Harvard study says running without shoes is superior

[KlokWyze]

http://www.tonic.com/article/eschew-the-shoe-barefoot-is-runners-best-bet/

I remember reading a thread on this forum awhile back. The consensus ended up being that running with shoes is what 99% of pros do, so that must be the best way. The article has many good points though and I wonder how long it would take to build the calluses and muscles necessary to run long distances. I don't see how full sprinting on hard surfaces, or even softer surfaces, couldn't not be painful though...

 

[brikis98]

There have been numerous studies that show that barefoot running is better for you. We've also had several threads on this forum discussing it that mention these studies, including Study shows barefoot is best and Do running shoes really matter? Personally, I agree with these studies and have enjoyed learning to run in a barefoot style in my Vibram Five Fingers.

I don't see how full sprinting on hard surfaces, or even softer surfaces, couldn't not be painful though...

You learn to run properly and it doesn't hurt. I sprint fairly often in my VFFs in the parking lot outside my gym. Doesn't hurt at all.

 

[Capt Caveman]

If you have proper form and the proper shoes(minimal), you don't need to run barefoot.

And unfortunately for me, running this way has caused me to develop achilles tendonosis. It has been suggested by my ortho surgeon to go to a flat-footed/heel striking form to reduce the strain on my achilles.

 

[StageLeft]

Neat to see a new study on it. I'm quite partial to it (or rather vibrams et al. not actual bare feet).

As Capt has noticed it can introduce new issues, too. For me it stresses my feet more (not surprising) than shod running but my knee really does do better and since my knee has always been the main problem I think the approach has merits.

Intuitively it's not surprising. I don't know why people find it surprising. A cushioned or "supportive" shoe by its very definition is changing how the foot works and thus logically one should only go for that if they are correcting something, much like a person wouldn't by default walk with a crutch but rather only if they had some other ailment.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I mentioned this in an offtopic thread but isn't this more of an issue of good form vs bad? You can run ball of foot first in shoes, and I'm sure if you persisted to condition your feet you could run heel first barefoot even though it'd probably wipe out your knees eventually.

 

[KlokWyze]

Neat to see a new study on it. I'm quite partial to it (or rather vibrams et al. not actual bare feet).

As Capt has noticed it can introduce new issues, too. For me it stresses my feet more (not surprising) than shod running but my knee really does do better and since my knee has always been the main problem I think the approach has merits.

Intuitively it's not surprising. I don't know why people find it surprising. A cushioned or "supportive" shoe by its very definition is changing how the foot works and thus logically one should only go for that if they are correcting something, much like a person wouldn't by default walk with a crutch but rather only if they had some other ailment.

Yeah it makes sense to me. The foot's design is far older than the existence of shoes. I may try it out on the treadmill for bit, get a pair of those VFF's and see how it feels.

 

[brikis98]

I mentioned this in an offtopic thread but isn't this more of an issue of good form vs bad? You can run ball of foot first in shoes, and I'm sure if you persisted to condition your feet you could run heel first barefoot even though it'd probably wipe out your knees eventually.

To an extent, yes, this is an issue of form. The problem is that shoes - especially hi tech padded running shoes - have a padded heel that encourages bad running technique. In fact, it is hard to do a proper midfoot landing in padded shoes. Moreover, in order to run properly, we need feedback from our feet and the padded surfaces of sneakers deaden a lot of this feedback. This means that you can get away with a lot of crappy running technique in sneakers that would be too painful barefoot.

Oh, and you would never want to run heel to toe barefoot. Just try it on a hard surface, and you'll know why. It is highly unpleasant - not just for your knees, but for the heel itself, and your entire foot.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I mentioned this in an offtopic thread but isn't this more of an issue of good form vs bad? You can run ball of foot first in shoes, and I'm sure if you persisted to condition your feet you could run heel first barefoot even though it'd probably wipe out your knees eventually.

Correct. Minimal shoes will not have over-sized heels and possess the flexibility to run on the mid/fore front of your feet.

 

[TallBill]

The consensus ended up being that running with shoes is what 99% of pros do, so that must be the best way.

That wasn't the consensus at all. For most people it's an issue of comfort and what you're used to. I'm definitely in the camp of "most people run with shoes, so that's what I'll do too". However I would pick up a pair of VFF if they came in my size and give it a shot. In reality I'll just stick to cycling once the weather gets up above freezing again.

 

[KlokWyze]

Ran 2 miles out of my normal 5 mile treadmill runs with only socks on. The muscles in my feet are SORE. I can definitely see why you don't want to run heel first, or really it's impossible to do it for a prolonged period of time without shoes.

I have to see that I actually found the run easier in terms of endurance. Really made me focus on good running technique too. I see that running with shoes for so long..... I've always been landing on my heels pretty hard. Which is wasteful of energy and bad for your knees right?

 

[kamper]

I see that running with shoes for so long..... I've always been landing on my heels pretty hard. Which is wasteful of energy and bad for your knees right?

It can be. If you are landing with your feet in front of your body, which you pretty much have to do if landing on your heels, some of the force of the impact pushes you backwards. Supposedly, the ideal form is to land with your foot directly under your body.

 

[prism]

So when running barefoot, do you just land and spring off of the balls of your feet and avoid heel impact entirely? Seems to be how I remember running around barefoot in the yard when I was little...btw, those Vibram Fiver Fingers are freaky...

 

[brikis98]

So when running barefoot, do you just land and spring off of the balls of your feet and avoid heel impact entirely? Seems to be how I remember running around barefoot in the yard when I was little...btw, those Vibram Fiver Fingers are freaky...

No. Do not just run up on your toes or you'll blow out your calves. The first point of contact with the ground is the ball of your foot but after that, the rest of your foot will touchdown as well (heel included). The advantage is that landing midfoot first allows the muscles of the foot and leg to absorb impact whereas landing on the heel sends the impact through the bones and joints.