Minimal Shoes

[ksrunner]

Hello,

I have been away for awhile. That usually happens when I get injured. I had an odd injury this summer where I felt relatively fine while running fast, but it hurt to run easy. For awhile, I tried to work through it just walking and doing interval workouts, but eventually, I decided to take time off. As I was coming back from the injury, I experimented with running in Fivefingers and racing flats. I eventually realized that the Fivefingers really don't work for me. I live on gravel roads and though I tried to build gradually, I just couldn't adapt to the rocks. The racing flats worked well though.

Thinking to replace the racing flats that I have been running in and interested in replacing my 22-year-old track spikes which I use for a couple of track meets a year and perhaps a cross country meet. I purchased a pair of Adidas adiZero Pro flats and a pair of Saucony Shay XC flats. I did not find anything that I liked at the local running store. So, I bought these online sight unseen thinking that flats are very simple and so long as they fit, there is not much to go wrong with flats.

I was thinking that I would use the Adidas for training and road racing and the Sauconys for track, cross country, and perhaps 5K races. When they arrived, I did not think that the sole of the Adidas would handle the gravel roads. The Shays on the other hand seemed that they might be okay. The gravel is not especially thick right now, so I took them for a 4 mile run this evening. They were GREAT. They have a hard sole, so I am not sure how well they would work on paved roads but they were great on my gravel roads. They totally protected my feet from stones. It was dark, so I could not see to avoid the stones. I am no longer prone to getting stone bruises through my shoes as I did when I first moved here, but I do tend to feel the stones if I step on them. I hardly noticed them tonight except that the ground felt uneven when I stepped on them. When I got home, the sole did not appear to have been damaged by the stones. Right now, I think that these will become my primary training shoes for the foreseeable future. I am so excited about them that I may purchase another pair right away. I  have a couple of routes that cover 1 mile of paved road. I will post again after I try them there. Right now, I expect that I will continue to use the racing flats for running on paved surfaces and reserve the Shays for gravel, grass, and the track.

By the way, although both pairs of shoes were on sale, I was specifically looking at the Saucony XC flats. I recalled a post from Andrew A about them as a possible transition shoe to the Fivefingers from before I was injured. I may purchase another pair of Fivefingers eventually, but if so, I will probably just use them for casual, comfortable shoes.

Steve

[Andrew A.]

Right, though it may have been the Kilkenny flats (a lower cost Saucony cc flat offering) that I had reported as being touted by many in the minimalist movement.  I cannot vouch for them, though it certainly makes sense that they (or the Shays or any other decent cc flat) would indeed prove to be a better option for training on hard surfaces than the FiveFingers.

[Ryan]

Yes, my first thought when reading your post was Andrew mentioning the cross country flat as a popular shoe in the minimal movement.

Given your gravel routes, a cross country flat seems like a good option to me. Many road flats will be too soft to protect your feet very well from the kind of stones it sounds like you have to deal with. Cross country flats, on the other hand, are made just for this kind of terrain with more solid materials between your foot and the ground to protect your foot from the rocks, ruts, and various other things you'll encounter on a cross country course.

[Andrew A.]

Forgot to add: good that it is working out for you!

[ksrunner]

Thanks for the replies.

Right, though it may have been the Kilkenny flats (a lower cost Saucony cc flat offering) that I had reported as being touted by many in the minimalist movement. 

I didn't realize that the Kilkenny flats cost less. I found the Shays on sale for $30. Other colors that I might have prefered were not on sale, but to paraphrase something that my wife says about horses: "A good running shoe is never a bad color."

I ran 6 miles in them this morning. As the sun came up, I realized that in the areas where the gravel has been swept to the side by cars, the frozen gravel roads are very similar to paved roads. I had to cross one paved road and didn't notice much difference during the crossing. One thing that I noticed today near the end of my run is that I felt a little fatigue in my legs. It seems that my legs are incorporating some different muscles with the XC flats. I will probably wait a few weeks before I do anything long in them.

When I first started showing up at group runs in racing flats, one of my friends indicated that I was courting injury by wearing old, worn out flats. Admittedly, they are old, but I raced only sparingly and hadn't thought of them as worn out.  That also led me to recall that my longest injury-free period of running was while I was alternating between some lightweight trainers (~2000 miles) and another pair of neutral training shoes (~1500 miles). During that period, I won another pair of neutral shoes with more cushioning and tried to introduce them to the mix, but each time I tried, I began to feel an injury coming on and I reverted back to the shoes that worked. After that experience, I have a hard time believing that worn-out shoes cause injuries. Those shoes that I put all the miles on looked terrible and had holes in the upper where the mesh had torn. But, I could still run in them comfortably. I suppose that people who have trained their bodies to depend on shoes for motion control or stability would encounter problems with worn out shoes. I could also see that if someone experienced uneven shoe wear that they might have a problem with worn out shoes. But in that instance, I think that that person already had a problem that was causing the uneven wear.

My feet definitely demand that I have something to protect them from the running surface. Other than that, my body seems to prefer shoes that stay out of the way.

Steve

[Ryan]

Very interesting thoughts. I do think the biggest problem with worn out shoes is uneven wear. I don't doubt that worn out shoes are in some ways inferior to less worn shoes but, like you, I've been finding wear to be more about when the shoe is falling apart than when the midsole is breaking down a bit. I had a few people almost begging me to retire a pair of Adidas shoes earlier this year because of the holes in the upper, cracks in the torsion bar (I believe from running in extreme cold), and various other signs of extreme wear. They still worked so I kept wearing them. I can't say I've gotten 2000 miles on a pair of shoes but I've regularly gone well beyond the 500 mile upper limit you usually hear about.

I've actually noticed that I've been getting more miles on my flats than I used to get on the more bulky and "protective" regular trainers. My theory behind that is two-fold. First, the flats have forced me into a more gentle foot plant. I'm not pounding the ground as hard, which means I'm not breaking down the midsole as quickly. Second, with only half as much stuff between my foot and the ground, any result of uneven wear will be cut in half. For instance, if I do wear the medial portion of my midsole most rapidly and 500 miles of running on a 2 inch midsole wears it down to the point that the balance is thrown off by 1/16 of an inch, running 500 miles on a 1 inch midsole would likely wear it down to the point where the balance is thrown off by 1/32 of an inch. I don't know if that makes sense to someone reading it but it makes sense to me as I think about it. I've also noticed this a bit in looking at my old shoes.

