You haven't been paying attention.