Ok...thinking about trying the barefoot experience

[StageLeft]

This is not true b/c I do it. With a flexible/minimalistic running shoe, running fore/midfoot without heel striking is not an issue. Watch a marathon.

This statement kind of contradicts your above statement, which indicates (I've heard it before) most people are heel strikers, and they are. Almost all elite runners are hell strikers to some degree unless you're talking very short track distances. This fact dispels an oft-touted myth that elites are midfooters, which they aren't. I knew that before seeing this study, though. I've often slow-motioned elite runners and they tend to heel strike.

In my opinion, the more conventional a running shoe the more difficult it is to land mid or forefoot because you have to plantar flex more aggressively.

For those interested in articles, the barefoot runners forum at runnersworld has a few sticky threads where the evangelists have posted countless articles and frankly there is from what I can tell more evidence indicating that barefoot/minimal running is better for you than what contradicts it.

I imagine that many heel strikers are elite not because of heel striking but perhaps in spite of it. It's become all but assumed that the proper way to distance run is heel-striking and most people do but then virtually all of us have been grown up literally from the age of toddlers using high-heeled shoes and it's been this way for decades.

The question is often asked wrong. The question incorrectly asked is: "Can you prove bare footing is better?" when in actual fact the proper question is: "Can you prove shod running is better?"

Now, I personally think true barefooting is a waste of time for most people. If you can run in a minimal shoe offering puncture protection you get most of the barefoot benefits without total exposure to the environment (hardcore barefooters say even VFF numb you, though).

It's kind of crazy that our society has come to an almost unquestioned conclusion that we need shoes with high heels and arch support despite there being almost no evidence at all that we should use these shoes. Is not giving a healthy adult a shoe with arch support similar to making a healthy person walk with crutches?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Wait, an article looked at people who run in shoes - which are designed for heel striking - and determined that most of them heel strike? What does that show exactly? If the same study looked at barefoot runners, the exact opposite trend would show up - in fact, I doubt there would be ANY heel striking barefoot runners. All this study points out is that shoes are the norm in our society and that most people use shoes in the way they are designed. It does not show whether this design prevents injury, make you faster, or anything else.


I see absolutely no proof cited of these claims in that article. Sounds like total conjecture on the author's behalf.

An elite race where racers where racing flats. You are so far to one-side, it's a waste to even debate with you.

This statement kind of contradicts your above statement, which indicates (I've heard it before) most people are heel strikers, and they are.

I imagine that many heel strikers are elite not because of heel striking but perhaps in spite of it. It's become all but assumed that the proper way to distance run is heel-striking and most people do but then virtually all of us have been grown up literally from the age of toddlers using high-heeled shoes and it's been this way for decades.

No it doesn't. 25% of the racers were not heel strikers and we can assume all of the racers were wearing shoes.

Don't you believe that elite runners would try to improve their times if changing to a different running form would help?

 

[brikis98]

An elite race where racers where racing flats.

Which still have enough padding to allow you to heel strike. Bare feet do not.

The point is simple: just about everyone these days grew up walking/running in padded shoes which encourage heel striking. Therefore, the fact that most elite runners heel strike is not evidence that heel striking or running in sneakers is more efficient or prevents injuries. In fact, numerous studies that I linked to earlier show the exact opposite.

You are so far to one-side, it's a waste to even debate with you.

I used to be a firm believer in buying proper footware, going to running stores to have your gait analyzed and all that jazz. I also have extremely flat feet (no arch whatsoever), loose ligaments and tight tendons, so I've struggled with foot problems my whole life, trying countless types of shoes. You know what I found? The fancier and more supportive the shoe, the more issues I had with foot pain, knee pain, back pain, etc. Only by wearing the cheapest, minimalist shoes - and ice skates and rollerblades, for that matter - did my feet get strong enough where I no longer have issues of this sort. When I started reading all the studies & articles on barefoot running, the countless anecdotal reports, and the book "Born to Run", I finally understood why.

Now, I agree that barefoot style running isn't for everyone: a tiny percentage of the population has genuine issues that require proper footware to solve. However, for the overwhelming majority of humans, I'm convinced barefoot style is the way to go. It clearly works - humans have been running very successfully without fancy shoes for thousands of years - and more importantly, I've seen no evidence showing that shoes in any way increase running safety or efficiency. If you have such evidence, I'll be happy to discuss it.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

An elite race where racers where racing flats. You are so far to one-side, it's a waste to even debate with you.



