Great article on barefoot/minimalist running!

Sorry, my comment wasn't aimed at you - I thought your post was very reasonable. I'm still figuirng out how to post here...

"3. Running barefoot/minimalist forces a change in mechanics to adapt to the forces of on the feet." (sic)

"The majority of people walk and run by landing on the heel and toeing off on the big toe. The anatomy of the foot reinforces this technique because the calcaneus is the largest bone in the foot with the largest fat pad in the foot underneath it. The metatarsals are small bones and have much less fat pad protection when compared to the calcaneus. These small bones are not designed to accept three times the weight of the body."

-----------------

The assumption that the human body isn't really all that smart is required to make the assertions I quoted above.

I wish I could figure out why these "experts" (another example:

http://www.marathonperformance.com/2009/10/ask-brad-heel-vs-forefoot-striking/

) aren't making the connection that NO human strikes first with their heel when running barefoot. Why would it be smart to run differently in a shoe than we do barefoot? If the metatarsals aren't designed to absorb the impact...why do they? Why does the body adapt to the impact forces (as asserted in point 3 quoted above) by doing something Mark claims it is NOT capable of handling?

Cushioning is what the body DOES upon impact, it isn't a THING(fat pad).

Also, where does the 65-75% figure come from? There is no source.

And one other thing, I do sometimes wonder about financial motivations, but generally I think people like Mark recommend things in great faith. In general I think it is much better and accurate to question their judgement as opposed to their motivation.

Has anyone else noticed that minimalists/barefooters always cite the drastic increase in running injuries over the last say 50 years, yet they never mention two other important factors.

1) The huge change in the percentage of the population that even attempts running for fitness. Prior to the first "jogging" explosion the only people that ran were ones that liked it and didn't have problems.

2) The drastic decrease in average fitness and health. We didn't used to be a sedementary society, now we are. As kids, we start healthy. Somewhere around high school (maybe even earlier) we stop moving as much and get farther and farther away from the body type/fitness level that we evolved to need. Of course it's going to be a tough task to re-create that and injuries are likely no matter what you put on your feet.

Neither is there evidence to support the "prescription" of running shoes.

a shoe guy wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that minimalists/barefooters always cite the drastic increase in running injuries over the last say 50 years, yet they never mention two other important factors.

1) The huge change in the percentage of the population that even attempts running for fitness. Prior to the first "jogging" explosion the only people that ran were ones that liked it and didn't have problems.

2) The drastic decrease in average fitness and health. We didn't used to be a sedementary society, now we are. As kids, we start healthy. Somewhere around high school (maybe even earlier) we stop moving as much and get farther and farther away from the body type/fitness level that we evolved to need. Of course it's going to be a tough task to re-create that and injuries are likely no matter what you put on your feet.

Sedementary? Come on, man.

two way road wrote:

[quote]endurancescience wrote:

My feeling is that the scientific evidence is limited, but what there is doesn't support an across the board adoption of forefoot/barefoot/pose/chi/whatever.

Neither is there evidence to support the "prescription" of running shoes.[quote]

True - no one's really arguing that (at least not me. My point, if I have one, is that the "evidence" really doesn't support a fanatical opinion about adopting a shoe/foot position for all runners.

This guy may be a genius when it comes to physiology and gait, but he clearly should not be talking about the physics of impact forces. Anybody who thinks the extra 5 millimeters of fat below the heel makes a difference when we consider the poundage that comes down on your lower body with each stride is very confused. I don't question his intentions or his running cred, but large portions of that essay are not very well-thought-out.

hahaha. That made me laugh at myself. I guess that's what happens when you are typing posts while being distracted by work.

Sedentary was of course the intended word.

A couple points Everyone missed (some have been brought up before):

1. This fat pad nonsense. Impact forces are adjusted via proprioception. Impact forces are NOT higher in barefoot compared to shoes. THe body adjusts.

2. Pronation is not evil. There is no evidence for the pronation paradigm. None, zippo.

3. We weren't meant to run on our heel barefoot, even if the heel is underneath your hips. At moderate to slow speeds it's almost essentially a flat foot landing starting with the outside of the foot and rolling inwards.

4. There are fanatics in the barefoot world. Yes they are nuts. It's nuts to think that everyone can go from wearing shoes for 30+yrs to nothing. Your body has adapted somewhat to shoes unfortunately. You have to deadapt.

raceresults wrote:

3. We weren't meant to run on our heel barefoot, even if the heel is underneath your hips. At moderate to slow speeds it's almost essentially a flat foot landing starting with the outside of the foot and rolling inwards.

This we weren't meant to comment always bothers me. It doesn't matter what the evolutionary pressures were when we evolved. Evolution did not optimize us for running >50 miles a week. It made us good enough, given that we didn't have shoes, asphalt to evade predators, walk, jump, squat, climb a bit, etc. We can't argue that evolution created a perfect barefoot runner.

However, I'm fully on board with the idea that we don't know enough about the relative benefit of barefoot, minimalist, maximalist or whatever kind of footwear in terms of performance and injury prevention.

BLAH - DAH!

http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstract/2009/05000/Injury_Reduction_Effectiveness_of_Selecting.1.aspx

Injury reduction effectiveness of selecting running shoes based on plantar shape. J Strength Cond Res 23(3): 685-697, 2009

Popular running magazines and running shoe companies suggest that imprints of the bottom of the feet (plantar shape) can be used as an indication of the height of the medial longitudinal foot arch and that this can be used to select individually appropriate types of running shoes...

