A Sea Change Coming to Wash Your Shoes Away
I’m sure you’ve seen it. It’s all over the news. People are finally beginning to come around to that inconvenient truth about our feet, that dirty little secret that shoe companies would prefer to keep under wraps: barefoot is better.
There has been media coverage of the barefoot trend in the past, mostly intermittent, in running magazines and always taking a patronizing tone. It follows the same formula: more idle speculation on a bizarre fad that a select few crazies are promoting, with plenty of “balance” from stuffy foot specialists expressing doubt that the inherently fragile, gentle human foot could ever withstand the rigors of walking unshod without “serious injury,” than any serious consideration of the merits. But now we’ve got a nice, juicy study to hang our hats (or our shoes) on, and media outlets are falling over themselves to get the scoop.
Witness the Boston Globe’s take on the whole thing, or the LA Times feature. The Edmonton Journal got into the action, too, as did the Telegraph, while even San Jose’s Mercury News mentioned the study. The Popular Science blog did a piece on it. And of course, the rest of the blogosphere picked up on it, too: Open Water Chicago, Conditioning Research, and the Chi Running blog, to name just a few.
The study in question was Harvard evolutionary biologist Daniel Lieberman’s on “Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners.” (See comparison videos below. The difference between shod heel strike running and barefoot forefoot strike running is visually and graphically captured. For more on what you’re seeing check out NPR’s coverage.) It’s hard to believe that this is the first study of its kind, though, probably because it actually isn’t. Last year, researchers ran a similar study and decided that “Footwear Alters Normal Form and Function of the Foot” by exerting acute pressure to sensitive areas of the foot, whereas barefoot walkers enjoyed wider forefeet and more evenly distributed locomotive stress. Interesting, but probably because it didn’t make any bold pronouncements and because it dealt with the relatively mundane act of walking (rather than running), the study didn’t get any press. They could have recommended people throw off their shoes, but that wouldn’t be prudent. It wouldn’t be responsible. I can’t fault them for that, really. Researchers need funding, and you don’t want to make bold pronouncements if it means getting cut off or reprimanded. Unfortunately, scientists need to be bold to effect real change.
Even when the “experts” get it so, so right, they do their best to get it wrong in the end, or they hedge their bets and stick with the safe answer, rather than question Conventional Wisdom entirely (even if the data contradicts CW directly). I’m reminded of when Gary Taubes famously lamented a similar mindset in physicians and obesity researchers who, although they understood (and even witnessed in a clinical setting) the chronic insulin/body fat connection, continued to recommend the standard low-fat, high-carb, low-calorie diet to their patients. They connect all the dots, but fail to see the bigger picture clearly outlined by those dots. To their credit, though, researchers can and do make sensible recommendations within the context of Conventional Wisdom. The researchers from that walking study did ultimately call for the design of “quality footwear” that doesn’t “hamper the foot’s biologically normal function.” Better than nothing, I suppose.
Now, even though I agree with Lieberman’s conclusions (actually, because I’m such a huge fan of barefoot), it pays to be critical. I know Lieberman has affiliations with Vibram – in fact, he may have even helped them design the Fivefingers – and that they probably funded the study, and I know that we hem, haw, and cast skeptical eyes on Pfizer when they fund yet another statin paper. There’s a major difference between the two, though: Lieberman is right. His data is strong. He isn’t hiding anything or fudging the results. We’re right. Barefoot is better. There’s no shame in that, you know – being right. There are objective truths out there, and the objective truth is that most people aren’t born with genetically defective feet. Everyone’s imperfect, sure, but for the most part we’ve all got the same basic equipment with the same basic biomechanics working under the hood. Unless you have a birth defect, no one is born with feet that “won’t work right” or that “require shoes”. The flat footed (no arch) argument doesn’t stand up as an excuse, except when you’ve already spent a lifetime coddling your feet in supportive casts. A cautionary word that anyone transitioning to a barefoot lifestyle should take it VERY easy at first.
