Maybe. That depends on the conditioning of your feet. The other big takeaway from the article is that if you are going to wear shoes, the less padding, the better.
It might be possible to run barefoot on dirt, but not on a track!
Until recently the local highschool track had nothing on it but a thin film of rubber on a solid cement. I remember being unable to run very well on it (hard), but I could run through my back yard even when we still had the underbrush and briers, I was in better shape when I was younger. ...I wish people didn't think going barefoot was socially unacceptable.
Running on dirt, forest floor, sand, even plain rocks, is quite possible barefoot. The sole does need substantial acclimation to it, though (something we all used to have.)
Actually if you read through to the sidebar at the end it says that if you grew up running in shoes, you should continue running in shoes or you'll hurt yourself. (duh.)
I suffered badly from plantar fascitis while playing basketball for roughly a year. I then spent one summer playing any casual game I could barefoot and made a near instant recovery. Since then I do as much warm up shooting barefoot as I can and I haven't had a problem.
As a kid, my siblings and I would practically forgo shoes when summer vacation arrived. When school started we'd grudgingly force them on over our toughened pads and endure the sting of wearing our natural soles down inside them. I remember that, but now my feet are always in a cushioned palace, gellin' like a felon, and soft as a baby's bottom. It seems as though I haven't cultivated the best support for my body ...
Interesting article, but why is this being portrayed as some type of unique situation? Entire industries from sporting goods to "organic" foods market themselves as something you need to be healthy, successful or competitive. In reality, of course, they aren't.
Look at golf clubs. You can buy a driver the size of a VW Beetle and made of material that would have made NASA jealous 20 years ago ... but after several decades, the average golf score hasn't gone down.
I've always wanted to try a pair of Vibram Five Fingers (http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/), they are about as close to running barefoot as you can get while still having a little protection.
I have a pair and I really like them. They aren't expensive and they feel good :)
Also check out Terra Plana Vivo Barefoot shoes. They're more expensive ($140-$200) but they look cool. They're the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. I like them so much I've bought 3 pairs.
I've been running and lifting in my pair of FiveFinger KSO's for a little over a year now and I love them. No more running related injuries and my feet are strong and healthy. However, they are most certainly goofy looking and not appropriate for work dress.
A couple of weeks ago I finally broke down and payed up for a pair of Vivo Barefoot Aquas ($109 on Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/Terra-Plana-Mens-Aqua-Sneaker/dp/B0013...). I think they look cool but my wife rolls her eyes when I put them on. However they are incredibly comfortable to wear -- It's like wearing a moccasin only with a bit more style.
"However, they are most certainly goofy looking and not appropriate for work dress."
Yeah, my wife saw me looking at those and gave me that 'no way' look. I find it funny that our concept of footwear has evolved to the point where wearing something that looks like a foot is considered goofy. If anything I figure I can just claim I'm re-creating the Big Foot hoax.
Thanks, I needed some new shoes and was about to ask where I could get "Shoes that let your foot function like you're barefoot - they're the shoes for me.", as the article quotes. Even though the TPV shoes are about $100 more than I would normally spend I'll get them next.
I bought ones to try out. I used it for 5 days straight walking around extensively in banff, and let me tell you my feet were in AGNOY! I did a lot of pavement walking although with it, to see if they would work as a shoe replacement. They did not, and my feet didn't really adjust at all.
I run 5 miles barefoot every day. It's seriously so much more enjoyable than running with shoes on ever was. In fact, I didn't run at ALL until I went barefoot. It is also a very tough, rewarding workout on the right surface - for example, I run on soft sand (which, by the way, is the best way to run if you want to save your knees).
My best friend is a varsity track athlete who swears by his running shoes. We always get into a debate about the merits of shoes - perhaps I have finally won!
Interesting idea ... I wonder if it's possible in shoe form. My feet sink quite a bit (half a foot, perhaps more) with each step when running, so perhaps it'd be more of a new form of ultra-high-end treadmill? That'd require quite a bit of mechanics, but I bet it would be a worthy challenge for someone into hacking up physical products.