I think most people who haven't developed a reliance on their shoes would be best served with shoes that stay out of the way for the most part. Most of us need some level of protection from the surface we're running on, whether from objects like your stones or from extremely hard man-made surfaces or something else. However, 2 inches of foam, rubber, plastic, gel, air, springs, or whatever else is just not natural.

[Andrew A.]

I guess the MSRP for the Kilkennys is lower than that of the Shays.  The Shays are a steal at $30, if I could find them for that little in my size then I would definitely get some.  Eastbay and Holabird can tend to have closeout cc flats at steep discounts.  I just got some from Mizuno cc flats on First To The Finish for under $20 (google first to the finish coupon for codes to apply at checkout for an extra discount).  I like that quote, I certainly find it to be true!  Another issue that is usually exacerbated by using thick-soled shoes almost exclusively is proprioception (or a lack thereof) which relates directly to the forces encountered at footstrike.

[ksrunner]

Andrew,

I found the Shays at Footlocker. They don't have any more in my size now. It was only one color (silver/black/red) that was on sale for that price. If you go there, there is a code on the homepage for free shipping. It may not qualify if you only spend $30. I qualified the first time because I also ordered the Adidas flats.

When I was looking around to try to find Shays onsale again, it appeared that there were multiple retailers using the same software (same look and feel in the shopping experience) with similar inventory. I didn't check closely, but at a glance, it looked like they were sold out in the same sizes.) It made me wonder if they were selling shoes out of the same warehouse and whoever made the sale might receive a commission. 

By the way, I did look at Holabird (via Hillrunner.com -- I appreciate this site), but I decided to go with a retailer that had a local presence for my first time buying shoes online. In the end, the visit to the local Footlocker was misleading. The size that they recommended (12.5) was not the size that I ordered (13) and would have been too small. The local running store also had some flats on sale with the largest available size being 12.5. But, when I tried them on, they were too small. Still this experience had a good end result and left me feeling more confident about buying shoes online in the future. I just won't feel contstrained to shopping at stores with a local presence.

By the way, size 13 flats really accentuate my long, narrow feet.

Steve - had to look up "proprioception"

[rehammes]

Wow, I always leave Footlocker disappointed.  I like to pull for companies that have a Milwaukee connection (I think they have corporate offices on Brown Deer Rd) so it's good to hear they served you well.  I'm kind of surprised they carry such a focus-specific shoe.  I had thought, that unless you were looking for basketball shoes, you'd be out of luck there.  Good to hear nonetheless.

Funny about proprioceptive, I read a running book that loved that term, and I too had to look it up!

[Andrew A.]

Right, Foot Locker = Eastbay = ESPN Shop = ??, at least when it comes to online presence.  Not sure if they all share a warehouse (they may even use the same item numbers) or if there is common ownership.  I have found some great deals on shoes on Eastbay, but it seems like anymore (with the above-referenced streamlining of warehousing/inventory) all that I can find in my size are full-price shoes there. 

Proprioception is not only important in terms of balance and form for running performance, but down the road it will pay off in old age.  A while ago I came across some information regarding proprioception and how older people going to shoes with thicker soles had the affect of diminished proprioception and (predictably) greater incidence of falls (and broken bones), reliance upon walkers or wheelchairs or 'personal mobility devices.'  If you maintain and improve your proprioception as years go by, you will stand a much better chance of having greater range of mobility as a pedestrian than if you follow the typical route of neglecting it inadvertently through shoe choice.  It seems to be an unfortunately underpublicized issue with significant implications.

[Ryan]

It's been a few years but, being in the (catalog) industry, I recall the story to some extent. Foot Locker bought Eastbay and put Eastbay in charge of their online and catalog operations. ESPN Shop is also a Foot Locker owned site.

I've been doing a horrible job updating the ads on this site lately (while they pay the bills, they tend to become my lowest priority just because I like to focus on other things) but you should be able to find some Eastbay and/or Foot Locker ads in the store. I also will try to get some deals from those sites up on the homepage. Anyway, appreciate you thinking of the ads here. I should do a better job keeping them up to date and letting people know what's out there.

[Andrew A.]

The Effect of Running Shoes on Lower Extremity Joint Torques

[Andrew A.]

Mark Plaatjes weighs in on the topic.  Not sure if the linked page is viewable to everyone w/o a facebook account, so will copy/paste text and then a link.

My name is Mark Plaatjes and I am a physical therapist and co-founder of the Boulder Running Company in Boulder, Colorado. Originally I am from South Africa and competed in the Zola Budd era. In my practice I treat athletes ranging from five hour marathoners to many Olympic athletes and gold medalists. Personally I have won thirty eight marathons worldwide including the 1993 IAAF World Championships with a personal best of 2:08.58.

I have been observing the minimalist and barefoot running trend over the last two years and I feel it might be time to clarify some issues relating to barefoot and minimalist footwear. The mere fact alone that ninety five percent of runners train and race on asphalt, pavement, concrete, and trails; could close the debate over barefoot running. However, listed below are the obvious and relevant facts about barefoot and minimalist running.

1. Running barefoot/minimalist strengthens the intrinsic or postural muscles in the feet and lower leg.
2. Running barefoot/minimalist increases proprioceptive awareness and balance.
3. Running barefoot/minimalist forces a change in mechanics to adapt to the forces of on the feet.
4. There are no clinical trials that show an effect of barefoot/minimalist running for a prolonged period of time.
5. There are no research studies that prove that wearing traditional running shoes increases injuries or that barefoot/minimalist running reduces injuries.

No one, including myself, contest the above facts. If a runner has exclusive training on soft trails and/or grass, then by all means eschew running shoes as long as mechanics and gait allow for it.

There is also the issue of gait and the best way to run. The majority of people walk and run by landing on the heel and toeing off on the big toe. The anatomy of the foot reinforces this technique because the calcaneus is the largest bone in the foot with the largest fat pad in the foot underneath it. The metatarsals are small bones and have much less fat pad protection when compared to the calcaneus. These small bones are not designed to accept three times the weight of the body. The real issue we have to address is mechanics. Far too many people over stride and land with their center of gravity behind the foot strike, which leads to a braking effect and impact up the chain of the body. This type of running is also commonly mislabeled as heel-strike running. Correct heel strike running occurs by shortening the stride, increasing the cadence, and landing with the center of gravity over the feet. This greatly reduces the impact forces and enhances forward propulsion. This type of running is heel-strike running, but the contact point is not at the back of the heel but rather directly underneath the fat pad. Many people are trying to achieve this type of gait by modifying footwear instead of teaching runners the proper mechanics.