There was one more response to the barefoot running study that bears mentioning: Brooks (world famous running shoe company) CEO Jim Weber’s scrambling blog post. You know – I feel for the guy. It’s gotta be tough to make a reasonable response to a scientifically sound piece of research that refutes almost everything you’ve built your business on. I mean, what is he supposed to do? Admit that he’s been wrong this whole time? Admit that his shoes are basically coffins for the feet? Naturally, he goes with the entirely unsubstantiated claim that the “vast majority of runners” should race “in a performance running shoe, not barefoot.” Apparently, we barefooters are a genetically gifted breed of athlete who are “biomechanically blessed” with “natural healthy gaits.” Hmm. So, the natural, normal gait is actually somehow rare and precious. It doesn’t occur naturally. Got it. Jim, did you ever stop to think why so many of your runners seem to lack that natural healthy gait? Perhaps it’s the shoes. Our “unique biomechanical needs” are only unique because we’ve been smashing, smushing, and confining our feet to too-small, too-constrictive, too-structured footwear for years. Check out your comments section, dude. The people have spoken. You can’t ignore anecdotal evidence pouring in from all sides forever.
I eagerly await your upcoming, inevitable barefoot-analogous running shoe model.
When the CEO of a major running shoe company makes a public acknowledgment, that’s a sign. A sea change is undoubtedly occurring here, folks. The media may help spur things along, but they’re just reporting what’s really happening out there. If there wasn’t a massive audience for the barefoot message present and willing to get out there and experiment for themselves, there’d be no story. Just check out the comment sections for all the blogs and all the newspaper articles dealing with the study. In previous barefoot articles, most of the comments were either dubious or dismissive of the “fad”; now, the naysayers clinging to their Nikes are being drowned out by barefoot evangelists. I applaud them.
You’re part of what made this possible. Now, let’s hope the rest of the Primal Blueprint gains some ground out there!
Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts Delivered to Your Inbox
Posted By: Mark Sisson
start winning marathons and other types of races barefoot. that will be irrevocable evidence of barefoot supremacy. go primal!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1829863,00.html
Actually its been done, Abebe Bikila 1960 Olympics ran a 2:15:16.2.
http://dailyrunningtips.com/inspiring-stories/ethiopian-bikila-wins-marathon-running-barefoot/
I’ve come across a half dozen of these articles in the last week. Commented on all of them I think. Everything changes. Now I just need less snow and some VFFs.
I agree! I’ve been seeing these posts alot lately just bouncing thru the interwebs. Canada, namely Saskatchewan, is not exactly VFF friendly. I got my flows, but pretty much waiting for a bit of a thaw. -28 is a bit much.
Best reaction on them so far though, “So what are these on your feet now? Are they from the future?”
Pardon my ignorance. Perhaps there are none in Australia, but what are VFFs?
Vibram Five-fingers:
http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/
You can get them in Australia too
Vibram Five Fingers.
Available from a distributor in the east only (Queensland i think). Google VFF and it will come up. Since i live in the south west of West Auss i bought mine over the net from the US (Kayak Shed – Oregon – cheers peoples for the fast efficient service) as they were cheaper.
Absolutely love them. But i have been a barefooter for a long time, though these are the first (and really only) shoe that come close actually being unshod.
Cheers
Stuart
Vibram FiveFingers
The Aussie site is here:
http://www.fivefingers.com.au/public_panel/index.php
Problem is, competition hasn’t really started on them here and they sell them at RRP for around $189 – $219 AUD, which converts to $165 – $190 USD. So, I ended up getting mine in the US where I paid $80 USD for a pair of Sprints. I had them brought over by a friend, but even with shipping you’re much better off buying them that way.
I have had a hard time finding 5 fingers. I found them on crossroadsonline.com for great prices. You can prebook certain fivefingers that will not be available until September. Its best to reserve them now before september rolls around and they will be harder to get!
Hello – recent Primal convert here, but long(ish) time barefooter living in the snow up in Canada (!)
My VFF’s are fun on the weekend, but not so good in the office. I have found that Wushu shoes are a great alternative to big clonky things, and I have some NEOS overshoes to keep things warm and dry between the house and the office.
