The subject of barefoot running has exploded into the public eye in the last year. It started in earnest with the widespread popularity of Christopher McDougall's book Born to Run, and most recently culminated in the results of a study by Dr. Daniel Lieberman. He scientifically showed that the forefoot strike when running barefoot is bio-mechanically efficient in avoiding injury creates less biomechanical impact force than a heel strike *.
A lot has been said about this topic. I have numerous friends with whom I've connected across the world who have chimed in on this "debate." We've all posted tweets, blog posts and articles with our take on the issue. Shoe company executives have even begun to share their thoughts.
On the "pro-shoe" sided of the issue, podiatrists, shoe companies and others claim that the forces and mechanics of running are too much for the bare foot. Even if they're not, they remind us that running barefoot has inherent risk of injury from stepping on rocks or other sharp objects.
On the "pro-barefoot" side of the issue, these runners claim less injury due to a forefoot strike. Many, including myself, have even accused the same podiatrists and shoe companies of promoting shod running primarily for financial gain. If we barefooters get hurt less and buy fewer shoes, that affects their bottom lines.
Justin Owings, owner of Vibram Fivefingers fan site BirthdayShoes.com, recently made a very good point about running in his recent blog post. It's an observation similar to what I've mentioned previously in this space. Justin writes (the bold emphases are his):
A lot has been said about this topic. I have numerous friends with whom I've connected across the world who have chimed in on this "debate." We've all posted tweets, blog posts and articles with our take on the issue. Shoe company executives have even begun to share their thoughts.
On the "pro-shoe" sided of the issue, podiatrists, shoe companies and others claim that the forces and mechanics of running are too much for the bare foot. Even if they're not, they remind us that running barefoot has inherent risk of injury from stepping on rocks or other sharp objects.
On the "pro-barefoot" side of the issue, these runners claim less injury due to a forefoot strike. Many, including myself, have even accused the same podiatrists and shoe companies of promoting shod running primarily for financial gain. If we barefooters get hurt less and buy fewer shoes, that affects their bottom lines.
Justin Owings, owner of Vibram Fivefingers fan site BirthdayShoes.com, recently made a very good point about running in his recent blog post. It's an observation similar to what I've mentioned previously in this space. Justin writes (the bold emphases are his):
"The barefoot running debate is curious. It feels backwards. Most know Occam's Razor: the simplest answer tends to be the best one. What is the simplest answer when it comes to what human beings were meant to put on their feet in order to walk or run? Nothing. We are barefoot by default... Starting from the default human condition, the onus regarding the merits of shoes should be on the shoe companies. But of course it's not. It's the opposite."
In a way, I kind of feel like the two sides are a married couple in a knock-down, drag-out shouting match with each other that all began over who should do the dishes. Any married couple can tell you that those kinds of arguments are never really about the dishes, are they? Let's dig deeper.I am a barefoot runner only because I first live a barefoot lifestyle. If the weather is at all decent -- and when I'm not injured -- you can find me barefoot around the house, at church, out shopping, attending family gatherings and sometimes even dining out. I live barefoot because it is the most comfortable way to have my feet and is actually quite sanitary and safe. It is just as normal for me to go barefoot as it is for most people to live without gloves on their hands.
Back to the topic at hand, I began running because I wanted to be healthier. I wanted to do something to lose a little weight, be more fit and feel better. I found a wonderful community of runners online and have enjoyed sharing goodwill with them.
Running with "regular" sneakers was never an option. That would be like wanting to become a pianist and putting on gloves every time I sat down to play. The concept never fit because that's not who I am. I don't really think of myself as a "barefoot runner," just as piano players aren't "barehanded pianists." I'm just a runner.
When I look at it from that perspective, the barefoot running debate isn't about running. It's not even about money.
Barefoot running, like a barefoot lifestyle, strikes a nerve in our deepest core about feet and our perceptions of them. It makes us really step back and look at what role our feet could -- or more importantly should -- play in our lives. How do we move across the ground? How much sensation do we allow into our psyche? What dangers lie just below our feet? How much of ourselves do we expose to those around us? How much of others are we comfortable seeing?
I actually had a conversation with someone who objected to Kate's feet being prominently shown in her avatar (Because I'm not interested in calling anyone out or embarrassing them, let's call this person "Sam"). I asked Sam what issue they had with feet. They ended up repeating four times the same basic sentiment: "I just dont like feet. Plain and simple." That's pretty much as much detail as I got. Now, Sam may have specific reasons that they're not interested in disclosing as to why they have such a problem with others' feet, but nevertheless it's a sentiment that I have heard so many times.
