5 ms·

That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of thing: Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most

That article has some good points, but I'm really frustrated by this sort of thing: Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.” World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary. Most of the benefits of barefoot running come from changes in running form. Shod runners have plenty of padding, so they can get away with letting their heel strike. An occasional barefoot run on grass will help you learn proper form while avoiding the disadvantages of constant barefoot running. At the end of the run, you can look at the grass stains on your feet to get an idea of how much your heel is striking the ground. Once you learn proper running form (no grass stains on your heels), you can practice that same form while wearing shoes. There is one oft-forgotten side-effect of barefoot running: massive callouses. See http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-running-lookin-good.html http://www.shallowcogitations.com/2010/02/barefoot-running-l... for before and after pics. Edit: I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for.

spamizbad 17y ago
> World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? Actually "foot defects" would appear more in world class athletes: the strain they put on their feet will expose any small defect that would normally go unnoticed by someone with a sedentary lifestyle. As long as the problem isn't too serious, their running career is not jeopardized.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  And if their running career is jeopardized, they're no longer a world-class athlete.
andymism 17y ago
> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. This behavior is a common pattern with groups on the margins. Although it can be annoying, it doesn't have any bearing on the merits of barefoot running. The Ruby community is a good example, as are vegetarians. I'm failing to see how callouses would be such a show stopper with barefoot running. Any of the minimal shoes available on the market are enough to prevent callouses if you're concerned about them. I've never owned a pair of traditional running shoes that didn't give me agonizing arch pain within 5 minutes of running, but I've been running for 6 months in a pair of Vibram Five Fingers with no pain at all--I've also got no ugly callouses. > Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. You're probably right on this point. But, to me, it's a lot like saying that our cardiovascular system is not properly evolved to transport blood with high levels of cholesterol. Edit: The callouses bit.
rue 17y ago
> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary. Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? > I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for. It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the obese.
- AngryParsley 17y ago
  What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet. As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows? I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces. I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law. I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.
xiaoma 17y ago
>>Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.” >World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.
- gwern 17y ago
  {{fact}}. And which are not caused by their occupation?
  - xiaoma 17y ago
    The point is that world-class runners from countries in which most people train barefoot have far fewer foot defects than people from rich countries who are engaged in the exact same occupation. What does {{fact}} mean?
    - starkfist 17y ago
      How do you know this? Is there any real data on this topic?
      - xiaoma 17y ago
        I know about and keep up with this topic because of my background. It's not the result of a casual google surf. Hartman's work with over 100 world class athletes is "real data". Aside from that, there's a great deal of literature about overpronation, probably the most common bio-mechanical foot defect in runners from rich countries. Additionally, has been conducting research about this topic for a while. In fact, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation published a couple of months ago, saying that running shoes often increases joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle. Their study did include athletes and did look at long term bio-mechanical defects in those who wore sneakers of varying degrees of padding. You may not be able to find all of this data for free from your computer desk, but it does exist.

spamizbad 17y ago

> World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? Actually "foot defects" would appear more in world class athletes: the strain they put on their feet will expose any small defect that would normally go unnoticed by someone with a sedentary lifestyle. As long as the problem isn't too serious, their running career is not jeopardized.

AngryParsley 17y ago
And if their running career is jeopardized, they're no longer a world-class athlete.

andymism 17y ago

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. This behavior is a common pattern with groups on the margins. Although it can be annoying, it doesn't have any bearing on the merits of barefoot running. The Ruby community is a good example, as are vegetarians. I'm failing to see how callouses would be such a show stopper with barefoot running. Any of the minimal shoes available on the market are enough to prevent callouses if you're concerned about them. I've never owned a pair of traditional running shoes that didn't give me agonizing arch pain within 5 minutes of running, but I've been running for 6 months in a pair of Vibram Five Fingers with no pain at all--I've also got no ugly callouses. > Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. You're probably right on this point. But, to me, it's a lot like saying that our cardiovascular system is not properly evolved to transport blood with high levels of cholesterol. Edit: The callouses bit.

rue 17y ago

> My biggest criticism of the barefoot running crowd is that they usually treat it as a way of life. They always run barefoot, when that's not really necessary. Disagreement about the validity of the "lifestyle" argument aside: when is it necessary to wear shoes? What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? > I forgot to explain the non-obvious disadvantages of barefoot running. While humans ran barefoot before shoes were invented, the typical prehistoric human wasn't as heavyset as the typical westerner. Feet, legs, and backs aren't evolved to properly support overweight joggers. Proper shoes can help correct problems in running form/gait that an individual's muscles or connective tissues can't compensate for. It is undoubtedly unwise for someone that drastically overweight to start jogging cold turkey and that there is a literal breaking point in fitness to start barefoot running, but do you have some sources for the argument that those issues can be corrected with shoes (rather than, say, starting with a bike or elliptical machine)? Especially since joint issues in ankles and knees in particular - areas that barefoot running helps in - are prevalent among the obese.

AngryParsley 17y ago
What are the disadvantages, apart from "massive callouses"? I can't edit my comment anymore, but my dad loves to run barefoot. I mentioned callouses as an excuse to link to a blog post where he shows off his Fred Flintstone feet. As to the disadvantages... what if you're fighting Hans Gruber and he shoots a bunch of glass windows? I think being barefoot all the time is very different from just running barefoot. A barefoot life is rather unsanitary and unsafe (there are lots of dirty pointy things on the ground). Shoes offer protection from cold, heat, physical trauma, sunburn, moisture, and social embarrassment. They also provide better traction on many surfaces. I'm too lazy to go searching for sources that justify my claim, but you don't have to look far to find some weaker evidence. Look at people who have the muscular strength but not the structural support necessary to walk: they use braces to help restrict motion or devices to reduce weight on their joints (walkers, crutches). Look at anatomy: ligaments don't thicken along with one's waistline. Even if they did, they wouldn't keep up with the square-cube law. I guess a more concrete example would be this: If you had to wear a weighted vest while running, would you rather be barefoot or wearing supportive shoes? If the vest is heavy enough, your calves won't support you and you'll be forced to heel-strike. At that point, a supportive and cushioning shoe would be less stressful than barefoot running. That's basically what people with weak calves or large guts experience. And most people in that situation aren't going to train enough to get to the point where barefoot running is better for them.

xiaoma 17y ago

>>Hartmann has worked with more than 100 world-class African athletes. “Most never wore shoes until their late teens,” he says. “They have few foot defects.” >World class athletes have few foot defects? Can you say selection effect? A lot of world class athletes in the west do have foot defects.

gwern 17y ago
{{fact}}. And which are not caused by their occupation?
- xiaoma 17y ago
  The point is that world-class runners from countries in which most people train barefoot have far fewer foot defects than people from rich countries who are engaged in the exact same occupation. What does {{fact}} mean?
  - starkfist 17y ago
    How do you know this? Is there any real data on this topic?
    - xiaoma 17y ago
      I know about and keep up with this topic because of my background. It's not the result of a casual google surf. Hartman's work with over 100 world class athletes is "real data". Aside from that, there's a great deal of literature about overpronation, probably the most common bio-mechanical foot defect in runners from rich countries. Additionally, has been conducting research about this topic for a while. In fact, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation published a couple of months ago, saying that running shoes often increases joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle. Their study did include athletes and did look at long term bio-mechanical defects in those who wore sneakers of varying degrees of padding. You may not be able to find all of this data for free from your computer desk, but it does exist.