Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Why barefoot isn't best for most runners
Display Avatars Sort By:
Piper S.
(sbhikes) - F

Locale: Santa Barbara (Name: Diane)
Re: Re: Ancient Shoes on 09/29/2013 18:43:41 MDT Print View

+1 to Craig as well.

I've been wearing minimalist shoes for several years now and I just love them. When I go hiking or backpacking I prefer a bit of cushioning but I feel best without the heel rise and narrow toebox of 99% of shoes out there. I've even found that it's not necessary to have lugs to hike and backpack. Street running shoes do just fine.

And I'll agree that running sucks. The only "running" I do is once or twice a week I do all-out 22-second sprints with 1:30 rests in between x 8. I do them on a stationary bike so I won't trip and fall. That plus weight lifting seems to be enough to keep me in better shape than I ever was jogging, walking and bike commuting.

Clayton Mauritzen
(GlacierRambler) - F - M

Locale: NW Montana
re: Poor Study on 09/29/2013 21:44:24 MDT Print View

I'm sorry, but this is a rather poor study. How can we tell? Most advocates of barefoot running would fully agree with the results, but from a very different perspective. Few, if any, barefoot running advocates would think that 10 weeks is enough time for one's body to recover from a lifetime of using modern shoes. In fact, the injuries described are exactly the kind that many of the more sober and realistic proponents predict for those who try to transition too quickly. They would simply say that this is evidence of how pervasive the impact of modern shoes on human abilities is. Moreover, Vibram FiveFingers represent the extreme end of the minimalist perspective in running, one that is controversial enough in its own right. (Besides, relying on Vibram's marketing spin is specious at best.) While some may regard FiveFingers as something to attain to, few would recommend it as a first step, and never in the way that the study was conducted. In other words, barefoot/minimalist advocates would agree with the study's results, but from a fundamentally different starting point and towards a fundamentally different goal.

Another way to say this is that this study was poorly designed enough to be entirely inconclusive, leaving those of us who make efforts to be data-driven to rely solely on anecdotal evidence. What would be far more effective would be a long-term, longitudinal study of minimalist style running that does not rely on methods even that community would regard as suspect.

In the end, all we are left with is fuel on the fire that produces smoke but little of substance.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Yes, running sucks. on 09/30/2013 09:04:27 MDT Print View

Speaking as one who is forced to run, I must endorse the RunningSucks position. Once I leave the Army I intend to never exceed 3mph in my LPCs again.

Regarding the rest- insufficient data.

I agree- absolutely- that minimalist isn't for everyone. If nothing else, someone who doesn't run mid-double-digits miles per week will probably never develop the physique to support it safely. If you DO run mid-digits per week well then kudos to you, but stop trying to injure those who don't by putting them in minimalist shoes.

Whether minimalist running really reduces injuries remains to be seen. The minimalist crowd will criticize this study for not being rigorous enough to truly prove higher injuries but the TRUTH is that no one has proven the converse, either, despite their shrill screeching. ALL of those benefits are just scientifically unsupported hogwash at this point. Marketing. Nothing more. Why people get fanatical about it is beyond me. Heck, I like minimalist shoes, too, but I'm smart enough not to run in them when I'm not (and never will be) properly conditioned to do it. Especially when there's no proven benefit to it.

I doubt that anyone will ever study minimalist-footwear HIKING, though, so that issue will probably always remain conjecture. Hiking a load is different than running.

EDIT-- I also agree that it is rather hilarious when the minimalist fanatics spout off about being "natural" while running 50+ miles per week on pavement...

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 09:11:59 MDT.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Yes, running sucks. on 09/30/2013 09:16:12 MDT Print View

If you run for recreation/fitness for any length of time, you will get injuries (minor or more significant), no matter what footwear you use.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 09:49:16 MDT Print View

Too bad for those who think it does. I guess there's always lawn bowling, right?

If you need science to believe me:

"The science is very complex," says Dr. Ted Fenske, an Edmonton cardiologist who ran the Boston Marathon this year. "But running will improve vascular health and vascular health is necessary for a male to have proper sexual function."

"Mike Finch, editor of Runner's World's South African edition, says marathoners are "like sexual gods.""

"A 2003 study out of Harvard University found men over 50 who run at least three hours a week have a 30% lower risk of impotence than those who do little or no exercise."

"Runners are fitter, healthier and have a good self-image," says Mr. Finch. "That makes them more eager to have sex, makes them more desirable and gives them more endurance."



And there you have it. SCIENCE.
Poor non-runners.

Larry De La Briandais
(Hitech) - F

Locale: SF Bay Area
No Viagra for me! on 09/30/2013 09:58:24 MDT Print View

I'm over 50 and have been running 5+ miles for almost a year. No viagra for me! ;^)
My overweight and out of shape friends who are over 50 don't have the same "luck".

peter vacco
(fluff@inreach.com) - M

Locale: no. california
Re: Re: Re: Ancient Shoes on 09/30/2013 09:58:44 MDT Print View

real question :

is it possible to effectively run with a pack ? i know for a fact you can run with things in your hands, but how about wearing a pack ?
i have seen the Best Ranger trials on u-tube, and it looks just terrible with the rigs they use.

cheers,
v.

jeffrey armbruster
(book) - M

Locale: Northern California
"Why barefoot isn't best for most runners" on 09/30/2013 09:59:54 MDT Print View

"marathoners are like sexual gods". In Runners World magazine. Puhleeze. That's not science, that's marketing. You've been had.
Anyway, everyone knows that swimmers are the true sex gods.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: "Why barefoot isn't best for most runners" on 09/30/2013 10:04:20 MDT Print View

I swim too.
Don't even get me started on the benefits of surfing.

