@John: I agree with you that many shoes on the market are crap. It’s a matter of finding the right fit for you as an individual, which is certainly a challenge. It can be a frustrating process, finding the right shoe – and then when you finally find something, they change it. That’s definitely annoying.
The fact of the matter is that elites choose to wear shoes, not because they have a contract, but because they – for the most part – protect their feet and provide support – which is critical over 120+ mile weeks, hard interval sessions, recovery runs, etc.
With that said, most of the elites do not wear heavy, overly supportive shoes either. They wear what they need to wear to get enough support for what they require. If you can run barefoot for 120+ mile weeks, on the track, on trails, on the pavement, sidewalks, on gravel, etc. and not injure yourself – and advance as a runner – then by all means, go for it. All I can say is, I haven’t met an elite distance runner who feels they can do this.
If there weren’t any modern running shoes and all of the elites trained in flats (which easily could have happened without Nike, Adidas, etc.), you would probably be writing an entire blog called “Pros Don’t Run in Cushioned Shoes” about how running shoes are unnecessary. If elites ran off a cliff, it sounds like you would too.
The point of minimalist running is to run with a midfoot footstrike and to run lightly. If you do that, you can probably run in whatever shoe you want. If you choose to tie a 13 oz. brick to your foot to run 100 miles per week, go ahead. I’ll stick to a 6 oz. flexible flat and my own bare foot.
I agree that being overweight is a huge culprit for injury rates, but that doesn’t negate the fact that huge running shoes are completely bogus.
Thanks for the nice response. I appreciate your perspective and you make an important distinction between the casual running enthusiast and the serious, professional distance runner.
The science behind barefoot running is largely inconclusive. It may lead to more uncommon injuries, as Matt Fitzgerald suggested (in his article I cited above) – or it may lead to a happier, more fulfilled runner – someone simply running to be closer to nature or wishing to run without pain.
I would suggest, however, looking for other reasons why a certain pain may be occurring before making the decision to run barefoot. Where someone may swear by it, an other may simply need to back off his/her miles or get more sleep or ice more frequently. Because I can say without question that even if you’re not trying to shave seconds off your 10k – running still hurts. Running is difficult. Shins will hurt, feet will ache, muscles will burn. It’s running.
Even running to get fit – not running to improve time – that hurts too (sometimes – very often in fact – worse). And like I suggested in the article above – it may be worthwhile for the enthusiast to listen very carefully to those who make a living out of staying healthy and fit – before doing anything too rash. Because even the pros who go for seconds off their 10k or marathon have a single, primary goal – above all other goals: Staying healthy.
Hey Justin, I thought this was a pretty thoughtful post on a hot button topic. I appreciated the way you frankly discussed the limitations of the available evidence, but brought up a salient point from your experience.
I too have noticed that the fastest most competitive runners pretty much universally wear shoes. But the thing is, that particular observation is mostly germane to people who are trying to be top competitors or professionals– and most runners aren’t. “It will make you faster” is generally not part of the pro-barefoot-running pitch. The gurus of the movement (barefoot ted, etc) rarely talk about speed as a goal, and sometimes dismiss it.
“It will prevent injuries” is a more frequent part of the pitch, and I think this is where there is no controlled evidence either way. For example Fitzgerald’s article is anecdotal in nature. He uses verbal reports from foot doctors, which aren’t the same as a controlled study. Similarly, there are lots of barefoot runners (myself included) who used to get injured in running shoes and now aren’t getting injured. It’s been a dramatic (though hardly instant) improvement for me. But again, that’s not a controlled study. There is no quantification here, just verbal reports from the loudest advocates on either side.
There’s one thing that truly is part of the barefoot running pitch, or should be: that guy you make fun of in your text, the one running around the neighborhood with no shoes, looking happy as hell. For a lot of people who get into barefoot running, that experience is the thing they come to appreciate. They are not trying to shave seconds off their 10K time, or at least that’s not their primary goal. They’re trying to get fit and have fun, and they’re discovering a way to connect their body with their environment.
If there were more people who were as enthusiastic about fitness as that (shoeless or not) the world would be a better place.
