Ok...thinking about trying the barefoot experience

[brikis98]

I haven't read these studies, but there are a few points that I'd bring up. It may very well be that ground hardness does not modify force on joints. However, research like this is frequently done in short bouts. If a runner was to complete runs on 6 different terrains, they would likely spend less than 5 minutes collecting data for each terrain. The problem with that is that fatigue is the negative aspect of barefoot running. If the terrains were measured under these conditions, they would not be applicable to real life bare foot running. And just to address the Indians: many humans throughout history have completed amazing feats even though their anatomy limited them. The Jews ran hundreds of miles starved, barefoot, and freezing. Does that mean we should train like that? No, not at all. Would I say that the Tarahumara Indians had a high incidence of stress fractures and bone spurs? Oh, you better believe it. We're trying to find a balance for optimal proprioception, form, and efficiency. I don't feel like running barefoot on very hard surfaces allows for that.

As you fatigue, you cannot resist the forces resulting from your foot strike. Because of this, more force is transferred to bones in the foot. If this happens repeatedly, as would occur in someone doing frequent long distance in VFFs, then the result is a stress fracture.

On top of that, you mention that the research says there is no extra force on joints. Firstly, what joints were measured? If it was the knee, talocrural, and hip joint, then that is to be expected. However, rate of force transduction through the foot (through all the small tarsal-metatarsal, metatarsal-phalanx, and other bony articulations) is much greater. Overall, force is the same, but rate of force transfer is likely to be different (which can significantly affect bone structure). Secondly, do you know the duration each terrain was measured?

I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately. My biomechanics professor (Dr. Keith Williams) has recently started talking about barefoot running as well. He has many years of research in the field of biomechanics, specifically with reference to running, foot strike, and form. He has been bringing up some points that I've thought about personally. I'll see if he has some research articles I can bring up.

Here is a great article that references numerous studies on running injuries: Running injury exercises - myths about running injuries. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full text of many of those studies, so I don't know the duration of the studies or how the results would change over a 1 hour run versus a 5 minute run. Nevertheless, numerous studies show that people adapt their running and leg stiffness to the hardness of the surface, so I'd be surprised if the difference between a mixed terrain of dirt/rocks/grass/etc (as our ancestors probably ran on) would be different enough from concrete/asphalt to make a difference in terms of injury rates.

Moreover, the Harvard study of barefoot vs. shod runners showed that impact forces transmitted through the foot, ankle, and leg immediately after impact with the ground are about three times greater in shod runners using heel strake compared with barefoot runners using forefoot strike. Therefore, whether or not surface hardness makes a difference, it seems that shod running - at least using heel strike method (as the vast majority of shod runners do) - would be worse than barefoot. In other words, I've seen very little evidence to show that running shoes ever increase safety.

 

[brikis98]

This is most likely the reason if the injury is related at all to my switching between shod and minimalist running. I read here and other places plenty that I should take it slower...but didn't. I'm used to running way more miles than I've been running...and it was really hard for me to run just a little.

This is extremely common: I've seen numerous people seriously overdo it when they first try barefoot style and the results range from extremely sore calves to full blown injuries. Think of how many years you've spent "practicing" shod running. Imagine the kind of injuries a totally sedentary person would get from trying to run 6 miles without working up to it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

PP - I highly recommend checking out the BFR forum over at runnersworld.com, there's nothing better than interacting with people who actually distance bfr.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Here is a great article that references numerous studies on running injuries: Running injury exercises - myths about running injuries. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full text of many of those studies, so I don't know the duration of the studies or how the results would change over a 1 hour run versus a 5 minute run. Nevertheless, numerous studies show that people adapt their running and leg stiffness to the hardness of the surface, so I'd be surprised if the difference between a mixed terrain of dirt/rocks/grass/etc (as our ancestors probably ran on) would be different enough from concrete/asphalt to make a difference in terms of injury rates.

Moreover, the Harvard study of barefoot vs. shod runners showed that impact forces transmitted through the foot, ankle, and leg immediately after impact with the ground are about three times greater in shod runners using heel strake compared with barefoot runners using forefoot strike. Therefore, whether or not surface hardness makes a difference, it seems that shod running - at least using heel strike method (as the vast majority of shod runners do) - would be worse than barefoot. In other words, I've seen very little evidence to show that running shoes ever increase safety.