Stephen Barber
(grampa) - MLife

Locale: SoCal
Re: Re: "Why barefoot isn't best for most runners" on 09/30/2013 10:15:26 MDT Print View

"A 2003 study out of Harvard University found men over 50 who run at least three hours a week have a 30% lower risk of impotence than those who do little or no exercise."

So the REAL difference is likely between men over 50 who get little or no exercise and men who get three or more hours of cardio per week. Running is just one choice among many.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Re: Re: Yes, running sucks. on 09/30/2013 10:36:56 MDT Print View

>"If you run for recreation/fitness for any length of time, you will get injuries (minor or more significant), no matter what footwear you use."

As secretary/treasurer of the local chapter of RunningSucks(TM), I concur.

When I'm prep'ing for a Death March* it is just miles and vertical feet. And walking the dog and watching the eagles fly by. But when I read of BPL runners preparing for R2R2R or Trans-Zion, etc, it's "I had never run that distance and due to an injury", "assuming I stay healthy and avoid burnout", "minor cramping but none of this suffering I did the last couple times", etc.

(*That's between one and two marathon lengths in a day with a heel in contact with Mother Earth at all times.)

To each their own. HYOH, RYOR. For me, the injuries I see happen to others in running, alpine skiing, tennis/handball aren't worth possibly impairing my hiking, backpacking and nordic skiing.

But then, I've got mostly slow-twitch muscles - born that way and reinforced by my activities. Some of you may literally be wired differently.

spelt with a t
(spelt) - F

Locale: SW/C PA
Re: Yes, Running Sucks on 09/30/2013 10:42:43 MDT Print View

I will run if there is food, a large angry predator, or a rugby ball involved. Other than that, forget it.

Edited by spelt on 09/30/2013 10:44:52 MDT.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 11:20:25 MDT Print View

I consider marathon running an extreme sport.

Dean F.
(acrosome) - MLife

Locale: Back in the Front Range
Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 12:53:34 MDT Print View

Uh, getting defensive about something, there, Craig? :)

And you should quote those studies in a better way. How do we know which is cause and which is effect? Maybe the men who aren't impotent are just generally healthier, and thus more likely to run?

Not that I'll in any way dispute the health benefits of a regular aerobic workout, mind you. I just detest running. Thus, running sucks by definition... :)

I'd rather hike than run. I'd rather bike (for real, not an exercise bike) than run. I'd rather row than run. I'd rather walk on glass barefoot than run. Etc.

I mean- it's just so damned BORING. That's really what gets me. For instance, I detest running less when I am trail running as opposed to road or track running. A little. Because at least the scenery is more interesting and changing, and I have to actually navigate, etc. And that's why bicycling isn't as boring to me- because at the higher speeds you much pay a bit more attention, and traffic will certainly keep you on your toes. (That's why I do my biking at 02:00 on Saturday morning. The drunks add a little spice.)

Hmm. Bicycling is not a good choice regarding impotence, though... :)

Edited by acrosome on 09/30/2013 13:02:27 MDT.

Piper S.
(sbhikes) - F

Locale: Santa Barbara (Name: Diane)
Re: Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 13:14:32 MDT Print View

Running is too much effort for too little ROI plus over time it may slow your metabolism, cause muscle catabolism and leave you fat (or skinny-fat) and weak. You can achieve a lot more with less with a progressive heavy lifting program and 2 or 3x a week 15 minutes of high impact intervals for conditioning.

If running is your sport of choice, though, then you have to run. But don't bet that it makes you more healthy or more virile than other forms of exercise.

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 13:26:37 MDT Print View

"Running is too much effort for too little ROI plus over time it may slow your metabolism, cause muscle catabolism and leave you fat (or skinny-fat) and weak. You can achieve a lot more with less with a progressive heavy lifting program and 2 or 3x a week 15 minutes of high impact intervals for conditioning."


Seems a bit of a sweeping statement, but could be true, I have no idea.

The benefits of running outdoors would seem to outweigh those of sitting in a Gym with weights. This coming from someone who does not run but gets all their exercise outdoors.

Edited by Kat_P on 09/30/2013 18:08:12 MDT.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Lance's woes. on 09/30/2013 17:46:08 MDT Print View

>"Bicycling is not a good choice regarding impotence, though... :)"

They dangle for a reason, huh?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 18:00:24 MDT Print View

"Running is too much effort for too little ROI plus over time it may slow your metabolism, cause muscle catabolism and leave you fat (or skinny-fat) and weak. You can achieve a lot more with less with a progressive heavy lifting program and 2 or 3x a week 15 minutes of high impact intervals for conditioning."

That depends entirely on what your goals are. If you want to move far and fast in the mountains, for instance, or far and fast anywhere for that matter, you will not achieve that goal with heavy lifting and/or 15 minute high impact interval sessions 2-3 X week nearly as well as by running, if at all. As for leaving you fat or skinny fat, slow your metabolism, etc, I'm flat out calling BS on you. I ran for 20 years. Hard. And I am none of the above, now or when I was running. Same goes for hundreds of runners I was around for years.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re: Re: Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 18:07:28 MDT Print View

+1 Tom.
Piper's been drinking too much Paleo Crossfit Kool Aid.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science Fact: Running Does Not Suck. on 09/30/2013 18:12:50 MDT Print View

"Piper's been drinking too much Paleo Crossfit Kool Aid."

Is that the stuff they make from dehydrated umbilical cord or placental blood?