Thread: Running barefoot is better, researchers find

I made the switch to training barefoot and I doubt I'll ever go back. Shoes (especially running shoes) really alter the body's balance.

I wouldn't say this is mother nature besting science though. Didn't it take science to figure out that running shoes cause a high collision forces? That number didn't just come out of thin air. This is more like new science besting old/current marketing.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

I made the switch to training barefoot and I doubt I'll ever go back. Shoes (especially running shoes) really alter the body's balance.

I wouldn't say this is mother nature besting science though. Didn't it take science to figure out that running shoes cause a high collision forces? That number didn't just come out of thin air. This is more like new science besting old/current marketing.

heard this on NPR the other morning...I remember being able to run much more comfortably and quicker when I was barefoot and in the grass during practice.

Nike already hopped on the recent buzz...say hello to Vibram
Barefoot Running Shoes: Check out Vibram FiveFingers and Nike Free Shoes. Shop and Research FiveFinger Shoes, Nike Free Shoes and Barefoot Running shoes.

Mother Nature has outpaced science once again: the bare human foot is better for running than one cushioned by sneakers. What about those $125 high-tech running shoes with 648 custom combinations? Toss 'em, according to a new study published online January 27 in the journal Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

"Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts," Daniel Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, said in a prepared statement. "But actually you can run barefoot on the world's hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain…It might be less injurious than the way some people run in shoes."

Lieberman and his group used 3-D infrared tracking to record and study the running and strike style of three groups of runners: people who had always run barefoot, people who had always run with shoes, and people who had switched from shoe to shoeless.

They found that when runners lace up their shmancy sneakers and take off, about 75 to 80 percent land heel-first. Barefoot runners—as Homo sapiens had evolved to be—usually land toward the middle or front of the food. "People who don't wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike," Lieberman said.

Without shoes, landing on the heel is painful and can translate into a collision force some 1.5 to 3 times body weight. "Barefoot runners point their toes more at landing," which helps to lessen the impact by "decreasing the effective mass of the foot that comes to a sudden stop when you land," Madhusudhan Venkadesan, an applied mathematics and human evolutionary biology postdoctoral researcher at Harvard who also worked on the study, said in a prepared statement. But as cushioned kicks have hit the streets and treadmills, that initial pain has disappeared, and runners have changed their stride, leading to a way of high-impact running that human physiology wasn't evolved for—one that the researchers posit can lead to a host of foot and leg injuries.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that our bodies are still better engineered than new-fangled trainers. When taking into account our ancient ancestors, "humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years," the researchers wrote in their study. "But the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s."

Another recent study, by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and published last December in the academy's journal, PM&R, found that wearing running shoes "increased joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle," when compared to barefoot running. Even a jog in high heels was better for joints than specialized tennis shoes.

Despite the growing movement of barefoot (or more lightly shod) runners, many researchers are calling for more evaluation before all those sweaty sneakers are abandoned. "There is no hard proof that running in shoes… causes injuries," William Jungers, a professor of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University in Long Island, NY, wrote in a commentary that accompanies the new study. But, he asserted, "In my view there is no compelling evidence that it prevents them either." And as a boost to the barefoot argument, he added: "There are data that implicate shoes more generally as a plausible source of some types of chronic foot problems."

So perhaps you can skip those sneaks, say the study authors. "All you need is a few calluses," Lieberman said.

in remember reading this in 1970 when i was in school. pro's and cons on this.i got 19 years of good hard running before injuries.

Originally Posted by intro

Mother Nature has outpaced science once again: the bare human foot is better for running than one cushioned by sneakers. What about those $125 high-tech running shoes with 648 custom combinations? Toss 'em, according to a new study published online January 27 in the journal Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

The introduction is nonsensical.

This isn't nature outpacing science. They aren't two separate paradigms.

Science, in its purest sense, is a method of understanding nature. It is definitely not a method of superseding the laws the nature; anything that does is wishful thinking and fiction.

Scientists don't try to outpace nature, they try to understand it as best they can and work within its unbreakable limits.

This is more like nature outpacing deceitful and ignorant marketing.

Originally Posted by stepaukas

Mother Nature has outpaced science once again: the bare human foot is better for running than one cushioned by sneakers. What about those $125 high-tech running shoes with 648 custom combinations? Toss 'em, according to a new study published online January 27 in the journal Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group).

"Most people today think barefoot running is dangerous and hurts," Daniel Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University, said in a prepared statement. "But actually you can run barefoot on the world's hardest surfaces without the slightest discomfort and pain…It might be less injurious than the way some people run in shoes."