In skimming the article, the writer is using some pretty old research, especially in reference to peak pressures and rate of force transfer (a 1986 article). Let me refer you to this 2010 article - http://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440%2808%2900155-2/abstract - which shows that peak pressures at lateral, central and medial rearfoot, midfoot, lateral and medial forefoot are significantly increased on harder surfaces. It had human individuals run for just 40m and recorded the pressures. Contact time and contact area were increased in the grass group (compared to asphalt), which also says something about conditional distribution of force. No fatigue was required to induce different peak pressures. I hypothesize (and am searching for in research) that fatigue will increase these effects.

In your second paragraph, you're comparing fore/mid and heel strike running. I'm not comparing those at all. I feel that heel strike running is terrible and should not even be an option, if someone is talking about putting in serious mileage. I'm talking about the comparison between fore/mid strike while barefoot compared to wearing shoes. If you run with a fore/mid strike, there is no detriment to wearing a running shoe (injury-wise; it still results in lesser proprioception than barefoot running). Consider it the accommodation for the extra hard surfaces. The padding of running shoes simulates a softer surface - like grass - with increased contact time and contact area. Even if an individual's foot muscles fatigue, they are still above their injury threshold. I don't think VFFs or barefoot running is a bad idea at all. I do, however, think it's a bad idea for any consistent distance runner to use VFFs each time they run (if they are consistently running on concrete and asphalt).

I understand that running shoes get a bad rap for enabling some really terrible form. That's why I think shoes like VFFs are quite useful for working on form and for shorter runs. But, like I said, if an individual is going to be running many miles a week, the normal fatigue that affects the muscular resistance to impact is too great while running barefoot. The study I refer you to only required 40m (about 10s) to see an effect. Imagine running on that for periods over an hour. You're just pounding your bones on the concrete. I feel like it's no wonder that the OP got some stress fractures. It's like banging a bag of hard ice on the concrete, but much slower and much less dramatic.

 

[brikis98]

In skimming the article, the writer is using some pretty old research, especially in reference to peak pressures and rate of force transfer (a 1986 article). Let me refer you to this 2010 article - http://www.jsams.org/article/S1440-2440%2808%2900155-2/abstract - which shows that peak pressures at lateral, central and medial rearfoot, midfoot, lateral and medial forefoot are significantly increased on harder surfaces. It had human individuals run for just 40m and recorded the pressures. Contact time and contact area were increased in the grass group (compared to asphalt), which also says something about conditional distribution of force. No fatigue was required to induce different peak pressures. I hypothesize (and am searching for in research) that fatigue will increase these effects.

This looks like an interesting study, although I again can't see the full text. It's odd that it totally contradicts some of the other studies I posted and I'd be curious to find out why. This one is more recent, but I don't see any advantage to that with respect to the topic being discussed. Also, if we are to discuss barefoot running, the study we'd really need is one which has barefoot runners (or at least forefoot strikers) run over a variety of surfaces. The Harvard study showed that forefoot striking decreases forces by a factor of 3, so perhaps this would keep the the forces within safe limits, even on hard surfaces.

In your second paragraph, you're comparing fore/mid and heel strike running. I'm not comparing those at all. I feel that heel strike running is terrible and should not even be an option, if someone is talking about putting in serious mileage. I'm talking about the comparison between fore/mid strike while barefoot compared to wearing shoes. If you run with a fore/mid strike, there is no detriment to wearing a running shoe (injury-wise; it still results in lesser proprioception than barefoot running). Consider it the accommodation for the extra hard surfaces. The padding of running shoes simulates a softer surface - like grass - with increased contact time and contact area. Even if an individual's foot muscles fatigue, they are still above their injury threshold. I don't think VFFs or barefoot running is a bad idea at all. I do, however, think it's a bad idea for any consistent distance runner to use VFFs each time they run (if they are consistently running on concrete and asphalt).

The problem is that running with proper form in most sneakers is very difficult. The lack of proprioception is a key problem and can't just be ignored. Moreover, the large heel on most running shoes simply makes it difficult to land on the forefoot. Finally, the biggest issue of all which you haven't responded to is whether shoes actually reduce the impact forces or the injury rates. I have not seen a single study that shows this to be the case. In fact, studies have shown that the more padded the shoe, the higher the impact forces. This means that if hard surfaces are bad for barefoot runners, they are potentially worse for shod runners. So unless you can show me a study that shows shoes actually reducing these forces - or better yet, the injury rates - you'd either need to avoid running entirely or go with barefoot or minimalist shoes.

