15 ms·

The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong, beyond a passing mention of barefoot running, and some dissing of treadmills (which is hyperbo

by rosser 9y ago

The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong, beyond a passing mention of barefoot running, and some dissing of treadmills (which is hyperbolic and orthogonal to reality; you can run "correctly" or "badly" on a treadmill or on the street or trail). I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes. TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back. When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it. I have a bum knee now, for unrelated reasons, so I can't run for the time being (or possibly ever again). I was, in fact, specifically warned against it by one of my array of bodyworkers just this past week. I kinda miss it sometimes, because it actually can be quite meditative, once you get into your rhythm. EDIT: phrasing. EDIT 2: The "wrong" under discussion in The Fine Article might have more to do with why we run than how. Though, if so, premising the argument in "evolution" is perhaps specious. Thanks, follow-ups, for pointing that out more clearly.

WalterSear 9y ago
>When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it. There's more to it than that. Please make sure that you are pushing off with your heel. Many people assume that barefoot running is the same as running on the balls of your feet, but if, after your toes touch, you aren't subsequently landing and pushing off with your heel, you are likely to injure yourself, and more seriously than if you didn't barefoot run at all. The small, delicate toes in the forefoot are not meant to handle the load of landing and takeoff. FYI: This movement doesn't feel natural or normal for most people until they have tried it a bunch - the muscles and flexibility for it aren't there. It took me about six weeks of practice, but I was not a particularly frequent runner - mostly because of the knee pain of running 'normally'. The pain was eliminated by running barefoot instead.
- rosser 9y ago
  You're right. Thanks. Pushing off with the heel is actually specifically (if indirectly) part of what I'm working on with the bodyworker I mentioned, even. I really should have completed the thought. Thanks for catching and clarifying that.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    Oh, another thing: $20 water shoes last only slightly less long than $100+ speciality 'barefoot' running shoes. :) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z7EOK8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z7EOK8/ref=oh_aui_deta...
    - lardo 9y ago
      Why not make your own? ^_^ http://barefootted.com/sandals.pdf http://barefootted.com/sandals.pdf
    - quickben 9y ago
      Not really true. I used to go through Walmart's $20 a pair a month walking. $60-$160 shoes I usually do 400 km running on them. 90+kg here.
    - freehunter 9y ago
      They might last as long, but do they work the same? I have $5 socks that outlast my shoes, but socks aren't exactly a replacement for shoes, right? Water shoes and barefoot running shoes seem like two different types of foot covering.
      - WalterSear 9y ago
        They work the same. The entirely flexible sole is the key.
- e12e 9y ago
  Do you have some more information on this? Are you talking about running on paved road, or in (rough) terrain? I admit I have some difficulty visualizing how you combine landing on the ball of your foot with pushing off with the heel (so I at least agree that it doesn't feel natural :-).
jackmott 9y ago
>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes. The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.
- rosser 9y ago
  I've almost always been towards the lower end of the healthy BMI range for my height (to the extent BMI is even a meaningful metric), so that wasn't a consideration for me. That said, absolutely: if you're at all overweight, you specifically need to account for that in your regimen, and train up to running with that load. If you don't, you won't be running for long — one way or another. I was also never running for pace. I found a comfortable pace and incrementally increased my distance. YMMV.
- darioush 9y ago
  I'd like to add: if things aren't going well for you running more may not be the answer. Source: I learned all about my terrible running form that kept sending me back to physical therapy by a doctor who actually bothered to look at me running and cared enough about the biomechanics to tell me what I was doing wrong. Just like math and science (or arts or music) doesn't come naturally to everyone, the same is being connected with and in control of the muscles in your body. If you've spent the bulk of your adolescent and adult life in a chair (like I did), chances are your core muscles and stabilizers are weak and you won't be utilizing them correctly just by running more.
- undersuit 9y ago
  >People set world records without ever using a strange shoe. People set world records without using shoes even. The Vibram is less strange and more a compromise between foot protection and flexibility. In other words: gloves aren't strange, mittens are.
e12e 9y ago
There's also a difference between running (barefoot or not) in terrain, as opposed to running on paved roads - so in a sense things started to go wrong with the Romans (in Europe).
js8 9y ago
> The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong The way I understood it is that it's wrong for it to be considered a "sport" rather than a "meditation", that is, it should be less about competition and more about relaxation.
- djrogers 9y ago
  That makes the reference to evolutionary origins even more confusing, as I doubt our ancestors were ‘meditating’ while running prey to ground. If it is truly a survival thing, then running under stress inducing circumstances (hunger, competition, forced exercise etc) would be more in line with what Gorg the cave man was doing...
  - js8 9y ago
    So what? The fact that something evolved for a reason doesn't mean that you have to do it for the same reason. Take outdoor camping, for instance. Our "ability to camp" evolved, because we had to survive in the wilderness. Yet, many people today do it (from time to time) for fun, not because we lived in the wild in the past.
freshhawk 9y ago
I thought the barefoot/minimal part was not the focus of what we are doing wrong (I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better but you have to start incredibly slow and work up to it). His point about what we're doing wrong was treating it as a speed based sport or a chore to do to be healthy, with a bunch of gadgets to mediate the experience, when it should be a relaxing, fun meditative practice where you disconnect from everyday stresses. I find that to be a very good point and I'm surprised people didn't find it clear. It explains the treadmill hate as well.
- rosser 9y ago
