Minimal Shoes

[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.