 

[kalrith]

SC and brikis (or anyone for that matter),

In line with your last two posts, are there any running shoes that promote (or at least don't discourage) fore/mid strike? I'm in desperate need of some new shoes, but I was going to wait to possibly buy some VFFs instead. However, I'm looking at doing some longer-distance running, and asphalt/concrete is the only running surface I currently have at my disposal (unless I want to run circles in my backyard ).

Therefore, I'm leaning more towards a running shoe, and I'm wondering if something like the Nike Free would be the best bet, or if you have any other recommendations. I'd spend up to $100 for the shoes.

PP, sorry to hijack your thread, but I think this goes along well with the discussion over the past couple days. Also, sorry to hear about your injury. Hopefully just taking it easy is all that's necessary for healing.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

SC and brikis (or anyone for that matter),

In line with your last two posts, are there any running shoes that promote (or at least don't discourage) fore/mid strike? I'm in desperate need of some new shoes, but I was going to wait to possibly buy some VFFs instead. However, I'm looking at doing some longer-distance running, and asphalt/concrete is the only running surface I currently have at my disposal (unless I want to run circles in my backyard ).

Therefore, I'm leaning more towards a running shoe, and I'm wondering if something like the Nike Free would be the best bet, or if you have any other recommendations. I'd spend up to $100 for the shoes.

PP, sorry to hijack your thread, but I think this goes along well with the discussion over the past couple days. Also, sorry to hear about your injury. Hopefully just taking it easy is all that's necessary for healing.

Foot strike should not be in your running shoe. It should be in your running form. You can look into POSE running and its thoughts on improving foot strike and turnover. Finding some shoes with a lower heel might be advantageous, but it's doubtful that you'll find any shoes marketed toward running without a significantly raised heel.

 

[PricklyPete]

Foot strike should not be in your running shoe. It should be in your running form. You can look into POSE running and its thoughts on improving foot strike and turnover. Finding some shoes with a lower heel might be advantageous, but it's doubtful that you'll find any shoes marketed toward running without a significantly raised heel.

Agreed with SC here, but there are some brands with shoes that are intended to promote fore/mid strike. You can check out Newton shoes: http://www.newtonrunning.com/

I am tempted to try out some Newtons or Nike Free's after my injury heels to see if there is a happy medium. I have not given up on VFF's though...it may just be a mix of the two in the end.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

This looks like an interesting study, although I again can't see the full text. It's odd that it totally contradicts some of the other studies I posted and I'd be curious to find out why. This one is more recent, but I don't see any advantage to that with respect to the topic being discussed. Also, if we are to discuss barefoot running, the study we'd really need is one which has barefoot runners (or at least forefoot strikers) run over a variety of surfaces. The Harvard study showed that forefoot striking decreases forces by a factor of 3, so perhaps this would keep the the forces within safe limits, even on hard surfaces.


The problem is that running with proper form in most sneakers is very difficult. The lack of proprioception is a key problem and can't just be ignored. Moreover, the large heel on most running shoes simply makes it difficult to land on the forefoot. Finally, the biggest issue of all which you haven't responded to is whether shoes actually reduce the impact forces or the injury rates. I have not seen a single study that shows this to be the case. In fact, studies have shown that the more padded the shoe, the higher the impact forces. This means that if hard surfaces are bad for barefoot runners, they are potentially worse for shod runners. So unless you can show me a study that shows shoes actually reducing these forces - or better yet, the injury rates - you'd either need to avoid running entirely or go with barefoot or minimalist shoes.

YGPM. The problem with the Harvard study is that it only compared heel strike with shoes and mid/front foot strike while barefoot. It did not compare heel strike with and without shoes, nor did it look at mid/front strike with and without shoes together. Just ponder the heel strike for a minute. Ok, now think of attempting that while barefoot. I imagine the forces of a heel strike would be greater while barefoot than while wearing a shoe due to a lack of padding. Now consider the fore foot strike. In both cases with and without shoes, the musculature of the foot would absorb and dissipate the energy of impact. However, barefoot would result in a quicker impact (due to lesser padding), thus resulting in a greater rate of force transduction. The elastic response between both groups with fore foot strike will be similar, but the contact time would be greater in the group with running shoes. This increased contact time, as shown by the study I mentioned, results in a decreased peak pressure.

The heel on running shoes is not so exaggerated that fore foot strike is unruly. If it is, the goal should be to find a running shoe with a lesser heel that allows you to strike comfortably. I imagine the studies you refer to utilize heel strikers as their subjects. As you increase padding (much like if you increase/decrease hardness of a surface), the individual may very well let the shoe do more of the work. However, with fore/mid foot strikers, the individual must retain tension in the foot to even strike correctly (front/mid foot strikes are known for supination, which requires much action from the muscles in and surrounding the foot).