At In Motion Rehabilitation and at the Boulder Running Company, we see hundreds of runners each week. People come to us not to buy a pair of shoes, but to help them find a tool that will help and allow them to run with the least risk of injury. At this point it is important to point out the major distinction between the people that are able to run barefoot or wear minimalist shoes and the people who are not. Due to ligamentous laxity and/or biomechanical inefficiencies, sixty-five to seventy-five percent of people are not able to run bare foot/minimalist.

When a customer/patient walks into the store or clinic we ask them to take off their shoes and weight bear one foot at a time. If the longitudinal arch collapses and the navicular bone on the inside of the foot becomes prominent and moves medially toward the ground, no amount of strengthening is ever going to lift that navicular bone. The ligaments cannot support the bones in the normal alignment anymore. It would be irresponsible for me or any of the staff to recommend barefoot/minimalist shoes to these customers. We do have customers who have great mechanics and good foot structure and we certainly place them in the appropriate neutral/minimalist footwear. Our goal is to place the customer in the appropriate footwear and to correct any gait inefficiencies that they may have as well as not to fit them to a shoe that changes their gait.

At the Boulder Running Company and In Motion Rehabilitation, we certainly do not always get it right and we try to learn from our mistakes. For over fourteen years we have helped thousands of runners and walkers continue to do what makes them happy and to achieve their goals. We want runners to consult with their doctors, physical therapist, and podiatrists about their particular mechanics, gait, and foot structure before embarking on the barefoot/minimalist route. In the end, Boulder Running Company is a retailer, and whether we sell a motion control shoe or a minimalist shoe, it makes no difference to us. Our main interest is keeping our customers walking and running with the least amount of problems possible.

Walking and running barefoot certainly can serve as a useful tool in strengthening muscles and increasing proprioceptive awareness. It should be done gradually and with the guidance of a professional to analyze if a person’s mechanics will allow for the transition.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/boulder-running-company/a-commentary-on-barefootminimalist-running/253203788772

[r-at-work]

from the atricle:

Although identical running speeds were maintained between conditions by study design, subjects adopted a significantly longer stride length shod (2.29 ± 0.29 m) than was observed barefoot (2.15 ± 0.32 m) (P < .001).
 

and from Mark Plaatjes on Facebook (thank you Ryan, I can't get there):

  Correct heel strike running occurs by shortening the stride, increasing the cadence, and landing with the center of gravity over the feet. This greatly reduces the impact forces and enhances forward propulsion. This type of running is heel-strike running, but the contact point is not at the back of the heel but rather directly underneath the fat pad. Many people are trying to achieve this type of gait by modifying footwear instead of teaching runners the proper mechanics.
 

I have done some treadmill 'gait analysis' done and what came out of it is that if I run 'easy' (really slowly) I tended to "flail", that is, jog with WAY too much excess motion..  but if I pick up the pace I become more efficient, less wasted motion and my cadence increases... the quote from the article says that they were running at the same SPEED, both barefoot and shod but the stride length was longer when shod, therefore the CADENCE had to be increased if running barefoot to make uo for the shorter stride length... so it seems to me that barefoot running makes you run 'more correctly' and (for me at least) so does running a bit faster... the question I have is this: Once you know how to run 'better', can you carry that over to the rest of your running? For example, (now) when I slow down I've found that it's easy to keep the cadence up if I think about it.. and I don't end up CLOMPING along, and my feet don't hurt, even after 20 miles...and my shoes last longer..
-Rita

[Ryan]

Rita, thank Andrew.

As for your question, I do think you can carry it over. I'm in favor of form drills to change form but I think a focus on cadence can help you change your form to some extent by reducing, if not eliminating, overstriding. Of course, you have to be a bit careful that you aren't straining anything by changing your form, which is why I'm in favor of form drills. You then change your form as you are strong enough to do so.

I feel like I'm typing in circles, I hope this is making some sense.

Andrew, interesting take from Plaatjes. I don't think anyone who is being honest can disagree with the facts he states up front. I do think he may overstate the amount of people who will not benefit from barefoot/minimalist running. However, maybe we are using different definitions of minimalist. To him, it almost seems like minimalist may mean nothing but rubber between the foot and the ground. While I think that would be the "ultimate" minimalist, I don't think it's the "ideal" minimalist for most people. I'm simply thinking of reducing the shoe, not eliminating it. While I always toy with the idea of going as close to barefoot as possible, I think it's telling that I'm still running in the Asics Hyperspeeds. By no means are those shoes bulky trainers but they are also something to offer some cushioning and protection from hard surfaces.

[Andrew A.]

Certainly, though I think he left out a couple of critical corollaries:
6. There are no (objective) clinical trials that show an effect of running in heavily-padded and/or highly-structured shoes for a prolonged period of time.
7. There are no (objective) research studies that prove that barefoot/minimalist running increases injuries or that wearing traditional running shoes reduces injuries.

It should be noted that Plaatjes, a physical therapist, has a reputation locally of preferring to prescribe orthotics -- so it is not entirely true that he sees no additional profit in how he steers the customers who walk into his store.  Also, years ago when I was having some knee issues Plaatjes did put me in a training shoe that turned out to be one of my all-time favorites (though of course that meant that it would be discontinued entirely the next year, but I digress) that helped correct for the issue (late stage pronation) -- however, running in much less shoe seems to also answer that issue.  I would also like to note that the ex. phys. guru who heads up the renowned local center for sports medicine, and who believes that orthotics are vastly over-prescribed, passed along a great story about Plaatjes as a patient to show the efficacy (or lack thereof) in being too flexible per Plaatjes's contention that his tightness helped him to perform better.  I also agree that one can run efficiently while heel-striking without over-striding, though that does not seem to tend to be the case with most heel-strikers (they also over-stride) and that so many running shoes are not built to enable that, per se.

