Barefoot/Minimalist Shoe Running Clinic in Grand Rapids, Michigan (Read 1842 times)

Nobby, note I used the modifier, "necessarily".  It is a venn diagram.  One can be an elite runner without knowing a thing about biomechanics and shoe technology.  And one can know everything about biomechanics and shoe technology and be a poor runner.  The two factors are orthogonal.  Some runners are indeed elite and can tell you all about biomechanics, to be sure, but they supposition that being an expert in one field requires that you be an expert in another lacks any validity.  To be an elite runner you need to have certain skills and toughness and an ability to apply the lessons from biomechanics (and physiology and sports medicine and loads of other fields), but that does not mean you need to know the science behind the lessons.

 

 

Dale Earnhardt drove his care better than most others, and was able to do so without necessarily knowing the physics that take place inside the engine.

 

Trent:

 

True that.  I guess my original point was actually toward Clay; I personally think it's so damn silly to say that, because no elite runners today are running barefoot, barefoot running is no good.  Of course, we've had the examples of people like Bruce Tulloh, Zola Budd, Naville Scott besides Bikila.  But that was the days of cinder track and, besides Budd, not too many people today run barefoot.  I'd say it's probably more to do with (1) today's spike shoes are more like slipper-like and (2) rubberized track surface is harder on barefoot than cinder track. 

 

Knowledgeable or not, elite runners are EXTREMELY in-tune with their own body.  I guess this would make a good point here.  Remember Bill Rodgers' flopping right hand?  Biomechanically, I guess the "experts" were saying that it's not economical.  It turned out that one of his legs was longer than the other and his flopping hand was actually compensating the balance. 

 

Nike Japan had been dying to get some of the top Japanese marathon runners to wear their shoes.  Japanese runners are not like American runners; they basically wear whatever they want to wear even within the same corporate team.  When Yoko Shibui, the 7th fastest marathon runner in history with 2:19:41, was doing the altitude training in Flagstaff, they used to send a half a dozen pairs of prototype every other week for her to test.  She kept turning them down and continued to run in ASICS shoes.  She kept saying; "Well, I feel the tip drop (the thickness) too sudden..." or "the heel doesn't feel snug..." or things like that.  Years of research done by Nike lab didn't beat Yoko's intuition.  She is so in-tuned with her own body and she has the ability to actually articulate the movement and the "feelings" so well.  Most elite runners konw their body so much better than any field experts in different area.  It is a famous story that, when Frank Shorter purchased his first HR monitor and wore it to go for a run, it (HRM) indicated that he was training too hard; yet his "Inner Coach" was telling him he was just fine.  Next day; the same thing.  On the third day and once again HRM was "telling him" he was training too hard, he just took it off and tossed it to the side.  In most cases, they are elite runners because they know their body so well.  There are some, of course, like someone I know who never paid much attention to his shoes.  He got shoes from his sponsor and he would wear them straight out from the box and he's fine. 

 

Also, what elite runners do are pretty much fundamentals of the principles.  That's why they work and they are so much better runners.  They run a lot to bring about their aerobic base; they eat right; they include some faster runs as well; they pay attention to recovery...  They don't worry too much about training 3 days a week or doing some Tabata 4-minutes sprint a day for better aerobic improvement.  They simply run a lot.  Those are conventional wisdom and, if anything, slow pokes are the ones who get away from these wisdom and stay slow.  And, if anything, probably more elite runners run in minimalist type shoes than you would realize--it's slow pokes who just buy into what popular magazines recommend and buy into those heavey bulky shoes. 

 

I don't mean to brag but I know far too many elite runners and coaches around the world to think otherwise.

Nobby- no problem... I think it is a good point.  I agree.  Just because some thing is currently embraced by the medical community doesn't mean it is the best possible solution.  Here's an except from the barefoot book I'm working on (hence copyrighted):

 

 