Like I said before, I'm not against barefoot running. If it can be done on surfaces softer than asphalt/concrete, then it would be my preference. If you can run on a polymer track in VFFs and not get bored out of your mind, your proprioception and running form will be better off. However, for those individuals who do not have these options, a running shoe should be utilized part of the time (for those who put in high mileage) to allow for the cardiovascular system, musculature, and motor coordination to improve without injury. For once, I'm the moderate when it comes to the barefoot dilemma. With my newfound experience in anatomy and biomechanics this year, I still feel that barefoot running is very useful, but makes individuals injury-prone when very hard surfaces are involved. I'm only proposing a more moderate solution to both improve running form and reduce injury rates.

EDIT: I'll look for some studies showing that running shoes reduce forces compared to barefoot. The ones you mention do not compare type of foot strike under both barefoot and shoe conditions. They compare across data that is not analogous.

 

[kalrith]

Foot strike should not be in your running shoe. It should be in your running form. You can look into POSE running and its thoughts on improving foot strike and turnover. Finding some shoes with a lower heel might be advantageous, but it's doubtful that you'll find any shoes marketed toward running without a significantly raised heel.

I've been reading up on POSE and trying to follow it, and I think I've done pretty well (I'll need to post a form-check video sometime). I'm mainly looking for an inexpensive minimalist running or at least reduced running shoe that will allow me to run long distances on asphalt while being the closest to the barefoot experience as possible.

I know it won't be anywhere near the barefoot experience, but I also don't want it to introduce a lot of unnecessary tech and padding. I'm thinking about just looking at some really cheap running shoes since they'll likely have less padding and tech than the more-expensive versions. I've also thought about aqua shoes, but those would likely have the problems as the VFFs with long distances on asphalt.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Agreed with SC here, but there are some brands with shoes that are intended to promote fore/mid strike. You can check out Newton shoes: http://www.newtonrunning.com/

I am tempted to try out some Newtons or Nike Free's after my injury heels to see if there is a happy medium. I have not given up on VFF's though...it may just be a mix of the two in the end.

There are also many types of racing flats that have no heel.

 

[brikis98]

YGPM. The problem with the Harvard study is that it only compared heel strike with shoes and mid/front foot strike while barefoot. It did not compare heel strike with and without shoes, nor did it look at mid/front strike with and without shoes together. Just ponder the heel strike for a minute. Ok, now think of attempting that while barefoot. I imagine the forces of a heel strike would be greater while barefoot than while wearing a shoe due to a lack of padding. Now consider the fore foot strike. In both cases with and without shoes, the musculature of the foot would absorb and dissipate the energy of impact. However, barefoot would result in a quicker impact (due to lesser padding), thus resulting in a greater rate of force transduction. The elastic response between both groups with fore foot strike will be similar, but the contact time would be greater in the group with running shoes. This increased contact time, as shown by the study I mentioned, results in a decreased peak pressure.

I agree that the Harvard study should have compared both types of running styles in both shod and barefoot runners. However, the study you linked to that discussed the effect of different surface hardness on impact forces is subject to the same flaw: it only tested shod runners and consequently, may apply to heel strikers only.

More importantly, as I keep saying, I have seen very few studies showing that running in shoes (as opposed to barefoot) actually reduces any of these forces. You keep making the assumption that shod running with forefoot style would be safer, but I don't see anything that proves that. In fact, many studies besides the Harvard study show that the padding in shoes either has no effect or increases the forces when running compared to going barefoot. The barefoot running article discusses some of them and brings up key problems with your assumption that shoes would help: more padding does NOT decrease impact force. In fact, either due to the reduction in proprioception and/or the natural "protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock", it is quite likely that shoes don't offer any benefit in terms of safety. So I say again: if you believe running on asphalt is bad for you, don't do it at all, even in shoes. If you believe that it can be done safely, than barefoot (or minimalist) should be no worse than shoes.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I agree that the Harvard study should have compared both types of running styles in both shod and barefoot runners. However, the study you linked to that discussed the effect of different surface hardness on impact forces is subject to the same flaw: it only tested shod runners and consequently, may apply to heel strikers only.