No it doesn't. 25% of the racers were not heel strikers and we can assume all of the racers were wearing shoes.

Don't you believe that elite runners would try to improve their times if changing to a different running form would help?

Footstrike has much less to do with performance and much more to do with injury prevention. Don't you think that elite runners would try to limit their stress injuries if they could? Yes. And they do. Many elite runners will do barefoot running drills on dirt/grass. An individual can have great times as a heel striker, which is evident through the elite level athletes. However, that's not to say they wouldn't have fewer stress fractures, cases of shin splints, blisters, and malfunction later in life.

 

[StageLeft]

Don't you believe that elite runners would try to improve their times if changing to a different running form would help?

Most are simply used to heel striking and to my knowledge nobody has shown in any convincing way one way or the other that hell or forefoot or mid has any lick of difference in actual running economy, so the only real reason to change is if you feel it may reduce injury. In some people it unequivocally does. In others it does not. There may not be an ideal way to run for all people. I know some of the junior readers of, say, pose method talk against heel striking for its "braking" effect, but that's rubbish, the same effect is in fore footers, too, just with a different part of the foot.

I'd like to return to an earlier line of thinking. There is comparatively little evidence either way about shoes vs non-shoes (my preference being minimalist shoes, which more or less mimic bare footing with puncture protection) so given this evidence why would a person assume they should use padded shoes? All things being equal I mean. And I should point out that all things are not equal; from what I gather, of studies that have actually looked at this topic empirically, there is more evidence against running shoes than for. Most of the arguments for wearing running shoes rely on anecdotes to be frank, or opinions from podiatrists who are by their very nature dealing with people who have issues.

Really, an objective person must conclude that there are enough studies and enough people who've benefited from a minimal approach that if they are themselves having issues it is a topic worth strongly considering further. Maybe it works for you and maybe it doesn't. Just either way don't follow like a sheep anybody who is evangelical to the point of worship on either side of the debate. Understanding of running just doesn't appear mature enough to unequivocally state with certainty one side is right, but logic tells me the minimal approach makes more sense.

Anyway, I went for a run in my $130 Kayanos yesterday and then today in my VFFs.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

For those who are advocating heel strike or thick padded shoes (like most people wear and all that), may I first suggest you read "Born to Run."

Secondly, if humans were designed to heel strike (biomechanically speaking), then why is our foot designed the way it is? Our feet have an arch, the most concentrated number of muscles/tendons/ligaments anywhere in the body, and until recently (<50 years) have been running barefoot or with very minimal shoes. Also, how would the Tarahumara and many African tribes run barefoot/thin sandals, and be able to best the "great" who run in thick soled shoes?

Third, our foot (when front/center striking) is an amazing shock absorber. There have been studies done that show people actually strike the ground harder in soled shoes then when barefoot running. More force on impact when heel striking means that more force will be sent through the legs. While it might not affect injuries rate now, it will take it's toll on your body and later in life you may pay for it.

Next, if barefoot running was not beneficial, then why would olympic trainers have their runners do barefoot training? Those coaches have actively found a boost to performance from barefoot training.

Finally, Nike has their "free" line. Go look at Nike's own promotional videos/literature about the Free shoes. Guess what? Nike itself says barefoot running is beneficial.

I am firmly against heel striking, and believe center to forefoot strikes (chi/POSE are two styles that also support this style) are better biomechanically. If heel striking works for a person though, then by all means they should do that. I just don't believe it is the best for the human body based on what I've read/seen about it.

 

[StageLeft]

If heel striking works for a person though, then by all means they should do that. I just don't believe it is the best for the human body based on what I've read/seen about it.

Same. If I was injury free I'd never have bought a pair of VFF to begin with.

 

[Capt Caveman]

For those who are advocating heel strike or thick padded shoes (like most people wear and all that), may I first suggest you read "Born to Run."