  I'll own having missed that as well, or at least overlooking it in my having read the "wrong" as being about the how, and not the why. I think the gadgets and accessories can be helpful, but absolutely: they're not the point. They, and the speed-sport or health-chore nature he decries aren't relevant to why I run (ran), so I paid them less mind. Thanks for the perspective!
  - freshhawk 9y ago
    I still mostly run with headphones playing an audiobook honestly. When I don't I really appreciate just how focused and serene the experience is. I guess it's just a habit I can't break, and that occasional bad run is much worse without a distraction. Seems a lot of people missed it, so maybe I just caught it because it's so close to my opinion.
- nostromo95 9y ago
  >I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better Let me know the next time you see Asbel Kiprop, Eliud Kipchoge or Evan Jager wearing a pair of those.
  - nextos 9y ago
    Marathon shoes are much closer to Vibrams than to regular running shoes. They just have a bit of extra cushion to make a long asphalt running session manageable. In fact, running on Vibrams on sand or grass is very similar to using cleats on the track. I say this as a ex-competitive runner.
raverbashing 9y ago
You can still run touching the front of the foot and with the knee bent while running shoes, though it's true "barefoot" running forces you to do it in that way
Jugurtha 9y ago
I stumbled on a documentary: "The Tarahumara - A Hidden Tribe of Superathletes Born to Run"[0] that goes specifically into that. Basically, these people run 400 miles or something bare feet. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4
jackfoxy 9y ago
I never felt very good about running until I got Vibrams in my early 50s. They have steadily improved the shoe, but I think it could stand to have some more shock absorption in the ball of the foot area, where you land. The other unnatural thing we do is run on concrete and tarmac pavement. We also did not evolve to run on such hard surfaces for such great lengths. There are not too many places in the world where you can run on solid granite for long distances, which is the natural equivalent of modern pavement.
- mattmcknight 9y ago
  The Newton running shoes are made for forefoot running, and more or less force that running style. Worth a try.
Asooka 9y ago
Don't you lose about 1/3rd of your stride when you strive to land on the front of your foot as opposed to the heel? Doing heel first lets me put my leg way in front of me as I land on it, then roll over it and push forward once my foot is directly under my body, like a spring. This means longer, more powerful strides. To land on the front of the foot, my leg would have to be very close to my body, meaning shorter, quicker strides. I tried doing this style of running - landing on the front of my foot as opposed to the heel, but I found myself having to use strides way shorter than what I'm used to. Is this correct, i.e. are the strides you have to use noticeably shorter and I would just have to get used to it if I want to do it that way?
- glibgil 9y ago
  Yes, the stride will be shorter, but you get used to it. You can still produce a longer stride by "kicking" out as you lift off and trying to raise your knees up as high as possible
- brahmwg 9y ago
  Not a kinesiologist, but I think running landing on the ball of the foot will be more energy efficient, recycling momentum more effectively than heel-first landing. Eventually, you'll get faster and better at running using the ball of foot landing, at least that's what happened anecdotally for me. At first it was a difficult transition, but long term more efficient and effective.
- devdad 9y ago
  Yes, many more and shorter stride is the way to go. A good way to get into it naturally is joining a trailrunning group. (I'd recommend buying a pair of inov8 for the trails, but that's another topic.) Edit: Anecdotally, I know a bunch of really great runners and they all have a strike where they land on the ball of the foot.
- jmulho 9y ago
  Here is the theory. Lean forward until you start to fall. Put one foot out to catch yourself. Note where your foot lands. This is where your foot needs to land to stop a fall. You will feel a significant jolt. You have successfully sucked up all the energy of your fall and stopped yourself. You put on the brakes. Now try this again, but place your foot short of where you did the first time. You shouldn't fall, but you will keep moving forward and will need to take another step to stop the fall. Now you have stopped yourself from falling over two steps which is less jolting. Now try again and place the second step short of where you would need to place it to stop, then the third, then fourth. Now you are running. If you want to go faster, shorten your stride and focus on turning your feet over as quickly as you can. If you want to slow down or stop, lengthen your stride and absorb your forward energy. You could overcome the braking action of a long stride by pushing off hard with your back foot but this is not as efficient and harder on the joints. That's the theory. The way to find out if it works for you is to experiment. For me, as soon as I understood this, running became a lot easier. If it works for you, be sure not to overdo it at first.
WhitneyLand 9y ago
You're exactly right it's a big mess of conjecture. He's not done research or methodical testing. Nutrition, excercise, running, all seem to make anyone comfortable giving advice, with even the smallest amount of anecdotal personal experience. Why is it you can walk into a gym (or any place) and be told with such confidence the best way to run, eat, sleep? It's not that I don't want to hear it, I'd love to hear how to best do these things. Just don't make every bit of advice you have an extrapolation of what worked for you or for what you saw work for one other guy. Barefoot running sounds great to me. I like to do it, it feels good, it's very intuitive, it evokes the romance of nature, freedom, even spirituality. Does that prove the commercial products out there have no benefit? Does it prove everyone should switch to barefoot running? Does it mean I should go down to a gym and try to convince people to do it?
- sn9 9y ago
  It's really commercial products that have to demonstrate they're providing a benefit compared to what's been the norm for millions of years. And they've never done so to my knowledge. That said, if you've been particularly sedentary or aren't used to walking barefoot, you should definitely be careful in the transition. Individual physical histories, mobility, etc. have to be taken into account when recommending advice. I do think kids should be encouraged to run barefoot as often as possible, though. Activity in general will set them up to avoid many of the mistakes of their sedentary elders.
  - Retra 9y ago
    People stepped on glass an nails many times in the past. Is this not part of your knowledge? Perhaps I'm biased, as I have a scar running up my foot from having run barefoot as a child. Furthermore, I can honestly attribute none of my current good health to it.
    - sn9 9y ago