The overshoes themselves have a pretty flat sole (with good traction) and with the Wushu shoes it seems to do the trick for me.
Plus, as soon as I get home, everything (on my feet!) comes off.
Have a look at Vivo Barefoot shoes if you want something that’s close to barefoot but still looks like a normal shoe: very thin sole with a tiny bit of padding inside and a wide footbed at the front.
Thanks Tommy – I’ve seen those, and was on the wait list for the style I want last time I checked (my feet are big!) – the Vivo shoes look awesome, I agree.
I admit to kicking off the shoes at my desk anyway since I spend a lot of time writing, so that’s a plus
I need Vibram Flows!!! I have been confined to “warm shoes” all winter because I don’t have the Flows, only sprints and classics
People are incredibly intrigued by Vibrams, no matter where I am (farmer’s market, coffee shop, bookstore, work…) people ask how they feel (like walking barefoot, duh), what do I do in them (everything…and a weird question!), doesn’t it hurt to step on things (just watch where you’re walking!)…then the laugh and either “those are really cool” or “those are really cute” depending on the gender of the inquirer. I’ve even gotten into discussions about the importance of being barefoot in general, with someone else chiming in about what they’ve read or heard! People think I’m a little quirky, but I’ve had many friends/acquiantances go and try Vibrams on after seeing me wear them
Yes, the Vibram is great. Can’t wait for spring so I can wear them.
People at the gym ask me about my VFF KSO’s at least once a week. I wear them lifting weights too; just have to be careful not to drop anything heavy near my toes. I have also found it a bit easier to grip weights between my feet when doing pull-ups or dips
I love wearing them outside for sprints as well, when it gets a bit warmer here in Omaha! Also fantastic this past summer for hiking in the Steamboat area.
Has anyone switched to Nike Free (or VFF), and have back pain go away?
Yes, I have.
Oh yes. A resounding yes. Knee pain too (from partially torn ACL), big toe joint pain (from stubbing it way too many times), neck pain and shoulder pain. I have to say though, that these pains went away with VFF (or Nike Free shoes sans insoles) in combination with resistance training RTS style and TRX, of course, barefoot at home on hard-wood floor.
I always hated sneakers, and they hurt my feet so bad. In fitness class I would get in trouble for being in the gym in socks, or barefoot. But man my feet, legs, back, hips, knees all hurt when I wore those stupid shoes. As it is now, i wear sandals, flip flops or ballet slippers when I have to have shoes on. It’s good to know that my poor tootsies were telling me the truth. Not that I ever doubted them.
like everything – once they’ve made it “their” own idea and find a way to market bare feet, it’ll be the new sensation!
I don’t think Lieberman had anything to do with the design of VFFs — the design was based on an Italian designer’s work in (IIRC) 2000. Actually, Lieberman had this to say about the connection to Vibram (via AZcentral):
AZ: Vibram USA, which makes minimalist running shoes, is listed as a sponsor of your research. What is the extent of its support?
Lieberman: Vibram USA paid for a research assistant and gave free shoes to some of our volunteers, but they have no special rights or access to any of the data, no input into our experiments, and no control over how and what we publish. Further, they have not paid me a penny, and I don’t own any stock or profit in any way from this research.
Anyway, I definitely agree that the sea change is upon us whether conclusions about evolution of humanity w/r/t distance running have any merit … well it’s moot relative to the core argument that our feet are meant to be free.
I’ve created a couple large, growing link repositories for press on the Lieberman work, as well as barefoot running, and barefoot running research:
http://birthdayshoes.com/wiki/index.php?title=Links_to_press_on_barefoot_or_minimalist_footwear_running
http://birthdayshoes.com/wiki/index.php?title=Links_to_research_related_to_shod_or_barefoot_running
And also, any would-be FiveFingers wearers might benefit from this free [beginner's guide] to VFFs (you can read about it here: http://birthdayshoes.com/index.php/the-beginner-s-guide-to-five-fingers — there you’ll find a link to download the PDF).