Secondly, if humans were designed to heel strike (biomechanically speaking), then why is our foot designed the way it is? Our feet have an arch, the most concentrated number of muscles/tendons/ligaments anywhere in the body, and until recently (<50 years) have been running barefoot or with very minimal shoes. Also, how would the Tarahumara and many African tribes run barefoot/thin sandals, and be able to best the "great" who run in thick soled shoes?

Third, our foot (when front/center striking) is an amazing shock absorber. There have been studies done that show people actually strike the ground harder in soled shoes then when barefoot running. More force on impact when heel striking means that more force will be sent through the legs. While it might not affect injuries rate now, it will take it's toll on your body and later in life you may pay for it.

Next, if barefoot running was not beneficial, then why would olympic trainers have their runners do barefoot training? Those coaches have actively found a boost to performance from barefoot training.

Finally, Nike has their "free" line. Go look at Nike's own promotional videos/literature about the Free shoes. Guess what? Nike itself says barefoot running is beneficial.

I am firmly against heel striking, and believe center to forefoot strikes (chi/POSE are two styles that also support this style) are better biomechanically. If heel striking works for a person though, then by all means they should do that. I just don't believe it is the best for the human body based on what I've read/seen about it.

And I'm dealing with my first longterm injury due to going to a fore/midfoot strike. My sports doctor(who works with several of the Boston Pro athletes) is pleading with me to go back to a heel strike to reduce the stress on my achilles. As a forefoot/midfoot strike places more stress on one's ankle/achilles.

Sorry guys but not everyone has the same biomechanics. Heck, go to the runnersworld barefoot forums, the vast majority don't do any long distance running barefoot.

Second, should near/far sighted people not wearing corrective lenses? B/c we weren't born with them and it may just weaken the eye's the ability to correct itself? Also, not everyone has an arch in their foot. Many people have flat-feet, including myself.

Third, how much long distance have you run? I know that when I go beyond 16 miles, wearing a shoe with more cushion makes a huge difference even as a fore/midfoot runner.

Fourth, elite athletes incorporate bfr as a method of cross-training to supplement their training and is not a major regimen of their training.

Note - I own KSO Treks and only do my bfr running on trail as the impact running on dirt is much lower compared to concrete. And due to the terrain, have to run a faster cadence/shorter stride with a constant change in form which minimizes the stress on my lower body.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

And I'm dealing with my first longterm injury due to going to a fore/midfoot strike. My sports doctor(who works with several of the Boston Pro athletes) is pleading with me to go back to a heel strike to reduce the stress on my achilles. As a forefoot/midfoot strike places more stress on one's ankle/achilles.

I didn't say fore/midfoot striking is the end all of running. It isn't. It is a valuable training tool, and I believe everybody should research it and then determine if it's right for them. You may have ankle/achilles issues, in which case heel striking might be better for you biomechanically. That does not mean for others that heel striking is the best way to go.

Sorry guys but not everyone has the same biomechanics. Heck, go to the runnersworld barefoot forums, the vast majority don't do any long distance running barefoot.

You and I agree on this. Most barefoot running is used as your short runs/tabata/drills/etc and NOT for the long runs. It is a training tool, not a end all solution.

Second, should near/far sighted people not wearing corrective lenses? B/c we weren't born with them and it may just weaken the eye's the ability to correct itself? Also, not everyone has an arch in their foot. Many people have flat-feet, including myself.

It's one thing to wear corrective footwear for actual issues. For a lot of people though, they are "fixing" problems that are caused from thick soled shoes and improper running form. It's a band aid solution, but does not solve the core issue at hand.

As for not everybody has an arch, that is true. If your body biomechanically is not designed for barefoot running (due to genetics, other injury, or whatever), then don't do it. Do what is right for you and your body. All I'm saying is that I believe everybody should investigate barefoot running for themselves. Just as in your example a person wouldn't start wearing prescription glasses without looking at the options (LASIK, contacts, other laser options, etc) and investigating what is best for them, people should investigate the options of where to strike (fore/mid/heel) and shoe/barefoot/etc and figure out what works for them.

Third, how much long distance have you run? I know that when I go beyond 16 miles, wearing a shoe with more cushion makes a huge difference even as a fore/midfoot runner.

Which is why I didn't say I would do distance (distance being 10+ for ease of conversation) barefoot. Training barefoot as a tool is one thing, barefoot for distances is generally rare.

