Running shoes considered harmful?

[JaWiB]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=running-barefoot-is-better-research-2010-01-27

I haven't read the actual article (don't have access) but I find some of the claims a bit dubious. For one, they say that a heel-strike could lead to more injuries, but only because it is painful to strike heel-first when not wearing shoes. Obviously, it's comfortable enough to heel strike when wearing shoes, so perhaps with shoes it isn't damaging.

Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers.

This is also interesting because the graphs they show in the video don't make that clear (there's never even a side by side comparison). Sure, there's a sharp spike in force when the heel hits, but why not be clear on what is causing the damage? Does a large change in force (jerk) cause injuries for some reason? All their explanations just seem wishy-washy to me.

On a slightly related note, I run more toe-to-heel but I wear running shoes. Wonder what this study means for me?

 

[f95toli]

I assume this refers to the paper that was published in Nature today?
If so, try to get access somehow (library?)and read the perspective/comment that was published at the same time. That should answer some of your questions.

 

[Moonbear]

I'll definitely have to see the article itself to understand that statement, because normal gait involves heel strike, not fore-foot strike, so I can't even understand HOW you would run that way and not fall flat on your face.

 

[f95toli]

I'll definitely have to see the article itself to understand that statement, because normal gait involves heel strike, not fore-foot strike, so I can't even understand HOW you would run that way and not fall flat on your face.

I only had a quick look at the perspective at work this morning, but the point is -as far as I understand- that the running style of long distance runners who are used to running barefoot (the study was largely done in Africa) is quite different from what we consider "normal" gait, basically striking ground with the middle/fore foot and not the heal.

 

[Dembadon]

I'll definitely have to see the article itself to understand that statement, because normal gait involves heel strike, not fore-foot strike, so I can't even understand HOW you would run that way and not fall flat on your face.

After a bit of experimenting, I've managed to do it without falling on my face; however, I am also pretty sure I did not look like someone who was "running."

 

[Dembadon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XrOgDCZ4GUo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XrOgDCZ4GUo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Just found this.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'll definitely have to see the article itself to understand that statement, because normal gait involves heel strike, not fore-foot strike, so I can't even understand HOW you would run that way and not fall flat on your face.

Normal gait is during a walking pace. When you run it changes so that your foot changes how it impacts the surface. You should be hitting the surface with your forefront, not your heel.

You learn this if you do running of any kind, you can even go test it yourself go running outside with no shoes on your body automatically wants to hit the forefoot first... Running with your heel hitting first is inefficient and makes you more prone to injury.

Basically you want your foot to hit the ground nearly flat just a bit more towards the front of your foot. When you bring your foot back you went it to go up to your butt and you want your knees to be bent slightly. Normally when you see people running they hardly bring their foot back and they are running with their heel smashing into the ground and their leg is close to perfectly straight.

However I do not see how this is effected by wearing running shoes, wearing running shoes you STILL train to run properly the 'natural' way...

EDIT: Wow nice video Dembadon, perfectly explained and great that it shows incorrect vs correct method...

 

[Moonbear]

Dembadon, I notice in that video that it's "before instruction" and "after instruction." Y'know, if you need instruction, it's probably not natural running. And, I'm also wondering, "so what?" about whether there is more force on the heel during a heel strike. There is also a LOT of fat padding the heel precisely to absorb such impact (a cm or more, even on a lean individual), and not so much further forward on the foot.

Yes, the heel takes a lot of impact, but it develops in a way that also absorbs a lot of that impact.

 

[zomgwtf]

Dembadon, I notice in that video that it's "before instruction" and "after instruction." Y'know, if you need instruction, it's probably not natural running. And, I'm also wondering, "so what?" about whether there is more force on the heel during a heel strike. There is also a LOT of fat padding the heel precisely to absorb such impact (a cm or more, even on a lean individual), and not so much further forward on the foot.

Yes, the heel takes a lot of impact, but it develops in a way that also absorbs a lot of that impact.

It's about muscle usage in your legs as well and when you run on your forefoot the impact is made less harsh on your foot... not hard to understand at all.

As well it IS the natural way to run for endurance. Walking your heal hits and you roll forward, endurance running you hit with your forefoot and then the rest of your foot contacts, sprinting you use only your forefoot because you are only concentrating on propulsion not on cushioning your body so much.