I see your point, at least as it applies to barefoot running. It’s risky and takes time. We wear shoes to adapt to our modern environment, expand the territory we can cover, and protect our “soft” feet from hazards. I would do more barefoot running if I had closer access to grassy fields, which feel the best (carless, have to run 20 min. to nearest fields). I’ve done more barefoot running when I’ve lived elsewhere and closer to grass. About 5 years ago I tried ~4 miles on concrete and ended up with some sizeable blisters. I’m sure if I progressed at a slower rate, the skin would toughen and become more resistent to abrasion and puncture wounds. I’ve had 1 puncture wound and a few bee stings in 6 years– I’ll take those minor accidents any day over 7 stress fractures! I’m sponsored, so I have to race in my sponsor’s shoes (which means I must train in them too). I choose to wear shoes (as minimal as possible), but like Haile, I like to run barefoot.
With regards to “wrong shoes”, could it be that what’s currently marketed as trainers is wrong, given the injury rate (which hasn’t dropped, maybe even gotten worse as a percentage)? It’s multi-faceted of course (as you pointed out). However, I do believe it’s significant enough to question what’s on our feet– it’s our base and affects the whole balance of the body. Shoes are marketed to correct “flaws”– are they really doing what they’re marketed for? Or are they exacerbating what they’re meant to prevent (~heel lift and Achilles problems, stiff shoes and plantar problems)? For example, we all pronate, to various degrees. There’s research suggesting we actually pronate more in running shoes than we do barefoot. The underlying mantra of “use it or lose it” applies to skeletal muscle and bone in the whole body, feet included. Those intrinsic foot muscles/bones can be developed and strengthened, just as you develop your biceps by doing pushup or develop the core muscles to keep you erect for 26.2 miles. The ability of shoes to support, correct, and cushion BETTER than our own muscles is questionable. In light of the recent Harvard study, the bare foot actually does a better job of attenuating impact force than shoes.
We need to be willing to think outside the box, if we want shoes to get better and progress. A lot of what goes into a shoe is tradition. We don’t question it, but we should.There needs to be more external research to figure out how little or how much shoe we can get away with (~shoes that protect rather than correct). We probably won’t see shoe companies toss out their whole line of trainers and lose credibility. Rather, we might see more subtle changes over time or new shoe models supporting the research (~Saucony just came out with a new flat with an impressive 12mm/8mm heel-to-toe).
Why do you only spend 5-10% of your training without shoes? And did you race your marathon barefoot?
Remember, Gebreselassie qualified his statement by saying it’s better to not wear shoes than wear the WRONG shoes. That’s not saying generally that it’s better to not wear shoes.
The bottom line is that it’s not practical for 99% of the population, even the elite population, to discard shoes in training/racing. Most of the running population – like it or not – needs some support/cushion. Even then, I would hypothesize that – for most – it isn’t the shoe at all. It’s the training. It’s doing too much too soon. It’s undertraining – then racing. It’s not being consistent enough. Not getting enough sleep. Not taking care of yourself on a day to day basis.
It’s easy for people to point to a problem like their shoes – when in reality it’s much more fundamental.
A large part of being elite and making it to the top is training consistently and staying healthy. Maybe part of the reason why Africans are so good is because they grew up barefoot, developed strong feet to propel themself faster, and are able to stay healthy, with or without shoes (to an extent). Even Haile admits to preferring running barefoot (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/26/revealed.HaileG.qanda/index.html). His chronic Achilles problems are probably the result of his shoes (the tightening and repetitive tugging action of the heel counter against the Achilles). Adidas consequently designed a special shoe to reduce the strain on his Achilles. Shoes may relieve the inflammation, but they won’t relieve the root problem (being the scar tissue). When someone is paying you to wear their product, you’re not going to say no or question them.
I’ve been training in flats since Dec. 2003 and barefoot on grass since March 2004. I started doing it because I wanted to strengthen my flat, weak feet and it instantly felt good. This was before Nike Frees came out, which were developed based on what Vin and the Stanford runners espoused. Personally, it’s taken me from being a chronically injury-riddled 19 min. 5K runner to running 2:38 in the marathon last fall (achieved the A standard for the 2012 Trials). I’ve put in just shy of 20,000 miles the past 4 years, with about 5-10% of that being run barefoot on grass. I see the barefoot running as a therapeutic tool for keeping me healthy and able to train consistently. I’ve cured many aches and pains with a little bit of barefoot running. I couldn’t even get over 60 mpw in trainers cause my body would ache. The stronger muscles in my feet and legs has done a heck of a better job of providing support than any orthotic or trainer I previously wore. My mechanics are definitely not perfect.