      You're supposed to look where you're going. Like keeping your eyes on the road. I've got lots of scars from being a child who doesn't pay attention to his surroundings. That's normal. You can't exactly run an experiment to see how your life would have been different had you run around in cushy sneakers that didn't let your feet move as intended, but you can certainly see the ways in which shoes which significantly modify the way your feet are used can deform your feet and posture.
nthcolumn 9y ago
Ultra-long distance dudes from Mexico the Tarahumara allegedly run like this. I also heard a story about some guy in Aussie who ran like that - won some crazy long distance race too, smashing the record. It is true that a man will beat a horse in a race if the man is allowed to pick the distance. How about that for evolution? The ultimate persistence hunter.
- luxpir 9y ago
  The man might still win even if the horse is allowed to pick the distance... Seriously though, marathon runners since ancient times have worn flat, unpadded sandals/footwear. Slight protection from stones, otherwise allowing the body to run naturally.
- prestonbriggs 9y ago
  If it's hot (say, above 70 degree F), a well-trained man can out run a horse over a long distance. If it's cold, the horse will win. The horse's cooling is largely dependent its breathing which is constrained by its pace.
  - nthcolumn 9y ago
    FEI Endurance horse run to 100 kms in over 15 hours. Ultra-marathons of 100 miles are won in just over 14hrs. In UAE, in Slovakia, in Wales. In all conditions, man beats horse over distance.
mcappleton 9y ago
I ran cross country in high school and I just ran barefoot around the neighborhood. I'd run 10 miles barefoot sometimes. I had Vibrams but didn't like em as much. The great thing about running barefoot is that you can feel the ground under your feet. It makes it much more interesting to run and less boring.
- magic_beans 9y ago
  I HATE wearing shoes, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to run barefoot in New York. I don't know what it is about barefoot running that is so stimulating -- maybe it's the simple exercise of avoiding constant danger? -- but wearing shoes certainly dampens the thrill.
  - mcappleton 9y ago
    Haha avoiding danger definitely makes it more interesting... or when you step on an acorn!
zzalpha 9y ago
TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. Any reputable running clinic will teach you to make contact with the ground at the middle of your foot with a slightly bent knee. That's just well understood, proper technique, regardless of footwear. The real problem is people hitting the pavement without learning the basics of good technique because they think we're somehow "evolved" to just "do it right", which may be technically true but it's meaningless in practice. Edit: cleaned up the tone a bit.
- Fordrus 9y ago
  Having been to a run clinic, I can absolutely call bull on the claim "Footwear is irrelevant, here.". At least the run clinic I went to assured me multiple times that my impression that wearing "trainers" specifically and greatly increases the difficulty of running "correctly" by striking with the middle of your foot with slightly bent knee. The large heel of virtually all training shoes makes landing in the middle of your foot extremely difficult - especially if you're unfamiar with that way of landing your foot. Footwear does matter, at least until you know intuitively how to do the motions. I never did master a mid foot strike, the closest I was ever able to get was not landing on my heel quite as hard, essentially rolling off it quickly. I liked the pair of vibrams I wore until I wore through the rubber sole, but they are a bit expensive, and my foot shape means me pinky toe doesn't really fit up into the to things, I rather thought it unnecessary overall to separate the toes. I've been on the lookout for good places to run entirely barefoot as well, but I'm not as daring as some. :)
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    Was the clinic run by a store selling overpriced Vibrams by any chance? I've run on regular runners for years. Nothing about them makes good technique harder. There may be less feedback you're doing it wrong (in the form of less pain and discomfort), but the designs themselves don't stop you from running properly. That said, it's not easy. It requires real self-awareness and a willingness to fight the urge to overrun your stride length.
tnecniv 9y ago
> When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it. I'd encourage even an experienced runner to try and do a lap around the track barefoot. It really does highlight the importance of form.
mabbo 9y ago
I read 'Born To Run', went out and bought a pair of vibrams, then did a nice jog around a lake, maybe 4-5km. I was running barefoot style, landing more towards my toes and I felt fantastic. The next morning I discovered that apparently, this was the first time I'd ever really used my calves before. I walked like an old man for three days, trying my best not to cry during my stretches. Over time, I got better and took it slow, and I still swear by thin-soled shoes, but I'd advise anyone interested: take it slow at first!
- ainiriand 9y ago
  I use that technique without Vibrams. I remember years ago when I learnt proper running, same feeling about the calves. So I think it has to do with the technique rather than the shoes.
Retric 9y ago
Treadmills don't prepare you for uneven surfaces so they are somewhat harmful in excess. Hard flat level ground is not uncommon in nature, but the ideal stride is reactive not simply repeated endlessly. The best example I can give is a long stairwell with one step 1/2 an inch off is liable to trip people up. Yet running up uneven surfaces is easy when your paying attention.
ngold 9y ago
Where does walking fit into this? As a person that does not run but walks i notice the wear on the outer back step to wear more than other parts of the heal. I walk in a straight stride with no duck walking. Always wondered with all the miles i put in and a generally fit body, if i am doing it wrong?
nextos 9y ago
Aside from the form, I also wonder about the distance. Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training? As described in an article linked in the one posted, humans seem to have evolved to run long distances [1]. I wonder how we could reconcile that with the fact that long distance running at constant pace seems to be bad for our hearts [2]. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/
- Swizec 9y ago
  > Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training? It depends what you consider long distance. Marathons definitely are not healthy. 10ks probably are. Intervals are great for actually increasing your VO2max without blowing out your cardiovascular system. Funnily, when you run a raceday marathon, your heartrate (or at least mine) spends most of its time in the 160+ bmp cardio/anaerobic range. You won't be able to do that if your training doesn't involve at limit intervals that increase your cardio capacity.
- pg314 9y ago