Fourth, elite athletes incorporate bfr as a method of cross-training to supplement their training and is not a major regimen of their training.

Depends on the athelete, their coach, and their goals. They use it as a method of training which helps improve their abilities, but they do not do the bulk (or even half) of their training barefoot. They will do drills, short runs, and other improvement activities barefoot which helps. Once again though, this is only used as a tool.

Note - I own KSO Treks and only do my bfr running on trail as the impact running on dirt is much lower compared to concrete. And due to the terrain, have to run a faster cadence/shorter stride with a constant change in form which minimizes the stress on my lower body.

I think we share similar beliefs, but due to the internet we appear to differ in opinions. I agree with you that bfr and fore/mid striking is not for everybody. I agree with you that bfr is used as a training tool. I also agree that for distance running, bfr is not done for the most part (and hell I personally wouldn't do bfr for a marathon). I can't really seem to find one point where we really disagree tbh. We might not share the exact same belief (I might be closer to the "pure bfr" side of things while you might be more "middle" or "shoe" side of things), but basically we agree it would seem

 

[PricklyPete]

I'm still anxious to give this a go...but I am seeing that less people seem to use BF running for marathons...which is what I do. I'll have to research some more. Maybe a combination of BF/VFF for most running...and move to minimalist shoes like the Nike Free for long distance...we'll have to see. I'm still interested to see how my body/feet react.

 

[brikis98]

Sorry guys but not everyone has the same biomechanics.

Of course not. But I think it is likely - considering millions of years of evolution - that far more people have biomechanics suited to barefoot-style running than heel strike running.

Second, should near/far sighted people not wearing corrective lenses? B/c we weren't born with them and it may just weaken the eye's the ability to correct itself? Also, not everyone has an arch in their foot. Many people have flat-feet, including myself.

I have flat feet. So do many people. Barefoot running makes them stronger. Propping up an arch, on the other hand, just allows it to remain weak.

Third, how much long distance have you run? I know that when I go beyond 16 miles, wearing a shoe with more cushion makes a huge difference even as a fore/midfoot runner.

This could be a technique or practice issue. There is a lot of evidence that humans evolved to be long distance runners and since running shoes are a modern invention, clearly the human foot can handle huge distances without them.

Note - I own KSO Treks and only do my bfr running on trail as the impact running on dirt is much lower compared to concrete. And due to the terrain, have to run a faster cadence/shorter stride with a constant change in form which minimizes the stress on my lower body.

Again, sounds like it could be a technique issue. Maybe you should use the same cadence on concrete as on trails and you'll minimize the stress on your lower body at all times.

 

[kamper]

This could be a technique or practice issue. There is a lot of evidence that humans evolved to be long distance runners and since running shoes are a modern invention, clearly the human foot can handle huge distances without them.

The fact that we evolved such that some of us ran/run long distances with bare feet doesn't necessarily imply that all or even most of us can run long distances with bare feet. You only need a certain percentage of the population able to run long distances to hunt to sustain a population (and that gifted percentage of people don't need to have different genes, just luck of the draw due to other factors). I'm not claiming any expertise, just that I'd like to see a more in depth explanation of why evolution producing some long distance runners necessarily means most of us can do it (what percentage and how do you determine it?).

Plus, we didn't evolve running on paved surfaces but for better or worse, we do a lot of our running on it now. That's at least a plausible game changer isn't it?

 

[brikis98]

The fact that we evolved such that some of us ran/run long distances with bare feet doesn't necessarily imply that all or even most of us can run long distances with bare feet. You only need a certain percentage of the population able to run long distances to hunt to sustain a population (and that gifted percentage of people don't need to have different genes, just luck of the draw due to other factors). I'm not claiming any expertise, just that I'd like to see a more in depth explanation of why evolution producing some long distance runners necessarily means most of us can do it (what percentage and how do you determine it?).

First of all, it's important to point out that the idea that we evolved specifically for long distance running is still a debated theory. However, some of the evidence is pretty compelling. For example, the human body has a number of adaptations that only make sense on an animal that evolved to run: "traits that aided running include leg and foot tendons and ligaments that act like springs, foot and toe structure that allows efficient use of the feet to push off, shoulders that rotate independently of the head and neck to allow better balance, and skeletal and muscle features that make the human body stronger, more stable and able to run more efficiently without overheating" (from How Running Made us Human). Note that just about every single human has these adaptations, so if the theory is correct, just about ALL of us should be capable of running.

