Luke Nelson running the way it should be doneBarefoot running. It conjures images of loin-cloth-clad indigenous people running effortlessly through the wilderness and drinking from streams on the fly. Their feet have never been shod and their soles bare the leathery skin to prove it. They run smoothly over varied terrain with an efficient stride honed from a life-time of practice. What the term does not bring to mind is the 30- to 40-something white running enthusiast sporting Vibram Fiver Fingers on his Saturday morning trip to the coffee shop to read the paper while keeping little Scooter Junior happy with a baggy of Honey Nut Cheerios.
Ah, but these are the folks who read Born to Run (B2R) and are now embracing the latest fitness craze in their endless quest to bring meaning to their sometimes mundane existence. Running infinite miles is no longer enough. Now, we have to do it without shoes.
And why not?
The argument presented by Christopher McDougall in B2R is compelling. Considering the evidence gleaned from injury patterns over the last 30 years, all the fancy shoes with advanced bells and whistles have done nothing to stem the tide of overuse injuries inherent in the sport.
Without listing all my favorite parts of the book - and there are many - one of the best is that the strongest predictor of injury in runners is the cost of their shoes. The less expensive a shoe is, the less likely a runner is to get injured. Priceless. The natural reaction to information like this, along with the observation that some of the best runners in the world (Kenyans/Ethiopians) often wear nothing, is to run barefoot. Simple enough.
The problem is that, as a culture, we wear shoes and have done so our whole lives. Not only that, but we've bought into all the "support" bullshit we've been fed by the shoe industry for the last few decades.That's made our feet weak and soft. Take this and also a runner's natural tendency to obsess, and we have a recipe for a musculoskeletal disaster. And that tsunami is creeping up on us now. More on that later.
But let's step back for a minute and consider the whole premise that running barefoot is better. In my opinion, this is where things go wrong in the first place. Somehow, the technique required to run barefoot has been overshadowed by the fact that the practitioner is barefoot. Wait a minute. What?? For some silly reason, we've been led to believe that you can't run differently unless your feet are naked or at least shod in special naked-simulating shoes. This is ridiculous.
The best thing to come out of the barefoot running movement is a reexamination of running technique. B2R covers this topic in detail. Around the time of the creation of the first "waffle-soled" running shoe, many runners went from a forefoot strike pattern to a heel strike pattern. Shoes followed suit with more cushion and technical features to control the foot's natural movement during gait. Elite runners continued to run with a forefoot pattern but the masses embraced the jogging craze of the 70's striking with their heels.
I could spend several paragraphs talking about how these two patterns vary in terms of musculoskeletal demand and ground reaction forces but I will spare you most of that. For the purposes of this discussion, the most important point is that forefoot striking places high stress demands on the soft tissues of the foot and lower leg in ways that differ significantly from heel striking. Runners who ignore this fact, transition to "new school" running technique and jump right into their usual running volume are in for a rude awakening.
Barefoot running zealots contend that barefooting results in a lighter, more efficient stride. Recent examination of this concept in the lab at the University of Oregon refutes this contention. Elite heel strikers have similar ground reaction forces as elite forefoot strikers. Now, there are those that dispute the conclusions of this study because U of O is intimately tied to Nike, a company that has made billions of dollars on shoes for heel strikers. Conspiracy theory anyone?
I think the take home here is that good runners are simply going to adapt to whatever technique they chose and find efficiency no matter what. Because this adaptation likely takes thousands of training miles to hone, research on the topic is flawed right out of the gate. It's impossible to put subjects in a lab environment, switch around their running technique every few minutes, measure ground reaction forces, and draw valid conclusions. It's nearly worthless.
So, why even consider switching in the first place? Well, for starters, most elite runners run this way (mid- to fore-foot striking). I think there is merit in emulating the best. For me, after making the switch, I simply run lighter, with shorter, seemingly more efficient strides. This is pure anecdotal rhetoric, of course, but the effect has been to rekindle my enthusiasm for running. I started out in Five Fingers but my sore feet had me questioning the merits of minimalist shoes, let alone running barefoot.
After discussions with runners smarter than me, I've concluded that technique is mostly independent of footwear. It's true that running lightly shod makes the desired technique easier to "find". But once a runner is aware of the requirements, the technique can be adopted with other shoes. And these shoes may provide protection that is sensible in certain environments.
There is no doubt that watching someone run up to the Lower Saddle in the Tetons barefoot would be compelling. But the exposure to conditions leading to disabling injuries is impossible for me to ignore. Uneven surfaces, rolling rocks and even snow are all weathered better with adequate footwear. Hell, I dislocated my pinky toe in the grocery store while cruising around in my Five Fingers. And this is just the sort of environment I feel that these shoes should be worn. Kind of a pre-conditioning for your feet.
Being barefoot, or nearly so, strengthens foot muscles that have long been forgotten in an age of arch supports and motion control shoes. These are the very muscles needed to allow for injury-free forefoot striking. But the transition must be slow and deliberate. The potential for injury along the way is as personal as the DNA of each runner. You must proceed carefully.
I read a piece in an on-line news source that talked about health risks common in daily life. One of the things the author warned about was living in footwear that offered no "support". These bastards actually said that going barefoot was dangerous and could lead to damage to the bones and ligaments of the foot. Flip flops were evil. The coffee nearly erupted from my nose. I mean, are shitting me? Really?
Let's think about this for a minute. Modern humans appear in the fossil record about 195,000 years ago. I'm going to guess that the majority of this time was spent in bare feet or minimalist shoes. Suddenly, after about 30 years of over-built, over designed footwear, it's utter madness to walk barefoot? Does this sound stupid to anyone else?
So, with some careful progression, we can run with less. In fact, there are many on this planet that at least ambulate with nothing on their feet. For most of us living in the modern world, however, doing so may be ill-advised. Better to accept the protection offered by some modern shoe options, to say nothing of wonderful things like sticky rubber, and simply change your technique. I also think it's important to point out that living in bare feet, walking around getting stuff done, is quite different from logging 50 to 100 miles a week training for running.
The new wave of running technique popularized by the Pose Method and Chi Running has been embraced by the media. It has spawned a huge surge in the shoe industry, where companies are now developing shoes that emulate bare feet. Certainly, many of these shoes with their thin soles and low angle heel ramping make it easier to adopt the new technique. And for running on even surfaces, they can be adequate. But as the athlete moves to off-road running on rocky trails and such, the perils increase.
What orthopedic surgeons are seeing now is a sharp increase in the number of gastrocnemius, soleus, and achilles tendon injuries along with metatarsal fractures in the foot. This trend speaks to the new stresses we are subjecting ourselves to and to the fact we must allow our skeletal systems time to adapt. We have traded shin splints for something nastier. But adapt we can, and when you do it can feel like flying.
I used to be a loper. Long strides and a slow cadence were my trademark. You could hear me coming before you saw me, my feet plopping down with each foot strike. Now, when I'm fresh and recovered, I sometimes feel like a freaking Ninja, sneaking up on unsuspecting trail users. Well, maybe not that stealthy, but sort of. I'm lighter and smoother and might even hurt less in my knees and hips after a long outing. That in and of itself makes it worth it for me.