The exclusive barefoot populations and runners show us that our feet are perfectly adaptable to any surface if you have the patience, just like the adaptations to a new training program. You strengthen the muscles and the skin becomes resistant to abrasion and puncture wounds. The elite Africans get paid to wear shoes, so they are obligated to do so. If you look at pics from the World XC Championships every year, many of the young Africans are barefoot and fast. You even see pics of barefoot runners at their National Track Championships. Zola Budd ran 14:48 barefoot and also won a few XC Championships barefoot (one of the years on snow). Oregon State alum Dale Story won the 1961 NCAA XC Championship barefoot. I’ve got a whole folder devoted to barefoot running, lots and lots of pics of elite barefoot runners. Knowledge is power.
This is one of the newer technologies introduced by Nike. The Flywire technology tries to eliminate slippage of foot during running. It does this by using fibers placed around the shoe to ensure that the foot is kept in place. http://www.runningshoesnike.co.cc/index.php
I’m familiar with who Zola Budd is. Advocates of barefoot running enjoy citing her career. She was biomechanically flawless, and weighed around 100 lbs.
Can you name me a current elite professional who races/trains barefoot?
I stumbled upon this post while trying to research how to improve my running. All I could do was laugh out loud. I was amazed at the passion you must have had to have put this misguided post together, when a simple less than 5 minute search would have provided you with proper information. All I can say is google Zola Budd.
Wait. Here’s the link to info about her barefoot running on the Olympic stage. There’s even a picture of her running barefoot.
When I started running I was looking for a small light shoe, simply because I don’t like the alternative. After some research I decided to go all the way and get the Vibrams. It took a bit, but I got used to them, and haven’t had a problem in the few years I’ve been doing it.
I’m not sure what the real difference is – how much safer it might be – or whether it gives a little bit of an advantage energetically speaking. I have suspicions about these things, but I don’t preach them, because I don’t know. I don’t try to get others to try it, but I relate my experience and the research that’s been done.
That said, I don’t think “the pros don’t do it” is a very good argument. In fact, if the pro’s don’t do it, it means they’re not trying it in a serious way. So unless the studies that you admit you don’t have to support your argument exist, and are the reason the pro’s don’t run “barefoot,” their only reason to not do it is tradition.
On another interesting note Abebe trained both with and without shoes. He ran barefoot in 1960 due to his coach noticing that his barefoot times where significantly better. He was aggressively courted by various shoe companies, and ran in pumas in the 1964 Olympics. Zola Budd would be another example of an elite barefooter.
I doubt we will see any new elite barefoot runners for many years to come. In order to run at that level barefoot you would need to train that way for your entire career. And very few young runners do. Barefoot running is not something you can simply try out one morning and expect to achieve a personal best. But Abebe and Zola show that it is indeed possible.
Very interesting post. While everyone should consider the evidence you describe, I think the amount of direct evidence available makes it difficult to draw any conclusions as broad as those you are stating here. The evidence you describe could just as easily be explained by loss aversion, a standard human tendency to minimize potential losses (as opposed to maximizing average gain). Minimalist running would be a big change to most runners whose potential livelihoods depend on continued performance at something they’re already very good at, and making large changes is seen as very risky. This is just one hypothesis to demonstrate that more controlled evidence is required.
I’m also very skeptical that the barefoot running utopia described in minimalist propaganda is true.
However, the space of possible footwear configurations is bigger than barefoot vs. nike max extreme, and shoewear companies have little evidence that their current positions in the space of possible running shoes are an improvement over any other position. Hopefully this barefoot running trend will motivate scientists to do more research on the subject.
