A new study on minimalist running shoes vs. bare foot running at the NYT. Note the NYT now limits you to ten free articles a month if you don't subscribe.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/making-the-case-for-running-shoes/?src=me&ref=general

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

My experience mirrors the study. Minimalist shoes (I wear XC racing flats that do not have rock plates) add a small amount of cushioning and protection, and my leg muscles do not get as tired... probably because my anatomy is not try to cushion all of the impact.

Down side is that these shoes normally don't last much more than a hundred miles, and the lightest ones cost around $100 :(

At first I thought they were comparing barefoot running to shoe running. They’re not :(

From the article “The runners were never completely barefoot; when unshod, they wore thin yoga socks to protect them from developing blisters and for purposes of basic hygiene on the shared treadmills.
Next, the researchers taped 150 grams’ worth of thin lead strips to the top of runners’ stockinged feet. By adding an equal amount of weight to the bare foot, they could learn whether barefoot running really was physiologically more efficient than wearing shoes.”

I don’t know if apples are compared to apples on this. Who is going to go running or hiking or whatever in their socks with thin lead strips taped to the top of their foot?

So you’re actually comparing a sock that you can’t cinch tight to a shoe that you can cinch tight. Those are 2 completely different worlds. You lose a lot of energy and risk possible ankle twists if your footwear is not tight.

-Barry
-The mountains were made for Teva’s

Do you really think that running in a thin sock versus barefoot affects your gait or foot strike on a flat treadmill? Come on.

Also, the point of the weights were to have the runners' legs lifting the same weight as if they were wearing shoes. Otherwise, you really are comparing apples to oranges. With the weights, the shoes were the only difference.

(More here: http://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/pdf/sportsmed/doi/10.1055/s-2007-989233.pdf The crucial bit is that there was no difference in anything they measured between barefoot runners and runners in socks with very light weights attached)

Edited by sschloss1 on 03/22/2012 12:38:00 MDT.

Interesting study--I especially liked that the PI answered reader questions in the comments section of the NYT blog.

Not sure what the implications are for BPing. The *shoes* tested were only 150 grams each--less than my Trail Gloves. And a 4% decrease in metabolic efficiency (=4% increase in calories needed?) seems trivial. Even at Skurka levels of calorie expenditure, ~5000 Cal/day IIRC, that's only an extra 200 Cal--maybe 1.5 ounces of food.

So the take-away, maybe, is a shoe with more padding weighing the same as a minimalist shoe might save a bit of energy. But none of the other reasons people prefer minimal padding/zero heel rise are addressed (and rightly so, since it's only a single study).

“Do you really think that running in a thin sock versus barefoot affects your gait or foot strike on a flat treadmill?... ”

It’s the natural slippage that happens in a sock (w/o a shoe) that just makes walking/running different vs. using shoes. Yes these socks might have a little rubber on the sole but they’re still going to slip a little with walking/running.

“With the weights, the shoes were the only difference.”

Well and increased slippage. That’s risky for running. I couldn’t tell if the lead was taped to the top of the sock or the person’s skin. That would make a difference.

If they’re testing barefoot vs shoe efficiency, why not literally monitor the efficiency of the professional barefootist vs being shod; not the sock-er vs. the shoe-er? (sorry for all my invented words)

-Barry
-The mountains were made for Teva’s

Barry, check the link in my last post. Those guys compared about a dozen different measures of running performance in barefoot and sock-clad runners and found no difference.

“Barry, check the link in my last post. Those guys compared about a dozen different measures of running performance in barefoot and sock-clad runners and found no difference.”

I wish I could. That sounds interesting. I need a subscription: “For individual subscribers online access is included in the subscription price. ”

As a test I would like to see a basketball team in socks vs a barefoot basketball team.
As a stipulation, all players need to be professional barefootists. The game must be done on a maple-wood court.

-Barry

"As a test I would like to see a basketball team in socks vs a barefoot basketball team.
As a stipulation, all players need to be professional barefootists. The game must be done on a maple-wood court."

I will add to this that the socks in this study should have light rubber soles adhered to the bottom and the maple-wood court should be periodically misted with water.

Seriously though, I can't imagine a thin sock making much if any difference on a treadmill.

I have some very large doubts about the conclusions.

> Shoes, he says, “provide some degree of cushioning.” If you eschew shoes, “something
> else has to provide the cushioning.”
So those Nike Mayfly shoes provide all that cushioning? Oh Yeah????? I have my doubts!!! A few millimetres of rubber????

> The runners were never completely barefoot; when unshod, they wore thin yoga socks to
> protect them from developing blisters and for purposes of basic hygiene on the shared
> treadmills.
Typical of medicos trying to do research. They are just not trained for it.
Yes, I may be biased, but I base that bias on so many other instances I have seen of incompetent experimental design by medicos.
Two problems here.
The first is that yoga socks are NOT barefoot. They do not KNOW what the differences might be, and have not tried to find out. That is incompetent.
Second, as OP has already pointed out, slippage between foot and sock is very likely and fairly costly in energy.

Finally, the reporting itself is incompetent. I quote:
"For 8 of the 12 runners, wearing shoes remained slightly more efficient than being barefoot, even though the shoes added more weight."
They never tested barefoot runners. They tested runners wearing socks. They are NOT the same thing!