For a part of that body that's not considered "private," -- after all, people go barefoot on TV shows, in magazines and on Web sites -- feet are arguably the most rejected of them all. You don't hear people say, "I just don't like ears. Plain and simple." They don't say that about hair, chins, shoulders, elbows, hands, knees or anything else. There's something about feet. And people's objections about feet aren't even that consistent. For example, someone may say that they "hate" feet, but are perfectly fine with going to the public pool where everybody is barefoot.
Only on rare occasions is going barefoot embraced. This usually happens when somebody goes barefoot for charity, as if seeing someone withstand the torture of going without shoes makes people want to donate money. Weddings are sometimes performed on the beach or in soft grass so that the wedding party can go barefoot as a way of being in tune with nature. Other, isolated times of barefooting are briefly allowed. "How quaint," people think for each occasion. "Ahhhhh."
All right. Snap out of it.
Let's face it: In general, whether it's for the purpose of running, worshiping, shopping, play or even online avatars, the general idea of going barefoot is controversial in the U.S. and other parts of the world. Somewhere along the line shoes became the "norm." As Justin pointed out, our baseline isn't barefoot and then explain why shoes are needed. Shoes are expected and you'd better have a really good reason to take them off.
A lot of the arguments against going barefoot in any activity are the same. A prominent idea about feet is that they are sweaty and inherently smell. Some fear catching a disease from the ground/floor into the bottom of their feet. Many people claim that there are broken beer bottles and AIDS-laced syringes just lying around everywhere. The idea of lacking any arch support while going barefoot is troubling to lots of people. I've even had people tell me personally, "You know, it's not good for your back to go barefoot." The list goes on and on.
So the prominent stigmas against going barefoot carry over to running barefoot. It isn't about comparing a heel strike to a forefoot strike. It isn't about avoiding blisters or not losing toenails. It's not about any of the other perfectly good arguments for running unshod. I'd bet you that most runners who reject the idea of barefoot running could not care less about any of that. The decision is made based on the word "barefoot," not the word "running."
I have also personally heard someone reply -- on more than one occasion, actually -- after hearing all the benefits of barefoot running, "I'll stick to wearing my shoes." No pause for personal reflection on whether it could have benefit to them. No challenging of what they "know" about the capability or characteristics of the human feet. Just outright rejection. What's more, these same negative sentiments are reinforced by the podiatrists and shoe company executives who I mentioned earlier.
So where does all this leave us? With a lot of work to do.
We barefoot runners and general barefooters need find ways to better educate the public about feet. We need to become advocates of what, to many, has become a demonized part of the body. Most importantly, we need to do it together. Only then, maybe, will feet get the respect they deserve.
I'm up for the challenge and will soon be making a major announcement with regard to this. I'm very much looking forward to what lies ahead.
Please comment below. I would love to hear your feedback.
(* NOTE: Entry edited Monday, March 8, 2010, to clarify the results of Dr. Lieberman's study. See comments below.)
Photo: LoveCoachBlog.com
A lot of the arguments against going barefoot in any activity are the same. A prominent idea about feet is that they are sweaty and inherently smell. Some fear catching a disease from the ground/floor into the bottom of their feet. Many people claim that there are broken beer bottles and AIDS-laced syringes just lying around everywhere. The idea of lacking any arch support while going barefoot is troubling to lots of people. I've even had people tell me personally, "You know, it's not good for your back to go barefoot." The list goes on and on.
So the prominent stigmas against going barefoot carry over to running barefoot. It isn't about comparing a heel strike to a forefoot strike. It isn't about avoiding blisters or not losing toenails. It's not about any of the other perfectly good arguments for running unshod. I'd bet you that most runners who reject the idea of barefoot running could not care less about any of that. The decision is made based on the word "barefoot," not the word "running."
I have also personally heard someone reply -- on more than one occasion, actually -- after hearing all the benefits of barefoot running, "I'll stick to wearing my shoes." No pause for personal reflection on whether it could have benefit to them. No challenging of what they "know" about the capability or characteristics of the human feet. Just outright rejection. What's more, these same negative sentiments are reinforced by the podiatrists and shoe company executives who I mentioned earlier.
So where does all this leave us? With a lot of work to do.
We barefoot runners and general barefooters need find ways to better educate the public about feet. We need to become advocates of what, to many, has become a demonized part of the body. Most importantly, we need to do it together. Only then, maybe, will feet get the respect they deserve.
I'm up for the challenge and will soon be making a major announcement with regard to this. I'm very much looking forward to what lies ahead.
Please comment below. I would love to hear your feedback.
(* NOTE: Entry edited Monday, March 8, 2010, to clarify the results of Dr. Lieberman's study. See comments below.)