Running can be lucrative to a select set of elites. Once you drop off the very top tier, getting money to train becomes more difficult. Running companies sponsor a tremendous amount of athletes in the US, including collegiate sports teams. When companies sponsor the athletes, don’t you imagine they have a clause in the contract requiring them to wear that companies brand? Why else would they sponsor them?
The athletes need money, the shoe companies need their products tied to elites so that normal runners will be convinced of their effectiveness. The formula works.
Despite this there are many well known barefoot “elites”, here area a few.
Bruce Tulloh, Zola Budd, Neville Scott, Abebe Bikila, Herb Elliott, Doris Brown.
Besides, at the end of the day, are you an elite runner? These folks are already bio-mechanically efficient.
Barefoot running can be a tool to help those of us who aren’t find our way.
Nike supposedly designed the Air Rift for African runners who wanted to run with a shoe that felt more like running barefoot, closer to the ground, more individual toe movement. kinda cool.
He is in fact correct stating that he runs to feed his family.
Its not simply a matter that professionals have to wear the shoes, they have to perform well in them. As he said, the pros are doing everything in their power to be as fast as possible…see any of top nike athletes wearing the nike free? Easy answer no, because it doesn’t make them faster or stronger and that’s what I want when I run, ill stick with the pros.
You might be right that shoes are better, but your argument doesn’t support it. Many professional runners, yourself included, are sponsored by shoe companies. They don’t feed their families by running. They feed their families by running in their sponsors’ shoes. They aren’t doing what’s best for their feet; they’re doing what’s best for their pocketbooks. What’s best for their feet may also be best for their pocketbooks. Then again, it may not.
Funny. I was just reading http://mnmlist.com/ and noticed the author gave up his running shoes. I instantly thought, “What the hell?!”
I thought minimalism, when talking material goods, was about fulfilling a task efficiently and fully with the least amount of things. When you start removing things that are efficient and fully-functional without a replacement, you are not embracing minimalism, you are obsessively removing things.
Siiimple is a minimalist css gallery, since 2009.
I think the model vibrams shoe fits perfectly with the anatomy of the human foot. nice share
Hey Nix,
What ever do you mean?
Justin
“If elites ran off a cliff, it sounds like you would too.”
Heh heh. Justin wouldn’t do that………again.
@John: I agree with you that many shoes on the market are crap. It’s a matter of finding the right fit for you as an individual, which is certainly a challenge. It can be a frustrating process, finding the right shoe – and then when you finally find something, they change it. That’s definitely annoying.
The fact of the matter is that elites choose to wear shoes, not because they have a contract, but because they – for the most part – protect their feet and provide support – which is critical over 120+ mile weeks, hard interval sessions, recovery runs, etc.
With that said, most of the elites do not wear heavy, overly supportive shoes either. They wear what they need to wear to get enough support for what they require. If you can run barefoot for 120+ mile weeks, on the track, on trails, on the pavement, sidewalks, on gravel, etc. and not injure yourself – and advance as a runner – then by all means, go for it. All I can say is, I haven’t met an elite distance runner who feels they can do this.
Justin,
If there weren’t any modern running shoes and all of the elites trained in flats (which easily could have happened without Nike, Adidas, etc.), you would probably be writing an entire blog called “Pros Don’t Run in Cushioned Shoes” about how running shoes are unnecessary. If elites ran off a cliff, it sounds like you would too.
The point of minimalist running is to run with a midfoot footstrike and to run lightly. If you do that, you can probably run in whatever shoe you want. If you choose to tie a 13 oz. brick to your foot to run 100 miles per week, go ahead. I’ll stick to a 6 oz. flexible flat and my own bare foot.
I agree that being overweight is a huge culprit for injury rates, but that doesn’t negate the fact that huge running shoes are completely bogus.
Cheers!
hey bottleman
Thanks for the nice response. I appreciate your perspective and you make an important distinction between the casual running enthusiast and the serious, professional distance runner.
The science behind barefoot running is largely inconclusive. It may lead to more uncommon injuries, as Matt Fitzgerald suggested (in his article I cited above) – or it may lead to a happier, more fulfilled runner – someone simply running to be closer to nature or wishing to run without pain.
