So let's say it's true human beings were meant to run barefoot, can we all agree running shoes still make us WAY faster?

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.

Humans evolved to run barefoot on soft surfaces. In forests, in the desert, on dirt, grass etc. What causes the injuries is artificial surfaces such as asphalt and concrete. It's not about the shoes or not, it's about the surface!

A previous marathon world record (2:15 in 1960) was set by someone running barefoot. Guy had no clue how to train, but he raced barefoot and crushed everyone else back then. Kipchoge would probably still be sub 2:05 barefoot. The shoes might matter a little bit but not that much. A barefoot 3 hour marathoner is not gonna become a 2:30 marathoner by putting on the VF4%.

There's plenty of people that run primarily or entirely on soft surfaces and they still get injured. The way humans live their lives in the first world today is entirely different from how we did prior to wearing shoes and that affects the way that our muscles work. We sit in chairs for so much of our lives as well, far more than humans did even just a couple of centuries ago. The surface counts but there are many other variables. And yes if his life was literally on the line tomorrow Kipchoge maybe could run sub 2:05 barefoot he has the aerobic ability, but his feet would not hold up otherwise. He's been running in sneakers pretty much his entire life you can't just go race a marathon barefoot on the roads and expect to not get injured.

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.

No humans were ever running marathon distances barefoot at all never mind faster than anyone heel striking in a pair of cushioned shoes. Ever.

I think you have to keep it in context.

Man-made surfaces like roads and concrete paved the way for man made shoes ;-D

The speed thing doesn't matter to me...how fast I go for a given distance.

The art of knowing my own body and learning how to optimize it for me is the highest point. I'd rather be running in a pair of sandals grass or dirt or even a road. My feet are cooler, and they are easier to maintain. Only when there is snow over 3 am I looking for a pair of shoes.

Myth Buster wrote:

No humans were ever running marathon distances barefoot at all never mind faster than anyone heel striking in a pair of cushioned shoes. Ever.

Bikila did.

dritius wrote:

There is no chance that a: sub 4 mile could be achieved without the fancy ergonomic running shoes we have today.

Uhm, are you sure about that?

Except one wrote:

Myth Buster wrote:

No humans were ever running marathon distances barefoot at all never mind faster than anyone heel striking in a pair of cushioned shoes. Ever.

Bikila did.

No he didn't.

1960: 2:15:16 barefoot.

1964: 2:12:11 not barefoot.

I don't know about anyone else, but I no longer have the patience to constantly pull thorns, glass and sharp rocks out of my feet as I did during my first year of high school when barefoot running was still allowed. Thank you nice running shoe makers!

Myth Buster wrote:

Except one wrote:

Bikila did.

No he didn't.

1960: 2:15:16 barefoot.

1964: 2:12:11 not barefoot.

His Rome run narrowly beat the WR and that guy was in the race. That means he ran faster than anybody. Ever.

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.

By "we", I meant "we" as a species.

I think the most important element is always left out of these arguments. For the barefoot thing to really work you need a lifetime of being barefoot. Especially the growing up part.

If you spend a lifetime in shoes and then also wear regular shoes all the time except for when you are running then I think barefoot or super-minimal shoes will typically get most people hurt if you are running relatively serious miles consistently.

Faster? Spikes on a track make you faster than barefoot, right. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Right?

We shouldn’t just “all agree” on something that is testable. Fortunately, it has been tested. There have been a number of studies demonstrating better economy running shod vs. unshod. The ones failing to show better economy running shod were apparently done on cushioned treadmills.

800 dude wrote:

We shouldn’t just “all agree” on something that is testable. Fortunately, it has been tested. There have been a number of studies demonstrating better economy running shod vs. unshod. The ones failing to show better economy running shod were apparently done on cushioned treadmills.

I think people should agree on established facts.

Black wrote:

800 dude wrote:

We shouldn’t just “all agree” on something that is testable. Fortunately, it has been tested. There have been a number of studies demonstrating better economy running shod vs. unshod. The ones failing to show better economy running shod were apparently done on cushioned treadmills.

I think people should agree on established facts.

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?

dritius 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.

By "we", I meant "we" as a species.

It's even less true when worded that way.

ex-runner wrote:

Black wrote:

I think people should agree on established facts.

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.

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 (