Happy barefoot and/or VFF’ing!
Justin / justinowings.com / birthdayshoes.com
Forgot to say who the Italian designer was — Robert Fliri. There’s a great interview with him on his design over at bodyconsciousdesign.com — just mind that this link is to a PDF:
http://bodyconsciousdesign.com/uploads/Interview_with_Robert_Fliri.pdf
“I know Lieberman has affiliations with Vibram…”
Private or corporate money is no more inherently corrupt than government grant money. All research, public and private, should be viewed skeptically on its own merits. Some of the worst research, such as cholesterol and climate “science”, is supported by government grants.
So what kind of sandals do people recommend as minimal footwear? I have some VFFs but I don’t like wearing them to work etc because my feet just sweat in them. I’m looking for some thin-soled sandals to wear at work.
check out chaco flip flops. i hate shoes with a passion and live year round in my chacos. best sandals out there. i run, hike, climb, bike,work,swim,raft,kayak, everything in these. there out of western Colorado and are made for outdoor enthusiasts.
Mark,
Long time follower, first time poster.
I was a subject in Lieberman’s study. I was part of group 3 (North Americans that converted to barefoot running).
Your claims that Lieberman helped design the Vibram Five Fingers and that Vibram funds his research are both false. Vibram did send shoes, free of charge, with which Lieberman tested barefoot runners. Vibram also gave participants a free pair of shoes (Unfortunately, I think only the North Amercian participants received the free shoes). Vibram does not send any money to Lieberman and the value of the shoes is far from covering the cost of this type of research.
Lieberman’s conclusions are modest because he, like most scientists, realizes that extrapolation of data outside the context of experimental conditions is merely speculation, not fact. In this case, Lieberman established that there is significantly more impact upon heal striking when compared to forefoot striking. Whether or not heal striking leads to higher rates of injuries remains a hypothesis. Even though it makes sense to extrapolate the findings of the study and state that “running shoes increase the rate of injuries”, one has to remember that that is not what the study analyzed (I’ll remind everyone that it also made sense to think that “fat makes you fat”).
Lieberman will attempt to address the rate of injury in the future but the problem has a daunting number of variables to take into account. As a result, a controlled trial will be extremely difficult to execute not to mention prohibitively costly. The next step may involve an observational study but we know that this will only establish correlation, not causation. That would at least be a first step and may encourage funding agencies to support the research. Currently, Lieberman cannot obtain funding from the NIH because the agency does not consider the research to be sufficiently important for human health (imagine that).
With regards to the conclusion of the study, it is much easier to try to be nice to the shoe companies and get them on board. Sure, the Nike Free and other “barefoot” options might not be as good as the Vibram’s I run in, but it is at least a start. Let’s not forget that people can forefoot strike with regular running shoes. The problem is that the shoes encourage and facilitate improper running form.
Thanks for your thoughts, M@. If what you say about Lieberman and his connection with Vibram is true I stand corrected. Thank you for the inside scoop as it were.
Sure, I understand the difficulty in drawing broad conclusions from scientific studies such as this and the complexity involved in showing causation. I hope to see more from Lieberman in the future.
I’ve been one of the biggest Vibram supporters around for years now. I’ve supported others as well: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/barefoot-alternatives/
By all means, it would be nice to see what these companies do become more mainstream.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
I thank you for clarifying the presumption that “shoes” cause the issue; as I watched the video the first thing that came to mind was ‘heal vs side of foot’ running. I run on my toes/side of foot when I run, I never hit my heal first, and that’s with shoes or bare-foot.
I think the takeaway should be that people need to learn to run/walk the right way, and that big clunky heal on the shoe that “protects your heal” when you walk encourages poor walking/running habits. Ever stepped on a small stone with your heal barefoot? I’d bet most people have, but the shoe prevents that sharp (and usually persistent) pain, hence encourages bad walking/running habits.
But that’s just me. And as such, I always prefer low/thin healed shoes since the thick heal gets in the way of my natural walking gate
Interesting study, and as a scientist, I appreciate the comment from M@.
