No Shoes, No Problem? Barefoot Runners Put Far Less Stress on Their Feet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps the original design is still the best. In this week’s Nature, Harvard’s Daniel Lieberman and his team reported on the impact force of people who are used to running barefoot versus those of us who wear spongy sneakers to protect the bottoms of our feet. Those who ran barefoot (the way humans evolved to run) moved differently, and with far less stress on their feet than the shoe-wearing masses. The researchers first traveled to Kenya to watch endurance runners who grew up running sans shoes. The study—the first to test lifelong barefoot runners and not simply people trying it out—found that the barefoot runners landed on the front or middle of their feet. By contrast, runners in shoes typically land on their heels. Lieberman says: “This creates an impact; it’s like someone hitting your heel with a hammer with up to three times your body weight” [BBC News]. In follow-up tests in the United States, the team noted that barefoot runners put, on average, only a third of the initial impact force on their feet than their shod counterparts did.

In fact, fancy shoes are the only reason this running style is tolerable. The invention of the springy running shoe in the 1970s, the authors write, allowed runners to comfortably land on the heel first before rolling their weight forward on the foot [Science News]. Lieberman worries that since most of us aren’t running in a way for which our physiology evolved, we could be setting ourselves up for more injuries. And he’s not alone. Another recent study by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation … found that wearing running shoes “increased joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle,” when compared to barefoot running. Even a jog in high heels was better for joints than specialized tennis shoes [Scientific American].

But before you toss out those overpriced running shoes and start jogging the natural way, consider that the link between shoe-running and injuries is far from proven. Biomechanist Reed Ferber points out that while barefoot runners apply less stress to their feet per stride, they also take shorter steps, meaning many more strides for a runner to finish a marathon. “You could argue that if he’s going to take 7,500 more steps he’s more likely to get an injury,” Ferber says. “But you could also argue that all those steps don’t have that impact peak, so that might be injury protective. So who really knows at this point?” [Science News]

(Discover Magazine)

[SMR 368]

Perhaps the original design is still the best. In this week’s Nature, Harvard’s Daniel Lieberman and his team reported on the impact force of people who are used to running barefoot versus those of us who wear spongy sneakers to protect the bottoms of our feet. Those who ran barefoot (the way humans evolved to run) moved differently, and with far less stress on their feet than the shoe-wearing masses. The researchers first traveled to Kenya to watch endurance runners who grew up running sans shoes. The study—the first to test lifelong barefoot runners and not simply people trying it out—found that the barefoot runners landed on the front or middle of their feet. By contrast, runners in shoes typically land on their heels. Lieberman says: “This creates an impact; it’s like someone hitting your heel with a hammer with up to three times your body weight” [BBC News]. In follow-up tests in the United States, the team noted that barefoot runners put, on average, only a third of the initial impact force on their feet than their shod counterparts did.

In fact, fancy shoes are the only reason this running style is tolerable. The invention of the springy running shoe in the 1970s, the authors write, allowed runners to comfortably land on the heel first before rolling their weight forward on the foot [Science News]. Lieberman worries that since most of us aren’t running in a way for which our physiology evolved, we could be setting ourselves up for more injuries. And he’s not alone. Another recent study by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation … found that wearing running shoes “increased joint torques at the hip, knee and ankle,” when compared to barefoot running. Even a jog in high heels was better for joints than specialized tennis shoes [Scientific American].

But before you toss out those overpriced running shoes and start jogging the natural way, consider that the link between shoe-running and injuries is far from proven. Biomechanist Reed Ferber points out that while barefoot runners apply less stress to their feet per stride, they also take shorter steps, meaning many more strides for a runner to finish a marathon. “You could argue that if he’s going to take 7,500 more steps he’s more likely to get an injury,” Ferber says. “But you could also argue that all those steps don’t have that impact peak, so that might be injury protective. So who really knows at this point?” [Science News]

(Discover Magazine)

I would run barefoot if it didn't snow.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

There was a post about running on bare feet here a while ago -

still have to go with theses when running or doing other things:

http://www.vibramfivefingers.com

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There was a post about running on bare feet here a while ago -

still have to go with theses when running or doing other things:

http://www.vibramfivefingers.com

Oh yeah, I remember seeing those. Let me know how it goes should you ever buy a pair.

[LaL 418]

Why the need to separate all the toes? Just think of all those webbed feet would-be buyers who are now left out!

Edited January 28, 2010 by LaL

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why the need to separate all the toes? Just think of all those webbed feet would-be buyers who are now left out!

They were meant to swim.

[Peikko 1,575]

Those shoes with toes are really odd looking - are they comfy?

[Calypso 465]

Run barefoot and get hookworms or tapeworms?

[Fandango 1,440]

Ewww, wouldn't wanna share a bed with someone who ran barefoot....imagine that sandpaper gettin all caught on the sheets?

[Peikko 1,575]

Tapeworms? Don't tape worms have to be injested, and for humans to be bothered by them they have to come from specific host animals - pigs for example. Hookworms I don't know anything about...but parasites are species specific so I would be surprised if running around barefoot would be a problem.

[jundp 191]

When I ran track in high school we were often urged by our coach to run barefoot on the beach for better conditioning of our feet and legs. We couldn't run barefoot on the track because it was too bloody hot in Louisiana, but the beach was great. Plus the sand acted as a natural pumice stone so our feet were super smooth.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

Tapeworms? Don't tape worms have to be injested, and for humans to be bothered by them they have to come from specific host animals - pigs for example. Hookworms I don't know anything about...but parasites are species specific so I would be surprised if running around barefoot would be a problem.

tapeworms have to be ingested, food is the best source for that.

hookworms, on the other hand, can be from just walking barefoot:

the usual method of infection is through the skin; this is commonly caused by walking barefoot through areas contaminated with fecal matter. The larvae are able to penetrate the skin of the foot, and once inside the body, they migrate through the vascular system to the lungs, and from there up the trachea, and are swallowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookworm

[Peikko 1,575]

They are still species specific though aren't they? I don't expect there are that many human hosts in the US for this to be a real problem.

Added to which, how many humans defecate in the grass?

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

They are still species specific though aren't they? I don't expect there are that many human hosts in the US for this to be a real problem.

Added to which, how many humans defecate in the grass?

hookworms can infect dogs and cats, so the part about the grass is moot.

[jundp 191]

Added to which, how many humans defecate in the grass?

well.....