Forums >General Running>More Science of Sport discussion on barefoot running
Ross Tucker of the Science of Sport Blog did a thoughtful piece on barefoot running.
IMO these guys always do a good job of objectively discussing a topic. A few things that jump out to me that concur with how I've always thought of the barefoot trend:
1. For high performers--those running high mileage, with a good chunk of it at high speeds--barefoot is probably not practical. This is discussed further in the comments where in fact it is mentioned that Dr. Dan Lieberman, the godfather of barefoot running, does not worry about the "high performers" because they have already discovered a successful approach to running that has been working for them for a long time. (Which in a way explains why in the arguments for barefoot the data being presented always compares the impact forces of a shod heel striker to a barefoot forefoot striker, but never a shod forefoot striker to a barefoot forefoot striker--where a high percentage of high performers will tend to be mid/forefoot strikers to begin with, even when wearing shoes. I have always suspected, strongly, that if you already run with good form and land with your foot under your center of mass, that doing lots of miles barefoot will have no benefit and will instead likely result in increased muscle fatigue which will eventually result in greater impact forces being absorbed by the joints and greater risk of injury.)
2. On the whole, barefoot running, or at least running in minimal footwear, is sound concept, but it's not a cure-all and is not for every runner. When barefoot advocates prescribe barefoot running as a one-size-fits-all cure to every malady under the sun, they make the same mistake the shoe industry made for decades when they assumed that with enough cushioning and motion control technology, the right shoe could be the solution to every problem. As Ross summed up: "I believe that it may be PART of the solution for SOME of the cases of injury. For SOME, it may be ALL of the solution, the solve-all. For others, it will be completely ineffective, and for other still, it will be the cause of their problems."
Runners run
1. For high performers--those running high mileage, with a good chunk of it at high speeds--barefoot is probably not practical.
Except for Anton Krupicka... but I guess if we were to follow Krupicka's lead, we'd have too few shirts and too much beard.
Good, balanced article.
"But just remember that the people who are running in the 2000s are not necessarily the same as those running in the 70s. When I think of running in the 70s, I think of Amby Burfoot - small, wiry, probably ultra-economical (sorry Amby! Thanks for reading!). When I think of running in 2011, I think of Oprah Winfrey... sorry Oprah. Simply, the people who run marathons today are not the same kind of runner. They are heavier, slower, and probably do less training but then still run the marathon distance. When viewed this way, it's perhaps not surprising that 70% are getting injured. If anything, it suggests that shoes may be helping, because many of the runners of 2011 are walking/jogging/running injury risks!"
"Because in the end, you won't remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn. Climb that goddamn mountain."
Jack Kerouac
I've got a fever...
I have always suspected, strongly, that if you already run with good form and land with your foot under your center of mass, that doing lots of miles barefoot will have no benefit and will instead likely result in increased muscle fatigue which will eventually result in greater impact forces being absorbed by the joints and greater risk of injury.)
+1.
Barefoot running forces you to avoid heel striking / over-striding (because heel-striking barefoot hurts like hell and is just plain stupid) and run with a forefoot-striking stride. If you already have this kind of stride, barefoot running isn't doing anything new for you.
Simply increasing your turnover promotes better form without the risks of going shoeless. Higher turnover produces lower impact, forefoot striking, and improved efficiency -- the same things that are derived from barefoot running.
On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.
+1. Barefoot running forces you to avoid heel striking / over-striding (because heel-striking barefoot hurts like hell and is just plain stupid) and run with a forefoot-striking stride. If you already have this kind of stride, barefoot running isn't doing anything new for you. Simply increasing your turnover promotes better form without the risks of going shoeless. Higher turnover produces lower impact, forefoot striking, and improved efficiency -- the same things that are derived from barefoot running.
Interesting. How does this work?
What's a good turnover rate to shoot for?
Should a runner use the same turnover for all speeds?
Can a runner use the the same turnover for all speeds? (I remember 180 strides per minute being touted)
Thanks.
disagree. going barefoot allows the metatarsals to spread out into a more comfortable position improving balance and flexibility of the foot. having a stiff rubber sole to stand on makes it easier to balance.
But how much of Krupicka's running is truly barefoot? And how much of it is motivated primarily by performance? As he has said:
Part of this is because I don’t see myself as a fanatical adherent to any sort of unshod dogma. Rather, as a trail, mountain and ultra runner, I find myself balancing the practical demands of my preferred terrain (steep, rocky, rooty trails) with the more aesthetic requirements of taking the simplest possible approach to running in the mountains. If I want to run quickly, efficiently, and effectively in such an environment, shoes are definitely in order. But, the shoes I do wear in the mountains manage to provide some requisite protection while still aligning with the basic minimalist design principles of a low-profile midsole and very little drop between the heel and forefoot.