We can’t extrapolate scientific data to match our intuition, or even our personal experiences. We barefoot runners should stick to our guns, encourage continued research, and wait for the data to back up what we personally believe. That may require accepting that we’re not 100% right.
Having said that, my girlfriend and I converted to Vibrams last fall and we’re never looking back! I never had a prior running injury, but I feel noticeably lighter and quicker on my feet. For me, that alone is worth the change. Although I’m hoping for solid data demonstrating long-term health advantages to barefoot running.
Disclaimer:
I own and love my FVV KSO Treks.
I go barefoot whenever I can.
Query: the videos show a harder footfall strike in the shod state. However, doesn’t the equipment measure the force of the impact from the SHOE? In other words, isn’t it inapposite to compare footfall force between barefoot contact with the strike plate and shod contact with the strike plate? Doesn’t the material of the shod foot absorb the ultimate force “felt” by the bare foot in the running shoe?
In other words, while it may be true that a shod footfall “lands” harder than barefoot, does that mean that the force felt by each barefoot is the same? I honestly don’t know…
FVV=VFF – oops!
There are also vids showing heel-striking impact barefoot — the initial high force on impact heel-striking barefoot is similar to that in shoes.
This is from Nature, they had an article last week:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/01/nature_video_the_barefoot_prof.html
im always barefoot in the summer. however winter is another story. its far too cold here to be barefoot outside.
Mark –
I’m a long-time runner (though I never reached your competitive heights I was O.K. back in the day). Since adopting The Primal Blueprint to my life, I’ve actually eliminated most of the traditional running from my life. I sprint and jog at “move slowly” intensities. Barefooting (or VFF) works very well for those.
Now I’ve done a little bit of what people would traditionally think of as “running” (we call it “chronic cardio”) in VFF and it’s doable for me. Still running 12 miles in VFF is not as pleasant an experience as doing it in traditional running shoes.
Hold on. Flamethrowers down. I’m not going to conclude running shoes are good – quite the opposite…
Maybe the real problem isn’t with “unnatural” running shoes so much as it is with the “unnatural” activity of quick (but sub-sprinting) running? Put another way a natural human activity would be one that we (and not just Bikila and “Barefoot Ted”) can do easly and comfortably in our natural barefoot state. If we need the unnatural intervention of a modern shoe, then isn’t the underlying activity that necessitates those shoes the “unnatural” problem?
In some ways, that view makes Jim Weber’s blog piece look even worse than it does at first glance. The runners who said that the Brooks Beast “saved their lives” need to take a hard look at what they’re doing. Relying on a heavy motion control shoe to keep running is the same thought process that brought us low-tar cigarettes and diet soda, dubious inventions that make us feel better about doing something we shouldn’t be doing in the first place. My guess is that those runners would be far better off walking barefoot than running in The Beast. They’d also have a lot more cash to spare foregoing Brooks’ shoes.
I have been trying to go barefoot as much as possible since I first read Mark’s article on how to strengthen your feet. I just purchased a pair of VFF KSO’s this week and in two nights of wearing them I can say I really like them. If you are interested in them I would recommend finding a local retailer. I walked into the store expecting to buy the Sprint model, but after trying on both the Sprint and the KSO I decided on the KSO. I was also in-between sizes so I was able to try the smaller and larger ones to find the best fit.
any golfers out there who have worn vff?
i just got mine and would like to wear them on the course but i’m afraid of slippage.
Thanks.
Yeah it’s being done:
http://birthdayshoes.com/index.php/michael-and-lindsey-take-fivefingers-to-hawaii
That’s my brother-in-law. He really enjoys golfing in his Sprints.
I bought a pair of VVF after Mark’s first post. I never looked back and I’ve never run better. From experience, you must make the transition slowly or suffer the wrath of “calf-hell”
For long distances on paved road, (which I don’t run often) I use my Nike free’s. The Nike Free’s are a wonderful travel sneaker also. Nice and light.
