If you’re a runner, to shod or not to shod is the question of the millennium. Or, at least, how to shod; high tech running shoes or something minimal? The January 28, 2010 edition of Nature provides some of the most compelling info yet. Two articles were published. The first:
Biomechanics: Barefoot running strikes back
Is the more laymen of the two, likely titled as such in response to Denis' post from a few months ago. Be warned, Nature is a science rag so it’s not like reading People. The second is more eggheadedly titled and gets down to the nitty gritty.
Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners
Both give in depth analysis to various forms of foot strike (RFS [rear foot strike, MFS [mid foot strike], FFS [front foot strike]) and its impact on the body. You’ll need a subscription to Nature to read them, but it’s worth the money if you run. You’ll save the price many times over the next time you don’t have to buy a $150 pair of shoes.
Here's a summary of the science:
Evidence that barefoot and minimally shod runners avoid RFS strikes with high-impact collisions may have public health implications. The average runner strikes the ground 600 times per kilometre, making runners prone to repetitive stress injuries6–8. The incidence of such injuries has remained considerable for 30 years despite technological advancements that provide more cushioning and motion control in shoes designed for heel–toe running27–29. Although cushioned, high-heeled running shoes are comfortable, they limit proprioception and make it easier for runners to land on their heels. Furthermore, many running shoes have arch supports and stiffened soles that may lead to weaker foot muscles, reducing arch strength. This weakness contributes to excessive pronation and places greater demands on the plantar fascia, which may cause plantar fasciitis. Although there are anecdotal reports of reduced injuries in barefoot populations30, controlled prospective studies are needed to test the hypothesis that individuals who do not predominantly RFS either barefoot or in minimal footwear, as the foot apparently evolved to do, have reduced injury rates.
pic: plus, you got to admit that the FFS looks far more graceful.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
ReplyDeleteHere's the deal. If you look at early posts than the one Steve references above, you'll see that I vacillate when it comes to barefoot running. However, at the time, I was struggling with a back injury and the physical therapist I was seeing at the time demanded I stop wearing shoes or stick to Nike Frees. The pain worsened, but he insisted I stay away from shoes and I'd adapt. Finally, the pain increased to the point that I blew him off and returned to my Superfeet inserts, much to my back's relief.
Last week, after an MRI, I learned the source of my pain is a stress fracture in my L5 vertebrae and for now, I need all the support I can get, including shoes.
So my point was, and still is, that there are shades of gray here. The Nature article that Steve references backs me up on that. I get frustrated when a trend pops up and suddenly everyone sees it as the end-all-be-all. I'm not saying Steve is doing that, but regardless, I feel compelled to take this stance for the Nerd Herd, cuz I luv you guys.
There's a gray area as a reason to wear shoes, yes, but not when it comes elevating the heel and supporting the arch for running. The science is pretty black and white on that. Both heel strikes and arch support add stress to running. There are absolutely other reasons to wear shoes. Just not high tech running shoes (which I still own a lot of, btw).
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. Problem resolved.
ReplyDeleteLet's hug.
The problem is only sort of resolved. I've got at least 10 pair of running shoes in the garage that I'm too cheap to get rid of. Maybe I can file down the heels.
ReplyDelete*hug*
Or...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.soles4souls.org/
I will tell you this. When I began running in my Five Fingers (or barefooted sprints in grass), the days of having weird hip and back pain were gone. It just (in the beginning) shifted to having sore calves. Granted, unlike Dennis, I didn't have a screwed up L5. Good stuff guys.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI love my Vibram Five Fingers (VFFs)! You quickly learn not to heel strike when running in them. My IT Band issues went away when I started using the Chi Running techniques.
ReplyDelete"I get frustrated when a trend pops up and suddenly everyone sees it as the end-all-be-all." - Well if you look at it in a big picture evolutionary way, running shoes of any kind are the trendiest of all considering that for 99.9999% of our two million year existence humans did everything barefoot.
Apparently, it's "Hammer Denis" day at the Fish household. ;)
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I'm more on the fence about barefooting, so I don't disgree with you, but for the record, in a big picture evolutionary way, 99.9999% of our two million year existence wasn't spent running hours at a time on concrete and anyone still running (except when being chased by mastodons) after 35 or 40 was a fitness anomaly.
No no Denis, I like your blog and I agree with much of what you say. I just like stimulating discussion. :-)
ReplyDeleteBut you raise a good point. If for over 99% of our existence we didn't run for hours at a time, why are we doing so now? It just seems strange to me that we do something that is bad for us and try to mitigate the damage with technology.
And as Peter McAllister points out in his book Manthropology (http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/men-x2013-theyx2019re-just-not-what-they-used-to-be-20090805-ea31.html?page=-1) our ancestors were a lot healthier, stronger, and fitter than modern humans. I suspect anyone who made it 35 or 40 would still be capable of outrunning most people today. Their lifespans were shorter because of infant mortality and simple injuries like a sprained ankle becoming a death sentence.
I agree entirely! (Weird.) When I claim to be a fitness nerd, it doesn't mean I'm slavish to constantly torturing my body with exercise. (That would be Steve's job.) We're a society of extremes. We're either 400 pounds or striving for six-pack abs. There's no middle ground. I'm all about trying find moderation, not that I'm always good at it.
ReplyDelete