And I guess I draw more of a line between barefoot running and running in minimal shoes than a lot of barefoot proponents. A lot of "high performers" already do a significant amount of their running in racing flats that weigh 5-7 oz. and have very little heel to forefoot drop, but they don't consider this barefoot running.
"unshod dogma" is a fun term.
At the end of Old Yeller, they shod the dogma.
"unshod dogma" is a fun term. At the end of Old Yeller, they shod the dogma.
I think the movie you are referring to was Old Yeller Toenails
I have gone somewhat minimalist with the Nike Free and have done well, but it is still possible to get foot problems in minimalist shoes and barefoot. Other factors can come into play, like body weight, overuse, and even switching to these ways too fast.
The ads are amazing... while I was reading this thread, the ads were advertising Vibram fivefingers!
But how much of Krupicka's running is truly barefoot? And how much of it is motivated primarily by performance?
Not a clue... I know that he races and does a lot of his training in minimalist shoes (made even more minimal with a scalpel), but the impression I get from his blog is that he also does a fair amount of training straight-up barefoot.
As for motivation, I'm assuming it has something to do with being a hippy... Mother Earth, chia seeds, that sort of thing.
Not a clue... I know that he races and does a lot of his training in minimalist shoes (made even more minimal with a scalpel), but the impression I get from his blog is that he also does a fair amount of training straight-up barefoot. As for motivation, I'm assuming it has something to do with being a hippy... Mother Earth, chia seeds, that sort of thing.
If you're interest in hearing what Krupicka has to say about shoes and barefoot running, you can listen to an interview he did with the Geeks in Running Shoes guys. http://geeksinrunningshoes.com/2011/04/11/episode-38-anton-krupicka/ . This subject starts around 35:25 into the podcast.
Note: The Geeks guys are pretty much neophyte runners, but they've been able to get some good interviewees.
Interesting. How does this work? What's a good turnover rate to shoot for? Should a runner use the same turnover for all speeds? Can a runner use the the same turnover for all speeds? (I remember 180 strides per minute being touted) Thanks.
I base this on my own experience of experimenting with stride rate. Your mileage may vary.
Try changing your turnover rate while keeping speed constant on a treadmill and you'll see the difference. I found with lower turnover, I had a large vertical component to my running that I hadn't noticed before. I was pounding rather loudly, and I was heel-striking. When I tried turning over faster, there was less vertical, less pounding, no over-striding or heel-striking, and I was landing mid-foot with my center of gravity over my foot-strike. And it was much quieter -- kind of what Mikey has referred to as "quiet running" -- when you find a good efficient stride, you shouldn't make much noise.
For me, when I run barefoot, I'm forced to use the same stride that I discovered by simply increasing my turnover. I'm probably not up to 180, but I turn over much faster than I used, I pound less, and I have less injury. I've already made the changes to my stride that barefoot running encourages/necessitates, so I don't see any reason to take my shoes off. Plus, I often train in an industrial park area where it would be downright stupid to go shoeless.
I base this on my own experience of experimenting with stride rate. Your mileage may vary. Try changing your turnover rate while keeping speed constant on a treadmill and you'll see the difference. I found with lower turnover, I had a large vertical component to my running that I hadn't noticed before. I was pounding rather loudly, and I was heel-striking. When I tried turning over faster, there was less vertical, less pounding, no over-striding or heel-striking, and I was landing mid-foot with my center of gravity over my foot-strike. And it was much quieter -- kind of what Mikey has referred to as "quiet running" -- when you find a good efficient stride, you shouldn't make much noise. For me, when I run barefoot, I'm forced to use the same stride that I discovered by simply increasing my turnover. I'm probably not up to 180, but I turn over much faster than I used, I pound less, and I have less injury. I've already made the changes to my stride that barefoot running encourages/necessitates, so I don't see any reason to take my shoes off. Plus, I often train in an industrial park area where it would be downright stupid to go shoeless.
Thanks, Jeff. I think I will experiment with this and see how it goes.
Unless you change your stride length at the same time, it very likely will.
The process is the goal.
Men heap together the mistakes of their lives, and create a monster they call Destiny.
Self anointed title
But how much of Krupicka's running is truly barefoot?