Barefoot running has an interesting perception within the medical community.  Critics of barefoot running will often point out that podiatrists and other such doctors often recommend highly corrective shoes and orthotics as a means of preventing and treating running injuries.  While I do not recommend ignoring the advice of your doctor, it is prudent to exercise some skepticism when dealing with anything in life.  We tend to blindly trust medical professionals without considering the possibility that their opinions may be wrong.  I had an interesting conversation with Dr. Joseph Froncioni (an orthopedic surgeon and blogger) recently.  He compared the medical community's belief in the medical necessity of shoes to the past belief that baby formula was superior to breast milk.  In an attempt to sell more baby formula, manufacturers aggressively marketed their product.  They created a market by convincing the public that formula was a necessity.  They further validated this message by handing out samples at hospitals leading to a perception that formula use was supported by the medical community.  (Baer, 1982)  Indeed, many within the medical community did recommend baby formula.  The result was a huge increase in formula sales and corresponding sharp decline in breast feeding.  Research conducted in the 1980's confirmed the previous assertions were not only incorrect, but potentially dangerous.  Research has shown breast milk is vastly superior to baby formula.  Need confirmation?  Read the label of baby formula.  By law, the formula manufacturers must make a statement about breast milk being recommended or superior because of their past history of shady marketing.  How does this relate to running shoes?  Through clever marketing, shoe manufacturers have convinced the general public that highly cushioned, supportive shoes are necessary to allow humans to run.  Just like the baby formula fiasco, the medical community has allowed marketing to influence their opinions.  Based on the research already conducted, I think it is entirely appropriate to question the logic of recommending highly built-up running shoes.  Leonardo Da Vinci famously called the human foot, "... a work of art and marvel of engineering."  We should carefully consider the lessons learned from the baby formula scandal.  Clever marketing should never trump empirical research and logic.  Let your feet work the way they are meant to work!

Yes.  An excellent analogy.  For years, pediatricians and nutritionists recommended formula over breast milk.  This still happens in places.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 One problem I see with the "shoes", "No shoes" "argument" is that there is no way to scientifically do a double blind study as to the effect of wearing or not wearing shoes. So, to me, bottom line is - its an individual thing, listen to yer body and go with what works for you.

For me I have been fooling around with running in socks and some lighter shoes and even ran 2 1/2 mi in a pair of canvas crocs because I gave my Asics to a friend. Now I didn't have any problem with the crocs, but I couldn't go a mi in Nike Air Max Moto's. So my bod seems to be telling me to continue to try lighter weight minimalist shoes. I can't imagine calling crocs stability shoes - which is what I have been told I need to wear after having a treadmill test at a running store. Heck I'm even toying with the idea of running in a pair of Tom's shoes because they are comfortable for walking around and I can feel the difference in my calves- similar to barefoot running. Besides if I buy more they donate a pair to a needy child for every pair sold which feeds the inner self.

CClay   Thanks for stirring up so many shoed runners to rescue the church of the bare footed runner. It is an amusing thread. Science, style, preference, profession, capitalism, wives tales, anecdotal evidence, double blind rapid sequence rate limited student t tested and FDA approved.

wow, it's not NATURAL for humans to run long distances without shoes?

how the heck did we survive as a species before Nike???

Although I don't plan on changing anyone's mind, a few comments on the posts in this thread:

Barefoot running may indeed strengthen foot muscles in ways that shoe running does not.  But the opposite is also true.  Basically, your feet will adapt to however you run - over time.  Certain stronger foot muscles due to barefoot running does not make you less likely to get injured or guarantee that you will have improved form.  It just means your feet are adapting to running barefoot.

I will grant that it is more "natural" to run barefoot.  But when someone trains to run 26.2 miles on pavement, that is not natural.  Our bodies were not meant to do that.  Shoes offer the protection that our natural bodies do not give us.

That is why an overwhelming majority of experts tell us to wear shoes when we run.  That's why all the elite coaches and trainers tell their clients to wear shoes.   

 

 

For those of you who think there is something better....I would say hang onto what you've got if it's comfortable and you aren't feeling discomfort.  But if you haven't found something comfortable, then keep on looking until you do, and then stick with it as long as you can.

 

 This is an excellent point.  I experimented with various shoes, form, techniques, drills, exercises, etc.  Barefoot running just happened to work well for me, so I stuck with it.  It will work well for others, too.  I've found several minimalist shoes that work nearly as well, but stick with barefoot running because I like to feel the ground... it's a personal preference. 

 

Too many runners get caught up in listening to other people's opinions (mine included) without actually trying different things with the intent of experimentation.  In the clinics I teach, one of my guiding principles is the need for experimentation.  If you try barefoot running (or minimalist shoe running) and it diminishes your enjoyment of the sport (through decreased mileage, slower initial speeds, difficulty learning technique, etc.) you have to be prepared to abandon it.  Don't try this because someone convinces you it is a miracle cure-all or God forbid because it is becoming a fad... try it because you you are interested in making tangible improvements.  Just don't have unrealistic expectations. 

 

It doesn't matter if humans evolved to run long distances or if shoes are a gift from the gods.  It makes an interesting academic argument, but has absolutely no bearing on each of us as individuals.  We seem to get caught up in trying to justify our own decisions.  Who really cares what others do?  I will offer my experiences to add to the pool of knowledge, but there's no expectation that it is superior to any other contributions made by other runners.  Now I'm just rambling....