Scoop: Cover of Nature on barefoot running! (Read 1684 times)

I thought the Business Week article was a good light summary, but I'm still turned off by the media disconnect with the actual science.  The science is saying that forefoot/midfoot strikes seem to have less impact than heel strikes.  It does not however say that we should all run barefoot, or even that barefoot is better than shod.  The media somehow reports this as "Running barefoot is better!"

The media enjoys sensationalizing things. Here is an example of something they haven't previously driven into the ground that people are finding new and interesting. There is also some shock value to showing it on the news. Holy cow, look at that guy barefoot on the sidewalk, he's bat-shit insane. Media companies tend to enjoy polarizing subjects, as it makes people want to consume their product.

 

In addition, they tend to enjoy jumping to conclusions. A match made in heaven,

 

 

I think all the barefoot evangelists would be put to better use promoting better mechanics (forefoot/midfoot strike, shoes that allow or promote this, etc) rather than sticking with the hippie image they currently have. 

 

People who promote running barefoot are promoting an alternative that has no monetary benefit. So you enjoy having Nike shoes rammed down your throat everywhere you look, but you spite a few barefoot runners who want to spread the message of an alternative?

 

Let's see: "shoes that promote better mechanics", I can think of no better "shoe" than going barefoot to promote good mechanics.

 

Most good running shoes allow for forefoot/midfoot strike, provide cushioning for that type of strike, and still have protection against heel strikes when fatigued.  I'd much rather see a line of cushioned shoes targeted at forefoot/midfoot strikes (and labeled as such) than to hear the media tell me to ditch my shoes because I'm doing it all wrong.

 

 

I'm sure you'll do whatever people tell you to do and market to you... And who is telling you to ditch your shoes? Do what you like, but at least be aware that you have choices. Try not to injure your neck as you look down at those of us who do explore.

I think VFFs are a good step in the right direction, but it seems more like they're forcing you to run the right way (fore/midfoot strike) rather than actually improving upon a proper fore/midfoot strike.

 

 Forcing you to run the right way is the same thing as teaching your body to run the right way. Who cares how you got there? And which do you think is easier, having no other way than to but to run the right way, or trying to figure that out with limited feeling?

 

I'm sick and tired of hearing people who proclaim that all people who run barefoot must be insane hippies trying to stick their stinky feet in your face. Use you head and think about why barefooting/minimalist continues to gain traction; it's the response to people realizing that they have options, and are getting interested in at least exploring those options.

 

The more interest in running, the better, regardless of the reason.

Yes, well, that neck injury thing goes both directions.

 
But of course it does, but I do not think people who run in shoes are are evangelical hippies -- just folks who happen to run in shoes. Just like I'm someone who doesn't.

 

There are surely benefits and detriments to each, and those benefits and detriments are unique to each person.

You gotta let the hippie thing go.  For one, it has always been and will always be a simple tactic used to declare another side as "different".

 

For two, I have three words for you: Ken Bob Saxon.

 

Your biggest evangelist IS a hippie.

No, I really didn't do that at all.

 

I pointed out that Ken Bob is a hippie.  It's easier to call the other side "hippies" when the key evangelist is, literally, a hippie.  I don't mean that as code for "different".  I mean that he's a hippie.

 

Crap on a cracker.

 

(lest this go any further, I will also say that I know Ken Bob in real life.)

Man, this barefoot running thing is getting a little big for a cult...

 

 

 

 

  

I'm working on a barefoot skiing cult.  You want in?

I wish they would play the super bowl barefoot. Or in Fivefingers.

  

I'm working on a barefoot skiing cult.  You want in?

 

Doesn't that hurt your feet?  What if you hit a pike?  Or a walleye?  Yikes!  Look out below!

People who promote running barefoot are promoting an alternative that has no monetary benefit. So you enjoy having Nike shoes rammed down your throat everywhere you look, but you spite a few barefoot runners who want to spread the message of an alternative?

My point is that as "barefoot running" gains traction in the media and reaches the masses, the promoters need to get better informed themselves. The movement is getting beyond niche status and can't rely on poor science like "our ancestors did it just fine." Our ancestors also died young and had poor quality of life. You also seem to suppose that I can only be FOR barefoot running or ENJOY having shoes rammed down my throat. I'm neither.

 

Let's see: "shoes that promote better mechanics", I can think of no better "shoe" than going barefoot to promote good mechanics.

That's the problem. Some barefoot promoters are misinterpreting the science and assuming that barefoot is the best. The science only says that forefoot strike is better and that most barefoot runners use forefoot strike.

 

Forcing you to run the right way is the same thing as teaching your body to run the right way. Who cares how you got there? And which do you think is easier, having no other way than to but to run the right way, or trying to figure that out with limited feeling?

I'm no expert on learning/teaching theory, but I've heard enough to know that forcing something is not an effective method. There needs to be smaller consequences for bad form for the millions of runners entrenched in heelstrike running. If you send them all out barefoot, most of them are going to come back injured--they're not going to magically remember some ancestral running ability and become glorious barefoot runners. We need good shoes that allow proper forefoot/midfoot strike, but still protect against heel strike (didn't I already say this?). I think the cost (injury wise) of bad mechanics while barefoot is greater than bad mechanics while shod. No one runs heel strike barefoot for a reason, but millions do it with shoes. I'll repeat it again: humans have spent a LOT of time trying to figure out how to protect their feet with leathers, cushions, bamboo, etc--obviously our ancestors had a reason.

 

I'm sure you'll do whatever people tell you to do and market to you... And who is telling you to ditch your shoes? Do what you like, but at least be aware that you have choices. Try not to injure your neck as you look down at those of us who do explore.

 Yes, that's me: I do whatever the ads tell me. The media is obviously telling me to ditch my shoes because its better, and barefoot runners are happy with that presentation. I think its kind of reckless to promote something to the masses that could potentially get a lot of people hurt without proper guidance and help on switching over gently.

 

I'm sick and tired of hearing people who proclaim that all people who run barefoot must be insane hippies trying to stick their stinky feet in your face. Use you head and think about why barefooting/minimalist continues to gain traction; it's the response to people realizing that they have options, and are getting interested in at least exploring those options.

If you want to actively promote your beliefs/behaviors to others, then you'll have to deal with criticism. I see plenty of barefoot runners who do it and let others ask them about--truly offering a choice or options. However, too many barefoot runners think they're elite and that everyone else is doing it wrong and must be converted.

 

The more interest in running, the better, regardless of the reason.

Very good! It wasn't my intention to call barefoot runners hippies. I was merely pointing out that's the image they get because they're using "our ancestors did it" and "getting in touch with the ground", "ground feedback" instead of real science. In fact, they're distorting the actual scientific findings to promote their lifestyle, which is pretty dirty in my book. Further, too many barefoot runners are affronted when you suggest that someone could possibly design a shoe that would be "better" than barefoot running. The sad fact is that most people that have been wearing shoes for 30 years wouldn't know what they're feeling until they're injured. Many of them probably have some other foot deformity or affliction that means they'll never run barefoot for any reasonable distance.