For endurance running you want to absorb the impact and return energy... this is how we have evolved, to run go out and try it running without shoes on for a longer period of time... like in a jog.
EDIT: found this video on youtube that explains better what I'm talking about(just ignore the parts about the shoes that's not important just the various gaits are.)
2OE1OPzBc04&NR=1[/youtube]

 

[Dembadon]

It's about muscle usage in your legs as well and when you run on your forefoot the impact is made less harsh on your foot... not hard to understand at all.

As well it IS the natural way to run for endurance. Walking your heal hits and you roll forward, endurance running you hit with your forefoot and then the rest of your foot contacts, sprinting you use only your forefoot because you are only concentrating on propulsion not on cushioning your body so much.

For endurance running you want to absorb the impact and return energy... this is how we have evolved, to run go out and try it running without shoes on for a longer period of time... like in a jog.

I agree with Moonbear; I was never taught how to run, yet when I run, my heel hits the ground first. Wouldn't this then indicate that this is what comes naturally? If you need to be taught something then it's not coming naturally for whatever reason.

 

[zomgwtf]

I agree with Moonbear; I was never taught how to run, yet when I run, my heel hits the ground first. Wouldn't this then indicate that this is what comes naturally? If you need to be taught something then it's not coming naturally for whatever reason.

I'm sure you've been wearing shoes your entire life so how do you even feel like you can make a claim of what is natural?

Go try running outside without any shoes or socks on for 30 minutes hitting your heel first to the ground. I gurantee you that you will understand what's natural vs. what is unnatural (wearing shoes).

As well it's not that you need to be taught something at all. It's what is NATURAL vs. what is UNNATURAL. Just because you CAN run heel impacting first because the extra cushion provided by your shoe does not make it natural at all. It's a very inefficient way of running and makes you prone to injuries, if you think that humans have evolved for millions of years and developed an injury prone way to run (when it was VERY important to early humans to be able to run...) then that's great for you.

 

[Moonbear]

It's about muscle usage in your legs as well and when you run on your forefoot the impact is made less harsh on your foot... not hard to understand at all.

As well it IS the natural way to run for endurance. Walking your heal hits and you roll forward, endurance running you hit with your forefoot and then the rest of your foot contacts, sprinting you use only your forefoot because you are only concentrating on propulsion not on cushioning your body so much.

For endurance running you want to absorb the impact and return energy... this is how we have evolved, to run go out and try it running without shoes on for a longer period of time... like in a jog.
EDIT: found this video on youtube that explains better what I'm talking about:
2OE1OPzBc04&NR=1[/youtube][/QUOTE] ...de that was never developed for that purpose.

 

[zomgwtf]

How is it the "natural" way if it requires training? Seriously. I just ran across the room, and still do a heel strike...and I'm barefoot. Though, there's really no evolutionary reason I can think of to actually go jogging. You're either sprinting after prey, or walking to conserve energy.

How would impact be "less harsh" to use the forefoot? You're really straining the ligaments of the foot to do that when your heel is naturally padded to absorb impact. There is nothing about the muscles in your leg that would reduce the impact of using your forefoot first. Perhaps that's why so many runners end up with shin splints, which is inflammation of the tibialis anterior muscle, because they're forcing a muscle to take the impact of each stride that was never developed for that purpose.

Wrong. Forefoot running has been more popular RECENTLY because of all the injuries that go along with running. Which USED to be heel impact running.

I bet you 100$ right now that you can not run for more than 10 minutes barefoot comfortably on a hard surface (such as would be in African terrain). Yes early humans did have to run like this in order to hunt, maybe you should do a bit more research into this before commenting further?

As well, about the muscles, that has to do with EFFICIENCY. I assume you have no training in running correct? So how can you make a comparison of efficiency between heel impact running and forefoot impact running? There have been plenty of studies done on this and if you think you can contradict it all because you ran for 10 seconds in your room barefoot than by all means go ahead.

 

[f95toli]

Remember that we humans are extremely good endurance runners. There are plenty of animals that are faster, stronger etc than us, but when it comes to long distance running we are actually the best animal on the planet, even a human with "average" genes can learn to run for many hours nonstop; at least as long as we get enough water.

Hence, our "natural" barefoot gait is obviously quite good.

 

[Moonbear]

Wrong. Forefoot running has been more popular RECENTLY because of all the injuries that go along with running. Which USED to be heel impact running.

I bet you 100$ right now that you can not run for more than 10 minutes barefoot comfortably on a hard surface (such as would be in African terrain). Yes early humans did have to run like this in order to hunt, maybe you should do a bit more research into this before commenting further?