Too bad they didn't put some of those recruits through training barefoot. I'd love to see the injury stats for that.

J Biomech. 2000 Mar;33(3):269-78.

Biomechanical analysis of the stance phase during barefoot and shod running.

De Wit B, De Clercq D, Aerts P.

Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ghent, Belgium.

This study investigated spatio-temporal variables, ground reaction forces and sagittal and frontal plane kinematics during the stance phase of nine trained subjects running barefoot and shod at three different velocities (3.5, 4.5, 5.5 m s(-1)). Differences between conditions were detected with the general linear method (factorial model). Barefoot running is characterized by a significantly larger external loading rate than the shod condition. The flatter foot placement at touchdown is prepared in free flight, implying an actively induced adaptation strategy. In the barefoot condition, plantar pressure measurements reveal a flatter foot placement to correlate with lower peak heel pressures. Therefore, it is assumed that runners adopt this different touchdown geometry in barefoot running in an attempt to limit the local pressure underneath the heel. A significantly higher leg stiffness during the stance phase was found for the barefoot condition. The sagittal kinematic adaptations between conditions were found in the same way for all subjects and at the three running velocities. However, large individual variations were observed between the runners for the rearfoot kinematics.

J Biomech. 2000 Nov;33(11):1387-95.

Tibiocalcaneal kinematics of barefoot versus shod running.

Stacoff A, Nigg BM, Reinschmidt C, van den Bogert AJ, Lundberg A.

Human Performance Laboratory, The University of Calgary, Canada.

stacoff@biomech.mat.ethz.ch

Barefoot running kinematics has been described to vary considerably from shod running. However, previous investigations were typically based on externally mounted shoe and/or skin markers, which have been shown to overestimate skeletal movements. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare calcaneal and tibial movements of barefoot versus shod running using skeletal markers. Intracortical bone pins with reflective marker triads were inserted under standard local anesthetic into the calcaneus and tibia of five healthy male subjects. The subjects ran barefoot, with a normal shoe, with three shoe soles and two orthotic modifications. The three-dimensional tibiocalcaneal rotations were determined using a joint coordinate system approach. Test variables were defined for eversion and tibial rotation. The results showed that the differences in bone movements between barefoot and shod running were small and unsystematic (mean effects being less than 2 degrees ) compared with the differences between the subjects (up to 10 degrees ). However, differences may occur during midstance when extreme shoe modifications (i.e. posterior orthosis) are used. It is concluded that calcaneal and tibial movement patterns do not differ substantially between barefoot and shod running, and that the effects of these interventions are subject specific. The result of this in vivo study contrasts with previous investigations using skin and shoe mounted markers and suggests that these discrepancies may be the result of the overestimation with externally mounted markers.

I recall the Dewit paper, but I have to admit, I hadn't seen the second one - thanks. Wow, I wouldn't want to be a subject in that second study - intracortical pins?!? Yikes.

Interesting that the first says there are meaningful force differences (not a suprise, but that these differences are subject to large intersubject variability, and that the second found that intersubject variability was tne only meaningful finding. Interesting stuff.

maximalist wrote:

Amazing how I always kick the minimalists' asses when i see them at races. Minimalists are always really slow. But at least they have really strong feet! And by the way, I am really fu cking slow.

did you run against any kenyan minimalist?

Yes, good Kenyans are not minimalists. I see them wearing Pegasus, Zoom Elite, etc.

Great comment! You and all the other minimalists fall in the same boat. Keep talking about the Kenyans.

1) I'm sure your body type does not remotely reflect a Kenyans.

2) Do you think the most of the Kenyans run barefoot for fun? No they don't have the same access to shoes.

3) Are you running on soft dirt in the middle of your California suburb? I don't think so.

4) Do you notice how the opposing view to barefoot running doesn't say it's 100% wrong. I don't see the same respect from the Minimalist community / "extremest community".

So keep on running in those five fingers. I'm thinking about going back to school for physical therapy. I'll see you in my office soon.

BrokenFoot wrote:

Great comment! You and all the other minimalists fall in the same boat. Keep talking about the Kenyans.

1) I'm sure your body type does not remotely reflect a Kenyans.

2) Do you think the most of the Kenyans run barefoot for fun? No they don't have the same access to shoes.

3) Are you running on soft dirt in the middle of your California suburb? I don't think so.

4) Do you notice how the opposing view to barefoot running doesn't say it's 100% wrong. I don't see the same respect from the Minimalist community / "extremest community".

So keep on running in those five fingers. I'm thinking about going back to school for physical therapy. I'll see you in my office soon.

1) Body type maybe not. Anatomy is going to be remarkably similar. (Maybe the Kenyans need the Pegasus because they have less joints in the front of their foot?)

2) And this influences the minimalist argument how?

3) Dirt isn't soft, it is just softer. And why would not running on dirt require a shoe that fundamentally changes HOW you run (not for the better).

4) Maybe that is because we get the same stupid arguments over and over again? (like those in your post)

I am not sure, but sponsorships just MIGHT determine what these Kenyans you see are wearing.

There is your first course in PT school. Now I am sure when I end up in your office you can come up with some reason why I need you to fit me for a $500 orthotic.