  From the abstract: However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity. I'll take low mortality and excellent functional capacity.
  - nextos 9y ago
    Sure, I'm not implying long distance running is unhealthy. I believe it is healthy, but there is some evidence some long distance running forms are unhealthy. Thus, I wonder how that running humans hypothetically evolved with differs from what we practice as sport these days. Perhaps their pace was lower and broken into intervals.
paganel 9y ago
> The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. I always tell my gf that you can differentiate the people who have only started ahtletics- or sports-related things after the age of 20 by looking at the way they run. When you're a kid and you play football (soccer) or basketball all day long with your buddies on a hard pitch you learn how to run correctly, don't know if that happens by instinct or because the terrain forces you do to so.
johnny99 9y ago
I've run consistently for the past 30 years, most often in the spirit of the article: long, slow, meditative runs. What my cross country coach in high school called Long Slow Distance ("limber up gentlemen, we'll be doing LSD today!"). Tried a fitbit for a while, found that reducing it to numbers took the joy out of it. I'm back to where I started: no accelerometers or earphones, outdoors, ideally on a trail. I don't go all that fast or do big miles, but it's pretty much where I'm happiest. About bum knees: I've often been warned that running will ruin them, but I stopped running for two years in my mid-thirties due to work, and then blew out my knee in a frickin' coffee shop, of all places--because the muscles holding it together had weakened from not running. Major surgery, took forever to recover. Limped for well over a year and thought I might never run again. Got a new job and started biking to work--about 4 miles each way. Within a month the limp was gone, a month or so after that I was running again. Been six years and my knee feel great. If you haven't tried gentle cycling and it's an option, you may want to consider it. I think maybe the low-impact nature of cycling let the knee strengthen without being stressed, and once the strength was back, it could handle the stress.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Yes, I don't run for time, either, nor do I run with earphones on. I just jog, and my mind drifts off to work on some problem or other.
- simonswords82 9y ago
  Are you me?!? I too went all in on the numbers, heart rate monitor, detailed running plans, 5k competitive park runs every weekend. I thought I should run at least x times a week or I'm doing it wrong. Holy cow, did it suck the enjoyment out of it. Having MapMyRun shout in my ear every kilometer meant I couldn't just zone out and enjoy the run. Then I fell down some stairs at a tube station in London and popped my patella. Fortunately it popped straight back in, and it healed on its own but it took months and it was over winter so I stopped running. When I got back in to it I decided it was time to go "au naturel". No head phones, no shouty applications, just me and the road. I've kept it up, and don't ever plan to go back to my former approach. I've also found that if I switch up cycling and running there's less strain on my healed knee whilst still allowing me to exercise 2 - 3 times a week. I always recommend to people now that if they can they should cycle and run.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
> the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back. Any of a sufficiently competent teacher, sufficient miles, or sufficient speed will train you not to do that.
akvadrako 9y ago
For anyone considering running in Vibrams, take note that the evidence suggests they actually promote injury. I haven't researched it deeply, but this article seems like a good starting point: https://deadspin.com/the-scientific-case-against-vibrams-fivefinger-running-1575132888 https://deadspin.com/the-scientific-case-against-vibrams-fiv...
chunk_manbeef 9y ago
+1 I am 53 and started running about 5 years ago. I started running using traditional running shoes, but after 3 months I almost gave up, due to my right knee (that had undergone ACL replacement surgery) constantly being sore. Then I switched to Vibram's Five Fingers. I have now been running over 5 years wearing Vibram's and I have no knee pain and no major injuries. If you would like more info on barefoot running, the book "Born to Run" is a good read. Try out a pair of Vibrams, you will never go back!
joekrill 9y ago
No offense to you personally, but it's kind of disconcerting that this is the top comment. You've outright admitted to only having "used to run a bit" -- and not very much, at that. But then go on to promote barefoot running as if you're somehow a fully qualified expert who knows enough to talk on the matter and declare barefoot running is _clearly_ the answer. I'm not saying you're wrong or right. This shoed/barefoot discussion has been inflaming the running community for decades. But there's really no substantial evidence that barefoot running is better. Anyway, I just think the way this was presented -- basically as fact -- is dangerous. And given that it's the top comment with very little pushback in the comments is kind of scary.
- sjeohp 9y ago
  As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength. Over long distances it is easy to fall back on heel-running out of laziness, because the impact is absorbed more by joints and less by tired muscles, but that is a failure of fitness and a sub-optimal style. Barefoot vs shoes is more of a personal choice. A cushioned heel can permit bad style by reducing pain, whereas barefoot forces proper technique or else breaks your feet. However proper technique once you have it doesn't depend on footwear.
  - joekrill 9y ago
    But again, what you're saying here is purely anecdotal. Actually, it may not be, but I have absolutely no idea because the way you are presenting it is in a purely anecdotal way.
    - mdorazio 9y ago
      Is this not basic physics looking at pivot points? If 160+ pounds is landing on your heels, the shock of that must be absorbed entirely by your knees and hips. If the same weight lands on the the front of your feet, you have the added absorption offered by your toes, ankles, and achilles tendon. That's not exactly anecdotal. As for the long-term health effects of one or the other, that's still being debated and might be dependent on the joint health of the individual runner. See [1]. [1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefoot_Strikers_Exhibit_Lower_Running_Induced.12.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefo...
cafard 9y ago
Ever since this became a meme, I have made a habit of noticing other runners' strides. Women almost never are heel-strikers. Men land a little farther back in general, but still more of them hit mid foot than on the heel. Not every shoe will work for every foot, but I don't think that one needs to go as far as the five-fingers shoes.