The point is that WHY would you EVER need to run more than 10 minutes, except under totally artificial circumstances? Are you not understanding that the heel is PADDED?

 

[zomgwtf]

The point is that WHY would you EVER need to run more than 10 minutes, except under totally artificial circumstances? Are you not understanding that the heel is PADDED?

Do more (any) research and then come back to this thread.

I'll help you get started:
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_running_man_revisited/
http://www.livescience.com/history/080806-human-evolution-olympics.html

 

[f95toli]

The point is that WHY would you EVER need to run more than 10 minutes, except under totally artificial circumstances? Are you not understanding that the heel is PADDED?

Hunting. Outrunning prey is still one of the best way to hunt on the savanna when hunting with spears or primitive bows(or even no weapons at all).
This "technique" is still used by some tribes in Africa, and the hunters that do this are VERY good runners; they can easily run for up to 8 hours.
It is very likely that this is the first type of "proper" hunting (as opposed to scavenging) that we ever did, which is why we evolved into such good endurance runners (as I stated above: We can outrun ALL other animals over long distances, hardly an "evolutionary accident").

 

[zomgwtf]

Hunting. Outrunning prey is still one of the best way to hunt on the savanna when hunting with spears or primitive bows(or even no weapons at all).
This "technique" is still used by some tribes in Africa, and the hunters that do this are VERY good runners; they can easily run for up to 8 hours.
It is very likely that this is the first type of "proper" hunting (as opposed to scavenging) that we ever did, which is why we evolved into such good endurance runners (as I stated above: We can outrun ALL other animals over long distances, hardly an "evolutionary accident").

Exactly, 'sprinting' or using sheer strength etc. was a method used by all the other animals, still is. Problem being, the other animals are much faster and stronger than humans are. So what do we do to compensate? We chase them down non-stop until they no longer can go on, then we collect our prize. As mentioned this is still a method of hunting used all over Africa. When the animal can no longer go on it will actually just lay down and not fight back at all. Sometimes the animals even die from their efforts...

Humans evolved away from the 'power' methods towards more endurance and it has definitely worked (we do own the entire planet now right?)

 

[JaWiB]

I assume this refers to the paper that was published in Nature today?
If so, try to get access somehow (library?)and read the perspective/comment that was published at the same time. That should answer some of your questions.

I'll probably try when I get some spare time, but I'm fairly certain my school does not subscribe to Nature so I'd have to try to get it through interlibrary loan.

How would impact be "less harsh" to use the forefoot? You're really straining the ligaments of the foot to do that when your heel is naturally padded to absorb impact. There is nothing about the muscles in your leg that would reduce the impact of using your forefoot first. Perhaps that's why so many runners end up with shin splints, which is inflammation of the tibialis anterior muscle, because they're forcing a muscle to take the impact of each stride that was never developed for that purpose.

Most runners run heel to toe (according to the article) so if anything heel to toe running is causing those injuries. It seems like striking with the forefoot would stretch out the impact time somewhat, which might lead to the lower forces that they mentioned. Also, with your calf muscle flexed the energy from the impact can partially go into elastic potential in your calf muscle and perhaps more naturally into other large leg muscles as well.

Remember that we humans are extremely good endurance runners. There are plenty of animals that are faster, stronger etc than us, but when it comes to long distance running we are actually the best animal on the planet, even a human with "average" genes can learn to run for many hours nonstop; at least as long as we get enough water.

Hence, our "natural" barefoot gait is obviously quite good.

Yes, this is brought up in the link I posted which suggests that humans would simply outlast their prey.

 

[Evo]

Hunting. Outrunning prey is still one of the best way to hunt on the savanna when hunting with spears or primitive bows(or even no weapons at all).
This "technique" is still used by some tribes in Africa, and the hunters that do this are VERY good runners; they can easily run for up to 8 hours.
It is very likely that this is the first type of "proper" hunting (as opposed to scavenging) that we ever did, which is why we evolved into such good endurance runners (as I stated above: We can outrun ALL other animals over long distances, hardly an "evolutionary accident").

Horses.

 

[Moonbear]

Having read the actual article, I'm 1) surprised it was considered important enough to qualify as a Nature article and 2) disappointed at the limited scope of the study.

