Why A Women's Running Shoe for 'That Time of the Month' Makes Sense...and Why You Still Shouldn't Buy It

An online friend of mine (thanks, @bareminimalist) today posted to Facebook information about a new running shoe made by Asics. They're called the Gel-Kayano 16 (pictured). The special thing about these shoes is that they're designed to adjust to a woman's changing arches during her menstrual period.

According to the original article in The Mail Online, "When oestrogen is high, and a woman is at her most fertile, the arch drops. Later in the month, when she is menstruating, levels of the hormone are low but her arch is raised." The Gel-Kayano 16 has three layers of material in the arch that automatically adjust to this bio-mechanical change, theoretically providing the perfect amount of arch support as needed.

At first, I approached the announcement of these shoes from an incredibly cynical point of view. If it's not springs in the soles or thick, rounded soles for a more "barefoot" gait (see previous blog post), it's some other "gimmick" to make a buck. I was about to repost to Facebook the above-linked story. I was going to say how ridiculous it was to have a shoe that adjusts to your foot when your foot adjusts to itself already and -- wait a tick.

If you subscribe to the idea that our feet need shoes for running, these shoes are quite brilliant! High arch? The shoe knows. Low arch? The shoe adjusts. That's actually really cool and a great feature that lots of other shoes should have built in.

Everyone from doctors to running magazines give the advice that each runner needs to have the right shoe for their individual feet. Not all feet are made the same, so not all shoes should be made the same. Shoes can vary in arch support, cushioning, width and any number of other aspects. That's why there's so many different kinds of running shoes when you look up at the wall of your local sporting goods store or shoe retailer. Shoe companies say that they make different kinds of shoes to get the right fit for each person's bio-mechanics. This shoe might truly be the best one out there.

But there's a catch.

It's still a shoe.

With barefoot running there's no product to buy to adapt to your foot. Your foot just does its thing. If you want some kind of protection on your feet, wear something like Vibram Fivefingers or Terra Plana's VivoBarefoot shoes that have no kind of arch support and, inherently, let your foot be a foot.

You might say, "But Michael, isn't running without arch support bad?" Not if you properly train your foot to be strong and support its own arch.

Our feet are capable of amazing things if we let them be feet. Closing them up inside a shoe, no matter how adaptive to our foot they may be, is not the best option for most people. Sure, a shoe that adapts to our foot may prevent injury to some extent, but encourages weakness in structures of our body that are meant to be strong.

Barefoot running is generally best. Period.

(pun intended)

I welcome your comments below.

Shoe store image: Walker's Clothing and Shoes
Running in Vibram Fivefingers image: Photography on the Run
(The above recommendations for minimalist footwear are based solely on the author's use and personal endorsement of the products mentioned. Barefoot Michael has received no sponsorship or monetary compensation from said companies.)

When It Comes to Shoes, More is Less

I have watched as shoe companies have done everything they can to produce footwear that is intended to improve our ways of life. Years ago I remember when a new style of walking shoes came out that had little air bubbles in the soles. As you stepped, the air bubble would cushion your feet and then move through a channel to the front of your foot as you rolled off your forefoot. The idea was to provide more cushion to the walker, relieving pain and soreness that so many other shoes left in their wakes.

Those shoes still exist today, but more recently companies like MBT, Z-coil and Gravity Defyer have released footwear that adds even more cushioning to the sole in an attempt to remove as much shock to the body as possible while toning muscles and fixing what ails you. MBT, which stands for Masai Barefoot Technology, even calls themselves the "anti-shoe," claiming improvements in posture and muscle development while providing a more barefoot stride.

It has always baffled me that they claim that they provide an experience akin to walking barefoot. How could a shoe that has a thicker sole provide a more barefoot experience? The whole notion seems inherently counter-intuitive. Heck, people don't say that a walking shoe for a plaster cast is more barefoot, yet that is what MBTs remind me of.

Which one is for a broken leg and which one helps you walk more "barefoot?"

I have three issues with any manufacturer that claims that their shoes fix a problem with the body: First, any research I've seen has been based on comparisons of their products to regular shoes, not to bare feet. The new-fangled footwear is compared to a "baseline" running or walking shoe, which is all well and good except for the fact that each person's foot will react differently to any given shoe than someone else's foot would. Second, all of these shoes are designed, manufactured and marketed based on the same faulty premise that they will fix a problem when they really don't. All they actually do is compensate for it. Big difference. Third and finally, you never hear about how these shoes help the feet. All of their claims talk about improving the legs, hips and/or back. Why do the health of one's feet, the very base of our ambulation, get left out?

Research is a funny animal. The outcomes of your study can be forced in certain directions simply by how you set up the parameters. And let's face it. Shoe companies are in the business of selling shoes. They're going to make sure that whatever research they promote is going to support their claims about their product.

I believe that society's thinking about shoes is approached from the wrong direction. So many people from "experts" to lay people believe that footwear needs to be additive instead of subtractive. Additive thinking assumes that shoes are necessary and that adding features to a particular set of shoes will work to cure an ailment of the body. Subtractive thinking instead presupposes that removing footwear and letting the body act on its own accord is the better approach.