I would suggest, however, looking for other reasons why a certain pain may be occurring before making the decision to run barefoot. Where someone may swear by it, an other may simply need to back off his/her miles or get more sleep or ice more frequently. Because I can say without question that even if you’re not trying to shave seconds off your 10k – running still hurts. Running is difficult. Shins will hurt, feet will ache, muscles will burn. It’s running.
Even running to get fit – not running to improve time – that hurts too (sometimes – very often in fact – worse). And like I suggested in the article above – it may be worthwhile for the enthusiast to listen very carefully to those who make a living out of staying healthy and fit – before doing anything too rash. Because even the pros who go for seconds off their 10k or marathon have a single, primary goal – above all other goals: Staying healthy.
Hey Justin, I thought this was a pretty thoughtful post on a hot button topic. I appreciated the way you frankly discussed the limitations of the available evidence, but brought up a salient point from your experience.
I too have noticed that the fastest most competitive runners pretty much universally wear shoes. But the thing is, that particular observation is mostly germane to people who are trying to be top competitors or professionals– and most runners aren’t. “It will make you faster” is generally not part of the pro-barefoot-running pitch. The gurus of the movement (barefoot ted, etc) rarely talk about speed as a goal, and sometimes dismiss it.
“It will prevent injuries” is a more frequent part of the pitch, and I think this is where there is no controlled evidence either way. For example Fitzgerald’s article is anecdotal in nature. He uses verbal reports from foot doctors, which aren’t the same as a controlled study. Similarly, there are lots of barefoot runners (myself included) who used to get injured in running shoes and now aren’t getting injured. It’s been a dramatic (though hardly instant) improvement for me. But again, that’s not a controlled study. There is no quantification here, just verbal reports from the loudest advocates on either side.
There’s one thing that truly is part of the barefoot running pitch, or should be: that guy you make fun of in your text, the one running around the neighborhood with no shoes, looking happy as hell. For a lot of people who get into barefoot running, that experience is the thing they come to appreciate. They are not trying to shave seconds off their 10K time, or at least that’s not their primary goal. They’re trying to get fit and have fun, and they’re discovering a way to connect their body with their environment.
If there were more people who were as enthusiastic about fitness as that (shoeless or not) the world would be a better place.
Cheers!
I see your point, at least as it applies to barefoot running. It’s risky and takes time. We wear shoes to adapt to our modern environment, expand the territory we can cover, and protect our “soft” feet from hazards. I would do more barefoot running if I had closer access to grassy fields, which feel the best (carless, have to run 20 min. to nearest fields). I’ve done more barefoot running when I’ve lived elsewhere and closer to grass. About 5 years ago I tried ~4 miles on concrete and ended up with some sizeable blisters. I’m sure if I progressed at a slower rate, the skin would toughen and become more resistent to abrasion and puncture wounds. I’ve had 1 puncture wound and a few bee stings in 6 years– I’ll take those minor accidents any day over 7 stress fractures! I’m sponsored, so I have to race in my sponsor’s shoes (which means I must train in them too). I choose to wear shoes (as minimal as possible), but like Haile, I like to run barefoot.
With regards to “wrong shoes”, could it be that what’s currently marketed as trainers is wrong, given the injury rate (which hasn’t dropped, maybe even gotten worse as a percentage)? It’s multi-faceted of course (as you pointed out). However, I do believe it’s significant enough to question what’s on our feet– it’s our base and affects the whole balance of the body. Shoes are marketed to correct “flaws”– are they really doing what they’re marketed for? Or are they exacerbating what they’re meant to prevent (~heel lift and Achilles problems, stiff shoes and plantar problems)? For example, we all pronate, to various degrees. There’s research suggesting we actually pronate more in running shoes than we do barefoot. The underlying mantra of “use it or lose it” applies to skeletal muscle and bone in the whole body, feet included. Those intrinsic foot muscles/bones can be developed and strengthened, just as you develop your biceps by doing pushup or develop the core muscles to keep you erect for 26.2 miles. The ability of shoes to support, correct, and cushion BETTER than our own muscles is questionable. In light of the recent Harvard study, the bare foot actually does a better job of attenuating impact force than shoes.