In many cases, I see it as being two answers (like with my shoe example above) to the same question, akin to giving a man a fish vs. teaching him how to fish.  There certainly would be a segment of the population that does indeed have hereditary and/or chronic structural issues that preclude pretty much anything but a protective moon boot -- however, even a good portion of those runners might benefit from being able to move to somewhat less shoe with the help of a routine to strengthen lower leg musculature.  I am not sure that Plaatjes really knows how large that segment is, as a good proportion of the customers in his store and his clinic need professional guidance.  Plus Plaatjes's bread is clearly buttered by those he can sell fish to rather than those to whom he could offer fishing classes.  To wit, his customer base is self-selecting for those who "due to ligamentous laxity and/or biomechanical inefficiencies . . . are not able to run bare foot/minimalist" and away from those who have already found that they can run in just about anything.  I was not one of the latter when I started running, I was one of the former.  I just happened to start out in some supportive shoes (Nike Air Odyssey) because they were on the sale table at the local sporting goods store.  When it came time to replace them, I just got the rather inexpensive shoes (Asics Gel Runner) that my teammates wore and the first run in them had me complaining about aching knees and ankles to my coach (who rightfully poked fun that I sounded like a pregnant woman).  So I took them back and got some stability shoes.  Thankfully I decided to run in college, as the coach there had everyone (including the throwers) do neuromuscular form drills daily and that imprinted better efficiency into my gait and thus strength to my lower legs, though of course there were some injuries involved in the process.  It was also about that time that I first started giving barefoot running a try, on warmups before workouts.  Were I not to run in college I very well might still have the same sloppy, over-striding mechanics I left high school with.

[Andrew A.]

Bobby McGee, reputable coach and fellow South African and noted cohort of Plaatjes, lends his insight:
http://bobbysez.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-bare-foot-running-now-buzzword-is.html
I have not made it all the way through this one as his format is tough to read.

[Ryan]

One thing that stands out to me and I was about to mention a few days ago, a lot of people seem to treat this as an all or nothing topic. One side seems to say run barefoot or you're an idiot. The other seems to say run in bulky trainers or you're an idiot. Where's the middle ground? While McGee says he's supporting the middle ground, he seems to be more toward the anti-barefoot side than toward the pro-barefoot side. All of those "if"s he offers seem like a stretch. Based on that, about 5 people in the world would be capable of running barefoot. It's good that he encourages some barefoot running for some runners but how often does he really recommend they wear less shoe, how often does he recommend someone tries a pair of racing flats?

One argument that stood out to me. Japanese runners have success wearing minimal shoes but they can get away with it because they have very high stride rates and very light foot strikes. What if they have very high stride rates and very light foot strikes because they wear minimal shoes? What if those very high stride rates and very light foot strikes, possibly (based on my experience, probably) augmented by training in minimal shoes, play a role in their success?

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle on this argument, which is maybe why I've noted the all or nothing nature of this debate. I think barefoot running is probably not ideal for all but a very small percentage of runners. However, I think a lot of runners could be well served by gradually and cautiously introducing less shoe than they currently have into their rotation. It won't work for everyone but I think it will work for many people who think they require more shoe. It's not a quick fix to make you suddenly injury free and 40 minutes faster in the marathon but it is something that could make you more efficient, potentially improving your performances to some extent, and lighter on your feet, potentially reducing your injury risk.

[Ryan]

More fuel for the fire: http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100127/barefoot-running-laced-with-health-benefits

[Andrew A.]

One argument that stood out to me. Japanese runners have success wearing minimal shoes but they can get away with it because they have very high stride rates and very light foot strikes. What if they have very high stride rates and very light foot strikes because they wear minimal shoes? What if those very high stride rates and very light foot strikes, possibly (based on my experience, probably) augmented by training in minimal shoes, play a role in their success?

Indeed, why could Westerners not have "high stride rates and very light foot strikes"?  Are we doomed to loping, plodding strides? 

[Andrew A.]

Reading through McGee's post now, some thoughts that come to mind.  Granted, I am no Bobby McGee and the man is an amazing font of information and wisdom, I have been blessed to hear him speak on a number of occasions.  That said, he does not have the market cornered on insight into this topic.

"If we all grew up never having the posterior side of our legs shortened by footwear with heels, then maybe"
And maybe Bobby's never heard of Earth shoes -- though they are not ubiquitous, they certainly exist and are antithetical to his chosen example.  If the posterior side of our legs can be shortened by footwear, then can it not also be gradually lengthened by footwear? 

"If we all weigh under 110 pounds if we are female & 130 pounds if we are male, then maybe"
As 6' males and 5'8" females or as 5'2" males and 4'10" females?  This glosses over the notion that a male who is 5'7" and 130# should seemingly have no greater risk of injury than a male of similar build who is 6'2" and 160#.  What is the weight limit for running in the AdiZero shoes instead of running barefoot?  How about the weight limit for running in cc flats?  Or perhaps is it not as cut-and-dried as that simplistic statement seems to want to make it out to be?

"Many of the world’s greatest runners are heel strikers – having these athletes switch to barefoot running would no doubt destroy them – I am sure their adversaries would welcome their attempts to become members of the fiercely cultish zealots who say it’s barefoot or nothing."
Because why, upon what data is this contention based?  "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."  (Also: "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.")

"Before footwear became as advanced as it did, distance running was reserved for only a small select group of men & school children participating in track – the 1st woman’s Olympic marathon only occurred in 1984!  Even 5000m was considered too far in the 80s & women could only run a 3000m on the track. All this because we thought running was too hard for most people."
Is this correlation or causation?  And is not the archaic notion that "running [is] too hard for most people" eerily similar to "running barefoot would no doubt destroy people?"  Both are beliefs, and equally valid in their context, yet one has been proven wrong.

Finally, he has posted a follow-up blog entry: http://bobbysez.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-unshod-or-not-barefoot-runnings.html

Just to be clear, I do not advocate for everyone or anyone to move to full-time BFR and I do view the likes of Christopher McDougal with a skeptical eye.  Yet just as McGee denounces their views on the topic with his informed opinion, it is still merely that: an opinion.  He makes reference to bona fide research, as if it magically appears when asked for.  He may not be supported by any shoe company or shoe store, yet so much of the research that supports his views has been funded by shoe companies.  So while McDougal and his BFR brethren may indeed be out-to-lunch, at the same time I cannot buy that McGee and Co. are not also missing something based on the arguments he has put forth.  And while I do think that McDougal and his fellow BFR proponents could use some rigorous criticism, what Plaatjes and McGee offer (with all due respect to their respective brilliance) does not seem to be exactly that.

