Search me

View posts by blogger

View Mike's posts View Steve's posts View Jan's posts View Emma's posts

Get updates as they happen

BBC Athletics

Entries in barefoot (5)

8:17AM

A bit more on barefoot

Following my recent post about my outing without shoes (which did result in sore calves a couple of days later, in a healthy feeling kind of way), I thought I would post a link to an article from the excellent New York Times “Phys Ed” section.

I think it sums things up really well. To quote the final statement from Daniel Lieberman:

I disagree with the notion that somehow modern runners are biomechanically disadvantaged and require fancy, expensive shoes. But I also reject the notion that we should return to life in the Stone Age. If you want to wear shoes, that’s fine, but if you want to try barefoot or in a minimal shoe running, you might really enjoy it.

You can read more here.

1:21PM

Barefoot running

If you were up at Bristol Downs and you saw a bloke running with no shoes on the asphalt path along Ladies Mile would you think, “that guy is not only odd, but he must be very lucky - a genetic freak with the perfect feet, that allow him to run without the aid of padding, orthotics, or any other thing that is designed to compensate for the inadequacies of the human foot”.

Well, if you were inclined to think that, then you would be wrong. It was me, taking my experiment a little further.

I have been to innumerable physiotherapists, podiatrists, and gait analyzing running shoe shops. I’ve had all manner of diagnoses ranging from knock kneed, bow legged, over-pronating, stiff-arsed (it was more technical than that) through to “fine”. I’ve had a broken leg, broken foot bones, sore knees and shin splints. And, of course, I’ve spent quite a lot of money as a result. I came to the conclusion quite some time a go that it is all bollocks, because I could never tell the difference.

I did not run barefoot today because I think it is better than all of that. It would be nice if it were, but I think that would probably be as hard to prove as all the stuff listed above. I simply like the idea of running with just my body - unencumbered. It feels good. And it feels good not to be taken for a ride by the professionals described above.

My point? Perhaps anyone can run barefoot. Perhaps we are “Born to Run”. perhaps all the technology is rubbish (mostly).

This was my first proper excursion without shoes. It felt fine on the grass and the asphalt, although I did slip in the mud. I intend to do more as it felt good, and I am interested in how it changes my gait. I found I ran more upright, flicked more with by trailing foot, and on the asphalt could sense my leading forefoot reaching out to find the ground.

Furthermore, it felt very odd and rather disconcerting when I put my shoes back on to run back down Redland Road - almost too padded and splodgy.

My tip for running injuries? Start back slow and small. Build up gently. Don’t waste your money.

9:30PM

Shoes may have changed how we run

Check out this BBC feature about how shoes have changed our gait, barefoot running, and the possible implications.

The barefoot runner looks more sensible to me - it looks like what you would imagine a foot would do, if you’d never seen one before.

Got an opinion? Please post a comment.

7:43PM

Book review: Born to Run

In a doctor’s office, waiting to receive a cortisone injection into his foot, Christopher McDougall wonders why every other animal can rely on its legs while he can’t run three times a week. Part polemic, part adventure story, Born to Run is Christopher McDougall’s account of his search for the reason why his foot hurt. 

It’s a compelling book, filled with characters, that it’s hard not to get carried away with. More than anything, the enthusiasm of the book makes you want to go for a run.  It might make you want to go for a run with no shoes on.

His search for a way to run pain free leads him to Mexico’s Tarahumara indians, for whom long distance running is part of ordinary life. The story then switches between the build up to a race between America’s top ultra runners and the Tarahumara runners and McDougall’s own efforts to find out more about how and why we run.

Delving into evolutionary biology, McDougall summarises the characteristics that indicate we evolved above all as long distance runners, able to catch and kill any animal if the chase was long enough: “If you don’t think you are born to run, you’re not only denying history, you’re denying who you are”.

The book then argues that modern running shoes hinder rather than help us. Despite being a best seller, it has apparently not been reviewed by a single running magazine, presumably because that message isnt appreciated by their advertisers. 

McDougall’s enthusiasm is both the strength and the weakness of the book.  The essence of his argument, that running isn’t inherently bad for us and doesn’t need to be medicalised, is convincing.  But at times the style of the book becomes wearing.  Meals aren’t eaten, they are wolfed.  There are wide eyed accounts of drinking binges.  His travels in Mexico could be lifted from the Boys’ Own Paper.  Something in the tone of the writing sometimes makes you doubt things even when you know them to be true.

The presentation of the information is one sided, which fits the polemical style but can be exasperating. McDougall takes aim at Nike for inventing the modern running shoe and describes Nike’s first model, the Cortez, as “the most cushioned running shoe ever created…it allowed people to run in a way no human safely could before: by landing on their bony heels”. 

Later, it turns out that Mcdougall’s reinvention as a runner isn’t taking place barefooted after all, but in a pair of “old stock Nike Pegasus from 2000, something of a throwback to the flat footed feel of the old Cortez”. So was the Cortez so dangerous? 

If you read the book knowing nothing about running, Macdougall’s sensationalism might make you think that American ultra-marathoners are the best runners the “known” world has to offer.  I’m sure they are great athletes, but is it not worth acknowledging that the real cream of the world’s running talent isn’t competing in 100 mile trail races? 

In another selective presentation of the facts, McDougall describes one of the barefoot running success stories achieving the qualification time for the the Boston Marathon.  This is a feat MacDougall claims “99.9% of runners will never achieve”.  Actually, the “elite” qualification time for Boston is 3:10 for men under 35.  I guess it depends how you define the running population but nearly 2000 people achieved that time in the London Marathon this year, more than 5% of the finishers.

If you want entertainment and inspiration, Born to Run is definitely worth a read.  It’s an incredible story, but at times too incredibly told.

7:41PM

Have your shoes got it in for you?

If you’re a cyclist, equipment is all part of the fun.  Some cyclists wear more parts out by polishing than by riding.  It’s not really the same for runners - running kit is pretty boring.  Maintenance just means laundry.  Cyclists like hanging around bike shops but honestly who wants to hang around a running shop?

Maybe the boringness of running shoes explains the way they are sold.  Buying them has become a quasi-medical experience - you turn up, you get examined and then you’re sent home with a prescription.  At least that’s how it seems to me.

I think this idea infects us all a bit. When friends start running, we say ‘make sure you get some good shoes’.   Would we even know good shoes if we saw them?

Until the running boom of the late 70s and early 80s running shoes were pretty simple (what did people say to beginning runners then? Have fun?).  Since the shoes were simple, running with bare feet probably didn’t seem like a big deal, and it was quite popular.  Abebe Bikila won the 1960 Olympic marathon in bare feet and barefoot running remained popular throughout the 60s, with runners like Ron Hill and Bruce Tulloh running well on all surfaces without shoes.

Then running went mainstream, sportswear became fashionable, and athletics went professional. Shoe companies spent more on marketing, research and development.  Elite runners never run without shoes now.

Has the research and development been worthwhile?  You don’t hear much boasting from the shoe companies to say so.  How many injuries have Nike Air or Asics Gel prevented?  Since the shoes companies never say, presumably not many.

The excellent Science of Sport website has a good series of articles discussing running technique and the effect of running shoes on running injuries.  Its conclusion?  That the evidence in favour of modern running shoes is at best shaky and that they may in fact be harmful. 

Chris MacDougall has written a book about how his search for a solution to chronic injuries led him towards barefoot running.  I’ll review that in another post.   

Could barefoot running take off? I can’t quite picture it. But I can picture future generations laughing at our devotion to thick soled shoes.