6 ms·

Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally,

Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes at all.

zebrafish 8y ago
Generally found to be untrue. Lots of different running styles and gaits. Runners generally take the "shoe for every stride" approach now rather than a "one style fits all" mindset.
- rhinoceraptor 8y ago
  If you have running shoes, then sure you have different styles. For instance, you can land on your heels and blow out your knees and hips, whereas without shoes you would never run that way.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  Not saying you’re wrong but do you have any evidence to say it’s “Generally found to be untrue”.
  - notacoward 8y ago
    The question is more whether the "barefoot is best" meme was ever more than theory/anecdote. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-... As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.
    - bamboozled 8y ago
      To be honest that article just says that both techniques are similar in efficiency, which I think no one really disputed. There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not really familiar with that idea. What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot. I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run. Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.
      - notacoward 8y ago
        > I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot. Can you cite any studies at all on the subject, even showing the converse? It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side. > As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run. I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.
  - 21 8y ago
    For once, even if it's allowed no top athlete runs barefoot/minimal. And it's not because of ad dollars - you don't see them wearing hats or gloves just because some company would pay for that.
  - eitally 8y ago
    I can't remember the source (or I'd paste a link here), but the current thinking is that, overall, the best way to choose shoes (for safety & performance) is to pick a pair that's comfortable. That might range from Tarahumara style sandals to Uber-cushioned Hokas to a super-stiff stability shoe. The important thing is to test a bunch and pick what works for you, and not to isolate in a specific sub-category (minimal, zero drop, cushioned, stability, neutral).
- justinator 8y ago
  Not to say you're wrong either, but there's been a huge shift in running: trail running is more popular than ever (or just not running on the road - see OCRs), shoes have wider toeboxes, and although minimal shoes seem to have come and gone, a neutral heel drop is pretty normal these days. Overengineered shoes in general are not as popular: if you look at something like thruhikers on the AT or PCT, a lot of them opt for a wide-toebox, neutral heal drop trail runner over an overly built up and heavy hiking boot. I've seen thruhikers do whole sections in Crocs. So perhaps "minimal" wasn't the right thing to focus on. But the design of the shoes have def. changed.
gascan 8y ago
The two concepts can coexist. We are born to run, but we are also born to dream of figuring out how to make ourselves run better.
- Salgat 8y ago
  We've also been wearing shoes for at least 10,000 years, and have possibly evolved to a degree to wear them. > It is thought that shoes may have been used long before this, but because the materials used were highly perishable, it is difficult to find evidence of the earliest footwear.[8] By studying the bones of the smaller toes (as opposed to the big toe), it was observed that their thickness decreased approximately 40,000 to 26,000 years ago. This led archaeologists to deduce that wearing shoes resulted in less bone growth, resulting in shorter, thinner toes.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe
meotai 8y ago
Even the author of that research paper that that book is based on doesn't run marathons barefoot. He said humans aren't meant to run 26.2 miles nonstop barefooted.
- bluetech 8y ago
  Have you heard of persistence hunting? Here's is a short documentary from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o It is believed to be one of the oldest hunting techniques, and so would indicate that humans are in fact meant to run long distances. According to Wikepedia, the runner runs for "about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi)".
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    The fact that the rest of humanity didn't bother with persistence hunting may also be a clue that we weren't designed for that either.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Or it's a clue that we figured out that building a trap or using a weapon to kill an animal from greater distance burns a lot less calories.
      - macspoofing 8y ago
        For sure. And that's the point. Persistence hunting is a strategy developed by a set of humans living in one small area of the world that isn't particularly hospitable to humans. In fact, give how inhospitable the African Savannah is, it is a point against the idea that this is somehow a 'natural' state of being for us. And it makes sense, this kind of long distance running is incredibly energy intensive and injury prone - it's not a great way to make a living.
        bluetech 8y ago
symmitchry 8y ago
People have never believed that being barefoot was faster. Even Bikila (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila), who ran an Olympic world record while entirely barefoot, was faster in shoes once he got used to them.
Too 8y ago
The book mostly is against shoes that absorb the energy in the shock, because it makes you less careful when landing and allows you to incorrectly land straight on the heel rather than using the built in suspension of your toes and foot. It's not against shoes universally. These new shoes supposedly store the energy in the landing and gives it back on release. Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper. ...in which case it's definitely illegal under IAAF rules. BTW, even the dreaded "heel strike" isn't as bad as many seem to think. In the article I cited in another comment here, they actually found that heel striking is more energy-efficient. Other studies I've seen have suggested that heel striking is more often a symptom of another problem than a problem itself. It might or might not be ideal, but among dozens of other mechanical issues people can have - e.g. overstriding, pronation/supination - it's only one part of the picture and IMO is often a distraction from any given runner's real issues.
AtlasBarfed 8y ago
Natural barefoot running doesn't work when americans are unnaturally obese and have been wearing shoes since they were born

zebrafish 8y ago

Generally found to be untrue. Lots of different running styles and gaits. Runners generally take the "shoe for every stride" approach now rather than a "one style fits all" mindset.