More importantly, as I keep saying, I have seen very few studies showing that running in shoes (as opposed to barefoot) actually reduces any of these forces. You keep making the assumption that shod running with forefoot style would be safer, but I don't see anything that proves that. In fact, many studies besides the Harvard study show that the padding in shoes either has no effect or increases the forces when running compared to going barefoot. The barefoot running article discusses some of them and brings up key problems with your assumption that shoes would help: more padding does NOT decrease impact force. In fact, either due to the reduction in proprioception and/or the natural "protective response whereby runners alter their behavior to reduce shock", it is quite likely that shoes don't offer any benefit in terms of safety. So I say again: if you believe running on asphalt is bad for you, don't do it at all, even in shoes. If you believe that it can be done safely, than barefoot (or minimalist) should be no worse than shoes.

This.

Shoes do not allow a human to run on harder surfaces just because they have more cusioning.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

This.

Shoes do not allow a human to run on harder surfaces just because they have more cusioning.

Any biomechanist would disagree with you based on the grounds that, if you increase the time of impact, you also decrease the rate of force development. I'm looking into more research, but can almost guarantee you that, if you are a front/mid foot striker, you will decrease the rate of force development through the foot/tibia.

 

[Capt Caveman]

This.

Shoes do not allow a human to run on harder surfaces just because they have more cusioning.

They allow you to run longer with less strain. Try running on dirt/grass for 16 miles than doing it on asphalt/concrete. The later will beat you up a lot more.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

They allow you to run longer with less strain. Try running on dirt/grass for 16 miles than doing it on asphalt/concrete. The later will beat you up a lot more.

True, but that is going to be due to your foot not having developed the thicker skin (calluses) from hard surfaces.

If you ran on concrete/asphalt regularly and trained on it, your foot would be fine.



Now, personally I won't do BF running on those surfaces. Personally, running on dirt/grass is the extent of my BF, because I don't want to BF run on those surfaces. I'm not convinced that it is not detrimental to a human body long term. To each their own though.

 

[kalrith]

Well, I went to Walmart, and they (unsurprisingly) didn't have any running shoes without a big heel. I don't want to drop $80 on VFF KSO right now, so I got the $6 poor-man's version:

I went for a short walk around the block yesterday, and it was a totally different experience than walking in shoes. I'm going to take it easy and take several walks before even attempting to run, but this will be my foot in the door of barefoot running.

As an aside, I finally put together my son's bike trailer that can also be used as a jogging stroller (link). He really enjoyed our short walk yesterday, and hopefully that will be some more incentive for me to go bike and run since those things will no longer mean spending time away from him.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't remember a specific time where this injury occurred, so I can't attribute it directly to running, but I have a pain on the top of my foot...toward the front.

I shouldn't LOL, but seriously this is VERY common. Go to runnersworld forums in barefoot there is even a recent thread. This is called TOFP or "Top of foot pain". VERY, VERY common in new barefooters. I have some myself right now, actually.

Also, I bet you money it's not a stress fracture. It does require attention, though, but a stress fracture takes minimum of weeks to recover from and unless you have this severe, you won't require that long at all. It should get better over a period of day, at least mine does, but I'm not yet sure if there are many variations of TOFP.

I've been running more lately, though doing a ton of cycling, too. My preference is VFFs (I'm only doing about 4 miles/pop) but today ran in lightweight trainers (10 oz or so) because of the TOFP and wanted to give it a break. It's certainly harder to properly midfoot in positive-heel trainers, but I found it could be done. The last couple of runs I really felt nice with the VFFs, though. I switched originally because of knee pain and with some further tweaks to my form the knee prefers this approach quite a bit.

BTW, I don't care how good a runner you are. Maybe you just ran back to back marathons, but if you do switch to this minimal approach you absolutely have to give it time. You may have no calf pain after a marathon heel striking but if you put on VFFs and run out a fast 5-6 miles you may end up nearly immobile. I know because I did it and must have almost caused major damage to my calves when I did this years ago. They were so sore it was _ridiculous_ and not in a good way at all.

I am not married to any philosophies with this but it's a damn shame we have to choose between minimal OR beefed up positive-heel running shoes. Except we don't, quite! I've never tried them but newton running shoes do address exactly this. I probably mentioned them already (maybe even in this thread ). I'd love to try a pair but they are very expensive and hard to find. I've thought of making my own by taking trainers and hacking down the heel but not sure I'll have a good strong sole after cutting down just to foam.

In line with your last two posts, are there any running shoes that promote (or at least don't discourage) fore/mid strike?

http://www.newtonrunning.com/

Foot strike should not be in your running shoe. It should be in your running form.