By the way, while we are on this subject - I could never understand why people run on roads. You're getting car exhaust fumes and you're running on hard pavement; seems like a bad deal all around. I drive by people on Pacific Coast Highway who run on pavement, directly parallel to the sand - I guess people follow the patterns they know best...
The weight of the shoe might be a problem, so perhaps some kind of treadmill type solution would be more feasible.
I find loose sand to be tough to run in and kind of frustrating with the whole running through molasses feeling. In one running book I have (Running for Mortals) it recommends flat, firm sand only but does call it a "treat for most runners". The same running book lists these surfaces as being worst to best for running on in terms of bodily stress:
concrete (e.g. sidewalks), asphalt, dirt paths and trails, grass. However, because of convenience, I run on sidewalks almost exclusively and I seem to be able to pull it off so far.
I've been wearing the same pair for at least 3 years now and I will never go back to any different kind. When I do wear new shoes I feel like I've got rubber blocks on my feet, I'm clumsy and awkward and uncomfortable.
Feeling every crack, in the side walk and letting your feet do anything they want is extremely rewarding.
Prior to switching to Nike Free's I had sever shin splints when I ran track after switching I never had to ice for them again.
I seriously cannot suggest them enough for running in our concrete environment.
The thing that concerns me about running on concrete in general is the impact on your knees. Would be interested to know if you / anyone else has done research on this matter; I'm basing my concerns on advice given to me by an orthopedic surgeon a few years ago.
Well the idea of running barefoot is that you run the correct way so your knees have low impact.
When running with regular shoes you slam down on the back cause that's the only place you can, this put alot of impact on your entire leg. But when you run with these your foot is able to fall on the balls of your feet allowing for your foot, ankle, and leg to share the impact. Think of it as a spring.
I am not trained as an ortho or anything I've just been researching this a lot, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.
The shoe has three levels of padding Higher the number the more the padding. To help you adjust to the new experience.
"And then comes the grand finale: we cut back to the Kenyans, whose bare feet are now sporting some kind of thin shoe. It's the new Nike Free, a shoe thinner than the old Cortez dreamt up by Bowerman in the Seventies. And its slogan?
'Run Barefoot.'
The price of this return to nature?
A conservative £65. But, unlike the real thing, experts may still advise you to change them every three months."
This is an interesting idea for discussion, but I think the author handles it very poorly.
Yes, it's entirely possible that high-end running shoes aren't helping us as much as we think they are. Yes, it's possible that there's a correlation between high priced running shoes and injuries. On the other hand, the author claims a lot of things that are simply ludicrous:
"Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference."
If my head was moving at 10mph towards brick wall, a half-inch of dense rubber would probably make a whole lot of difference. I don't see how it's "preposterous" to think that it might be a similar story for feet.
"Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention"
This is the sort of statement the author is especially prone to making. This is such a leaky assertion that it's difficult to address. Ignoring the obvious benefits of shoes in all-terrain situations, there are many medical conditions that are addressed by shoes that are undeniably helpful.
Basically, the author is claiming that with a bit of fairy dust and some marketing skills, the running shoe industry has hoodwinked everyone for thirty years. If the author provided more actual data and less statements like "no matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same" with no source (how could it possibly be the same odds for everyone?), I'd be more willing to believe.
I dislike making personal comments, but this author simply seems to be a demagogue.
"Yes, it's possible that there's a correlation between high priced running shoes and injuries."
It could simply be that people that buy the most expensive shoe are also the people that jump into running too quickly, train too hard and do not have the body types (yet) for running. I run about 15 miles a week and all good runners that I know (they aren't injured all the time) do not own the most expensive shoes...they own the ones that feel the best.
It's the same with bikes. People that spend a fortune on a road bike have a lot more accidents than people who buy a $99 supermarket mountain bike and leave it in the garage.
Therefore Carbon-fibre must attract SUVs!
Data is hard to come by for the benefits of going barefoot since the science is funded by those with an interest in selling something... however you make a valid critique of the article.