But even if running wasn't the central issue that allowed us to evolve the way we did, I think it's still pretty clear that humans have been running since LONG before the invention of the modern padded shoe. Look at any ancient army, hunter, and athlete, and you'll find that they were barefoot or wore sandals or other minimally padded footwear. I'd be willing to be that virtually none of them ran heel to toe - it just hurts too damn much without a padded heel. So, I think it is fair to say that some sort of midfoot/forefoot landing is the only possible "natural" stride for humans. Therefore, the only reason to switch to heel-to-toe style running and padded sneakers is if we can conclusively demonstrate that it is more efficient and/or safer. Just about everything I've read thus far contradicts this, so until I see compelling evidence otherwise, I think barefoot-style running is the way to go.

Plus, we didn't evolve running on paved surfaces but for better or worse, we do a lot of our running on it now. That's at least a plausible game changer isn't it?

Not really. For one thing, the idea that running on harder surfaces leads to more injuries isn't backed up by science. As discussed in this article, "the ground-reaction forces at the foot and the shock transmitted through the body all the way up to the head when running on different surfaces varies very little as one moves from very soft to very hard surfaces." Moreover, the "natural" world isn't always that soft. For example, the Tarahumara Indians - who are legendary for their endurance running - spend a great deal of time running on very rough & rocky surfaces in the canyons of Mexico. They wear nothing more than thin sandals but despite running 50+ miles at a time at crazy speeds, they are not constantly dealing with injuries (see The Human Body is Built for Distance for pictures and more info). On the other hand, 65-80% of shod runners are injured every year (read more here).

 

[kamper]

Note that just about every single human has these adaptations, so if the theory is correct, just about ALL of us should be capable of running.

That's where I lose the train of logic. These adaptations may be a necessary condition for running, but that doesn't mean that they are a sufficient condition for running. Clearly we all need the adaptations if we are going to sustain a population capable of producing some runners, but we don't all need to take or be able to take advantage of them.

so until I see compelling evidence otherwise, I think barefoot-style running is the way to go.

To be clear, I don't really disagree with you. I'm fascinated by the concept and intend to try it some time. But you're so far in favour of it that it's hard not to play devil's advocate

 

[brikis98]

That's where I lose the train of logic. These adaptations may be a necessary condition for running, but that doesn't mean that they are a sufficient condition for running. Clearly we all need the adaptations if we are going to sustain a population capable of producing some runners, but we don't all need to take or be able to take advantage of them.

Actually, I don't think these adaptations are necessary for running - they are more like "bonuses" that are good indicators that we are particularly well suited for running, but they are not required. Many animals can run without those adaptations, but the idea is that humans can run better because of them. Moreover, you make it sound like the requirements for running - what is "sufficient" - are some incredibly hard to achieve and rare adaptations. They aren't not. Almost every single land animal can run. Look around the animal kingdom and chances are that if the animal has legs, it can run. And I think it's pretty clear that humans are no exception.

 

[kamper]

Actually, I don't think these adaptations are necessary for running - they are more like "bonuses" that are good indicators that we are particularly well suited for running, but they are not required. Many animals can run without those adaptations, but the idea is that humans can run better because of them. Moreover, you make it sound like the requirements for running - what is "sufficient" - are some incredibly hard to achieve and rare adaptations. They aren't not. Almost every single land animal can run. Look around the animal kingdom and chances are that if the animal has legs, it can run. And I think it's pretty clear that humans are no exception.

I'm not saying the adaptations are or aren't sufficient, just that I haven't seen proof that they are. I'm not debating that most humans can run, I'm just talking about people like Capt Caveman who aren't able to run as well over long distances with a bare foot style. Clearly the adaptations aren't sufficient for him to reach the same level that he can using padded shoes and a heel-strike. I'm interested in evidence stating what percentage of people are like him, and not conjecture about what the percentage should be based on what we know about evolution.