It's much harder to midstrike (if you want to; I realize most elites do not) if you have half an inch under your heel more than the forefoot. I think newton running shoes are a nice idea, I'd really like to try a pair but not at that price. I've spent too much on shoes as it is.

I am tempted to try out some Newtons or Nike Free's

Nike free have a positive heel, believe it or not, stupid things.

new balance has a new shoe not out yet--a line called "minimus". Also a thead on runnersworld forum but it, too, has a positive heel.

kalrith the name escapes me but I recently saw on the runnersworld forum some VERY light racing flats. I think perhaps mizuno. Flats are generally cheaper than trainers but they do have a little bit of padding.

Any biomechanist would disagree with you based on the grounds that, if you increase the time of impact, you also decrease the rate of force development. I'm looking into more research, but can almost guarantee you that, if you are a front/mid foot striker, you will decrease the rate of force development through the foot/tibia.

Your first part is absolutely a fact. I'd rather fall from a building onto a mattress than onto concrete. However, the reason at least one study found that shod runners experience *more* peak forces than unshod is because a non-shod runner changes how they are contacting the ground. If both were simply landing on their heel with a straight leg obviously the one with a padded shoe will experience less pain, but by virtue of being shod the shod runner impacts differently and does different things immediately upon impact. I feel when I run in VFF that in fact the travel of my foot via calf tensing is much greater than that when I heel strike in a shoe, so bringing back to your first statement, I "decrease the rate of force development".

 

[kalrith]

It's much harder to midstrike (if you want to; I realize most elites do not) if you have half an inch under your heel more than the forefoot. I think newton running shoes are a nice idea, I'd really like to try a pair but not at that price. I've spent too much on shoes as it is.
Nike free have a positive heel, believe it or not, stupid things.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I don't want to have to fight with my shoes to try to get them to do what I want; I want shoes that don't get in the way with the natural running form. I also don't want to spend a ton of money on shoes, althought the Newton running shoes do look interesting.

kalrith the name escapes me but I recently saw on the runnersworld forum some VERY light racing flats. I think perhaps mizuno. Flats are generally cheaper than trainers but they do have a little bit of padding.

I might look into the racing flats a bit down the road (I actually think I read that thread too). I'm going to try my water shoes for now and see how they work. I'm pretty out of shape right now anyways, so I won't be running > 3 miles for a while. I'm also going to really take my time getting accustomed to minimalist running, so that I don't develop any unnecessary injuries.

Assuming running in the water shoes goes well, I'll do a reassessment of things once I'm consistently running 3 miles per workout. If I'm concerned about the wear and tear of running on asphalt in the water shoes, then I might look to get some racing flats for a little more padding. Running on softer surfaces unfortunately isn't an option for me at this point.

 

[PricklyPete]

I shouldn't LOL, but seriously this is VERY common. Go to runnersworld forums in barefoot there is even a recent thread. This is called TOFP or "Top of foot pain". VERY, VERY common in new barefooters. I have some myself right now, actually.

Also, I bet you money it's not a stress fracture. It does require attention, though, but a stress fracture takes minimum of weeks to recover from and unless you have this severe, you won't require that long at all. It should get better over a period of day, at least mine does, but I'm not yet sure if there are many variations of TOFP.

Thanks, I'll have to do some research on the runningworld forums...really haven't had a chance as life has been busy the last 2 weeks...so I've just been ignoring the pain and not running. I do still have the pain...very much so...but to be honest I did some pretty ridiculous mountain biking last weekend that only exacerbated the issue.

I've been running more lately, though doing a ton of cycling, too. My preference is VFFs (I'm only doing about 4 miles/pop) but today ran in lightweight trainers (10 oz or so) because of the TOFP and wanted to give it a break. It's certainly harder to properly midfoot in positive-heel trainers, but I found it could be done. The last couple of runs I really felt nice with the VFFs, though. I switched originally because of knee pain and with some further tweaks to my form the knee prefers this approach quite a bit.

BTW, I don't care how good a runner you are. Maybe you just ran back to back marathons, but if you do switch to this minimal approach you absolutely have to give it time. You may have no calf pain after a marathon heel striking but if you put on VFFs and run out a fast 5-6 miles you may end up nearly immobile. I know because I did it and must have almost caused major damage to my calves when I did this years ago. They were so sore it was _ridiculous_ and not in a good way at all.