I am not so sure that the BFR crowd really warrants being put on trial, either.  How much threat does BFR really pose?  Perhaps it feels good to flex some mental muscles and parade one's education and expertise around.  Like so many other things (training plans, diet plans, workout routines, etc.), adherents will largely be self-selecting.  Why does McGee not also call out training plans (and their authors) that lead to inordinate injury rates or at least to underperformance?  I seriously doubt that BFR is really going to result in a rash of people being hobbled when they would have been just fine in a pair of the Brooks Beast.  People seeking out and trying BFR would seemingly be chiefly those who have long been poorly served by the running shoe industry and simply want an alternative approach to try, rather than pay hundreds of dollars more for physical therapy and orthotics.  Most people are likely sensible enough to have a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" outlook.  BFR does not have even 1% of the advertising budget that the shoe industry has, they are not going to be running Super Bowl ads to win converts and make a fortune.  Using what they believe to be their expertise and the shoe industry as backing, Plaatjes and McGee come off looking a bit like they are bullying an easy target, if not pushing a view that (despite claims otherwise) ultimately benefits their businesses.

[Ryan]

You know, I was thinking of pulling out those same points and making nearly the same counter-arguments. We're obviously reading his writings and thinking along the same lines. On that note, here's what I'm taking from his second post:

Of course what would be needed would be some convincing stats, from broad studies, that support the move to barefoot running en masse or not.

First, I see a double standard here. McGee doesn't offer a whole lot in the line of convincing stats, from broad studies, that support the use of overbuilt running shoes en masse.

Second, who's talking en masse? Seriously, what's the percentage of runners who are even considering barefoot running? Heck, what's the percentage of runners who are even considering wearing racing flats as trainers instead of bulky trainers? Most people who know I wear racing flats as trainers think I'm a freak. I can't think of a single person I know personally who is a barefoot runner. There is no mass movement toward minimal shoes, much less barefoot running, and there will not be no matter how much promotion the BFR people get.

Add to this that there are a number of BFR (barefoot running) practitioners making a good bit of cash off their efforts to run BFR groups. This is not wrong, but to try to undermine bona fide research & efforts to make running less injurious & more pleasurable & effective for the masses smacks somewhat of hypocrisy.

One could easily enough turn the hypocrisy claim right around and point at the running shoe companies (the sources of that "bona fide research").

As with you, I have a ton of respect for McGee. He's a brilliant man, he knows far more than I could hope to know about running. That said, he seems to be setting up a straw man to beat down when it comes to this topic and, even as he beats down that straw man, some of his arguments come across to me as disingenuous (and it's very hard for me to make that statement about someone like McGee but I'm calling it as I see it here).

[ksrunner]

I have not read Bobby McGee's post and probably won't. I am satisfied with what I am doing and am going to give it at least a year before I call training in XC flats a success.

[quote author=Andrew A. link=topic=7418.msg24062#msg24062
"If we all weigh under 110 pounds if we are female & 130 pounds if we are male, then maybe"
As 6' males and 5'8" females or as 5'2" males and 4'10" females?  This glosses over the notion that a male who is 5'7" and 130# should seemingly have no greater risk of injury than a male of similar build who is 6'2" and 160#.  What is the weight limit for running in the AdiZero shoes instead of running barefoot?  How about the weight limit for running in cc flats?  Or perhaps is it not as cut-and-dried as that simplistic statement seems to want to make it out to be?
[/quote]

I found this part interesting. I am 6'2" and about 175# right now -- though 160# is a much better racing weight. I also bought a pair of AdiZero Pro's when I bought my XC Flats. I look forward to trying them at my next road race -- probably in March.

I did read the post or article by Plaatjes. I found it interesting that he talked about the small bones at the front of the foot not being capable of handling the force of impact. At the time that I read it, I thought, "I agree that those bones cannot take the full force of our weight, but generally, people who land on the forefoot are not holding their feet rigidly in that position so that those bones have to take all of that impact." The foot rolls back and the heel still takes most of the force, but that force is less than the heel would take from a heel strike. Even if they're sprinting and their heel never touches the ground, the foot and ankle and knee still flex to absorb some of the impact. One person can jump from a height straight-legged and break their legs while another person can make the same jump, roll when they land, and continue about their business like nothing happened. I've been the over-striding guy before. That scenario is much like the person jumping straight-legged.

Well, it is time to go run.

[Ryan]

I did read the post or article by Plaatjes. I found it interesting that he talked about the small bones at the front of the foot not being capable of handling the force of impact. At the time that I read it, I thought, "I agree that those bones cannot take the full force of our weight, but generally, people who land on the forefoot are not holding their feet rigidly in that position so that those bones have to take all of that impact." The foot rolls back and the heel still takes most of the force, but that force is less than the heel would take from a heel strike. Even if they're sprinting and their heel never touches the ground, the foot and ankle and knee still flex to absorb some of the impact. One person can jump from a height straight-legged and break their legs while another person can make the same jump, roll when they land, and continue about their business like nothing happened. I've been the over-striding guy before. That scenario is much like the person jumping straight-legged.

Great point. Really, the idea is that it's not just the bones taking the force. It's the soft tissue (muscles, tendons, ligaments) taking that force. Really, do you want a very rigid structure to be your shock absorber or do you want something that is able to flex and stretch to be your shock absorber? By landing heavy on your heel, you're making your heel bone your shock absorber. By landing more mid-foot or even forefoot, you allow the soft tissues of your feet and lower legs to be your shock absorbers.

Personally, I don't want any of my bones, big or small, to be absorbing the impact of my foot plant. I want my soft tissues to play that role and the way to do that is to plant more forward on the foot. As an added benefit, the research appears to suggest that less shoe promotes less impact that needs to be absorbed by some body part.

[Andrew A.]

I was just throwing out numbers there, but yeah the point is that - like with the 10% rule, for example - for every rigid parameter some expert arbitrarily throws out, there will be innumerable exceptions to discredit it.  I do believe, though, that Culpepper was 6'1" and 130# in his competitive days. 

