Why don't serious runners take up barefoot training?

if your runnin good with shoes why change dont fix it if anit broke

Well it's natural to run barefoot, regardless of your pronation or supination issues, so what is the problem?

If racing flats make your feet and legs hurt, that is because you were really racing, it's quite normal, it has happened to me many times, and many other times I have had much less pain.

Know your sport's history wrote:

Actually quite a few "serious runners" have run barefoot, or minimalist, quite often -- including when racing.

darkness wrote:How many is "quite a few"? I have seen Abebe Bikila (who won one gold in shoes), and Zola Budd, and a handful of others over history.

I believe it almost certainly a majority. I think you would be hard pressed to find an elite/serious runner who does no minimalist training.

\

Word, I subscribe to the theory that running "BF" substantially strengthens all the "core" muscles of the foot, much like pilates or yoga. But having grown up in a culture of cushy running shoes, this would be difficult to initiate for anyone 7 years or older. A classic case of Nature vs. Nurture, you didn't hear anyone complaining about "pronation" problems 200 years ago, you either manned up and your arch got tight, or they burned you at the stake!

Personally, I'm blazing the trail by wearing rubber-soled, gortex socks in place of shoes, I have a black pair for work, and requisite bright-ass orange, silver, and green pair for running--so I can continue to complain about running gear not coming in any "normal" colors. My callouses should build up in another 2 years or so, and I don't think it'll be much of a problem to run on glass strewn streets and sidewalks after that.

BF'ing is totally the new pilates!

a shoe allows you to put more force into the ground

Drew, you don\'t know what you are talking about. I do a fair amount of barefoot running in summer, and when I am coming down a steep hill, even at great speed, I am most definitely heel striking.[/quote]

Oh, I know what I\'m talking about. I just wasn\'t talking about coming down steep hills. I was talking about doing barefoot stride outs on a football or soccer field. Yeah, you\'d most likely heel touch coming down a steep hill, probably not heel strike though.

runners with high arches could never train barefoot. their metatarsals would have to absorb so much more impact and would bend and eventually break (stress fracture). that eliminates a chunk of serious runners instantly because runners with high arches need more "cushioning" than anyone else.

I'll tell you why. Cuz it hasn't been above 0 in weeks.

I'm pretty sure that I touch down heel first most of the time when I do occasional barefoot running on any surface - grass, track, asphalt - and it feels very smooth. I just don't slam my heels. There's a big difference between landing with you toes pointed way up and legs almost locked forward vs. a flatter heel first foot angle or a quickly rotating foot angle that is smoothly coordinated with the rest of your stride, footstrike not too far forward of you center of mass. (Footstrike is never DIRECTLY under the center of mass or you will stumble) I do most of my train in shoes like the Free 4.0, H-Street, etc., and I'm rarely landing forefoot first except on steep uphills where my calves and achilles are not flexible enough to let my heel touch down.

I've also noticed that it can be difficult to tell how you are landing without actually seeing yourself on video. I once thought that I landed pretty flat footed (maybe because of the "can't run barefoot or in minimalist shoes and heel strike" stuff here). Then I saw a video of myself on a treadmill at the local running shop... I was clearly touching down heel first even though I would have guessed differently from what I was feeling underfoot.(video viewed both frame by frame ane full speed, so there's no confusion.)

F=MA wrote:

a shoe allows you to put more force into the ground

why? because of increased mass? think for a minute about all the problems that could cause.

Uncle Scrooge wrote:

Alex S wrote:

I think its pretty safe to say that the great runners up to at least mid 1970s wore very minimalist footwear by today's standards. The things Ovett, Coe, and Cram used in the 1980s would still be considered racers today.

Remind me when standards in running generally slid for the 'developed' western countries? When did shoes start to get thick and full of technological features?

"Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"

Standards are sliding for developed western countries? No records stand from that time period. The best racers are faster now on the road and track and they all wear shoes.

Know your sport's history wrote:

Know your sport's history wrote:

Actually quite a few "serious runners" have run barefoot, or minimalist, quite often -- including when racing.

darkness wrote:How many is "quite a few"? I have seen Abebe Bikila (who won one gold in shoes), and Zola Budd, and a handful of others over history.

I believe it almost certainly a majority. I think you would be hard pressed to find an elite/serious runner who does no minimalist training.