by rosser 9y ago

WalterSear 9y ago

>When you run barefoot, or in a pair of ultra-light "shoes" like Vibrams, you learn very quickly not to do that, or you stop running. The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. The knee bends further to dissipate the force of the landing. This is how evolution "meant" for us to do it. There's more to it than that. Please make sure that you are pushing off with your heel. Many people assume that barefoot running is the same as running on the balls of your feet, but if, after your toes touch, you aren't subsequently landing and pushing off with your heel, you are likely to injure yourself, and more seriously than if you didn't barefoot run at all. The small, delicate toes in the forefoot are not meant to handle the load of landing and takeoff. FYI: This movement doesn't feel natural or normal for most people until they have tried it a bunch - the muscles and flexibility for it aren't there. It took me about six weeks of practice, but I was not a particularly frequent runner - mostly because of the knee pain of running 'normally'. The pain was eliminated by running barefoot instead.

rosser 9y ago
You're right. Thanks. Pushing off with the heel is actually specifically (if indirectly) part of what I'm working on with the bodyworker I mentioned, even. I really should have completed the thought. Thanks for catching and clarifying that.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Oh, another thing: $20 water shoes last only slightly less long than $100+ speciality 'barefoot' running shoes. :) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z7EOK8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002Z7EOK8/ref=oh_aui_deta...
  - lardo 9y ago
    Why not make your own? ^_^ http://barefootted.com/sandals.pdf http://barefootted.com/sandals.pdf
  - quickben 9y ago
    Not really true. I used to go through Walmart's $20 a pair a month walking. $60-$160 shoes I usually do 400 km running on them. 90+kg here.
  - freehunter 9y ago
    They might last as long, but do they work the same? I have $5 socks that outlast my shoes, but socks aren't exactly a replacement for shoes, right? Water shoes and barefoot running shoes seem like two different types of foot covering.
    - WalterSear 9y ago
      They work the same. The entirely flexible sole is the key.
e12e 9y ago
Do you have some more information on this? Are you talking about running on paved road, or in (rough) terrain? I admit I have some difficulty visualizing how you combine landing on the ball of your foot with pushing off with the heel (so I at least agree that it doesn't feel natural :-).

jackmott 9y ago

>I used to run a bit. Did an informal "couch to 5k" over a couple of months, before I'd even discovered that was a thing. The single most effective thing I did for my running was to buy a pair of Vibram Five-Fingers shoes. The single most important thing I've done for my running, is run more and lose weight. This is a universal thing. Everyone who gets good gets good via more running and losing weight. Running more can be hard. If there is a shoe that helps you do it, go for it. But as pace increases sometimes a shoe as minimal as a vibram can be problematic. Its certainly isn't necessary for everybody. People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.

rosser 9y ago
I've almost always been towards the lower end of the healthy BMI range for my height (to the extent BMI is even a meaningful metric), so that wasn't a consideration for me. That said, absolutely: if you're at all overweight, you specifically need to account for that in your regimen, and train up to running with that load. If you don't, you won't be running for long — one way or another. I was also never running for pace. I found a comfortable pace and incrementally increased my distance. YMMV.
darioush 9y ago
I'd like to add: if things aren't going well for you running more may not be the answer. Source: I learned all about my terrible running form that kept sending me back to physical therapy by a doctor who actually bothered to look at me running and cared enough about the biomechanics to tell me what I was doing wrong. Just like math and science (or arts or music) doesn't come naturally to everyone, the same is being connected with and in control of the muscles in your body. If you've spent the bulk of your adolescent and adult life in a chair (like I did), chances are your core muscles and stabilizers are weak and you won't be utilizing them correctly just by running more.
undersuit 9y ago
>People set world records without ever using a strange shoe. People set world records without using shoes even. The Vibram is less strange and more a compromise between foot protection and flexibility. In other words: gloves aren't strange, mittens are.

e12e 9y ago

There's also a difference between running (barefoot or not) in terrain, as opposed to running on paved roads - so in a sense things started to go wrong with the Romans (in Europe).

js8 9y ago

> The Fine Article doesn't really go into how we're doing it wrong The way I understood it is that it's wrong for it to be considered a "sport" rather than a "meditation", that is, it should be less about competition and more about relaxation.

djrogers 9y ago
That makes the reference to evolutionary origins even more confusing, as I doubt our ancestors were ‘meditating’ while running prey to ground. If it is truly a survival thing, then running under stress inducing circumstances (hunger, competition, forced exercise etc) would be more in line with what Gorg the cave man was doing...
- js8 9y ago
  So what? The fact that something evolved for a reason doesn't mean that you have to do it for the same reason. Take outdoor camping, for instance. Our "ability to camp" evolved, because we had to survive in the wilderness. Yet, many people today do it (from time to time) for fun, not because we lived in the wild in the past.

freshhawk 9y ago

I thought the barefoot/minimal part was not the focus of what we are doing wrong (I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better but you have to start incredibly slow and work up to it). His point about what we're doing wrong was treating it as a speed based sport or a chore to do to be healthy, with a bunch of gadgets to mediate the experience, when it should be a relaxing, fun meditative practice where you disconnect from everyday stresses. I find that to be a very good point and I'm surprised people didn't find it clear. It explains the treadmill hate as well.