I agree, it does appear that both Plaatjes and McGee have oversimplified their examples to fit their argument. 

[Andrew A.]

More: http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/01/running-barefoot-vs-shoes.html

[Ryan]

Great links. I love that they stress the importance of a gradual transition. Contrary to what Plaatjes and McGee suggest, I don't think you need an expert to guide you if you want to try some barefoot running. You just need to start small and build up slowly.

I was a bit disappointed to see that they didn't suggest the form of gradual transition that I'm going through, which is gradually working down the line of less shoe. Personally, I think this is a very good way to make the transition, as you can control not only how often you are running with less shoe but you can also control how much less shoe you are running with. It also makes more sense for people who, for whatever reason, don't want to stop in the middle of a run so they can take their shoes off (or switch to a pair of Five Fingers) to run for a half mile or mile or whatever distance.

[Andrew A.]

Great links. I love that they stress the importance of a gradual transition. Contrary to what Plaatjes and McGee suggest, I don't think you need an expert to guide you if you want to try some barefoot running. You just need to start small and build up slowly.

Definitely!

[Andrew A.]

An article referencing the study referenced previously in this thread: http://www.examiner.com/x-36916-Denver-Running-Examiner~y2010m1d26-Do-modern-running-shoes-actually-cause-most-of-todays-running-injuries

[rehammes]

I've added barefoot running into my program for about 3 years, I feel that I have acheived my best performance when I ran the highest percentage of miles without shoes.  Conversely, I believe that a dwindling percentage of barefoot miles, along with an increase in overall miles, contributed to the knee injury I suffered last spring.  Recovery from that injury has been slow due to my own inexperience with injury recovery.  I have made several mistakes associated with rushing the recovery along and neglecting the weaknesses that led to the injury in the first place.  I feel that I am back on track with mileage progression, biomechanics and leg strength once again including a daily portion of barefoot running.  Regarding the studies that confirm the benefits of such training, do you think there is a magic number of weekly miles for the studies to pertain to you?  Meaning, will runners who train less than X miles NOT experience any ill effects of today's running shoes? Do runners that train more than X miles NEED to incorporate some sort of minimal footwear training to prolong their running?  Solve for X.    

Also, can a minimal shoe simply be an old worn out shoe?  It may not be as lightweight as a racing flat, but the support structure would be worn down sufficiently to require overall foot strength.  If the goal is to rely on the strength of the foot, could you theoretically wear your toes through the soles?  Thoughts?  Great thread, I dig the studies.

[Ryan]

Rob, interesting thoughts.

...will runners who train less than X miles NOT experience any ill effects of today's running shoes?

I can't say for sure but there may be a point there. In the past, I've found that I can wear almost any shoe when I'm running low mileage. Bump up the mileage and I have to be more careful about what I'm wearing (not too much medial posting, which seems to punish the arches; not too soft, which seems to allow a bit too much pronation for me; in short, a nice, neutral shoe).

Do runners that train more than X miles NEED to incorporate some sort of minimal footwear training to prolong their running?

I don't think you need to. I've run as high as 161 miles in a week, I've averaged over 140 miles a week. I wasn't wearing bricks on my feet but I was wearing what most would consider "normal" training shoes. I didn't feel that those shoes harmed me, they just didn't give me the same benefit that going with less shoe has. It would have been interesting if I would have gone more minimal when I was still running that kind of volume to see what the effect would have been. Unfortunately, I didn't and I don't anticipate returning to those volumes any time soon, if ever, so that might be a big unknown.

Also, can a minimal shoe simply be an old worn out shoe?  It may not be as lightweight as a racing flat, but the support structure would be worn down sufficiently to require overall foot strength.  If the goal is to rely on the strength of the foot, could you theoretically wear your toes through the soles?  Thoughts?  Great thread, I dig the studies.

Maybe for some people but I found one of my limiting factors with the "normal" training shoes was that I didn't wear them evenly. I wore them more on the inner side than the outer side so, with time, they became unbalanced and promoted too much pronation. I came to the conclusion after discovering this that the ankle and knee soreness that became my tip-off that I needed to retire a pair of shoes was due to this uneven wear.

[ksrunner]

I do believe, though, that Culpepper was 6'1" and 130# in his competitive days. 

Wow! I thought I was thin at 6'2", 148# out of high school.

Though my wife likes the lean runner's body, having a BMI that low might push her limits. Of course, with my appetite and her cooking, I am sure that there is no need to worry that I will grow too thin.

As far as gradually transitioning to minimal shoes, I think that it is a good idea to wear minimal shoes as often as possible. If you're transitioning to Fivefingers, then wear them as much as possible -- basically anytime that there are no dress codes or safety concerns that would prevent you from wearing them.

It may also be a good idea to minimize the other shoes you wear as well. For me, I probably cannot get around having some fairly hefty boots for farm work. (I don't see myself going in with the horses or running a chainsaw in five fingers or XC flats.) But, I could probably find a lighter shoe with less heel for work. I wear some Footprints shoes -- basically like dress Birkenstocks. They are probably better than most work shoes, but they are a bit big and clunky and the heel is built up a bit.

[Andrew A.]

Check out Earth shoes, with their patented negative heel.  They can be a bit pricey (though places like Sierra Trading Post will often have them steeply discounted, do a google shopping search on the ones that interest you and you might find some that are far below msrp) but they make shoes that would seem to fit the bill.  I have been considering getting some myself for work.

[Andrew A.]

Regarding the studies that confirm the benefits of such training, do you think there is a magic number of weekly miles for the studies to pertain to you?  Meaning, will runners who train less than X miles NOT experience any ill effects of today's running shoes? Do runners that train more than X miles NEED to incorporate some sort of minimal footwear training to prolong their running?  Solve for X.   

No, as with the "10% rule" and its ilk, it cannot be that simplistic.  Of course, I track neither overall mileage nor shoe mileage, so I would have no stats even if I thought they might possibly be valid.  I say go with what feels right, your body will let you know whether it is too much.  Let it be a gradual progression, err slightly on the side of caution.  Incorporate it as much as possible -- as with an example noted above, I use cc flats for 'walking around' shoes as much as is practical and am mindful of how I walk when I do. 

Also, can a minimal shoe simply be an old worn out shoe?  It may not be as lightweight as a racing flat, but the support structure would be worn down sufficiently to require overall foot strength.  If the goal is to rely on the strength of the foot, could you theoretically wear your toes through the soles?  Thoughts?  Great thread, I dig the studies.