Lieberman and his group used 3-D infrared tracking to record and study the running and strike style of three groups of runners: people who had always run barefoot, people who had always run with shoes, and people who had switched from shoe to shoeless.

They found that when runners lace up their shmancy sneakers and take off, about 75 to 80 percent land heel-first. Barefoot runners—as Homo sapiens had evolved to be—usually land toward the middle or front of the food. "People who don't wear shoes when they run have an astonishingly different strike," Lieberman said.

Without shoes, landing on the heel is painful and can translate into a collision force some 1.5 to 3 times body weight. "Barefoot runners point their toes more at landing," which helps to lessen the impact by "decreasing the effective mass of the foot that comes to a sudden stop when you land," Madhusudhan Venkadesan, an applied mathematics and human evolutionary biology postdoctoral researcher at Harvard who also worked on the study, said in a prepared statement. But as cushioned kicks have hit the streets and treadmills, that initial pain has disappeared, and runners have changed their stride, leading to a way of high-impact running that human physiology wasn't evolved for—one that the researchers posit can lead to a host of foot and leg injuries.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that our bodies are still better engineered than new-fangled trainers. When taking into account our ancient ancestors, "humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years," the researchers wrote in their study. "But the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s."

Another recent study, by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and published last December in the academy's journal, PM&R, found that wearing running shoes "increased joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle," when compared to barefoot running. Even a jog in high heels was better for joints than specialized tennis shoes.

Despite the growing movement of barefoot (or more lightly shod) runners, many researchers are calling for more evaluation before all those sweaty sneakers are abandoned. "There is no hard proof that running in shoes… causes injuries," William Jungers, a professor of anatomical sciences at Stony Brook University in Long Island, NY, wrote in a commentary that accompanies the new study. But, he asserted, "In my view there is no compelling evidence that it prevents them either." And as a boost to the barefoot argument, he added: "There are data that implicate shoes more generally as a plausible source of some types of chronic foot problems."

So perhaps you can skip those sneaks, say the study authors. "All you need is a few calluses," Lieberman said.

in remember reading this in 1970 when i was in school. pro's and cons on this.i got 19 years of good hard running before injuries.

Damn, it's almost identical to the article I found and posted.

Originally Posted by fufu

The introduction is nonsensical.

This isn't nature outpacing science. They aren't two separate paradigms.

Science, in its purest sense, is a method of understanding nature. It is definitely not a method of superseding the laws the nature; anything that does is wishful thinking and fiction.

Scientists don't try to outpace nature, they try to understand it as best they can and work within its unbreakable limits.

This is more like nature outpacing deceitful and ignorant marketing.

Yep, said the exact same thing. I find it hilarious when articles try to misrepresent and condemn the ways of science by citing... science.

Originally Posted by gtbmed

Yep, said the exact same thing. I find it hilarious when articles try to misrepresent and condemn the ways of science by citing... science.

So when science proves religion wrong.........

I think it is important to note that while we as humans evolved to run barefoot (like any other footed creature), the sort of terrain available to run on in modern days is drastically different from what our ancestors used to traverse.

We now have many synthetic hard surfaces. Running on sidewalks and roads will hurt the body quick.

Plus, if you have worn shoes to run your entire life your body has gone through significant adaptations in your gait. Turning back to barefoot running and walking isn't so easy in the sense that you have to adapt back in the other direction, which needs the appropriate thoughtful precautions.

A comparison can be drawn from the dawn of controlled electricity or any other technological amenity bestowed to man. Simply stripping it right away would cause many adverse consequences.

a) Regarding the above research cited in the Nature article....it depends. This is something I should probably cover in a blog because people tend to just flock with the trends. Not that barefoot running is necessarily bad (we have used it in the past for tempo work)...but, it all needs to be taken into context.

b) Props to FuFu for explaining what science is. That was really great!

c) Props to FuFu for his second post in this thread giving important criticism on the topic and employing skepticism.

patrick

Originally Posted by fufu

I think it is important to note that while we as humans evolved to run barefoot (like any other footed creature), the sort of terrain available to run on in modern days is drastically different from what our ancestors used to traverse.

We now have many synthetic hard surfaces. Running on sidewalks and roads will hurt the body quick.

Plus, if you have worn shoes to run your entire life your body has gone through significant adaptations in your gait. Turning back to barefoot running and walking isn't so easy in the sense that you have to adapt back in the other direction, which needs the appropriate thoughtful precautions.