Yay, the tide is turning, now maybe my kids won’t call me crazy in a few years
Marc
I have a pair of Lucys from the Vivo Barefoot line at Terra Plana. They’re spiffy-looking and amazingly comfortable. I’ve been wearing them every day for running, walking, hiking for half a year or so. Still like new, except dirty, haha.
Much to my surprise, I’ve gotten several compliments on how cool my shoes look, despite being barefoot-wear. They have a wide toebox than your typical foot-destroying shoe but are designed hide that fact from your typical non-meticulous person.
I love the fact that I can feel a lot of terrain through the shoe despite the fact that they’re almost impenetrable. The soles are only 3mm thick (without padded insoles.) Also, when I walk in them I naturally step mid or forefoot.
My only qualm with them would be that when you step on hard man-made ground, the sole hits the ground pretty loudly even if you step carefully. Such is the way of this particular (impenetrable) material, I guess.
I can run in them, but they aren’t the most comfortable shoes to run long distances in, though they’re great for sprinting.
The grip on the bottom isn’t particularly awesome, but it’s quite satisfactory.
Vivo barefoot shoes are incredibly light. I can’t wear feet-killing sneakers anymore; they’re too heavy (and that’s only one of the many reasons).
Also, when I got them, I thought they were too tight, so I had to loosen the laces a lot (I have big, wide ol’ feet, what can I say?) and the laces are somewhat short. It’s a little difficult to tie up the laces after loosening them, but boy did they feel wonderful!
I 100% recommend getting a pair of Vivo Barefoot shoes.
I got a pair from the trendy Lucy line for girls. The Aquas are a bit more comfortable, but are somewhat funny-looking on girls. The Aquas and the Dharmas are great on guys.
I feel like the Vivo’s are uncomfortable and unnatural compared to the VFF. Yeah the sole is really thin so I can feel the ground and it’s got a wide toe box so I’m not cramming my toes but, I feel like I’m walking unnaturally when I wear them. Whereas, the VFF just feel so perfect.
Don’t get me wrong the Vivo’s are a step above “normal” shoes. They are good to wear if I just can’t get away with wearing VFF (physically or socially). But they are still shoes.
My question: If you are using conventional running shoes, couldn’t you just alter your gait and focus on landing on your arch as opposed to your heal?
Do you really need to be barefoot in order to have proper running form?
I’m very interested in learning more, but I don’t see that barefoot is always the way to go.
From my own experience you naturally run with pretty good form when you go barefoot. The first time I ran barefoot on the road I landed on my heels a couple of times and the pain was so great my body just wouldn’t let me heel strike again. Over the last few months I have been wearing my running shoes because of the cold winter and I have to constantly tell myself to stay off my heals. When I run with running shoes I naturally heel strike, but when I go barefoot I naturally forefoot/midfoot strike. So, I believe you can train yourself to run in running shoes with a fore/midfoot strike but it’s just easier to let nature control your foot strike.
You can definitely change your gait without running barefoot. I did this a few years ago after reading about the benefits of landing on the ball of your foot instead of your heal during running. Just make sure you take it slow because you’re using different muscles and it will take time to build them up. My calf muscles were extremely sore when I first started changing my gait.
I thought the crossfit videos were pretty helpful: http://www.crossfit.com/cf-info/excercise.html#Run. Check out the one called “The Fall”.
I am a big advocate of barefoot running just like I am an advocate of eating primal. I think it’s up to each individual to do there own scientific study on themselves. The problem arises when most people won’t come out of their comfort zones. I chose to eat primal and run barefoot as an experiment and found I love both. A large majority of people aren’t willing to try new things even if it will improve their health. It really boggles my mind, but each to his own. Great blog Mark!
Mark – great post.
Ever since reading Born to Run while wearing my VFF’s for the past few months I’ve been eager to see other bodies of evidence come to the forefront on this “fad.”
I’m a long time sufferer of shoes. I have flat feet, overpronate, and spent more than $1000 in a year preparing for the Chicago marathon until finally someone suggested I get orthotic inserts.
