dang, somehow the rest of my post got cut off.
anyhow, Vaporfly 4% are light ( 2% so although we have not directly tested barefoot vs. Vaporfly 4% I am confident that VF4 would be way cheaper than barefoot (where way = 2-3% :-) )
The Next% are more cushioned and maybe even lighter thus likely much better running economy than barefoot.
Even today Africans race Cross barefoot wrote:
ex-runner wrote:
I'd like to see the numbers for racing on a grass track barefoot Vs shoes. None of us would run cross country barefoot but I wonder if the running economy numbers would be higher?
Why wouldn't we? Even non barefoot enthusiasts would likely take a crack at barefoot CC if the course was suitable.
Ron Hill and Bruce Tulloh would regularly run cross barefoot.
The World Junior champ in '85 was barefoot as was Budd.
Not many Europeans or Americans would.
I'd be interested to see how efficient it is to run without the energy loss in cushioning or weight (however slight) of shoes.
You have to think that our feet were designed such for a reason. If it was more economical to have thick cushioning underfoot then humans would have developed to have much thicker fat pads or cartilage etc.
I know roads change the game but grass and dirt hasn't changed
I think the only thing that can be gathered here is that people who are unconsciously compelled to title or phrase things like: "Can we all agree that..." are of intellectual inferiority.
1. Evolution rarely optimizes for only one function, i.e. running economy.
Also, humans have only run on hard surfaces for a short period of time.
Despite the thoughts of some posters on LRC, few people select mates based on running efficiency.
2. Many studies have compared barefoot running vs. shoes and typically there is no significant difference.
The weight costs energy but the shoe cushioning saves energy because the muscles don't have to do as much cushioning.
The two counterbalance each other.
But, if a shoe is light and cushioned (e.g. Vaporfly 4%), then on hard surfaces, the shoes saves energy vs. barefoot.
3. It would be interesting to measure the energy cost of running on natural terrain while barefoot vs. with shoes in runners who are experienced with both. We have found that if weight is factored out, too much cushioning can negatively affect running economy. But the responses are individual and that was with EVA, pre-PEBAX (the foam in VF4).
Rodger, did you test runnners who had experience of racing barefoot?
dritius wrote:
....so let's not beat a dead horse with that...
...proceeds to beat the dead horse...
We were meant to run just like we run barefoot.
Shoes CAN help. But a marathon in "trainers" may not easily be faster than the WR barefoot.
Most people run with heel strike. What's the fastest heel strike marathon ever? And the average versus a proper midfoot one?
If all people would run AS IF they were running barefoot, trained with that as a tool and then races in appropriate shoes for this superior running technique, average times would be MUCH lower.
Heck, I see recreational runners heel strike the heck out of a 1500 m on the track. In 6 minutes flat.
There's no reason to believe only forefoot striking is "proper".
The barefoot marathon record is actually held by Shivnath Singh in 2:12 flat. He was said to always race barefoot with just a pit of tape on his feet but pics from him in the lead pack in Montreal clearly show he was wearing shoes in at least that race.
Arabian Knight wrote:
dritius wrote:
By "we", I meant "we" as a species.
It's even less true when worded that way.
Can I ask then who are the best distance runners?
dritius wrote:
Can I ask then who are the best distance runners?
The ones who learned to run barefoot?
dritius wrote:
Arabian Knight wrote:
It's even less true when worded that way.
Can I ask then who are the best distance runners?
Horses, Huskies, Pronghorn. Probably another dozen species of antelope or gazelle.
subjects averaged 30MPW of running barefoot or in minimal shoes.
we did not specifically filter for racing barefoot, but the treadmill pace was quite moderate.
That's easy wrote:
dritius wrote:
Can I ask then who are the best distance runners?
Horses, Huskies, Pronghorn. Probably another dozen species of antelope or gazelle.
Human beings are phenomenal sweaters, this simple form of temperature regulation is what allows us to go out and run for long periods of time. Dogs cool themselves through panting, which is probably why huskies are able to run much longer than typical dogs because they operate in cold environments. Pronghorns are the same way and horses to less of an extent. If we are talking ability to traverse sheer distance without stopping, humans are unmatched. If we are taking speed into account, then you bring up good examples because the speed those animals can maintain for long periods of time are ridiculously fast. But the whole point of my statement was that there is no land mammal that has us beat on distance. There are tons of animals faster than us, that has never been in question, but are there any animals that can go out and put up 100 miles at once?
Faster is not always better.
natural vs modern wrote:
Yeah, we were "meant to" run barefoot, we we also "meant to " live in caves. It's the same bull about "natural" or "traditional" (remedies or whatever). In the natural world, half of us would be dead before the age of five if we hadn't died along with our mothers in childbirth. 95% would be dead before the age of 30, probably in great suffering.