rhinoceraptor 8y ago
If you have running shoes, then sure you have different styles. For instance, you can land on your heels and blow out your knees and hips, whereas without shoes you would never run that way.
bamboozled 8y ago
Not saying you’re wrong but do you have any evidence to say it’s “Generally found to be untrue”.
- notacoward 8y ago
  The question is more whether the "barefoot is best" meme was ever more than theory/anecdote. https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-... As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.
  - bamboozled 8y ago
    To be honest that article just says that both techniques are similar in efficiency, which I think no one really disputed. There is also a claim which I’m not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more “taught and spring like”, ,not really familiar with that idea. What I’m interested in, and the article doesn’t discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot. I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run. Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that’s probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn’t an advisable way to run without shoes. It’s quite a different exercise.
    - notacoward 8y ago
      > I haven’t any studies which say I’m more likely to be injured when going barefoot. Can you cite any studies at all on the subject, even showing the converse? It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side. > As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run. I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.
- 21 8y ago
  For once, even if it's allowed no top athlete runs barefoot/minimal. And it's not because of ad dollars - you don't see them wearing hats or gloves just because some company would pay for that.
- eitally 8y ago
  I can't remember the source (or I'd paste a link here), but the current thinking is that, overall, the best way to choose shoes (for safety & performance) is to pick a pair that's comfortable. That might range from Tarahumara style sandals to Uber-cushioned Hokas to a super-stiff stability shoe. The important thing is to test a bunch and pick what works for you, and not to isolate in a specific sub-category (minimal, zero drop, cushioned, stability, neutral).
justinator 8y ago
Not to say you're wrong either, but there's been a huge shift in running: trail running is more popular than ever (or just not running on the road - see OCRs), shoes have wider toeboxes, and although minimal shoes seem to have come and gone, a neutral heel drop is pretty normal these days. Overengineered shoes in general are not as popular: if you look at something like thruhikers on the AT or PCT, a lot of them opt for a wide-toebox, neutral heal drop trail runner over an overly built up and heavy hiking boot. I've seen thruhikers do whole sections in Crocs. So perhaps "minimal" wasn't the right thing to focus on. But the design of the shoes have def. changed.

gascan 8y ago

The two concepts can coexist. We are born to run, but we are also born to dream of figuring out how to make ourselves run better.

Salgat 8y ago
We've also been wearing shoes for at least 10,000 years, and have possibly evolved to a degree to wear them. > It is thought that shoes may have been used long before this, but because the materials used were highly perishable, it is difficult to find evidence of the earliest footwear.[8] By studying the bones of the smaller toes (as opposed to the big toe), it was observed that their thickness decreased approximately 40,000 to 26,000 years ago. This led archaeologists to deduce that wearing shoes resulted in less bone growth, resulting in shorter, thinner toes.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe

meotai 8y ago

Even the author of that research paper that that book is based on doesn't run marathons barefoot. He said humans aren't meant to run 26.2 miles nonstop barefooted.

bluetech 8y ago
Have you heard of persistence hunting? Here's is a short documentary from the BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o It is believed to be one of the oldest hunting techniques, and so would indicate that humans are in fact meant to run long distances. According to Wikepedia, the runner runs for "about two to five hours over 25 to 35 km (16 to 22 mi)".
- macspoofing 8y ago
  The fact that the rest of humanity didn't bother with persistence hunting may also be a clue that we weren't designed for that either.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Or it's a clue that we figured out that building a trap or using a weapon to kill an animal from greater distance burns a lot less calories.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      For sure. And that's the point. Persistence hunting is a strategy developed by a set of humans living in one small area of the world that isn't particularly hospitable to humans. In fact, give how inhospitable the African Savannah is, it is a point against the idea that this is somehow a 'natural' state of being for us. And it makes sense, this kind of long distance running is incredibly energy intensive and injury prone - it's not a great way to make a living.
      - bluetech 8y ago

symmitchry 8y ago

People have never believed that being barefoot was faster. Even Bikila (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila), who ran an Olympic world record while entirely barefoot, was faster in shoes once he got used to them.

Too 8y ago

The book mostly is against shoes that absorb the energy in the shock, because it makes you less careful when landing and allows you to incorrectly land straight on the heel rather than using the built in suspension of your toes and foot. It's not against shoes universally. These new shoes supposedly store the energy in the landing and gives it back on release. Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper.

notacoward 8y ago
> Think of it more as a spring rather than a damper. ...in which case it's definitely illegal under IAAF rules. BTW, even the dreaded "heel strike" isn't as bad as many seem to think. In the article I cited in another comment here, they actually found that heel striking is more energy-efficient. Other studies I've seen have suggested that heel striking is more often a symptom of another problem than a problem itself. It might or might not be ideal, but among dozens of other mechanical issues people can have - e.g. overstriding, pronation/supination - it's only one part of the picture and IMO is often a distraction from any given runner's real issues.

AtlasBarfed 8y ago

Natural barefoot running doesn't work when americans are unnaturally obese and have been wearing shoes since they were born