No, as Ryan has indicated, shoes with thicker cushioning compress and wear out unevenly.  I have seen this routinely with such shoes, with age/use they will tend to develop an axis of wear across which they will rock when placed on a flat/level surface.  That is just asking for trouble, as I see it.

[Andrew A.]

This would be a fairer and more rigorous criticism of the BFR zealots:
http://www.running-blogs.com/crowther/2010/02/born_to_hype_christopher_mcdou.html

[Ryan]

That is a very good critique. It also seemed to spur comments of greater quality than I am used to seeing on blogs.

The point about the studies is a great one. Each side likes to point out the lack of studies supporting the other's side. Pot, meet kettle. Now, let's move on and see if, as is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My suspicion is that is just what we'd find if we would get over the all or nothing debate.

[Andrew A.]

McDougall in his own words:
http://www.runcolo.com/content.php?220-Interview-with-Christopher-McDougall
There is plenty to work with here, I am going to have to revisit this later.

[Ryan]

I don't have much time to comment now but a few points I would disagree with him on:

I think Dr. Lieberman put that argument to rest once and for all with his study in Nature magazine. He found that the collision forces when you heel strike in shoes are three times greater than when you forefoot strike in bare feet. Here’s the most remarkable part: when you forefoot strike in bare feet, the collision forces are virtually zero!

Hmm, I don't remember that second statement. Also, the first statement seems to contradict the second. Triple virtually zero and you still get very close to zero. That's not the argument he seems to be trying to make.

So why not just forefoot strike in shoes? You can … unless, like most shoes, the sole is so thick that you have to point your toe up to clear the heel.

Am I the only one who is confused by this? Point your toe up to clear the heel?

On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, back-to-the-basics was and is the ONLY way to run.

I'm not disagreeing with this but just because it's the only way without technology doesn't mean that the technology is counterproductive. On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, the only way to travel long distances without walking was to be carried or pulled by animals. That doesn't make the car counterproductive to long distance travel. Without getting into whether the shoe enhances a runner's experience or is a detriment, this argument doesn't go far with me.

It's disappointing to see him not willing to simply debate with those who disagree with him. He says he wants to have a discussion. Well, it's easy to have a discussion with only people who agree with you. However, discussion with people who you do not agree with is often more valuable because you can open their eyes to your ideas by making valid points while, at the same time, opening your eyes to their ideas by listening to their valid points. Is he ducking a good learning experience by saying he doesn't want to be confrontational?

[Andrew A.]

More from Bobby (he sure lends a lot of his time to something that he purports to have no validity):
http://bobbysez.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-words-on-barefoot-running.html

An interesting set of links from Brooks, the second one has proven especially interesting:
http://www.brooksrunning.com/About+Brooks/On+Barefoot+Running/
http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2010/01/25/barefoot-running-an-open-letter-from-brooks-ceo-jim-weber/
http://talk.brooksrunning.com/2010/02/08/pete-humphrey-brooks-vp-of-footwear-rd-on-injury-prevention/

[Andrew A.]

McDougall in his own words:
http://www.runcolo.com/content.php?220-Interview-with-Christopher-McDougall
There is plenty to work with here, I am going to have to revisit this later.

Ok, so revisiting . . .

I don't have much time to comment now but a few points I would disagree with him on:

I think Dr. Lieberman put that argument to rest once and for all with his study in Nature magazine. He found that the collision forces when you heel strike in shoes are three times greater than when you forefoot strike in bare feet. Here’s the most remarkable part: when you forefoot strike in bare feet, the collision forces are virtually zero!

Hmm, I don't remember that second statement. Also, the first statement seems to contradict the second. Triple virtually zero and you still get very close to zero. That's not the argument he seems to be trying to make.

Yes, seems like a fanciful illusion.

So why not just forefoot strike in shoes? You can … unless, like most shoes, the sole is so thick that you have to point your toe up to clear the heel.

Am I the only one who is confused by this? Point your toe up to clear the heel?

No, and this highlights one of the major drawbacks of e-interviews (or just poor interviewers), the lack of (opportunity for) clarifying follow-up questions.

On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, back-to-the-basics was and is the ONLY way to run.

I'm not disagreeing with this but just because it's the only way without technology doesn't mean that the technology is counterproductive. On gigantic portions of the planet, and for the overwhelming majority of human history, the only way to travel long distances without walking was to be carried or pulled by animals. That doesn't make the car counterproductive to long distance travel. Without getting into whether the shoe enhances a runner's experience or is a detriment, this argument doesn't go far with me.

+1

It's disappointing to see him not willing to simply debate with those who disagree with him. He says he wants to have a discussion. Well, it's easy to have a discussion with only people who agree with you. However, discussion with people who you do not agree with is often more valuable because you can open their eyes to your ideas by making valid points while, at the same time, opening your eyes to their ideas by listening to their valid points. Is he ducking a good learning experience by saying he doesn't want to be confrontational?

I am not disappointed.  As has been pointed out elsewhere regarding the RW 'debate' in question, it is about knowing the audience.  RW is more a vehicle for delivering running shoe marketing to consumers than it is a vehicle for delivering elucidation and enlightenment.  If they print something that challenges the status quo at all, it seems to merely dumb down the status quo even further.  (Oprah follows a similar model with great success.)  It deprives people of tools to make thoughtful and truly informed decisions regarding their running.  Anyway, as such, I would not hold being published there in high regard and cannot blame McDougall at all for feeling similarly.  Perhaps RT might not be the right venue for it, either, though I would imagine that Scott Douglas (if given the editorial okay) could do a fine job moderating a discussion like that.  A neutral publication, such as a respected blog, would likely be the most ideal.  Yet I see definite merit in your suggestion that he might be avoiding considering legit challenges to his views.  A podiatrist might not represent that, yet a podiatrist on-board with RW's editorial stance (much like a psychic on-board with Oprah's bias) would seem to represent a stacked deck or an ambush.  I can understand the reticence and I can also see the possibility of being closed to any and all challenge.

"That 300-500 replace-your-shoes mantra is strictly a marketing ploy. There is absolutely no evidence to support it. And not coincidentally, 300-500 miles equates to about six months, which is precisely when the shoe companies are rolling out their new models and the running magazines are printing their best-selling issues of the year: the shoe reviews."