Photo: LoveCoachBlog.com
Michael,
ReplyDeleteWell-written post with good insight. I would submit that perhaps the problem is even a deeper social commentary that people are not willing to challenge strong beliefs (your story about the runner who decided to "stick with their shoes" resonates).
I'm on the path to barefoot running so have little experience in this area. I have worn my VFFs on several runs and can say almost everyone I've crossed paths with has looked at me sideways. I expect more of the same as I run barefoot.
I have, however, worn sandals for years and often walk around work barefoot at work - both habits have drawn plenty of comments. I think you are right that these questions present an opportunity to challenge people's perceptions about why we as humans "follow the crowd" so willingly without question.
Great post and I look forward to seeing more.
Jeff
Michael -- I think barefoot running is just the tip of the iceberg of something much bigger. There are some basic cultural assumptions being challenged here. For one, our bodies aren't in any way defective. But the way we live is defective. The running shoe business is built on the premise that our feet are inherently weak and defective. Also, the assumption is that an engineered solution to an issue is always better than a natural solution.
ReplyDeleteSomeone once made the comparison to the breast milk debate. A few decades ago, people had been sold on the idea that formula was superior to breast milk. That turned out to be a load of hogwash.
I think there are many other areas in our culture that are analogous to formula and running shoes. We've been sold on things that are detrimental to our health and well being.
People have been running barefoot for countless generations. I take it as a very positive sign that we are starting to remember this once again.
Thanks for this post.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of so-called "experts" stand to lose a lot of reputation if a topic they have based their careers on gets turned on its head. Imagine, running experts and doctors who religiously tout the benefits of certain products or shoes, and now they are revealed to be completely wrong? Cognitive dissonance is powerful.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the other problems is some kind of deep cultural connection between lower-class and lack of shoes. People tend to associate being poor with a lack of shoes, therefore somebody who walks around without shoes might be perceived as poor. Inversely, somebody who can afford $500 running shoes might be perceived as rich, or influential, or perhaps a very elite runner.
These kinds of perceptions are powerful, and important to people at large. Perception is reality.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeletevery good post, thank you for that. I agree with David Csonka on the poor/rich issue. It´s a real classic comment of bypassers: "You can not afford shoes, huh?" Heard it really often.
Regarding shoe industry: It´s selling shoes on the one hand, but it´s also buying shoes on the other. People love buying things. The whole fitness industry made a living from that. Barefoot running is for free, and that´s very confusing. It´s too simple, too easy. I think thats why the 5Fingers are so popular. When you put money into something, you expect something good to happen, when it´s for free it´s worthless. Perception is reality, as David said.
Walking/running/living barefoot is really a lot more than just going without shoes. And I´m glad that there are posts like yours which keep up the debate and hopefully make people think about how we are living today, and that it´s ok to question what we think we know.
"He scientifically showed that the forefoot strike when running barefoot is bio-mechanically efficient in avoiding injury."
ReplyDeleteNo he didn't. He showed that running barefoot tends to involve less shock at heelstrike and more loading on the forefoot. That is not the same as being more efficient at preventing injury, its just different.
Whereas this study
Suzanna Logan, Ian Hunter, J. Ty Hopkins, J.T., J. Brent Feland and Allen C. Parcell GROUND REACTION FORCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RUNNING SHOES, RACING FLATS, AND DISTANCE SPIKES IN RUNNERS Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2010) 9, 147 - 153
Showed that loading rate, peak vertical impact force and peak braking forces where significantly greater in flats and spikes compared to running shoes. Which co-incidentally does not prove that running shoes are BETTER than flats, just different.
To "Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteFair enough. I've corrected my first paragraph to clarify Lieberman's findings.
Nevertheless, that inaccuracy doesn't change the overall message of this blog post. Thanks for reading and commenting, though.
Barefoot Michael
"Imagine, running experts and doctors who religiously tout the benefits of certain products or shoes, and now they are revealed to be completely wrong?"
ReplyDeleteThis already happened regarding a different subject during the beginning of the 20th century - weightlifting and bodybuilding using heavy weights. The "experts" and doctors had the assumption and 'book knowledge' that building muscle using very heavy weights was bad for you, that it causes 'muscle binding' - something we know now does not exist. We all now know that weightlifting is the best exercise of all, great for your muscles, tendons, and joints and increases your metabolism, and that gradually getting used to increasingly heavier weights makes you stronger. This is all obvious to most people in today's world. But weightlifting and bodybuilding 75 or 100 years ago was only done by 'circus freaks' and eccentrics, but the book-knowledge experts never lifted weights in their entire lives, and had no first hand experience. They were all debunked by bodybuilders by the middle of the 20th century. Yet to most of the people back then, it was obvious that going barefoot gradually more each day toughens up your feet. We went backwards with that one - today the average young person apparently has no idea that if you walk barefoot outside more and more each day that your feet will get tough enough to walk on almost anything. Somehow that cultural practice and knowledge was not passed on to the generations born after the 1960s.