Also, not everybody is interested in reaching their peak potential. Is a bare foot style just as accessible to the casual runner and is there likely to be a big difference in injury rates for the casual runner (let's say 10k a week)? I'm assuming there isn't a huge difference and that most people are happier getting started in a padded shoe, but I could certainly be wrong. If it is indeed easier to get started with a bare foot style, it's still going to be depressingly hard to convince the general population of that fact (about as hard as convincing people that junk food is bad, and for all the same reasons).

 

[brikis98]

I'm not saying the adaptations are or aren't sufficient, just that I haven't seen proof that they are. I'm not debating that most humans can run, I'm just talking about people like Capt Caveman who aren't able to run as well over long distances with a bare foot style. Clearly the adaptations aren't sufficient for him to reach the same level that he can using padded shoes and a heel-strike. I'm interested in evidence stating what percentage of people are like him, and not conjecture about what the percentage should be based on what we know about evolution.

I think you are missing a key argument: the burden of proof is on the side of running shoes. Human beings have been running barefoot or in minimalist footwear - and consequently, most likely using a forefoot or midfoot strike - through all of human history. Clearly, it works. If we are going to suddenly change that paradigm, we need to have evidence that running shoes and/or heel striking make us more efficient or safer. I'm not aware of a single study that demonstrates this. In fact, many studies show the exact opposite.

Now, in the case of Capt Caveman, it's possible that he has found evidence that shoes or heel striking make him more efficient/safer. If so, that's great to hear and he should stick with it. However, if Capt Caveman is like most people these days, he spent his entire life running in shoes and the barefoot-style running is a recent and relatively rare practice. If that's the case, the fact that he can go longer in shoes might be evidence of nothing more than how well adapted his body is to the different styles. Had the amount of exposure to each style been equal, it's possible the outcome would have been very different.

Also, not everybody is interested in reaching their peak potential. Is a bare foot style just as accessible to the casual runner and is there likely to be a big difference in injury rates for the casual runner (let's say 10k a week)? I'm assuming there isn't a huge difference and that most people are happier getting started in a padded shoe, but I could certainly be wrong. If it is indeed easier to get started with a bare foot style, it's still going to be depressingly hard to convince the general population of that fact (about as hard as convincing people that junk food is bad, and for all the same reasons).

Not enough studies have been done on this topic to know for sure. The studies I linked to earlier contain evidence that suggests barefoot running style is safer - for example, the impact forces are significantly less with a forefoot or midfoot landing than heelstriking - but I don't think any of them actually gathered injury statistics. We do know that a staggeringly large percentage of runners are injured every year and that most of them wear shoes, and there is tons of anecdotal evidence that barefoot running style reduces injury rates, but this is not scientific.

My personal decision to go with a barefoot style again rests on the idea that the burden of proof is on shoes, and they have not delivered. Convincing others of this, of course, is not easy. Since we all wear shoes in our day to day lives, making a switch to barefoot is unquestionably harder than running in sneakers. Unfortunately, most things that are good for us are hard, and most people avoid anything difficult as much as possible.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I'm not saying the adaptations are or aren't sufficient, just that I haven't seen proof that they are. I'm not debating that most humans can run, I'm just talking about people like Capt Caveman who aren't able to run as well over long distances with a bare foot style. Clearly the adaptations aren't sufficient for him to reach the same level that he can using padded shoes and a heel-strike. I'm interested in evidence stating what percentage of people are like him, and not conjecture about what the percentage should be based on what we know about evolution.

Also, not everybody is interested in reaching their peak potential. Is a bare foot style just as accessible to the casual runner and is there likely to be a big difference in injury rates for the casual runner (let's say 10k a week)? I'm assuming there isn't a huge difference and that most people are happier getting started in a padded shoe, but I could certainly be wrong. If it is indeed easier to get started with a bare foot style, it's still going to be depressingly hard to convince the general population of that fact (about as hard as convincing people that junk food is bad, and for all the same reasons).

The only flaw in your statement, is that most people know junk food is bad and just don't give a shit/care. It tastes good, is "cheap", easy to obtain anywhere, etc. People know it's bad, but it's more like an addiction then not knowing it is bad.

I agree with you though, just wanted to say that

 

[kamper]

I think you are missing a key argument: the burden of proof is on the side of running shoes.

