I am naturally fairly sceptical, and so I have followed form with regards to the claims about barefoot running, or the rise of Huarache hokum as I'll label it here in a good humoured manner. I've been particularly sceptical about:
(1) claims about how bad trainers are for you, with some book authors seeming to claim that about 80% of the running population are at any one time injured as a direct consequence of wearing trainers. Eh? Where on earth does that figure come from? This sounds very suspicious and anecdotal. What is being counted as an injury? How was the data gathered?
There appear to be 2 key review papers in the scientific literature about incidence of running injuries - Richards et al 2009 and van Mechelen (1992) (not available online - too old I guess). Note however none have found evidence of the cause of running injuries as being the use of trainers, and none have done so experimentally.
So, the evidence is not anywhere near being robust at the present time. What is clear is that the forces experienced by runners differ in where they are exerted and their magnitude, depending on footstrike (heel based as with trainers, or mid- or fore-foot based as with barefoot) - see Lieberman et al 2010. So there is the potential for there to be differences in both type of injury, and injury incidence rates between barefoot and trainer wearing running, but the difference or cause of difference is not yet established.
(2) taking the stance that it is reasonable to compare incidence of injuries between lifelong barefoot running and largely sedentary western populations
Huarache Indians I assume run from a very early age, have a lifestyle which is not dominated by sedentary activities and are therefore well adapted physically to not wearing trainers. Most westerners who run probably take up running relatively late in life (i.e. post 18) and live largely sedentary lives. They have not grown up with the motion of running and consequently have not physically adapted to the same extent.
To then think about comparing the levels of running induced injuries between the two populations just seems crazy. It wouldn't be surprising if Huarache Indians were injured less from running, but not because of running barefoot, simply because they've been doing it for most of their lives.
A more valid, and interesting comparison, would be to compare injury rates between Huarache Indians (or other lifelong barefoot runners like some Kenyans), and any population of trainer wearing runners who had been running for the same length of time (so you control for extent of physical adaptation). I suspect you'd also need to control for biomechanic characteristics to ensure that the two groups were equivalent in terms of propensities to pronate etc.
So what is my position?
It is certainly worthwhile trying to establish whether there is a link between the use of trainers and incidence, type and severity of injury in running. No argument there.
If one found that there was a link, what would be the advice? Everyone to go barefoot? I suspect this would lead to injury too, partly as folk adapt to the new style and different stresses and strains are placed on the body. I do wonder whether even after adaptation to the new style that injury rates, types and severities would be reduced if everyone now with trainers went barefoot? I have a suspicion that the distribution of biomechanical characteristics might play an important mediating role. Are all Huaraches biomechanically neutral or is the incidence of pronation the same in western and lifelong barefoot running populations? Characterising this would be important before issuing general guidance on the appropriateness of running - whether barefoot or with trainers. Having said that, review evidence would suggest that the use of long distance, pronation control trainers has no effect on injury prevention (Richards et al 2009).
As ever however I am open to good quality evidence so my intention with this post is to encourage responses which might alert me to evidence I am missing. Comment away you barefoot runners, I remain to be convinced! :-)))
Wendover Woods 50
6 days ago
7 comments:
http://barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/5BarefootRunning&TrainingTips.html
It takes a while to get it right.
This guy has got most of the things I found out the hard way.
I will write something up.
A guest posting perhaps.
Surprisingly one of the most enjoyable sensations is running on warm asphalt.
That said I am out for a run in my five finger flows - used below 10 C.
My last injury was actually caused by my swapping back to trainers thinking the eroded paths would cause me problems.
So I sticking with five fingers and barefoot or bits of old tyre tied to feet with thongs - huaraches (not tried yet).
Interesting stuff, Brian. I was thinking about about a post on the same lines but I think you've covered pretty much what I would have said, except that I would probably describe my stance as open-minded rather than sceptical. What I do like about the barefoot theory is that landing on your forefoot is definitely kinder to your feet - I have chronic PF in one foot and I already notice some difference so I'm keen on that - but I don't like the stuff that goes with it, like having to lean forward more, shorten your stride and quicken your cadence. I feel like I'm pattering along rather than gliding (or maybe running in third gear rather than top), and I don't buy into the theory that overstriding slows you down, I think this is a rather selective view of the physics involved. So I'm trying to learn to run in both styles so I can apply them as appropriate (but still wearing trainers as they allow you to do both). I'm sure you'll get a lot of evangelism from the true converts though! Andy.
really interesting post Brian.
i'm also very sceptical of the barefoot trend. i wear orthotics for a minor foot problem and bought a pair of VFF's to walk about the house in and do a little running. they seem to have made the problem worse. i'll maybe look at it again when i'm chasing barefoot runners in races!
(btw in the 'Born To Run' book it was the shoe wearing runner who won the race against all the barefoot guys, i'm sure he's a mate of yours...)
Nice article Brian. As you mentioned research is a bit thin and as you would appreciate very difficult to organise a comprehensive way of proving one or the other.
My view on the situation is that running barefoot encourages indeed forces you to land on the front of your foot which I think is universally agreed upon as a more efficient way to run. One look at the back of the pack runners in a fun run and you'll see every one of them landing heavily on their heels.
For me personally I have always run on my toes but because I've run in shoes my calves have become very tight leading to shin, Plantar fascia and Achilles problems. My first inkling barefoot might be better was after a 7 week trip back to Aus in summer when I walked barefoot or in flip flop almost all of the time and my PF and shin symptons dissapeared.
I dont think for ultras that running in vff is realistic considering the terrain we run on but I'm trying to build up the mileage in the vff so my feet become stronger and eliminate the need for orthotics. Only doing 1 run a week in the vff up to 1 hour at the moment.
If I was truly committed to the barefoot ideal I'd have to spend probably a year or more building up the mileage very slowly to allow my feet muscles to strengthen. If I went straight into 3x week barefoot my feet wont know what hit them and I'll get more injuries not less.
A lot of running shoes have a fairly high heel position which promotes tight calf muscles , I want to move to a low lightweight trail shoe , another reason to wear the vff and increase my calf flexibility.
As a personal trainer who does a lot of work with runners I make them do all their exercises in barefeet whilst in the gym to start strengthening their feet muscles before recommending barefoot.
Would be good to see a study of runners who have gone barefoot for a number of years and comparing with runners wearing shoes to see injury rates.
Andy C's comment about shorter stride and leaning forward I never had a problem with as I have always had a short fast stride but I think it takes a while to feel comfortable with a change of running style.
The biomechanics of it are sound though. You foot should land under you not in front so you can transfer energy forward not up through your leg. Doesnt matter if you are wearing shoes or not. Watch any olympic athlete and you'll see exactly that.
Good to challenge new ways of thinking rather than blindy accepting them. Look forward to more research in the future confirming ( or not) the barefoot running theory.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1249982/Running-shoe-women-adjusts-according-time-month.html
Proof that trainers are not just a product of the military industrial complex.
They do indeed full fill a real human need like tea, coffee and chocolate;¬))
Written up my blog in response to "Huarache hokum"
No hard evidence Brian but my own perception is that runners are just as injured nowadays as they were over 30 years ago when i first started running, despite ever-increasing complexity in trainer design and ever-decreasing training volumes by the average runner.
I reckon that if you run with poor technique, you'll get away with it for longer wearing trainers than without, but if you run correctly I don't think it would make much difference if you're shod or not. It's an interesting question whether natural barefoot runners have higher injury rates than long-term trainer wearers. I'd be surprised if they do but am open to persuasion if there's good evidence to prove this.
Post a Comment