There are many reasons ideas go in and out of fashion. One is that they are recognised as bad ideas. Another is that it just falls out of fashion.
ReplyDeletePlantar skin (like any skin) will certainly become thicker and tougher when exposed to trauma. The body is good at adapting itself to demands placed upon it.
One note of caution though. Callus is not always a good thing. Back in the day I used to spend hours each day reducing callus which had become painful or pathological. In some situations it can even be dangerous.
The "experts" do not all rely on book knowledge. Medical "experts" are faced with a never ending stream of pathology. Sometimes what seems harmless or beneficial to the people doing it can seem very different to the people who have to pick up the pieces!
Many smokers are adamant that it does them no harm. This may even be true for them. But Oncologists might disagree! So don't be too "down" on expert opinion. They want the same as you, the best health possible for you.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI've been following the blog and your Twitter feed for a while as I have found renewed interest in returning to my own old practice of running barefoot.
Like you, I find myself fascinated by the reactions of others who find the act of being barefooted inappropriate. After reading this and other blogs, I am considering devoting my doctoral dissertation work to the subject. My cursory look into existing research came up with little regarding socio-cultural norms and values related to shoe wearing and going barefoot, but the reactions you describe, and those I've seen firsthand indicate that clearly there are some deep seeded issues that need to be explored and brought into the light.
I hope as I begin working on my research plan that I might be able to discuss this with you further.
Bravo on a great blog.
Eric
It would be interesting to learn if shoes were first made for the pharao of Egypt as an additional symbol of authority — raising him above the ground.
DeleteThe French Revolution associated bare feet with rebellion.
Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria walked barefoot in the annual procession of Corpus Christi as a sign of humility (this word being derived from "humus", the earth).
"My cursory look into existing research came up with little regarding socio-cultural norms and values related to shoe wearing and going barefoot"
ReplyDeleteEric, there is plenty of information on the Internet and other sources. Please see historical links provided elsewhere on this blog, via google news archives. And Jeff said "we as humans "follow the crowd" so willingly without question." And that was also true during the 60s and 70s barefoot fad. Many young people were going barefoot because everyone else was doing it in their peer group. And when it went out of style, they all stopped doing it as well.
People are right about feet being stinky and gross, but only because they are locked up in hot sweaty shoes all day long. Dark, warm, and damp places are perfect for fungus to grow. I agree that shoes have become a mark of status and thus people often look down on those that go without.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note there is some caution that should be taken. I was enjoying a day in the park barefoot when I spotted a syringe. I dislike shoes and would rather go barefoot, but I have been more wary about going barefoot in grassy, public places.
It may be "natural" and more injury free. But is it faster? I think we run faster with shoes.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way before. If you would have asked me to give one reason why I thought people were against barefoot running, I would have cited ignorance to the benefits of a natural stride. But you're right! People just don't wanna see my big ole feets!
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note, just today I read a fb post on a friends wall, complaining about her hips being in pain. She's in her early 20's. Too young to have hip problems. So I sent her a private note saying that I suffered from hip pain also until I tried a lifestyle change, and if she was interested I would share my info with her. I also advised that this is what worked for me, and since I didn't know the cause of her pain (I have lots of clues that make me think its her running, but I can't be certain), that I cant guarantee what worked for me will work for her.
To my surprise, she was interested, so I told her to simply start slow and gave her some website and book references to get her started.
The point is that, thankfully, everyone isn't totally shut off to our wonderful world of barefoot and minimalist shoe running!
I admit it, I hate feet. But yet I go barefoot when conditions allow.
ReplyDeleteIn many cultures the left hand is reviled, and considered dirty, because there is a cultural practice to do clean things with the right hand, and dirty things with the left, allowing for greater sanitation where soap and plumbing is not readily available. But yet the left hand is useful, and left uncovered. This is the same way I feel about feet. They are dirty and disgusting because they're on the ground, but that's their job. Putting them in shoes only makes them sweaty and more icky. And please don't wear unwashable shoes without socks to absorb that sweat and get a regular washing, eeeewwww!
- working my way to minimalist shoes (with socks)
With spinal scoleosis and advancing years, I tire easily on long hikes. So I carry my shoes in a small backpack and fly along with the help of nordic sticks. Direct contact with the earth fills me with energy.
ReplyDelete