For example, when a runner has an issue with foot, ankle or knee pain, the typical course of action is to analyze how to adjust their shoes in order to fix what was wrong with the combination of the feet in the shoes. By adding an orthotic, arch support, cushioning or other feature, the shoe can be adapted to work better with the runner's physiology. The expected outcome is to counteract whatever dynamics about the feet within the shoes were causing injury.

But what if removing features of the shoe -- or the shoe altogether -- and letting the body's physiology work for itself is the best course of action? Instead of locking the foot in a rigid shoe and making the orthotic, legs and hips do most of the work, you could unlock the feet and allow them to do what they were born to do?

What if, instead of creating a shoe that has springs in the heels to counteract the forces of heel strikes, you work to strengthen the person's own muscles and encourage them to walk with a less forceful foot fall? Instead of a heel strike with every step, the foot is encouraged to flex and use its 26 joints, the ankle and knees to naturally cushion each step via a mid or forefoot strike?

The idea is to literally start from the ground up, something this entire blog is based upon. I believe that most people would do just fine going barefoot most of the time and in most places. They just need to give their own feet a chance. I'll admit that sometimes, even after some strengthening and time, someone may find that an orthotic is necessary due to complications from an injury or other problem. In those cases, why not try a minimalist shoe with whatever simple orthotic is required? Add only what is needed and otherwise let a foot be a foot.

Could it be that our feet would be healthier by subtracting footwear, giving our feet a chance and adding only the most necessary of "support," if needed? I welcome your comments below.

(Please Note: I realize that going barefoot is not a good option for people with conditions such as diabetes that hinder the body's ability to heal and/or fight infection. Anyone with conditions that leave them immuno-suppressed should consult their doctor first before trying a more barefoot lifestyle.)

Juggling Numbers Image: The IP-Kat
Feet Image: The Hub Pages

My Achilles Heel: The First Stressful Week

I thought I'd post a brief update about how things have shaken out regarding the stress fracture in my left heel.

I'll be honest, it's been confusing. My doctor originally said I should wear a cast boot (similar to the one pictured below) and my heel would heal in about four weeks. He said I could still walk on it but try to reduce how much walking I do each day. So for a couple of days following my diagnosis I wore a boot and walked on my heel like normal. This ended up causing continued pain in my heel due the cumulative effect of pressure on my foot.

With further research, I found that his recommendations seemed quite liberal compared to how many other doctors treat stress fractures. A standard treatment for an ailment like mine has usually been a cast boot and no weight bearing for at least a few weeks, with the total treatment time being six to eight weeks. Some outlets have even said that just walking on a stress fracture can cause more damage up to and including the need for surgery.

So I had a number of concerns.

First, it seemed like walking on a painful heel was a bad idea. It wasn't so much a problem for very short periods or distances (i.e. from one room to the other), but being on my feet for any length of time was painful. So I questioned my doc again whether I should even be bearing weight on my foot.

Second, walking with pain was compounded by the fact that my job is tied to walking a lot. Just to give you an idea, wearing a pedometer last year showed that I walk an average of 11,000 steps a day at work. That ends up being a little more than 5 miles each and every work day or a near-marathon length 26 miles a week. What's more, all that walking ends up being long distances in chunks spanning almost 1/4 mile one way to get from my office to another location in my workplace. I asked the doc if there was any way to help with getting from place to place during the day.

My doctor decided that I probably should be non-weight bearing if my heel continues hurting. As for how to get around, he said crutches or a wheelchair would work. I asked if an electric mobility scooter could be a viable option. He agreed it would but thought it would be cost prohibitive.

I have researched the possibility of getting a mobility scooter but have run into some bumps along the road. It seems as though insurance won't cover the rental of such things. My insurance also wouldn't pay for purchasing one as my condition is not a life-long or long-term disability. So it seems like the only options I have left are to either use some of the funds we've set aside in our Flexible Spending Account (you know, that "cafeteria plan" you can put tax-free money into at work to pay for medical expenses) or pay out of pocket. The FSA would be a good option, but we've already designated those funds to pay for outstanding bills from our baby's birth in August and other expenses. Paying out of pocket isn't a very good option because we don't really have money available to do that.

So right now I'm using a combination of crutches and a manual wheelchair (pictured), both which have been borrowed from friends who have no immediate need for them. They work out okay, but traversing the long distances has proven exhausting.

So my arms are tired and, quite honestly, my spirit is too.

It's bad enough not being able to go barefoot AT ALL for a couple of months (though I cheat at bedtime and when I shower each morning), but to have such limited mobility when my job is so reliant on me walking around? That really sucks, I won't lie.

But, I know I'll come out of this stronger and better for it. I already have a new appreciation for those that must always use crutches or wheelchairs. Maybe, just maybe, I'll also get some pretty hearty biceps, too?

I guess tickets to the gun show go on sale in six to eight weeks.

I welcome your comments below.

Q&A: Return to Running

When is your next run? - Submitted by Anonymous

Thanks for your question!

At this point it's hard to say when I'll return to running. Though my doctor wants a follow-up at four weeks, it could be a total of six to eight before I'm back out there. That could mean that I don't start running again until April. After that, it could take a while to recondition my legs to the point that I'd be ready to run an organized race.

As of right now I'm tentatively planning for my first race back to be the Hospital Hill 5K here in Kansas City on June 5, 2010. That should give me plenty of time to recover from the stress fracture and recondition for the race. Let's all cross our fingers.

Question(s) About Barefooted Living?