I find this to be an interesting point, worth highlighting.  I would add that, as with so many other industries that cater to our disposable society, there might also be some planned obsolescence going on.  Of all the threads I have read on Letsrun.com on the topic of minimalism, I have routinely seen reports of runners who get 600-1000+ miles out of racing flats used for training.  Racing flats tend to have thinner and often denser foam than trainers do.  It seems to me that trainers of the '70s and '80s also had denser and somewhat thinner foam midsoles compared to those of today's trainers.  Switch midsoles in trainers to softer, thicker foam and wow the consumer with the "plush" or "cushy" feel and keep them in the dark about the instability and excess pronation that results for a lot of people.  Get them buying shoes more frequently out of fear that they will get injured from using shoes much longer than 300-500 miles.  


"I did have a fascinating conversation with the CEO of Brooks Running Company, which I’m about to post on my website. He seemed genuinely befuddled about the way forward, because for him, it is a genuine problem. And the problem is this: ultimately, it’s all about teaching safe technique, but whose job is that? The podiatrists certainly aren’t helping, as he pointed out. 'I talk to a lot of podiatrists,' he said. 'These guys are selling orthotics like they’re McDonald’s hamburgers.'"

Also worth highlighting.    


"Here’s something weird, at least for me. I had this conversation with Dr. Davis recently, and I tried to make the case that minimalist shoes (racing flats, water shoes, moccasins, whatever) were as good as bare feet. She shot me down. She said that once you cover up all those nerve endings in the foot, you’re taking a step backward. You’re losing ground awareness, stability, balance, all kinds of key input that you can only get from a naked foot. Then, she proved it to me. She had me run three tests on her force-impact treadmill: first in bare feet, then in fivefingers, and finally in the Nike Free 3.0 (the thinnest Frees on the market). When I put on the Frees, they felt so thick and deadening that I had to stop and rip out the insoles. Even that way, I had trouble sticking my landings and finding the sweet spot for footstrikes. It felt like stumbling around in the dark. It was the first time I’d ever found myself on the losing end of an argument about whether too little is too much. I got her point: sometimes terrain and weather will require you to put on some protection, but given a choice, bare is best."

Is the Nike Free 3.0 really a good representation of racing flats?  The midsoles look thicker than those of cc flats or even the AdiZero PR, Asics Piranha, and Mizuno Universe.  Also, to my understanding, the Free features Nike's phylite which is one of the softest foams put into shoes.  Finally, do all the nerve endings in the foot really need to be fully activated/stimulated for the entirety of each and every run?  Can optimal proprioception be achieved with an approach using a combination of (limited) barefoot and footwear and not just going barefoot (almost) all of the time?


"Twice, I was pushing too hard on a rocky trail as the sun was going down, and twice I’ve snapped my little toe (once on either foot). I thought I was the only dumbass out there with that problem, but I’ve heard it’s happened to a few other guys as well. I met a Special Forces officer in North Carolina recently who’d done the exact same thing, and we both agreed that there is no greater pain-per-square-inch than smashing the tar out of your pinkie. The good news is, you can still run with a broken toe in either bare feet or open-toed sandals. The first time I broke a toe, I ran a 10k trail race 3 days later in my bare feet. The second time, I went trail-running the next day in a pair of Tevas with no trouble. I’ve been having a great year of running, apart from the fractures, and it’s been a blast to just charge out the door every day with no thoughts of distance, or destination, or upcoming races. Just having fun."

This, to me, spells out why people who put a lot (more than most) into their performance will (rightfully) shy away from BFR full-time.  So he ran a 10K trail race three days after breaking a toe, that does not mean that it is something anyone would really hope for or would care to deal with as a distinct possibility.  And this is likely why, though they may have started out barefoot and incorporate some barefoot running still, top pros primarily run while shod.  Like hands to a pianist, a runner's feet are his or her vehicle to personal achievement and keeping them sufficiently protected is wise.

[Andrew A.]

Pete Magill provides some more thoughts: http://petemagill.blogspot.com/2010/02/born-to-run-tarahumara-or-geb-you.html
I agree with and relate to pretty much everything he has to say; credit to him for being as honest as he does here.  Not sure that I am interested enough to sit through a 52-minute video of McDougall, however. 

[Double]

I buy Adidas shoes at the outlet mall from $16.95 to $34.95 a pair.  They are as good as anything I ran in during the 70s and 80s.  I put 1,000 miles on each pair.  I do spend around $80 on racing flats about every three years or so.  I don't race much so they last awhile.  I generally like to have less than 200 miles on a pair of flats for the marathon.  When warmer weather appears and I do a couple goof off speed workouts I wear flats to get my legs ready for racing.  This has had a good effect.  Being a bigger heal runner I like a bit of meat to the shoe.  If running a longer road race, I will also conduct a weekly workout with flats on.  As a note, most runs in flats are at a faster pace so my heal strike is not as pronounced. 

[Andrew A.]

Really good Q&A with McDougall and Scott Jurek (Feb 17th, 2010 show):
http://www.pcrm.org/doctorsforum/forum_archive.html

[Andrew A.]

Local kook community:
http://www.coloradodaily.com/outdoor-recreation/ci_14458238

[Andrew A.]

Opens an audio file: http://a50.video2.blip.tv/7100003537499/RunningTimes-TransitioningToLessShoe243.mp3?bri=1.0&brs=175

[Ryan]

Listened to that this morning. A lot of good, common sense advice. Transition slowly, go just as far as you feel comfortable with and don't assume that the most minimal is always the best, don't force things if you're hurting.

Was it just me, though, or did the podiatrist come across as a bit of a Nike Free fan?

[grasshopper]

I agree, it is a really good listen.  I think Fullem referenced the Nike Free because it is a handy product line featuring some continuum on the scale of minimalist type shoes. 

[Ryan]

That's likely at least part of the reason and he did mention a couple other models of shoes. It just struck me that the Free, which is a nice shoe in some terms but offers a very cushioned ride, was so prominently referenced.

[Andrew A.]

I agree, though it seems to me like the level of cushioning and support varies between the different models of the Free.  It is a shoe that is marketed as simulating barefoot running, so that might be part of why it gets mentioned often in mainstream running media.