An article by Adam Sternberg that appeared in New York Times magazine a couple of years ago does a better job at the barefoot question (http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/)
OK, I'm convinced. I should at least try out less on my foot. I'm not willing to go barefoot though because I live in a concrete (and broken glass) city and every business would turn me away at the door. So.. on to find a simpler shoe.
One would assume that putting less on my foot would cost less, right?
http://www.vivobarefoot.com/ - looks nice, but at multiple times the price of my current shoes.. ok thinking back to summers as a kid, let's go to walmart:
i imagine most serious runners spending big $ on shoes are concerned more with performance, less with safety. And since runners go faster now than they did in Bannister's time, something has changed.
The shoes I use (I did not like Vibrams) are http://feelmax.com/panka_leather.html. They have a very thin (3mm?) kevlar compound outsole to protect the foot from glass, sharp rocks etc. It is thin enough to fully feel the ground texture underfoot. I am a bicyclist, so aside from a few trials, my experience is limited to "barefoot" walking.
According to the fairly reasonable theory that the human foot and leg is best suited for toe-stepping (like most animals), not the heel, I also modified my gait to stepping on the ball of the foot. After an adjustment period (and finding some pretty much unused leg muscles), it provides for a far more fluid movement, with the leg muscles and ligaments acting as shock absorbers. Trying heel-stepping thereafter brings to focus the fairly harsh impact each step actually causes in that mode of transportation. Plus toe-stepping helps keeping balance on slippery surfaces.
45 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadUntil recently the local highschool track had nothing on it but a thin film of rubber on a solid cement. I remember being unable to run very well on it (hard), but I could run through my back yard even when we still had the underbrush and briers, I was in better shape when I was younger. ...I wish people didn't think going barefoot was socially unacceptable.
My feet feel much stronger than they did before.
I never EVER worse shoes in the summer time. By the end of it, I could walk across pavement without feeling the burn :)
Look at golf clubs. You can buy a driver the size of a VW Beetle and made of material that would have made NASA jealous 20 years ago ... but after several decades, the average golf score hasn't gone down.
Lots of things are a lie ...
Also check out Terra Plana Vivo Barefoot shoes. They're more expensive ($140-$200) but they look cool. They're the most comfortable shoes I've ever owned. I like them so much I've bought 3 pairs.
A couple of weeks ago I finally broke down and payed up for a pair of Vivo Barefoot Aquas ($109 on Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/Terra-Plana-Mens-Aqua-Sneaker/dp/B0013...). I think they look cool but my wife rolls her eyes when I put them on. However they are incredibly comfortable to wear -- It's like wearing a moccasin only with a bit more style.
Yeah, my wife saw me looking at those and gave me that 'no way' look. I find it funny that our concept of footwear has evolved to the point where wearing something that looks like a foot is considered goofy. If anything I figure I can just claim I'm re-creating the Big Foot hoax.
My best friend is a varsity track athlete who swears by his running shoes. We always get into a debate about the merits of shoes - perhaps I have finally won!
By the way, while we are on this subject - I could never understand why people run on roads. You're getting car exhaust fumes and you're running on hard pavement; seems like a bad deal all around. I drive by people on Pacific Coast Highway who run on pavement, directly parallel to the sand - I guess people follow the patterns they know best...
I find loose sand to be tough to run in and kind of frustrating with the whole running through molasses feeling. In one running book I have (Running for Mortals) it recommends flat, firm sand only but does call it a "treat for most runners". The same running book lists these surfaces as being worst to best for running on in terms of bodily stress: concrete (e.g. sidewalks), asphalt, dirt paths and trails, grass. However, because of convenience, I run on sidewalks almost exclusively and I seem to be able to pull it off so far.
I've been wearing the same pair for at least 3 years now and I will never go back to any different kind. When I do wear new shoes I feel like I've got rubber blocks on my feet, I'm clumsy and awkward and uncomfortable.
Feeling every crack, in the side walk and letting your feet do anything they want is extremely rewarding.