Actually it's exactly that that I'm questioning. I don't doubt that a lot of humans today can run bare foot just fine if they get used to it. Probably the same proportion as its been for a long, long time. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if a fairly decent percentage of the population have never been able to run well (ie, not every one in the tribe needs to be an ace hunter to sustain life). Perhaps that percentage of the population is able to run more easily with shoes.

I'd make a comparison to clothing. I don't know when we invented it, but we did spend a significant amount of time evolving without it. Today though, it wouldn't be possible for a good chunk of the world's population to live safely without it (year-round anyway). I do see the hole in this analogy: that clothing has allowed us to move into harsher climates while the surfaces we're running on aren't getting any harsher, but I think it demonstrates the basic idea that it's not a given that we're better off without assistance.

Again though, I'm fairly interested in bare foot running and think everyone should give it a go, I'm just not quite as convinced as you are

 

[kamper]

The only flaw in your statement, is that most people know junk food is bad and just don't give a shit/care. It tastes good, is "cheap", easy to obtain anywhere, etc. People know it's bad, but it's more like an addiction then not knowing it is bad.

I agree with you though, just wanted to say that

On the other hand, if people still eat junk food despite knowing that it's not good for them, imagine how hard it would be to get them to change from something that they think is good for them Granted, you aren't likely to get addicted to shoe padding (I hope) but the main thrust of my point was that in both cases you have large companies with large advertising budgets trying to convince people to buy whichever products they happen to be able to make the most profit with.

 

[brikis98]

Actually it's exactly that that I'm questioning. I don't doubt that a lot of humans today can run bare foot just fine if they get used to it. Probably the same proportion as its been for a long, long time. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if a fairly decent percentage of the population have never been able to run well (ie, not every one in the tribe needs to be an ace hunter to sustain life). Perhaps that percentage of the population is able to run more easily with shoes.

Fair enough. There are no studies that I'm aware of that analyze what percentage of people are genetically capable of running barefoot style safely & efficiently. So, it is possible that a large percentage of us can't. However, my personal opinion is that it is very unlikely. Looking around the animal kingdom, if a few members of a species can run well, they ALL can. With the exception of the tiny percentage born with genetic defects, how many dogs, lions, deer, etc do you know that can't run? Why should humans be any different? Almost every human child learns to walk and then run and it is only our lifestyle that prevents them from doing it regularly. Moreover, the idea that we evolved for long distance running tends to carry the notion that every single one of us has the adaptations necessary for it. In fact, one of the persistence hunting theories holds that the entire family/tribe would participate in the hunt, old folks, mothers, children and all.

I'd make a comparison to clothing. I don't know when we invented it, but we did spend a significant amount of time evolving without it. Today though, it wouldn't be possible for a good chunk of the world's population to live safely without it (year-round anyway). I do see the hole in this analogy: that clothing has allowed us to move into harsher climates while the surfaces we're running on aren't getting any harsher, but I think it demonstrates the basic idea that it's not a given that we're better off without assistance.

I'm certainly NOT arguing that technology cannot make our lives better. I like having access to soap, toothpaste, clothing, vaccinations and all the other advents of modern life that make us safer/healthier/etc. Of course, many modern developments are probably harmful: drugs, cigarettes, junk food, etc. As I've said multiple times, I have not seen any studies that show running shoes fall into the "helpful" category; if anything studies indicate that they may be harmful.

 

[kamper]

So, it is possible that a large percentage of us can't. However, my personal opinion is that it is very unlikely. Looking around the animal kingdom, if a few members of a species can run well, they ALL can. With the exception of the tiny percentage born with genetic defects, how many dogs, lions, deer, etc do you know that can't run? Why should humans be any different? Almost every human child learns to walk and then run and it is only our lifestyle that prevents them from doing it regularly.

That's a pretty good point. It does seem to me though that there is a fair bit of athletic variability within the human race. Only a certain percentage of us can dunk a basketball in a 10" net. Only a certain percentage of us can hit a golf ball straight down a fairway. Only a certain percentage of us can bench press our own body weight or more. We all have adaptations that allow us to do these things when other animals can't, but we aren't all capable of them. Granted, these are hugely subject to the level of training and perhaps aren't as fundamental as running.

In fact, one of the persistence hunting theories holds that the entire family/tribe would participate in the hunt, old folks, mothers, children and all.