We need to be willing to think outside the box, if we want shoes to get better and progress. A lot of what goes into a shoe is tradition. We don’t question it, but we should.There needs to be more external research to figure out how little or how much shoe we can get away with (~shoes that protect rather than correct). We probably won’t see shoe companies toss out their whole line of trainers and lose credibility. Rather, we might see more subtle changes over time or new shoe models supporting the research (~Saucony just came out with a new flat with an impressive 12mm/8mm heel-to-toe).
Camille
Why do you only spend 5-10% of your training without shoes? And did you race your marathon barefoot?
Remember, Gebreselassie qualified his statement by saying it’s better to not wear shoes than wear the WRONG shoes. That’s not saying generally that it’s better to not wear shoes.
The bottom line is that it’s not practical for 99% of the population, even the elite population, to discard shoes in training/racing. Most of the running population – like it or not – needs some support/cushion. Even then, I would hypothesize that – for most – it isn’t the shoe at all. It’s the training. It’s doing too much too soon. It’s undertraining – then racing. It’s not being consistent enough. Not getting enough sleep. Not taking care of yourself on a day to day basis.
It’s easy for people to point to a problem like their shoes – when in reality it’s much more fundamental.
A large part of being elite and making it to the top is training consistently and staying healthy. Maybe part of the reason why Africans are so good is because they grew up barefoot, developed strong feet to propel themself faster, and are able to stay healthy, with or without shoes (to an extent). Even Haile admits to preferring running barefoot (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/26/revealed.HaileG.qanda/index.html). His chronic Achilles problems are probably the result of his shoes (the tightening and repetitive tugging action of the heel counter against the Achilles). Adidas consequently designed a special shoe to reduce the strain on his Achilles. Shoes may relieve the inflammation, but they won’t relieve the root problem (being the scar tissue). When someone is paying you to wear their product, you’re not going to say no or question them.
I’ve been training in flats since Dec. 2003 and barefoot on grass since March 2004. I started doing it because I wanted to strengthen my flat, weak feet and it instantly felt good. This was before Nike Frees came out, which were developed based on what Vin and the Stanford runners espoused. Personally, it’s taken me from being a chronically injury-riddled 19 min. 5K runner to running 2:38 in the marathon last fall (achieved the A standard for the 2012 Trials). I’ve put in just shy of 20,000 miles the past 4 years, with about 5-10% of that being run barefoot on grass. I see the barefoot running as a therapeutic tool for keeping me healthy and able to train consistently. I’ve cured many aches and pains with a little bit of barefoot running. I couldn’t even get over 60 mpw in trainers cause my body would ache. The stronger muscles in my feet and legs has done a heck of a better job of providing support than any orthotic or trainer I previously wore. My mechanics are definitely not perfect.
The exclusive barefoot populations and runners show us that our feet are perfectly adaptable to any surface if you have the patience, just like the adaptations to a new training program. You strengthen the muscles and the skin becomes resistant to abrasion and puncture wounds. The elite Africans get paid to wear shoes, so they are obligated to do so. If you look at pics from the World XC Championships every year, many of the young Africans are barefoot and fast. You even see pics of barefoot runners at their National Track Championships. Zola Budd ran 14:48 barefoot and also won a few XC Championships barefoot (one of the years on snow). Oregon State alum Dale Story won the 1961 NCAA XC Championship barefoot. I’ve got a whole folder devoted to barefoot running, lots and lots of pics of elite barefoot runners. Knowledge is power.
Flywire
This is one of the newer technologies introduced by Nike. The Flywire technology tries to eliminate slippage of foot during running. It does this by using fibers placed around the shoe to ensure that the foot is kept in place. http://www.runningshoesnike.co.cc/index.php
Hi Wannbe,
I’m familiar with who Zola Budd is. Advocates of barefoot running enjoy citing her career. She was biomechanically flawless, and weighed around 100 lbs.
Can you name me a current elite professional who races/trains barefoot?
I cannot. But hey, you have google.
I stumbled upon this post while trying to research how to improve my running. All I could do was laugh out loud. I was amazed at the passion you must have had to have put this misguided post together, when a simple less than 5 minute search would have provided you with proper information. All I can say is google Zola Budd.