We as a species have dragged ourselves out of our "natural" state and are overall very much the better for it. The shoes are just a small part of the equation. We can survive with bare feet, but we can perform and excel with good shoes.
Wait, so you're saying that we would live past the age of five if we died along with our mothers in childbirth? I'm so confused.
Rodger Kram wrote:
subjects averaged 30MPW of running barefoot or in minimal shoes.
we did not specifically filter for racing barefoot, but the treadmill pace was quite moderate.
Ok thanks. I tested this hypothesis on myself a few years ago. I found that racing barefoot was easier up to a certain point, beyond which shoes were an advantage.
So I'm not a staunch advocate either way racing wise, but there may be some training benefit from a certain amound of barefoot running. For example, sand dune running is obviously a good place to try it without fear of injury.
Rodger Kram wrote:
Dear "800 dude"
You frequently reference our scientific papers and do so accurately.
I am curious about who you are and what your background is, but I maybe you wish to stay anonymous.
Anyhow, you are just a little bit off on this point.
In Franz et al. , 2012, we compared running economy (RE) in Nike Mayfly shoes (very light, 150grams and with some cushioning) vs. barefoot all on an old-school, hard surface treadmill. We found that when barefoot and shod were weight matched, shod was 2-3% cheaper. But, when we compared barefoot vs. the stock Mayfly, the lower cost of the Mayfly was not statistically less. If the Mayfly had been just a little bit lighter or more cushioned or if we had studied more subjects, then the diff probably would have been significant, but post-hoc coulda shoulda is not the way science is supposed to work.
Then in Tung et al. (2014), we compared barefoot vs. Nike Free 3.0s (230grams). They required the same rate of oxygen/energy. The weight/cushioning ratio was too large in the Free 3.0s.
But of course that all changed with the Vaporfly 4% shoes which are light (
This is one of the reasons I love LR. Thanks for posting! I'm obviously a big fan of your work. A handful of people on here know who I am, but I do prefer to remain mostly anonymous. Just a middle aged lawyer/running nerd who reads a lot of exercise science material.
I was being a bit glib in my earlier post (and on my phone at the time). I didn't mean to suggest that shoes are categorically more efficient, but that it seems clear that at least some shoes are.
I'd be interested to see if the role of cushioning changes as the run increases in duration. It seems plausible to me that a shoe that fails to show improved running economy vs. barefoot in a test with a fresh runner might start to look a bit better if you ran the test for 2 hours. It would fit with the subjective experience that a lot of runners have (i.e., the general consensus that you need more cushioning for longer races, the frequent remark by VF wearers that they don't feel noticeably faster in the shoes but they feel fresher later in the race). It seems plausible that the extra oxygen consumption from a heavier shoe is attributable to the swing phase, and the muscle damage might be lower then because it's not a powerful eccentric contraction? But on the other hand, maybe oxygen consumption is directly proportional to muscle fatigue? Comparisons of cyclists and runners would seem to suggest that when it comes to longer duration fatigue, not all liters of oxygen are the same.
Arabian Knight wrote:
First of all we're not the greatest distance runners on the planet by a long shot. Stop that ridiculous thinking.
Most of those times would be achievable barefoot. Even back in the day less talented and lighter training athletes came relatively close to those times.
That statement is pretty wrong
dritius wrote:
That's easy wrote:
Horses, Huskies, Pronghorn. Probably another dozen species of antelope or gazelle.
Human beings are phenomenal sweaters, this simple form of temperature regulation is what allows us to go out and run for long periods of time. Dogs cool themselves through panting, which is probably why huskies are able to run much longer than typical dogs because they operate in cold environments. Pronghorns are the same way and horses to less of an extent. If we are talking ability to traverse sheer distance without stopping, humans are unmatched. If we are taking speed into account, then you bring up good examples because the speed those animals can maintain for long periods of time are ridiculously fast. But the whole point of my statement was that there is no land mammal that has us beat on distance. There are tons of animals faster than us, that has never been in question, but are there any animals that can go out and put up 100 miles at once?
They are also faster over a distance. A horse can do 100 miles many hours faster than the human record. Under 8 hours.
The whole humans are better than animals over distance is based on a extreme outlier humans running down sub par animals in extreme conditions. That doesn't represent reality.
I once captured a rabbit by chasing it in conditions unsuitable for it. That doesn't mean humans are faster than rabbits.
MUT and Road Runner wrote:
Arabian Knight wrote:
First of all we're not the greatest distance runners on the planet by a long shot. Stop that ridiculous thinking.
Most of those times would be achievable barefoot. Even back in the day less talented and lighter training athletes came relatively close to those times.
That statement is pretty wrong
No it isn't.