That is pretty interesting. Doesn't necessarily demonstrate why we can all run barefoot, but, even if only for a short period of human history, every normal member of society really was running together, it pretty much demonstrates that we should all be able to. If true, that is the sort of proof that addresses my questions.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

On the other hand, if people still eat junk food despite knowing that it's not good for them, imagine how hard it would be to get them to change from something that they think is good for them Granted, you aren't likely to get addicted to shoe padding (I hope) but the main thrust of my point was that in both cases you have large companies with large advertising budgets trying to convince people to buy whichever products they happen to be able to make the most profit with.

Well, there is a reason why the advertising industry is such big money. It works. Advertisers have figured out how to get into our heads on a psychological level, and convince us that what they are selling is good for us. Most people will take that at face value, or not care enough to change.

Nike invented a thick soled shoe in the 70's, then marketed the hell out of it. Now it's just become part of our culture, just like fast food.

That's a pretty good point. It does seem to me though that there is a fair bit of athletic variability within the human race. Only a certain percentage of us can dunk a basketball in a 10" net. Only a certain percentage of us can hit a golf ball straight down a fairway. Only a certain percentage of us can bench press our own body weight or more. We all have adaptations that allow us to do these things when other animals can't, but we aren't all capable of them. Granted, these are hugely subject to the level of training and perhaps aren't as fundamental as running.

There is variation in the animal world as well though. Some cheetah's might be able to hit 75 mph top speed, but some might only be able to hit say 65 mph. There is always going to be some variation in athletic ability, that doesn't mean that only a small % of the species can do it. Also, with basketball, golf, bench pressing, etc those are not things our body was designed to do where running is (or so the theory states).

Also, the theory that we are endurance runners also points out that we might have done tribal endurance hunts in our past. The book Born to Run actually has a chapter where some researchers actually saw an African tribe endurance hunt. The tribe has a baseline average that everybody can do, which keeps the animal moving. Then the faster tribe members run ahead and cut the animal off from escape.

Think of it this way: you have the bulk of the tribe pushing the animal in a general direction, then the faster runners guide the animal in a more focused direction and keep track of one animal out of a pack and single it out.

That is pretty interesting. Doesn't necessarily demonstrate why we can all run barefoot, but, even if only for a short period of human history, every normal member of society really was running together, it pretty much demonstrates that we should all be able to. If true, that is the sort of proof that addresses my questions.

See above for a current theory about why we all can run barefoot.

 

[brikis98]

It does seem to me though that there is a fair bit of athletic variability within the human race. Only a certain percentage of us can dunk a basketball in a 10" net. Only a certain percentage of us can hit a golf ball straight down a fairway. Only a certain percentage of us can bench press our own body weight or more. We all have adaptations that allow us to do these things when other animals can't, but we aren't all capable of them. Granted, these are hugely subject to the level of training and perhaps aren't as fundamental as running.

Genetic variation is present in all species. Some dogs are faster than others, some lions bite harder than others and so on. And even if all of us can't dunk a basketball, we can still all jump. We might not be able to bench press our body weight, but we can all do the motion with some weight. We might not all be able to run at 28mph like Usain Bolt, but pretty much all of us can run. And yea, a lot of these abilities can be improved dramatically with training. It's worth noting that the natural instinct of most baby animals is to "play" - running, wrestling, play fighting, etc - which may seem like fun, but is unquestionably a form of training. Human children are no different: they spend the first decade of their lives doing nothing but playing. My guess is that this is an evolutionary adaptation to prepare us for a physically demanding life.

That is pretty interesting. Doesn't necessarily demonstrate why we can all run barefoot, but, even if only for a short period of human history, every normal member of society really was running together, it pretty much demonstrates that we should all be able to. If true, that is the sort of proof that addresses my questions.

It's a new theory that will need more evidence to prove it, but it seems plausible. Although it's mostly a lost art, persistence hunting tribes have been found in Africa. Moreover, the Tarahumara tribe of Mexico is legendary for all members of the tribe doing crazy endurance runs, sometimes just for fun.

 

[PricklyPete]

Well I picked up a pair of VFF's this weekend. Went to several stores and could only find the KSO's in my size that were a gray/green color. Not exactly the color I wanted.