Skip to main content

How did we manage to run with no shoes?


Here is another one to think about in the "barefoot is best" category.

Scientists have found that those who run barefoot, or in minimal footwear, tend to avoid "heel-striking," and instead land on the ball of the foot or the middle of the foot. In so doing, these runners use the architecture of the foot and leg and some clever Newtonian physics to avoid hurtful and potentially damaging impacts, equivalent to two to three times body weight, that shod heel-strikers repeatedly experience.
Read more here (or in the LA Times here)

"Our hope is that an evolutionary medicine approach to running and sports injury can help people run better for longer and feel better while they do it," says Lieberman, who has created a web site, www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu, to educate runners about the respective merits of shod and barefoot running."

Here is the summary in Nature:

Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years1, but the modern running shoe was not invented until the 1970s. For most of human evolutionary history, runners were either barefoot or wore minimal footwear such as sandals or moccasins with smaller heels and little cushioning relative to modern running shoes. We wondered how runners coped with the impact caused by the foot colliding with the ground before the invention of the modern shoe. Here we show that habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers. This difference results primarily from a more plantarflexed foot at landing and more ankle compliance during impact, decreasing the effective mass of the body that collides with the ground. Fore-foot- and mid-foot-strike gaits were probably more common when humans ran barefoot or in minimal shoes, and may protect the feet and lower limbs from some of the impact-related injuries now experienced by a high percentage of runners.

Interestingly, the Open Water Chicago blog - a great read - commented on the story too and while agreeing with the barefoot bit, thinks that the case is not made for endurance running. Interesting in the light of this morning's post.

Comments

Anonymous said…
There was an article on webmd today that basically said the same thing: cushion shoes = heel striker, barefoot = ball striker

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100127/barefoot-running-laced-with-health-benefits
Vinay said…
Vibram Five Fingers :P

Popular posts from this blog

Dry January

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was taking part in "Dry January".  I didn't make a big song and dance about it, but I decided to go for a calendar month or so with no alcohol.  A few people have asked me about my experience, so here are a few points. Why take a break from drinking? Alcohol is an interesting topic.  As a drug it is widely accepted in society, central to so much of our socialising and leisure.  There seem to be lots of health benefits - so we are told - yet there are also a lot of problems in terms of health, relationships and lifestyle that come from drinking. Over a few years I'd begun to become aware and then concerned that I was drinking too much and too regularly.  I am in a busy and stressful job and sometimes a glass of wine after work to relax is really helpful.  But over time, one glass became two.  Two glasses became ....I might as well finish the bottle.  A habit got established....and was starting to get too e...

So where have I been?

You will have noticed that this blog has been quiet for a while....  There are a few reasons for that, reasons that I thought I'd list here: WORK -  my day job has been incredibly busy and stressful this year. Working 10-14 hour days the last thing on my mind when I got home was putting something on here.  FACEBOOK/TWITTER - I suppose I've been using other channels to do some of what I used to do here. Quick fire posts pointing to interesting studies or news etc tend to get posted to Twitter (@chrishighcock) or to the Facebook Hillfit group http://www.facebook.com/groups/263083947097000/  REASSESSMENT - I've found myself less comfortable with some of the positions I've taken in the past. Sometimes I'm embarrassed by some of the things I've promoted. I'm not Paleo or low carb. I think Tabata and intervals are misunderstood and misapplied. I cannot really claim to be HIT.   I find myselfunable  honestly to post things on here and pretend that I am some sort o...

Taking up space for a brief update

I've a couple of posts in draft that I will get up soon -  an update / reflection on Dry January and some thoughts on the scheduling benefits of short workouts if your life is busy.  Before that though, I am pointing to something else. However, I wanted to highlight something that is coming this weekend that I've been involved in.   Amber Rogers (Gokaleo and author of Taking Up Space ) has been pulling together a bundle of books from various authors with a common theme, one that I've been pushing here recently.   Keep it simple, avoid the hype, be patient, be consistent and flee the gurus.   I've talked before about how we get obsessed with pushing for more and more, when enough is OK.  I've given my view that so much of the health and fitness internet world is more like a gnostic religion than something that will benefit your life. There are other voices out there saying similar things and I'll be pointing to a bundle of books later this week ...