Prior to switching to Nike Free's I had sever shin splints when I ran track after switching I never had to ice for them again.
I seriously cannot suggest them enough for running in our concrete environment.
When running with regular shoes you slam down on the back cause that's the only place you can, this put alot of impact on your entire leg. But when you run with these your foot is able to fall on the balls of your feet allowing for your foot, ankle, and leg to share the impact. Think of it as a spring.
I am not trained as an ortho or anything I've just been researching this a lot, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.
The shoe has three levels of padding Higher the number the more the padding. To help you adjust to the new experience.
barefoot running seems like a great idea, but not in a park where geese and dogs like to leave stuff on the ground
"And then comes the grand finale: we cut back to the Kenyans, whose bare feet are now sporting some kind of thin shoe. It's the new Nike Free, a shoe thinner than the old Cortez dreamt up by Bowerman in the Seventies. And its slogan?
'Run Barefoot.'
The price of this return to nature?
A conservative £65. But, unlike the real thing, experts may still advise you to change them every three months."
As someone else said, these may be a better bet anyway: http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
Yes, it's entirely possible that high-end running shoes aren't helping us as much as we think they are. Yes, it's possible that there's a correlation between high priced running shoes and injuries. On the other hand, the author claims a lot of things that are simply ludicrous:
"Logically, that should be obvious - the impact on your legs from running can be up to 12 times your weight, so it's preposterous to believe a half-inch of rubber is going to make a difference."
If my head was moving at 10mph towards brick wall, a half-inch of dense rubber would probably make a whole lot of difference. I don't see how it's "preposterous" to think that it might be a similar story for feet.
"Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention"
This is the sort of statement the author is especially prone to making. This is such a leaky assertion that it's difficult to address. Ignoring the obvious benefits of shoes in all-terrain situations, there are many medical conditions that are addressed by shoes that are undeniably helpful.
Basically, the author is claiming that with a bit of fairy dust and some marketing skills, the running shoe industry has hoodwinked everyone for thirty years. If the author provided more actual data and less statements like "no matter who you are, no matter how much you run, your odds of getting hurt are the same" with no source (how could it possibly be the same odds for everyone?), I'd be more willing to believe.
I dislike making personal comments, but this author simply seems to be a demagogue.
It could simply be that people that buy the most expensive shoe are also the people that jump into running too quickly, train too hard and do not have the body types (yet) for running. I run about 15 miles a week and all good runners that I know (they aren't injured all the time) do not own the most expensive shoes...they own the ones that feel the best.
An article by Adam Sternberg that appeared in New York Times magazine a couple of years ago does a better job at the barefoot question (http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/)
Once, yes it would help. Do that a few thousand times, you'll still get brain damage.
They have a cool flash demo: http://newtonrunning.com/run-better/optimal-running-form
One would assume that putting less on my foot would cost less, right?
http://www.vivobarefoot.com/ - looks nice, but at multiple times the price of my current shoes.. ok thinking back to summers as a kid, let's go to walmart:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=1082469... - Not pretty, but 8% of the price.
And for that matter, what about something like these:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0002TW8A4 - $15 + shipping seems fair, and they seem to resemble the description elsewhere.
Is there some significant difference (well, aside from the sheer ugly of that walmart example) that I should expect?
The shoes I use (I did not like Vibrams) are http://feelmax.com/panka_leather.html. They have a very thin (3mm?) kevlar compound outsole to protect the foot from glass, sharp rocks etc. It is thin enough to fully feel the ground texture underfoot. I am a bicyclist, so aside from a few trials, my experience is limited to "barefoot" walking.
According to the fairly reasonable theory that the human foot and leg is best suited for toe-stepping (like most animals), not the heel, I also modified my gait to stepping on the ball of the foot. After an adjustment period (and finding some pretty much unused leg muscles), it provides for a far more fluid movement, with the leg muscles and ligaments acting as shock absorbers. Trying heel-stepping thereafter brings to focus the fairly harsh impact each step actually causes in that mode of transportation. Plus toe-stepping helps keeping balance on slippery surfaces.