rosser 9y ago
I'll own having missed that as well, or at least overlooking it in my having read the "wrong" as being about the how, and not the why. I think the gadgets and accessories can be helpful, but absolutely: they're not the point. They, and the speed-sport or health-chore nature he decries aren't relevant to why I run (ran), so I paid them less mind. Thanks for the perspective!
- freshhawk 9y ago
  I still mostly run with headphones playing an audiobook honestly. When I don't I really appreciate just how focused and serene the experience is. I guess it's just a habit I can't break, and that occasional bad run is much worse without a distraction. Seems a lot of people missed it, so maybe I just caught it because it's so close to my opinion.
nostromo95 9y ago
>I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better Let me know the next time you see Asbel Kiprop, Eliud Kipchoge or Evan Jager wearing a pair of those.
- nextos 9y ago
  Marathon shoes are much closer to Vibrams than to regular running shoes. They just have a bit of extra cushion to make a long asphalt running session manageable. In fact, running on Vibrams on sand or grass is very similar to using cleats on the track. I say this as a ex-competitive runner.

raverbashing 9y ago

You can still run touching the front of the foot and with the knee bent while running shoes, though it's true "barefoot" running forces you to do it in that way

Jugurtha 9y ago

I stumbled on a documentary: "The Tarahumara - A Hidden Tribe of Superathletes Born to Run"[0] that goes specifically into that. Basically, these people run 400 miles or something bare feet. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnwIKZhrdt4

jackfoxy 9y ago

I never felt very good about running until I got Vibrams in my early 50s. They have steadily improved the shoe, but I think it could stand to have some more shock absorption in the ball of the foot area, where you land. The other unnatural thing we do is run on concrete and tarmac pavement. We also did not evolve to run on such hard surfaces for such great lengths. There are not too many places in the world where you can run on solid granite for long distances, which is the natural equivalent of modern pavement.

mattmcknight 9y ago
The Newton running shoes are made for forefoot running, and more or less force that running style. Worth a try.

Asooka 9y ago

Don't you lose about 1/3rd of your stride when you strive to land on the front of your foot as opposed to the heel? Doing heel first lets me put my leg way in front of me as I land on it, then roll over it and push forward once my foot is directly under my body, like a spring. This means longer, more powerful strides. To land on the front of the foot, my leg would have to be very close to my body, meaning shorter, quicker strides. I tried doing this style of running - landing on the front of my foot as opposed to the heel, but I found myself having to use strides way shorter than what I'm used to. Is this correct, i.e. are the strides you have to use noticeably shorter and I would just have to get used to it if I want to do it that way?

glibgil 9y ago
Yes, the stride will be shorter, but you get used to it. You can still produce a longer stride by "kicking" out as you lift off and trying to raise your knees up as high as possible
brahmwg 9y ago
Not a kinesiologist, but I think running landing on the ball of the foot will be more energy efficient, recycling momentum more effectively than heel-first landing. Eventually, you'll get faster and better at running using the ball of foot landing, at least that's what happened anecdotally for me. At first it was a difficult transition, but long term more efficient and effective.
devdad 9y ago
Yes, many more and shorter stride is the way to go. A good way to get into it naturally is joining a trailrunning group. (I'd recommend buying a pair of inov8 for the trails, but that's another topic.) Edit: Anecdotally, I know a bunch of really great runners and they all have a strike where they land on the ball of the foot.
jmulho 9y ago
Here is the theory. Lean forward until you start to fall. Put one foot out to catch yourself. Note where your foot lands. This is where your foot needs to land to stop a fall. You will feel a significant jolt. You have successfully sucked up all the energy of your fall and stopped yourself. You put on the brakes. Now try this again, but place your foot short of where you did the first time. You shouldn't fall, but you will keep moving forward and will need to take another step to stop the fall. Now you have stopped yourself from falling over two steps which is less jolting. Now try again and place the second step short of where you would need to place it to stop, then the third, then fourth. Now you are running. If you want to go faster, shorten your stride and focus on turning your feet over as quickly as you can. If you want to slow down or stop, lengthen your stride and absorb your forward energy. You could overcome the braking action of a long stride by pushing off hard with your back foot but this is not as efficient and harder on the joints. That's the theory. The way to find out if it works for you is to experiment. For me, as soon as I understood this, running became a lot easier. If it works for you, be sure not to overdo it at first.

WhitneyLand 9y ago

You're exactly right it's a big mess of conjecture. He's not done research or methodical testing. Nutrition, excercise, running, all seem to make anyone comfortable giving advice, with even the smallest amount of anecdotal personal experience. Why is it you can walk into a gym (or any place) and be told with such confidence the best way to run, eat, sleep? It's not that I don't want to hear it, I'd love to hear how to best do these things. Just don't make every bit of advice you have an extrapolation of what worked for you or for what you saw work for one other guy. Barefoot running sounds great to me. I like to do it, it feels good, it's very intuitive, it evokes the romance of nature, freedom, even spirituality. Does that prove the commercial products out there have no benefit? Does it prove everyone should switch to barefoot running? Does it mean I should go down to a gym and try to convince people to do it?

sn9 9y ago
It's really commercial products that have to demonstrate they're providing a benefit compared to what's been the norm for millions of years. And they've never done so to my knowledge. That said, if you've been particularly sedentary or aren't used to walking barefoot, you should definitely be careful in the transition. Individual physical histories, mobility, etc. have to be taken into account when recommending advice. I do think kids should be encouraged to run barefoot as often as possible, though. Activity in general will set them up to avoid many of the mistakes of their sedentary elders.
- Retra 9y ago
  People stepped on glass an nails many times in the past. Is this not part of your knowledge? Perhaps I'm biased, as I have a scar running up my foot from having run barefoot as a child. Furthermore, I can honestly attribute none of my current good health to it.
  - sn9 9y ago
    You're supposed to look where you're going. Like keeping your eyes on the road. I've got lots of scars from being a child who doesn't pay attention to his surroundings. That's normal. You can't exactly run an experiment to see how your life would have been different had you run around in cushy sneakers that didn't let your feet move as intended, but you can certainly see the ways in which shoes which significantly modify the way your feet are used can deform your feet and posture.