Added later: and they do not quote any figures for errors. Were their measurements so accurate they could genuinely detect a 4% difference? More big doubts.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 03/22/2012 19:07:51 MDT.

See my post above. Previous research has shown zero difference in mechanical and physiological measures of running in sucks and barefoot.

Since people don't seem to have the subscription, here's the juicy part:
"none of the mechanical and metabolic parameters showed any significant difference between [barefoot] and [wearing socks]." (I replaced their shorthand for the experimental conditions with the actual description).

Edited by sschloss1 on 03/22/2012 18:16:29 MDT.

The biggest flaw in this study is the way people interpet it. it says nothing about barefoot vs shod being better. All it states is that a barefoot runner gains a slight margin of efficency by wearing small light shoes.

The arguement or barefoot minmalist has never been about efficiency. Its much more about injury reduction and increasing endurance by increasing foot strength.

It also does not say the shod runner who has always run shod is more efficient than a barefoot runner. If you could test this the results wpuld be somewhat interesting.

So to this study i say meh, and like most media reported scientific studies the headline of the article is rarely supported by the study they reference

Wow, that's some serious hostility.

They used Yoga Socks. These aren't your average slippery cotton socks, they are designed to provide a secure grip for your feet. In actual performance I have no idea how they compare to a sweaty foot for slippage (oh yes, the previous posters failed to mention that potential negative of barefoot running grip...).

I'm surprised at all the zealotry going on between the camps. Barefoot running is touted as great because it strengthens all the minor/stabilizing muscles of the foot and legs. Much like using free weights vs a machine. Not strengthening those muscles will lead to muscle imbalances and that's a recipe for overuse injury.

The mayfly has a 10mm heel-toe drop (25mm and 15mm stack heights) according to Runningwarehouse. So yes, the shoe they used does have a fair amount of cushioning. Sorry RC but it didn't take much

So naturally cushioned shoes (or really any shoe that has a full sole and interferes with truly barefoot running) will not incorporate those minor muscles fully. That means less energy is used during movement, which means greater efficiency in the short term.

I've always seen barefoot running as a great way to train and minimize overuse injuries, but for performance days you use a shoe with a bit of cushioning to give you a leg up. Long term use of a cushioned shoe will just result in detraining of those valuable little muscles and negate the benefits of their existence.

There is no "one camp is better than the other" in virtually any aspect of life. Both concepts have merits and applied appropriately a best of both worlds is almost always obtained.

Finally the article was pretty decent about limiting the scope. It may be metabolically more efficient to wear shoes but that may not add real world gains. For comparison, it's metabolically more efficient to not use trekking poles since incorporating your upper body uses a lot of energy. However if you have weaker legs and strong enough arms, trekking poles provide a real world benefit because you are not taxing your leg muscles as much, allowing you to move faster or longer. This is an issue of global measures and local variables.

Also when did "natural" become equated with "efficient." Climbing barefoot is natural, but climbing with a rock shoe is definitely more efficient. That's the point of technology, to increase our efficiency (at least short term).

Look at any high-performance entity. They all have a strong base that allows them to maximize potential. Navy SEALs have a ton of gadgetry and gear, but give them just a knife and they can still accomplish many of their missions. The top F1 drivers love to have a phenomenal vehicle, but their skills and training as drivers allows them to overcome gear failings. Having every muscle properly conditioned allows one to fully utilize the minor performance advantages that hi-tech clothing adds. Skurka and Ryan Jordan could probably outhike many of the people on this forum with SUL packs while they wear 30+lbs (I know they could me) because they have put in the time and training to strengthen what matters, gear is secondary.

Excellent response/addition Dustin

Thanks

Great post, Dustin.

One more thing on equating "efficient" and "natural": Some folks like to argue that barefoot is better because our ancestors evolved walking barefoot (or maybe with very minimal shoes). Just because something evolved a certain way does not make it ideal. Evolution doesn't produce optimal solutions--it produces the best solutions possible with the variants that exist. Obviously, humans didn't evolve with cushioned running shoes, but that doesn't mean that wearing cushioned running shoe is automatically worse (or better) than going barefoot.

Hi Dustin

> The mayfly has a 10mm heel-toe drop (25mm and 15mm stack heights) according to
> Runningwarehouse. So yes, the shoe they used does have a fair amount of cushioning.
I have no problem with the small thickness of the sole, but do you have any published references to support the idea that such a thin bit of sole, compared to the design of the foot and the length of the legs, is going to make such a difference to *cushioning*?

I've raced (the mile) in leather-soled flats and run in joggers. Can't say there was all that much difference: it was still my leg muscles doing the work. A slight difference in the heel strike and roll, but for different reasons than cushioning.

Seems to me that there is a big difference between 'cushioning' and 'protection'. When I run barefoot on rough terrain, I am very conscious of every little pebble and stick, but when I have a hard sole, even if only 5 mm thick, there is a world of difference in how I run.

Does this mean I think that it is the protection given by a hard sole - both the actual protection and the knowledge that my sole is protected, that makes the difference? Well, that's very possible. I can see a lot more justification for saying that it's the protection rather than any cushioning which 'works'.

Interesting subject.
Cheers