Yeah...I know I should have taken the advice on getting started with the VFF's...I ran 9 miles in the first 2 days...and 6 only 3 days later...way too aggressive. The funny thing is my legs still felt great...and continued to for nearly a month. It was 2 weeks ago that I had this TOFP. Still not 100% positive that it was distinctly from running...but the running certainly made it worse once I had sustained the injury.

I am not married to any philosophies with this but it's a damn shame we have to choose between minimal OR beefed up positive-heel running shoes. Except we don't, quite! I've never tried them but newton running shoes do address exactly this. I probably mentioned them already (maybe even in this thread ). I'd love to try a pair but they are very expensive and hard to find. I've thought of making my own by taking trainers and hacking down the heel but not sure I'll have a good strong sole after cutting down just to foam.

The same place that I bought my VFF's at have Newton's, so I'm very interested in trying them out in the least. My brother-in-law actually got a pair for a three month trial...maybe I'll be able to work that out to give them a shot rather than drop the cash straight out.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Thanks, I'll have to do some research on the runningworld forums...really haven't had a chance as life has been busy the last 2 weeks...so I've just been ignoring the pain and not running. I do still have the pain...very much so...but to be honest I did some pretty ridiculous mountain biking last weekend that only exacerbated the issue.


Yeah...I know I should have taken the advice on getting started with the VFF's...I ran 9 miles in the first 2 days...and 6 only 3 days later...way too aggressive. The funny thing is my legs still felt great...and continued to for nearly a month. It was 2 weeks ago that I had this TOFP. Still not 100% positive that it was distinctly from running...but the running certainly made it worse once I had sustained the injury.



The same place that I bought my VFF's at have Newton's, so I'm very interested in trying them out in the least. My brother-in-law actually got a pair for a three month trial...maybe I'll be able to work that out to give them a shot rather than drop the cash straight out.

Yea...you're not supposed to run the first few weeks you get VFF's, much less 9 miles. Although I'm one to talk...I did that. I suffered the first real injuries in my running career experimenting with all the shoes. Now I'm back sticking solely with the my Brooks (Adrenaline, and recently got some Launch's, but not sure the Launch is for me. More of a neutral shoe, but using an insert) I like the idea of forefoot/barefoot running, but to be honest, I don't care anymore.

Run the way you naturally run if you throw on a pair of shoes. I've read the research, etc. There's plenty of evidence for both sides as evidenced by the dick measuring of "who can quote the most articles I just Googled". Seriously. Some ppl believe one side, some ppl believe the other. Try it if you like it, but running should be the most uncomplicated thing you do all day, other than taking a piss. By purposely changing your gait you're bringing a lot of mental brain power into running. That in turn makes it complicated, and makes you slower. Some ppl are natural forefoot strikers, some ppl are natural midfoot strikers, and some ppl are natural heel strikers. You won't find a coach in the world (unless they're POSE or Chi Running coaches) who will purposely tell you to change your gait. You're introducing far too many new factors and risk exposing your clients to new injuries. After my whole fiasco and the countless $$ I've spent at various MD, PT, and Chiros getting better, it really is best to leave well enough alone. I have ppl in my running group ask me about it...if they want to try it, it's their time and money they're spending, but it's not encouraged by me.

BTW, Newtons are highly overrated unless you're a natural forefoot striker. I've seen two friends get injured, and two other ones just stop using them completely b/c they're really not forefoot runners. These are folks doing 90+ mph weeks during marathon training...right around if not below the 3 hour range. Most people end up (when they get tired of trying to point their foot down) heel toeing it anyway.

 

[kalrith]

Run the way you naturally run if you throw on a pair of shoes. I've read the research, etc. There's plenty of evidence for both sides as evidenced by the dick measuring of "who can quote the most articles I just Googled". Seriously. Some ppl believe one side, some ppl believe the other. Try it if you like it, but running should be the most uncomplicated thing you do all day, other than taking a piss. By purposely changing your gait you're bringing a lot of mental brain power into running. That in turn makes it complicated, and makes you slower. Some ppl are natural forefoot strikers, some ppl are natural midfoot strikers, and some ppl are natural heel strikers. You won't find a coach in the world (unless they're POSE or Chi Running coaches) who will purposely tell you to change your gait. You're introducing far too many new factors and risk exposing your clients to new injuries. After my whole fiasco and the countless $$ I've spent at various MD, PT, and Chiros getting better, it really is best to leave well enough alone. I have ppl in my running group ask me about it...if they want to try it, it's their time and money they're spending, but it's not encouraged by me.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm the complete opposite. I agree that overthinking things can get in the way of doing things "naturally." However, I like to improve my technique in all my sporting activities from running to weight lifting to bowling to skiing, and to start that improvement I have to admit that my raw, "natural" way of doing things might be completely wrong and unnatural from an evolutionary standpoint.