Do not equate minimalism with barefoot. That's like saying riding a bicycle is almost the same as driving a hybrid car. You either train with shoes or without, and the percentage of people who train sans footwear is infintessimal compared with people who train with shoes.

I won't rehash all the good reasons for running with shoes, but I will say this: twice I raced against barefoot XC runners, and both times I intentionally tried to stomp on their foot, and both times I got them good. You better believe that if you race barefoot enough, you'll get stomped by someone, and it will not feel good. I'd be more likely to try this on the track. All you need is one person like me, and you could be out for quite a while.

Alex S wrote:

I think its pretty safe to say that the great runners up to at least mid 1970s wore very minimalist footwear by today's standards. The things Ovett, Coe, and Cram used in the 1980s would still be considered racers today.

Remind me when standards in running generally slid for the 'developed' western countries? When did shoes start to get thick and full of technological features?

Remind me when standards in running generally slid for the 'developed' western countries? When did shoes start to get thick and full of technological features?[/quote]

"Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"

Standards are sliding for developed western countries? Ovett, Coe, and Cram would not even make the finals in the olympics. The best racers are faster now on the road and track and they all wear shoes.

But you don't have a lot of common sense if you think that England's greatest milers of the 80's were not as good as today's milers. let me remind you that an Englishman finished 6th in the 2004 Olympics in Athens; Michael East, and even he would tell you that he is no Ovett, Coe or Cram.

Common Sense Chiming In wrote:

"Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!"

Standards are sliding for developed western countries? Ovett, Coe, and Cram would not even make the finals in the olympics. The best racers are faster now on the road and track and they all wear shoes.

By "The best racers [now]" i presume you mean the best racers now from developed western countries......otherwise what you say doesn't really address what i said.

Anyway, like poster 'ummm', i simply can't agree. All the GB 800m to 10km records date back to that era - Mo Farah getting within 10secs of Moorcrofts 5000 record is probably the closest anyone has been for ages, and its still not that close is it.

Even if other european countries and USA are less extreme than this, if you look at the pattern of progression from 60s through to now, i think it would be clear that something went wrong in later 80s and 90s, and running really didn't progress in the new chunky shoe wearing nations as you would have expected.

Now some people might put it down to epo testing, others to the lazy society etc etc - but there was / is a definate feature at that point in time, and i think footwear is a good candidate cause.

P.S. To suggest that Coe in his prime (141.71, solo last 300m) would not make an olympic final is ridiculous. Without Kipketer he'd be favourite!!

....................... wrote:

Do not equate minimalism with barefoot. That's like saying riding a bicycle is almost the same as driving a hybrid car. You either train with shoes or without, and the percentage of people who train sans footwear is infintessimal compared with people who train with shoes.

Minimalism and barefoot running are, of course, very similar. The first is, after all, an offshoot of the second. Your bicycle/car analogy is way off.

....................... wrote:...twice I raced against barefoot XC runners, and both times I intentionally tried to stomp on their foot, and both times I got them good.

This speaks volumes about you as a person. Did you do this just to be mean, or were you afraid of being beaten by a "serious runner?"

Know your sport's history wrote:

....................... wrote:

Do not equate minimalism with barefoot. That's like saying riding a bicycle is almost the same as driving a hybrid car. You either train with shoes or without, and the percentage of people who train sans footwear is infintessimal compared with people who train with shoes.

Minimalism and barefoot running are, of course, very similar. The first is, after all, an offshoot of the second. Your bicycle/car analogy is way off.

....................... wrote:...twice I raced against barefoot XC runners, and both times I intentionally tried to stomp on their foot, and both times I got them good.

This speaks volumes about you as a person. Did you do this just to be mean, or were you afraid of being beaten by a "serious runner?"

Minimalism and barefoot are not the same, nor are they even close. In one you have a level of protection on both the top and bottom of your foot, and at least support even if its not all that robust. The other provides zero protection or support. This is a night and day difference, and trying to argue its not is insane. The bike analogy is perfect because it uses no gas, and while a hybrid uses less than an SUV, it still uses gas and has some emissions.

As for the stomping, well, I was good but not good enough to think I could win every race. If someone was dumb enough to run barefoot, I'd indulge them; one less person I'd have to beat. Am I a jerk and a dirty racer? Sure, but I don't care.