nthcolumn 9y ago

Ultra-long distance dudes from Mexico the Tarahumara allegedly run like this. I also heard a story about some guy in Aussie who ran like that - won some crazy long distance race too, smashing the record. It is true that a man will beat a horse in a race if the man is allowed to pick the distance. How about that for evolution? The ultimate persistence hunter.

luxpir 9y ago
The man might still win even if the horse is allowed to pick the distance... Seriously though, marathon runners since ancient times have worn flat, unpadded sandals/footwear. Slight protection from stones, otherwise allowing the body to run naturally.
prestonbriggs 9y ago
If it's hot (say, above 70 degree F), a well-trained man can out run a horse over a long distance. If it's cold, the horse will win. The horse's cooling is largely dependent its breathing which is constrained by its pace.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  FEI Endurance horse run to 100 kms in over 15 hours. Ultra-marathons of 100 miles are won in just over 14hrs. In UAE, in Slovakia, in Wales. In all conditions, man beats horse over distance.

mcappleton 9y ago

I ran cross country in high school and I just ran barefoot around the neighborhood. I'd run 10 miles barefoot sometimes. I had Vibrams but didn't like em as much. The great thing about running barefoot is that you can feel the ground under your feet. It makes it much more interesting to run and less boring.

magic_beans 9y ago
I HATE wearing shoes, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to run barefoot in New York. I don't know what it is about barefoot running that is so stimulating -- maybe it's the simple exercise of avoiding constant danger? -- but wearing shoes certainly dampens the thrill.
- mcappleton 9y ago
  Haha avoiding danger definitely makes it more interesting... or when you step on an acorn!

zzalpha 9y ago

TL;DR, the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. Any reputable running clinic will teach you to make contact with the ground at the middle of your foot with a slightly bent knee. That's just well understood, proper technique, regardless of footwear. The real problem is people hitting the pavement without learning the basics of good technique because they think we're somehow "evolved" to just "do it right", which may be technically true but it's meaningless in practice. Edit: cleaned up the tone a bit.

Fordrus 9y ago
Having been to a run clinic, I can absolutely call bull on the claim "Footwear is irrelevant, here.". At least the run clinic I went to assured me multiple times that my impression that wearing "trainers" specifically and greatly increases the difficulty of running "correctly" by striking with the middle of your foot with slightly bent knee. The large heel of virtually all training shoes makes landing in the middle of your foot extremely difficult - especially if you're unfamiar with that way of landing your foot. Footwear does matter, at least until you know intuitively how to do the motions. I never did master a mid foot strike, the closest I was ever able to get was not landing on my heel quite as hard, essentially rolling off it quickly. I liked the pair of vibrams I wore until I wore through the rubber sole, but they are a bit expensive, and my foot shape means me pinky toe doesn't really fit up into the to things, I rather thought it unnecessary overall to separate the toes. I've been on the lookout for good places to run entirely barefoot as well, but I'm not as daring as some. :)
- zzalpha 9y ago
  Was the clinic run by a store selling overpriced Vibrams by any chance? I've run on regular runners for years. Nothing about them makes good technique harder. There may be less feedback you're doing it wrong (in the form of less pain and discomfort), but the designs themselves don't stop you from running properly. That said, it's not easy. It requires real self-awareness and a willingness to fight the urge to overrun your stride length.

tnecniv 9y ago

mabbo 9y ago

I read 'Born To Run', went out and bought a pair of vibrams, then did a nice jog around a lake, maybe 4-5km. I was running barefoot style, landing more towards my toes and I felt fantastic. The next morning I discovered that apparently, this was the first time I'd ever really used my calves before. I walked like an old man for three days, trying my best not to cry during my stretches. Over time, I got better and took it slow, and I still swear by thin-soled shoes, but I'd advise anyone interested: take it slow at first!

ainiriand 9y ago
I use that technique without Vibrams. I remember years ago when I learnt proper running, same feeling about the calves. So I think it has to do with the technique rather than the shoes.

Retric 9y ago

Treadmills don't prepare you for uneven surfaces so they are somewhat harmful in excess. Hard flat level ground is not uncommon in nature, but the ideal stride is reactive not simply repeated endlessly. The best example I can give is a long stairwell with one step 1/2 an inch off is liable to trip people up. Yet running up uneven surfaces is easy when your paying attention.

ngold 9y ago

Where does walking fit into this? As a person that does not run but walks i notice the wear on the outer back step to wear more than other parts of the heal. I walk in a straight stride with no duck walking. Always wondered with all the miles i put in and a generally fit body, if i am doing it wrong?

nextos 9y ago

Aside from the form, I also wonder about the distance. Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training? As described in an article linked in the one posted, humans seem to have evolved to run long distances [1]. I wonder how we could reconcile that with the fact that long distance running at constant pace seems to be bad for our hearts [2]. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_running_humans.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1117_041117_... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538475/

Swizec 9y ago
> Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training? It depends what you consider long distance. Marathons definitely are not healthy. 10ks probably are. Intervals are great for actually increasing your VO2max without blowing out your cardiovascular system. Funnily, when you run a raceday marathon, your heartrate (or at least mine) spends most of its time in the 160+ bmp cardio/anaerobic range. You won't be able to do that if your training doesn't involve at limit intervals that increase your cardio capacity.
pg314 9y ago
From the abstract: However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity. I'll take low mortality and excellent functional capacity.
- nextos 9y ago
  Sure, I'm not implying long distance running is unhealthy. I believe it is healthy, but there is some evidence some long distance running forms are unhealthy. Thus, I wonder how that running humans hypothetically evolved with differs from what we practice as sport these days. Perhaps their pace was lower and broken into intervals.

