Barefoot Running is Medically Accepted [as being better]

Do barefoot strides 2-3 times a week.....

Zola Budd works for Newton.

seriously where is the evidence, the empirical data that all of this barefoot running nonsense is backed up by anecdotal evidence at best. Any evidence is only that it does not hurt you. There is no evidence what so ever that backs it up to say "that this the way we are meant to run." I think barefoot running has it's place, strides, drills and shakeout junk mileage runs, but it should never replace a pair of trainers. We have been in shoes too long at this point.

GTFO barefoot runner wrote:

I think barefoot running has it's place, strides, drills and shakeout junk mileage runs, but it should never replace a pair of trainers.

It kind of sounds like you agree with Ms. Budd. Did you read what she said? Specifically the part about always wearing shoes on the road?

GTFO barefoot runner wrote:

We have been in shoes too long at this point.

Do you mean as individuals who have been wearing shoes since childhood? You might have a point. Or do you mean evolutionarily, as a species? That would be absurd.

GTFO barefoot runner wrote:

seriously where is the evidence, the empirical data that all of this barefoot running nonsense is backed up by anecdotal evidence at best. Any evidence is only that it does not hurt you. There is no evidence what so ever that backs it up to say "that this the way we are meant to run." I think barefoot running has it's place, strides, drills and shakeout junk mileage runs, but it should never replace a pair of trainers. We have been in shoes too long at this point.

As chauncey said, if you mean we have been in shoes for too long from an evolutionary perspective obviously that is absurd. But yes obviously it's gonna be harder to make the switch if you have been in built up training shoes for many years. That's why hopefully now that people are figuring out barefoot running is better, runner parents will have their kids (if they are runners) stay out of built up training shoes and do regular running barefoot and then so the next generation will be much better off.

And are you seriously asking where is the empirical evidence for barefoot running? Barefoot running is the only side of the argument that has any empirical evidence to support it. By that i mean there are a good number of studies showing that barefoot running is better than shod running, and there are literally zero scientific studies to show that built up training shoes are good. Built up training shoes is entirely 100% marketing.

Also common sense from an evolutionary perspective should make it obvious that as long as you don't run on terrain that is gonna hurt your feet, like over something that is gonna puncture your skin, barefoot running is better. I mean think about for just a second, and it is incredibly obvious that the human was literally designed to run long distances barefoot.

"In SA it is not only normal but kids are encouraged to go barefoot because it is medically accepted that it is better for the development of a kids feet to go barefoot."

Where is said data to say it's 'medically accepted'? She is one person, one case, to say medically accepted like the guy in Born to Run etc. that is my point

not entirely evolutionary, but I feel most since we were 5-6 years old have been wearing shoes, to switch later in life really does not make too much sense

Saying barefoot is better because it is the way we evolved to run only makes sense if we assume that racing X distance as fast as possible is the ultimate direction evolution has been leading us.

GTFO barefoot runner wrote:

"In SA it is not only normal but kids are encouraged to go barefoot because it is medically accepted that it is better for the development of a kids feet to go barefoot."

Where is said data to say it's 'medically accepted'? She is one person, one case, to say medically accepted like the guy in Born to Run etc. that is my point

And then you went on to agree with her, that sometimes we should run barefoot. That was MY point. Also, she said that kids in SA are encouraged to "go" barefoot. That's different than saying, "Kids are encouraged to train barefoot."

GTFO barefoot runner wrote:

not entirely evolutionary, but I feel most since we were 5-6 years old have been wearing shoes, to switch later in life really does not make too much sense

That is not an evolutionary argument (which is a good thing, because an evolutionary argument in favor of shoes would be, as I said before, absurd). What part is evolutionary?

No scientific studies that prove anything except that a switch to barefoot running lowers impact forces - this does not mean that runners will have fewer injuries running barefoot (as pointed out in The Science of Sport, when 20 runners switched to the Pose method for a research study - the Pose method lowers impact forces too - it took 2 weeks for 19 out of the 20 runners to break down from injury). No evidence that evolution preferred barefoot runners to shod runners ... anymore than we'd run around in the winter snow with no pants or coat, simply because we didn't evolve with a down comforter wrapped around us. No evidence we evolved to be long distance runners (hint: very few members of the Green Bay Packers are the end result of an evolutionary chain that favors distance runners ... and very few runners at local 5K and 10Ks are either).

Doing some barefoot running on grass and similar surfaces has always been a part of training. Going all barefoot is just plain stupid. Even the Tarahumara wear huaraches.

That said, I'm always willing to have a sensible debate on a subject like this - as I've certainly been proved wrong in the past. Tell you what, at the next race where anyone out there who's a barefoot runner is competing, I'll wait around at the finish line for you to come in and give your take on the subject.