I find that the way I did these things with no research and no attempt to improve my form was detrimental to both my body and performance in the activity at hand. I'm a very technically minded person, and I am usually only good at physical things if I approach them in a technical mindset.

I can, for example, read some pointers on skiing in October, lock them away in my memory, and then apply those in a ski trip the following February. I can read about POSE running and watch some videos on my lunch break at work, and then apply those things the next time I run.

By nature I'm a clumsy buffoon who sucks at sports, playing instruments, being a handyman, and basically anything physical. However, by looking at the technical side of things and the "right" (or should I say, one of the right) way of doing the physical activites, I can actually do acceptable physical work. I know my limitations and know I'll never be an elite athlete or anything like that, but I can at least be good enough to keep from both injuring myself and embarrassing myself from my lack of natural athletic ability.

 

[StageLeft]

After my whole fiasco and the countless $$ I've spent at various MD, PT, and Chiros getting better, it really is best to leave well enough alone.

I disagree it's better to leave it alone. In some people it may be, but not all. Some people have been "saved" by changing their gait--literally thousands of "evangelists". And technically, if you were leaving it well enough alone you would put on the flimsiest, least scientific of all shoes and just run, you wouldn't be putting on half a lb of foam on each foot.

Until the science becomes all-inclusive, it's right for the injured runner to consider the sources of their injury and look at as many angles to correct negative stimuli as possible.

I can think of no sport in which it is objectively a detriment to be critical of technique and work toward its improvement. Even endurance sports. Imagine a person "just swimming how you want to swim"; they would suck, they'd probably end up doggy paddling or at best keeping their head out of the water with freestyling. They certainly wouldn't be efficient in the water. Rowers work on technique as do cyclists, sprinters, everybody does because it makes them better. Although there is no consensus it doesn't mean one should throw their hands up in the air and decry the whole topic as not worth addressing.

Back to my first point: if anybody is over-thinking it it is people who put on a $90 pair of running shoes and just goes for a run. No, they aren't over-thinking it themselves, but they're running on shoes grossly over-thought (and for which little if any evidence exists supporting the development of) so-called running shoes.

You know another interesting thing: take any sport be it baseball, cycling, rowing, sailing. Over time these sports' practitioners have introduced better equipment. It is unequivocally provable that a 2010 bicycle is faster than a 1960 bicycle, or a 2010 baseball bat able to hit a given ball further than one from 1960, but what about running shoes. We have decades of research into them and what have they done? The best elite runners still set their records in what amounts to little more than several ounces of upper with a thin sole. And yet each year all the manufactures come out with a new model (Asics must be up to Kayano 15 or so by now) that is in fact no better than the last.

 

[rocadelpunk]

I've been running barefoot because i can't run in shoes. Anything more than .3-.5 miles with a heel strike and my left foot then leg will become numb.

Went to physical therapy and nothing helped...but then on the offchance decided to try running barefoot and wolla! NO PAIN! SO FREEING.

Since I made this discovery about a month ago (i've been dealing with not being able to run for many years...Can play sports fine though) I've been slowly building my muscles up.

Just did 2 miles for the first time in my life the other day : ), but that's b/c I had just picked up a pair of vibram bikila haha - still doing just the 1-1.5 runs to build up.

Goal is to run a 5k then eventually mini marathon

 

[PricklyPete]

I've been running barefoot because i can't run in shoes. Anything more than .3-.5 miles with a heel strike and my left foot then leg will become numb.

Went to physical therapy and nothing helped...but then on the offchance decided to try running barefoot and wolla! NO PAIN! SO FREEING.

Since I made this discovery about a month ago (i've been dealing with not being able to run for many years...Can play sports fine though) I've been slowly building my muscles up.

Just did 2 miles for the first time in my life the other day : ), but that's b/c I had just picked up a pair of vibram bikila haha - still doing just the 1-1.5 runs to build up.

Goal is to run a 5k then eventually mini marathon

Good luck, and take it slow. I made it the first month no problem...and was putting a fair amount of miles on...now have foot pain that is likely related (and yes...I do believe my form was good). Just too much at once for my feet...I should have taken the advice all over this board and others to take it slower.