A comparison can be drawn from the dawn of controlled electricity or any other technological amenity bestowed to man. Simply stripping it right away would cause many adverse consequences.

This +1. We evolved in barefoot on grasslands, not unforgiving concrete - there is gonna be a tonne of bruising if you try to run on it without foot protection.

There was also no broken glass, curbs, or rusty nails. Running barefoot may be great in a postural sense, but if you're running full pelt with nothing on your feet and your foot hits a pebble you're going to feel it. If it was mud then it might sink into the ground and cushion the impact, but its not going to sink into the sidewalk.

So working out barefoot in the gym may have it's benefits somehow.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

So working out barefoot in the gym may have it's benefits somehow.

I'm sure the funky foot stench will keep the gabby on lookers away so you can focus on SFW.

... more of a reason for everyone to start squatting and dead'ing barefooted if they havent all already.

I have always trained barefoot, at least in the weight room, as much as possible. When I worked out in my basement I always felt more comfortable in bare feet.

Actually, prior to reading this, I have been buying shoes that come closer and closer to one being barefoot. Starting with the Nike Free and a month or two ago buying a pair of the Five Finger shoes. They are fantastic. Extremely comfortable, and movement just feel more fluid in general. It is hard to describe, but the shoes give me the urge to make a lot of unnecessary movements because they just feel good. I realize all of this is extremely objective, but I figured I would share my experience.

At the same time, I have always thought that orthotics and artificial support were way overblown. I hear about people using them all the time, when in reality they are just trying to compensate for muscle weakness, improper motor patterns, and mobility deficits. By the same token, I do feel there are people that benefit from something more substantial than, basically, a slipper.

Also, like Fufu said, we have a lot of hard surfaces that we walk on all the time, probably more often than softer, natural, surfaces. At the same time, we have learned to walk primarily with shoes, so as he said, our nervous systems have adapted.

To take that one step further, our nervous system and motor learning abilities are EXTREMELY plastic. You can certainly go back to walking essentially barefoot pretty quickly. I do, however, recommend a break-in period where you gradually switch back over if you do plan on trying it out.

Yeah, I was thinking about buying some Vibrams but they're pretty expensive and I wasn't sure the cost was worth the benefit.

I lift barefoot in the gym. Sometimes people look at me funny and sometimes they ask me why I do it. I recently made the switch and I won't ever go back to lifting in normal shoes.

Originally Posted by rahaas

I'm sure the funky foot stench will keep the gabby on lookers away so you can focus on SFW.

I'll have know that stench is coming from between my legs, get your story right.

I remember in high school I went to a speed and agility training center called Velocity Sports Performance. There they taught that for you to run with maximum speed and agility, you should not point your toes towards the ground but instead make sure that you point your toes upwards. However, they also taught to run on the balls of your feet. So in order to do this you must mantain a good forward lean which is necessary for running at your fastest possible speed. Running with the form they taught me there took my 40 yard dash time from a 5.00 electric to a 4.76 electric in a few months, which was huge for football.

I just found it interesting that the article says "Barefoot runners point their toes more at landing" and portrays it in a good light. Pointing your toes or extending your ankle much at all is not the correct way to run as far as I know.

I won't be running barefoot but I do love squats, deads, and rack pulls with no shoes. I was doing racks earlier today. Warmed up with my running shoes on. Took them off for work sets then added more plates and when I came up the difference in pressure and force almost made me fall backwards.

1960 olympic marathon in rome. cobblestones and concrete. winner won without shoes.

I actually ran barefoot on my treadmill at home...like the article say's I found my self running differntly and I found it to feel good on my feet nut I still didn't mentally feel comfortable running without shoes.

It was on the back of my mind that I would rip a toe nail off if I slip.

If you look at the great runners of the world and the great running races/peoples of the world the majority run bare-foot or as close to barefoot as possible. Running spikes don't exactly resemble your average pair of nike's after all.

humans pose like animals nowadays k

Originally Posted by MAC24/7

humans pose like animals nowadays k

doggy style?

I ran a lot in the 70s and the shoes available did not offer much as far as cushioning and I have the knees show for it. Of course all of my running was on the street or the sidewalks and my knees took a pounding. When I ran track in junior high we were not allowed to run on our heels, the coach would have you running extra laps if he saw you landing on your heels. The previous post referencing leaning forward and running on the balls of your feet was his philosophy and this in the early 70s. It didn't matter if we were running the 440 or 880 we could land on our heels. Heck, he told us the 440 was a sprint and he was right.