
Barefoot running: the best trainers money can’t buy - alexandros
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article7045833.ece
======
AngryParsley
That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of
thing:

 _Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most
never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot
defects.”_

World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect?

My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat
it as a way of life. They _always_ run barefoot, when that's not really
necessary. Most of the benefits of barefoot running come from changes in
running form. Shod runners have plenty of padding, so they can get away with
letting their heel strike. An occasional barefoot run on grass will help you
learn proper form while avoiding the disadvantages of constant barefoot
running. At the end of the run, you can look at the grass stains on your feet
to get an idea of how much your heel is striking the ground. Once you learn
proper running form (no grass stains on your heels), you can practice that
same form while wearing shoes.

There is one oft-forgotten side-effect of barefoot running: massive callouses.
See [http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-
running-l...](http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-running-
lookin-good.html) for before and after pics.

Edit: I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running.
While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric
human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs
aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help
correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or
connective tissues can't compensate for.

~~~
rue
> _My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually
> treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really
> necessary._

Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it
necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive
callouses"?

> _I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running.
> While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical
> prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs,
> and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper
> shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's
> muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for._

It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start
jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to
start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that
those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a
bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees
in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the
obese.

~~~
AngryParsley
_What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"?_

I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned
callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred
Flintstone feet.

As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a
bunch of glass windows?

I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running
barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of
dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat,
physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also
provide better traction on many surfaces.

I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't
have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the
muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use
braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints
(walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's
waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law.

I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted
vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes?
If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be
forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would
be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with
weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't
going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for
them.

~~~
rue
Perhaps the following formulation would be appropriate: if you are not in
shape to run, you are not in shape to run barefoot. But I do not think anyone
has argued otherwise.

I had an inkling hygienic concerns might be partly underlying your opposition.
Even without addressing whether the issue is really of much concern, Feelmax,
Vibram and others make shoes that provide protection while allowing for
"barefooting." Against the elements? This winter (down to -22ºC) I have been
wearing a traditional moccasin with a 4mm flat rubber sole without any
problems.

> _I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you
> don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have
> the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they
> use braces to help restrict motion..._

Support braces are an _entirely different matter_. I would contend that people
who are reliant on mechanical contraptions for moving are as a group not the
prime audience when talking about running of any kind.

> _I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a
> weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing
> supportive shoes?_

I would prefer toe-stepping.

> _If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be
> forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would
> be less stressful than barefoot running._

I am not sure this is true at all. Yes, it is really hard to toe-step if you
lack the muscle to support yourself, even though exercise will eventually
strengthen you enough, but to go from that to asserting that heel-stepping is
therefore better is a stretch. I would imagine that weight sufficient to force
me on my heels would be highly destructive on joints ( _hence all such
problems obese people face._ ) If you consider such weight pushed down on an
unstable surface - which is what a cushioned shoe is - without the necessary
ligament- or muscular control to maintain posture, the leg is virtually
guaranteed to be constantly misaligned.

------
ajscherer
If nothing else I think we can be certain of one fact regarding barefoot
running: it is a very appealing story. How many publications that don't
typically cover running have written the same story now, and how many times
has it made the front page of hacker news?

------
Groxx
Can't buy? Perhaps not _actually_ barefoot, but my wife got a pair of these
[1] and I'm planning on getting some soon myself.

(For those not interested in clicking, think toe-socks with +5 armor rating)

[1] <http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/>

edit: as to starkfist's comment, these and other "barefoot" shoes have been
around for quite a while. Maybe if there were more correlation, but as-is I
don't see any marketing stunt.

~~~
warfangle
I'm a huge fan of VFF. Extremely comfortable (I dislike the pressure most
shoes/socks put on forcing my toes together laterally), and great for running.
I've been running with these on asphalt for the past six months, and feel the
best I have in years.

And I get comments/questions about them all the time on the train, welcome
attention :)

~~~
jackfoxy
After reading a HN linked article on barefoot running I did some research and
bought my first pair of VFF about 2 months ago. Bought my second pair, Treks,
two weeks ago for every day and use the first pair for running only. For me it
has been a lifestyle changer. My feet and legs want to walk or run all the
time. I'm frustrated by rainy days that leave me cooped up in the office. My
wife says I get grumpy if I don't wear my "duck shoes".

~~~
chipsy
I just yesterday upgraded to the KSO Treks after about five months in regular
KSOs because.....

\- I hadn't done the tape mod, so the straps frayed and eventually broke.

\- The Treks have more waterproof materials.

\- I managed to slice up the soles. The Treks have thicker soles.

I'm looking forward to a run in the rain today :)

~~~
jackfoxy
What's the tape mod? And why would I need to do it?

------
oscardelben
I have recently wrote an article about barefoot running
<http://www.freestylemind.com/barefoot-running>

I don't have years of experience, but when I run with minimalist shoes (now
always) I never feel arch or knee pain. It's worth at least a try.

------
tgerhard
The benefits of barefoot running can be obtained without going totally
shoeless.

I haven't started running barefoot yet, but my beefy New Balance running shoes
have been relegated to mucking about in the yard. I now run in a well-worn
pair of Chuck Taylor hightops. Just going to a much more minimal shoe forced
me to concentrate more on forefoot/mid-foot striking, a light, quick stride,
and proper posture.

What many people overlook is that running is a skill that must often be
relearned as we get older and run again for fitness (ever see any nine-year-
olds with shin splints, runner's knee or ITB syndrome?). Cross-country skiing,
cycling, and swimming all have skill components, why not running? Going
minimal on footwear forces that attention to form.

~~~
mattmcknight
The Newton Running [1] shoe is also designed with additional padding on the
forefoot to support forefoot based running styles, like barefoot running. I
like them quite a bit. Barefoot really seems appealing to Luddites. The
benefit of cushioning simply can't be denied. Even the supporters negatively
compare the feeling of running on concrete barefoot to running on soft dirt.
There is simply less impact on the body.

[1] <http://www.newtonrunning.com/>

------
starkfist
Is anyone else suspicious that all these articles about barefoot running
started appearing at the same time a bunch of companies came out with
specialized "barefoot" shoes?

~~~
leej
Nike has Free for 4-5 years. It had even added some cushioning to original
Free over the years.

~~~
Retric
_added some cushioning to original Free_

Is that a joke? Or was there some need to add cushioning?

~~~
jplewicke
There wasn't any need, but they did it anyway. I'm subscribed to the Ebay feed
for the Free 3.0 in the hope that more of the old style will turn up, but the
supply's been running low lately. Hopefully they'll see the error of their
ways and start making the older style again.

------
tynman
I recently wrote about my experience in transitioning to barefoot running.
[http://suburbiarebooted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-became-
ba...](http://suburbiarebooted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-i-became-barefoot-
runner.html) Bonus-- I was doing it before it was cool. :-P

------
jamesshamenski
I just bought a pair of vibram's last week. That's crazy enough for me.

I did notice that running down hill requires new technique. You cant use your
heel as much or at all when barefoot.

------
RyanMcGreal
I'm about three-quarters through _Born to Run_ by Christopher McDougall, and
it already feels life-changing.

------
nazgulnarsil
WRT healthier walking and posture: what shoes can be purchased that don't look
completely ridiculous?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
You know what looks ridiculous? Hobbling because cool looking shoes have
smashed your feet and wrecked your knees.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
some of us have jobs where we cant wear toe shoes. be realistic.

