Zola Budd from Barefoot to Shod - Why?

Barefoot (or Vibram) running works for the biomechanically perfect. Just like motion control shoes wouldn't work for someone who has high arches and under pronates (or over supinates). It's all relative to the person wearing them or not.

Matt Fitzgerald's assertions about Budd are not supported by the article he cites in the Guardian. I quote from that 2003 article (Guardian 02/24/2003 The Guardian):

"Those expecting a barefooted performance and a glimpse of the painted toe-nails may be disappointed when Budd turns up in Nike trainers, a concession to injury and age. The irony is unintended: "When you're young you can get away with anything.""

All we can say from the article is that Budd had some injuries and these injuries could have occurred at anytime in her career. We can infer that age had something to do with it. Nowhere does she say she suffered injuries because she ran barefoot. Her record during her peak years (when she was barefoot) speaks for itself. Watch her kick ass at the World XC Championships in 1985

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePkEbMY2Ta0

The article describes her wearing of shoes as a ". . .concession to injury. . ." How much clearer could that be? She is wearing shoes as a concession to injury. If being barefoot didn't cause her injury, why would it be necessary for her to concede to the injury by wearing shoes?

What the quote from Guardian article says to me is that she is older and likely weaker. In that state, perhaps she has lost the form she once had. So, she slides some modern running shoes, which are like freaking orthopedic boots. She broke world records barefoot. She jogged the London marathon as a middle aged woman in shoes. Wow. Look, the best quote I read was some response/comment to the article in Competitor magazine that the OP linked to:

"Is there a reason elite runners don't run barefoot? Sure.

First, it would take elites a couple years, possibly more, to return to their current level in order to run barefoot; you can't just take off your shoes and start running; your feet have to develop; no elite wants to start their running career over.

Second, in the meantime, elites who run barefoot would not be able to secure shoe endorsements; what company is going to sponsor a barefoot runner? Nike?

Third, elites would also lose out on the prize money, a strong incentive not to deviate.

Fourth, as mentioned by others, elites already have great form and coaching, so barefoot running probably would have a high cost-to-benefit ratio; i.e. it would require too much time for too little reward.

Fifth, feet have to adapt to barefoot running. If an elite tore up the soles of their feet or stepped on a nail, an injury would sideline them for far too long. For most of the rest of us, the risk to reward might be worth it.

Sixth, elites who disparage running shoes in an article are not likely to hold on to their sponsors for long; they are more likely to give glowing comments about their shoes.

However, it could very likely benefit non-elite runners in that it may help us run correctly and thus more efficiently and thus faster.

So, for most of us concerned, it matters not whether elites run barefoot; it matters whether the risk-to-reward is worth it for us. If it is, then it might be worth it for the rest of us to run barefoot, at least until we run correctly.

And once we're as honed as the elites, we can choose to run shod again."

Shoes can often prevent injuries. Also, runners run faster Statistically when they train/race in shoes. Another thing to remember is that she is an Individual. If shoes make her better, then she will wear shoes. It doesn't have to work for everyone, or anyone else for that matter, but it works for her.

Any other conspiracy theories you want to share?

This thread is going nowhere - let's nip it in the Budd.

thehoss wrote:

Shoes can often prevent injuries. Also, runners run faster Statistically when they train/race in shoes. Another thing to remember is that she is an Individual. If shoes make her better, then she will wear shoes. It doesn't have to work for everyone, or anyone else for that matter, but it works for her.

Statistically determined by whom? I specifically remember reading in an old running book (maybe Jim Fixx or another similar book) where some researchers put this concept to the test and found you're faster (and less energy expended) barefoot than shod. It may have been Jack Daniels who did this (or collaborated with someone like Dave Costill). He's talked about how when they tried to lighten the shoes and looked at oxygen consumption, there came a point where it became more costly to make the shoes any lighter. I'm guessing it was because they weren't muscularly and biomechanically to develop the efficiency to handle the lighter shoes.

Did anyone else find it a bit odd to watch that video (being an international race) and not see any East Africans? As many old school videos I've seen, that's the first time I've really noticed it.

Why do all East Africans switch from barefoot to shod?

Bikila did not "switch" to using shoes. He already ran in them back when he won his first Olympic marathon barefoot in Rome. He was originally going to wear them in Rome but the pair he had brought basically fell apart and he could not get another pair in time.

craigmac4h wrote:

The article describes her wearing of shoes as a ". . .concession to injury. . ." How much clearer could that be? She is wearing shoes as a concession to injury. If being barefoot didn't cause her injury, why would it be necessary for her to concede to the injury by wearing shoes?

Craig, Zola won hundreds of races before her injury problems, which were not as great as the political problems that dogged her career. No to mention being blamed for decking Mary.

I think she just got tired of all the crap and found it hard to concentrate on her running. And before all of this happened, she ran better without shoes.