SoCal Pete, sorry but you don't really make good points. From the way you describe that study in The Science of Sport, it seems like 20 runners got thrown into dramatically changing up their form to a more natural gait, which their bodies obviously aren't used to, so they quickly got injured. duh, what else would you possibly expect.

the whole point is you have to transition very slowly to fix the muscle imbalances and atrophy that is caused by running in training shoes. I mean thats like citing a study that wanted to research if high mileage makes people faster by having 20 joggers start running 100 miles a week and 19 of them are injured within a couple weeks and therefore you prove that high mileage doesn't make people faster 95% of the time.

and i think you not only don't really have a firm grasp of the logic of science but also you don't really understand evolution (not an insult, just an observation from your post). of course there is no direct comparison in evolutionary history to prove that evolution favors barefoot runners over shod runners because in no part of human history have humans been born with shoes somehow biologically incorporated into their feet.

the point is that our feet (our bare feet) have formed through the evolutionary process, therefore the best and most efficient use of them is on their own because they were made to work on their own (excluding of course genetic defects or any sort of rare trait that would cause an abnormal physical attribute that would negatively affect the gait). and likewise yes you can obviously tell that we did not evolve to live in very cold climates because we are a hairless mammal. we evolved in the warmth of Africa, we couldn't go to colder climates until we started to put on clothing to keep warm in colder climates.

your example of a football team doesn't make any sense. because a football team is a group of people that has been very specifically selected by people to have certain traits. they are not representative of the general population. generalizing evolutionary traits only applies to the general population, not to any specific organism in particular, because there is variation in any population. take a group of midgets, do they show that humans today aren't the end result of an evolutionary chain that lead to 5 to 6 foot people? does a group of sumo wrestlers show that humans today aren't the end result of an evolutionary chain that has led to 100 to 200 pound people? NO.

there is no reason that going all barefoot is just plain stupid. there is no basis at all for that argument. of course the pads on our feet aren't as big and tough as other animals, so obviously we can't handle the type of terrain that most animals can. we might have lost that once we stopped persistence hunting and therefore no longer needed to be able to handle running over tough terrain for long periods of time. but we have still been made to run barefoot. sure maybe that means we need to stick to grass or clean surfaces (non-rocky trails, the track, roads without broken things on it, etc.), but the thing about that is that shoes only need to protect the foot from these things. so a minimal shoe is all that is needed when running on these tougher surfaces.

sorry that post is way long, i just really don't get how people don't understand evolution and logic. i look forward to anything else you have to argue with SoCal Pete.

asdfh - Answer my question. Did we evolve specifically to compete in road and track races?

I drank the kool aid, and TWO metatarsal stress fractures later...I'm going to disagree.

no we didn't. but what does running road races have to do with what kind of shoe we wear when we train? i would never run a road race barefoot cuz running at high speeds on asphalt is too much friction and would tear up my feet (although of course people do run road races, even marathons, barefoot. so really its just because the soles of my feet aren't tough enough).

again, shoes are for protection and that is all we need them for. running shoes these days go so far beyond whats needed for protection. the only requirement i would have of a racing shoe is that it doesn't actually fall apart from running the race. so it needs to be thick/tough enough to not fall apart from the friction of running, but once it meets that criteria it should be as thin as possible.

basically it comes down to what you can handle barefoot. i wouldn't run barefoot on a rocky trail or a street with broken glass and other crap that can puncture my skin because my feet can't handle those surfaces. i also wouldn't run an all out race on a surface that would hinder my performance by hurting the soles of my feet. if running a race barefoot wouldn't hinder my performance at all (whether its cuz my feet are tough enough or the surface is soft enough, like xc) then sure i'd do it, no reason not to.

What about protecting your muscles and tendons etc from the lack of conditioning our modern society inflicts upon them?

Cars, desk jobs, couches ... you name it. 99% of the things that surround us these days cause us to NOT be able to run as evolution might have allowed us to.

Granted, there are some individuals who benefit from going entirely away from traditional running shoes. The vast majority however, including many that are swayed by or "drink the kool-aid" so to speak of the barefoot fanatics should AT MOST mix a small amount of barefoot striding into their normal shod routine.

another shoe guy,

right well thats the whole point behind transitioning VERY slowly into running barefoot. just because modern society is, in a sense, lazy that doesn't mean you can't redevelop those muscles to perform properly. it just takes a long time. and for the next generation if people have their runner kids stay out of shoes while and home and stuff and run barefoot or in minimal shoes from the beginning they won't have the problems that people have when they try to switch over after years of running in trainers.

i mean i totally agree its easy to get injured when trying to make the switch, and if you are injury-free in training shoes then it probably doesn't make sense to attempt to switch to barefoot running cuz you'd risk screwing up your training with injury. in that case it would be best for the athlete to only incorporate barefoot stuff in the form of strides and light jogging on grass. but for most people injuries are fairly common, some shoe-related, some not. especially if you aren't doing real serious training, a lot of people would probably benefit from taking a year to transition to doing a significant percentage of their mileage barefoot.

another shoe guy wrote:

asdfh - Answer my question. Did we evolve specifically to compete in road and track races?

In fact, we didn't evolve TO DO a damn thing. Wear shoes, you imbeciles; if you're body breaks down, it's going to break down one way or the other. You're either able to run 110 mile weeks, or you aren't. Either way, you have to find the combination of speed and strength work, and threshold and aerobic, to make you fast. You can run sub-4:00 on 50 a week, or 100 a week, depending on the way your body works and your training regimen; stop worrying about the shoes.

Um, when did Mary say it was her own fault?

We also went through our entire evolutionary history only living for about 30 years at most. I didn't develop a single injury until I reached 35. Go figure.

On the whole, I agree with most of that. I don't have a problem with the idea of minimalism. It's just that too many people take waaaaay to aggressive an aproach. There are also too many BF purists that make it sound like everyone would be better off BF - no exceptions. Since cars, desk jobs etc aren't going anywhere, I think for the vast majority working a small amount of minimalism into their normally shod routine will remain the best way to go.

Kids becomes a tricky topic. The first thing we need to find is a way to get them running, playing, bike riding ... whatever ... to get them away from the TV and video games. Until we get them more active we can't even really begin to worry about the best way for them to be active.