Wait. Here’s the link to info about her barefoot running on the Olympic stage. There’s even a picture of her running barefoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_Budd
When I started running I was looking for a small light shoe, simply because I don’t like the alternative. After some research I decided to go all the way and get the Vibrams. It took a bit, but I got used to them, and haven’t had a problem in the few years I’ve been doing it.
I’m not sure what the real difference is – how much safer it might be – or whether it gives a little bit of an advantage energetically speaking. I have suspicions about these things, but I don’t preach them, because I don’t know. I don’t try to get others to try it, but I relate my experience and the research that’s been done.
That said, I don’t think “the pros don’t do it” is a very good argument. In fact, if the pro’s don’t do it, it means they’re not trying it in a serious way. So unless the studies that you admit you don’t have to support your argument exist, and are the reason the pro’s don’t run “barefoot,” their only reason to not do it is tradition.
On another interesting note Abebe trained both with and without shoes. He ran barefoot in 1960 due to his coach noticing that his barefoot times where significantly better. He was aggressively courted by various shoe companies, and ran in pumas in the 1964 Olympics. Zola Budd would be another example of an elite barefooter.
I doubt we will see any new elite barefoot runners for many years to come. In order to run at that level barefoot you would need to train that way for your entire career. And very few young runners do. Barefoot running is not something you can simply try out one morning and expect to achieve a personal best. But Abebe and Zola show that it is indeed possible.
Your argument is based on false information. Here is an elite winning the Olympic marathon barefoot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_-_1964
Very interesting post. While everyone should consider the evidence you describe, I think the amount of direct evidence available makes it difficult to draw any conclusions as broad as those you are stating here. The evidence you describe could just as easily be explained by loss aversion, a standard human tendency to minimize potential losses (as opposed to maximizing average gain). Minimalist running would be a big change to most runners whose potential livelihoods depend on continued performance at something they’re already very good at, and making large changes is seen as very risky. This is just one hypothesis to demonstrate that more controlled evidence is required.
I’m also very skeptical that the barefoot running utopia described in minimalist propaganda is true.
However, the space of possible footwear configurations is bigger than barefoot vs. nike max extreme, and shoewear companies have little evidence that their current positions in the space of possible running shoes are an improvement over any other position. Hopefully this barefoot running trend will motivate scientists to do more research on the subject.
Running can be lucrative to a select set of elites. Once you drop off the very top tier, getting money to train becomes more difficult. Running companies sponsor a tremendous amount of athletes in the US, including collegiate sports teams. When companies sponsor the athletes, don’t you imagine they have a clause in the contract requiring them to wear that companies brand? Why else would they sponsor them?
The athletes need money, the shoe companies need their products tied to elites so that normal runners will be convinced of their effectiveness. The formula works.
Despite this there are many well known barefoot “elites”, here area a few.
Bruce Tulloh, Zola Budd, Neville Scott, Abebe Bikila, Herb Elliott, Doris Brown.
Besides, at the end of the day, are you an elite runner? These folks are already bio-mechanically efficient.
Barefoot running can be a tool to help those of us who aren’t find our way.
Nike supposedly designed the Air Rift for African runners who wanted to run with a shoe that felt more like running barefoot, closer to the ground, more individual toe movement. kinda cool.
He is in fact correct stating that he runs to feed his family.
Its not simply a matter that professionals have to wear the shoes, they have to perform well in them. As he said, the pros are doing everything in their power to be as fast as possible…see any of top nike athletes wearing the nike free? Easy answer no, because it doesn’t make them faster or stronger and that’s what I want when I run, ill stick with the pros.
You might be right that shoes are better, but your argument doesn’t support it. Many professional runners, yourself included, are sponsored by shoe companies. They don’t feed their families by running. They feed their families by running in their sponsors’ shoes. They aren’t doing what’s best for their feet; they’re doing what’s best for their pocketbooks. What’s best for their feet may also be best for their pocketbooks. Then again, it may not.
Funny. I was just reading http://mnmlist.com/ and noticed the author gave up his running shoes. I instantly thought, “What the hell?!”
I thought minimalism, when talking material goods, was about fulfilling a task efficiently and fully with the least amount of things. When you start removing things that are efficient and fully-functional without a replacement, you are not embracing minimalism, you are obsessively removing things.