The inserts helped, but this year while training for the Twin Cities marathon I ran into another oddity. The inserts helped my overpronation – but it created something an experienced runner should not see too often – shin splints. This then lead to a stress fracture and I was out of commission.
The VFF’s I have enjoyed to this point. My theories tell me that by running midfoot as opposed to heel to toe I should not have any overpronation problems. I’ve only run in them a handful of times so far due to weather, but when I have run in them I’m fully engaged in my running, the environment and what my feet are running on. It’s been great, but I look forward to the spring when I can really run in them and not just wear them during workouts.
Let’s hope more research continues to pop up and Big Shoe can go find something else to make money on.
The other day I passed a couple of high school boys running – I’m assuming training for some sport. The temp was in the 20s; he was in shorts and running barefoot! I smiled to myself when I saw that. I think the word is getting out…
Once upon a time, shoes were only for the rich. And the rich wore shoes that showed off their elite status. They were often inconvenient to wear with long toes, rich fabrics and heavy embroidery and other endowments. A person wearing these things couldn’t get much done, and thus it richly displayed their wealth in the form of servants to run their errands for them. In other words, fancy shoes were a status symbol.
Fast forward to the recent past and shoes were still a status symbol. Rich people wore shoes. ‘Civilized’ people wore shoes. If you didn’t wear shoes, you were considered poor, heathen and uncouth. Many stores in towns put up signs. The classic “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. Who wants poor, uncouth ruffians in their establishments ruining their business?
Thus respectability was measured by shoes. Everyone wanted them to prove that they were not low class heathens and eventually they became the norm for society.
Until today.
I don’t think so. Medieval serfs wore shoes, so did Roman peasants. Many wore well constructed, functional shoes.
Try getting through an English winter barefoot.
Serfs and peasants did wear shoes. The most common type of shoe was called a “turnshoe”. They are made of soft leather and are sewn inside out, then “turned” so that all of the seams are inside. The soul often wrapped continuously up the heel in a triangular tab so that there were no seams to wear out with a normal gait. Basically, a thin moccasin. For rough outside wear these shoes would be protected with a pair of wooden “pattens” Basically, a wooden sandal that protects your shoes from the muck of the field. I’ve made several turnshoes and enjoy walking in them. They do require a proper gait or you will bruise your heel badly.
I have a pair of Nike Free running shoes. They are great, it has changed my running gait and improved my posture. My Dr. recommended them to me. He also told me to read Born To Run by Christopher McDougall. It’s a great book and has reference to bare foot running. My son just bought a pair of Vibrams.
Not to disagree with your article, but I don’t think the scientists who completed this study have come to a conclusion as to whether or not barefoot running is better yet. Yes, barefoot will force you to forefoot strike, but will that cause less injuries. According to Harvard site, who knows?
http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/index.html
Excessive heel-strike is common in untrained athletes. Once trained properly, quality athletes tend to run on their forefoot, much in the same way that the second video example gives. Agreed that excessive heel-strike is common as a result of overly protective shoes, but I believe that the goal of these companies is not to destroy the wearers knees, but to allow beginner athletes to train safely with cushioning (in an urban environment), with the hope that they graduate to thinner soled shoes as they improve their running. This is up to the runner of course, and probably doesn’t happen. This is not to take away from the fact that barefoot running is brilliant and should be done more often, but beginners should be wary of doing too much barefoot running too soon. As with aything, ease into it safely to allow a prolonged and injury free running life. Great work Mark, keep up the good work
Im a big fan of Sanuks for everyday use. I have a pair of VFF, but cant really wear them around here with the winters and to work. Sanuks are basically sandals, kinda. Some have a fur lining inside of them (great for winters in the north) and they also make the “Boardroom” which would work with a suit.
Check em… sanuk.com
Clearly this study was deeply flawed and the videos prove it. You can plainly see duct tape on the side of the shoes, which would instantly throw off the delicate balance designed into such high-quality running shoes. One can easily conclude that the duct tape was a statistically significant factor in the study, and was added to skew the results in favor of the barefoot runner. On behalf of Nike, I claim foul!