paganel 9y ago

> The "right" way is to land on the ball of the foot, with the knee slightly bent. I always tell my gf that you can differentiate the people who have only started ahtletics- or sports-related things after the age of 20 by looking at the way they run. When you're a kid and you play football (soccer) or basketball all day long with your buddies on a hard pitch you learn how to run correctly, don't know if that happens by instinct or because the terrain forces you do to so.

johnny99 9y ago

I've run consistently for the past 30 years, most often in the spirit of the article: long, slow, meditative runs. What my cross country coach in high school called Long Slow Distance ("limber up gentlemen, we'll be doing LSD today!"). Tried a fitbit for a while, found that reducing it to numbers took the joy out of it. I'm back to where I started: no accelerometers or earphones, outdoors, ideally on a trail. I don't go all that fast or do big miles, but it's pretty much where I'm happiest. About bum knees: I've often been warned that running will ruin them, but I stopped running for two years in my mid-thirties due to work, and then blew out my knee in a frickin' coffee shop, of all places--because the muscles holding it together had weakened from not running. Major surgery, took forever to recover. Limped for well over a year and thought I might never run again. Got a new job and started biking to work--about 4 miles each way. Within a month the limp was gone, a month or so after that I was running again. Been six years and my knee feel great. If you haven't tried gentle cycling and it's an option, you may want to consider it. I think maybe the low-impact nature of cycling let the knee strengthen without being stressed, and once the strength was back, it could handle the stress.

WalterBright 9y ago
Yes, I don't run for time, either, nor do I run with earphones on. I just jog, and my mind drifts off to work on some problem or other.
simonswords82 9y ago
Are you me?!? I too went all in on the numbers, heart rate monitor, detailed running plans, 5k competitive park runs every weekend. I thought I should run at least x times a week or I'm doing it wrong. Holy cow, did it suck the enjoyment out of it. Having MapMyRun shout in my ear every kilometer meant I couldn't just zone out and enjoy the run. Then I fell down some stairs at a tube station in London and popped my patella. Fortunately it popped straight back in, and it healed on its own but it took months and it was over winter so I stopped running. When I got back in to it I decided it was time to go "au naturel". No head phones, no shouty applications, just me and the road. I've kept it up, and don't ever plan to go back to my former approach. I've also found that if I switch up cycling and running there's less strain on my healed knee whilst still allowing me to exercise 2 - 3 times a week. I always recommend to people now that if they can they should cycle and run.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

> the gist of the "wrong" is that we've been trained by "trainers" (over-padded athletic shoes) to run in a straight-legged, heel-lands-first manner. When you do that, your knee is locked (or at least straight) as the foot lands, which transmits the force of the landing up your leg and into your lower back. Any of a sufficiently competent teacher, sufficient miles, or sufficient speed will train you not to do that.

akvadrako 9y ago

For anyone considering running in Vibrams, take note that the evidence suggests they actually promote injury. I haven't researched it deeply, but this article seems like a good starting point: https://deadspin.com/the-scientific-case-against-vibrams-fivefinger-running-1575132888 https://deadspin.com/the-scientific-case-against-vibrams-fiv...

chunk_manbeef 9y ago

+1 I am 53 and started running about 5 years ago. I started running using traditional running shoes, but after 3 months I almost gave up, due to my right knee (that had undergone ACL replacement surgery) constantly being sore. Then I switched to Vibram's Five Fingers. I have now been running over 5 years wearing Vibram's and I have no knee pain and no major injuries. If you would like more info on barefoot running, the book "Born to Run" is a good read. Try out a pair of Vibrams, you will never go back!

joekrill 9y ago

No offense to you personally, but it's kind of disconcerting that this is the top comment. You've outright admitted to only having "used to run a bit" -- and not very much, at that. But then go on to promote barefoot running as if you're somehow a fully qualified expert who knows enough to talk on the matter and declare barefoot running is _clearly_ the answer. I'm not saying you're wrong or right. This shoed/barefoot discussion has been inflaming the running community for decades. But there's really no substantial evidence that barefoot running is better. Anyway, I just think the way this was presented -- basically as fact -- is dangerous. And given that it's the top comment with very little pushback in the comments is kind of scary.

sjeohp 9y ago
As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength. Over long distances it is easy to fall back on heel-running out of laziness, because the impact is absorbed more by joints and less by tired muscles, but that is a failure of fitness and a sub-optimal style. Barefoot vs shoes is more of a personal choice. A cushioned heel can permit bad style by reducing pain, whereas barefoot forces proper technique or else breaks your feet. However proper technique once you have it doesn't depend on footwear.
- joekrill 9y ago
  But again, what you're saying here is purely anecdotal. Actually, it may not be, but I have absolutely no idea because the way you are presenting it is in a purely anecdotal way.
  - mdorazio 9y ago
    Is this not basic physics looking at pivot points? If 160+ pounds is landing on your heels, the shock of that must be absorbed entirely by your knees and hips. If the same weight lands on the the front of your feet, you have the added absorption offered by your toes, ankles, and achilles tendon. That's not exactly anecdotal. As for the long-term health effects of one or the other, that's still being debated and might be dependent on the joint health of the individual runner. See [1]. [1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefoot_Strikers_Exhibit_Lower_Running_Induced.12.aspx http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2013/12000/Forefo...

cafard 9y ago

Ever since this became a meme, I have made a habit of noticing other runners' strides. Women almost never are heel-strikers. Men land a little farther back in general, but still more of them hit mid foot than on the heel. Not every shoe will work for every foot, but I don't think that one needs to go as far as the five-fingers shoes.