It actually did NOT test if there was any benefit to any of these types of heel vs forefoot strike or shoe vs no shoe. All it did was measure the impact of the foot on the ground with heel vs forefoot strike and in habitually shod vs unshod runners (experienced runners, not novices even). So, none of that really says anything about whether those forces are translated up the leg and/or lead to more rates of injury.

The "evolutionary" component of the study is a few lines of handwaving.

 

[Moonbear]

Exactly, 'sprinting' or using sheer strength etc. was a method used by all the other animals, still is. Problem being, the other animals are much faster and stronger than humans are. So what do we do to compensate? We chase them down non-stop until they no longer can go on, then we collect our prize. As mentioned this is still a method of hunting used all over Africa. When the animal can no longer go on it will actually just lay down and not fight back at all. Sometimes the animals even die from their efforts...

Seriously? Can you cite some sources for this? It seems a LOT easier to just sit with your weapons and WAIT for the prey to come your way. The advantage is weapons, not trying to run for hours and hours until your prey tires out...doesn't seem like something all that natural for humans since even those who train to run marathons can't last hours and hours without collapsing.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's what is NATURAL vs. what is UNNATURAL.

"Natural" is not a synonym for words like "good" or "efficient". Nor is "instinct".

Everything that has been presented so far in this thread seems to overwhelmingly suggest that:

• Our instincts are heel-to-toe running
• Toe-to-heel running is a learned behavior (e.g. to adapt to the problems with running barefoot)

I really don't get how you manage infer anything else...

 

[JaWiB]

Having read the actual article, I'm 1) surprised it was considered important enough to qualify as a Nature article and 2) disappointed at the limited scope of the study.

It actually did NOT test if there was any benefit to any of these types of heel vs forefoot strike or shoe vs no shoe. All it did was measure the impact of the foot on the ground with heel vs forefoot strike and in habitually shod vs unshod runners (experienced runners, not novices even). So, none of that really says anything about whether those forces are translated up the leg and/or lead to more rates of injury.

The "evolutionary" component of the study is a few lines of handwaving.

Sounds about like what I suspected based on the summary. I still think forefoot strike might be better, though I'm open to research that says contrary. I'm much more skeptical that barefoot is better than wearing shoes.

 

[JaWiB]

• Our instincts are heel-to-toe running
• Toe-to-heel running is a learned behavior (e.g. to adapt to the problems with running barefoot)

I really don't get how you manage infer anything else...

The one thing the the Nature paper does suggest, if I understand correctly, is that toe-to-heel running is preferred for running barefoot. Or maybe Moonbear can correct me...Did they actually show that experienced runners switched from heel-to-toe to toe-to-heel when switching from wearing shoes to barefoot?

 

[Phrak]

I bet you 100$ right now that you can not run for more than 10 minutes barefoot comfortably on a hard surface (such as would be in African terrain). Yes early humans did have to run like this in order to hunt, maybe you should do a bit more research into this before commenting further?

I might agree with you with some reservations. What we call normal running gate should better be called the adaptive running gate as a result of padded heals and a stiffer, wider sole on even terrain.

But running barefoot on rough terrain requires some control, and this can be better had with adaptive heal contact when required; thus the above reservation.

Secondly, setup as an all-or-none question, the degree of heal impact in stide variations between shode and bare feet thoughout a variable gate from jog to run to sprint, is ignored.

...In any case the swami predicts that should bare footed running become a fad, running on asphalt in bare feet will result in a new set of injuries that will invoke a new wave of controversy and the pendulum will swing back again.

 

[f95toli]

Horses.

No, horses are obviously excellent sprinters and quite good over moderate distances. But when it comes to endurance running (distances over say 100K) we are better than horses. Our closest competitors are -as far as I remember- wolves and similar animals.

...doesn't seem like something all that natural for humans since even those who train to run marathons can't last hours and hours without collapsing.

Marathon runners are NOT "proper" endurance athletes. Even a "serious amateur" can run a marathon in under 3 hours meaning they are not really running for very long. Hence, marathon runner are -relatively speaking- focused on speed and not endurance.

"Proper" endurance running (usually referred to as ultra running in magazines etc) is done over distances from about 50 miles; the most common distance being 100K (the world record is just over 6 hours, 100K will be an exhibition event during the next Olympics). Another popular competition is 24h timed event where the goal is to cover as much distance in 24h, the world record on a treadmill is something like 240km.

And then there are of course multi-day events where the competitors actually have to sleep for a couple of hours, often done in the form of trail running (down a mountain etc).

Anyway, the point is that we humans are capable of running for a very long time and can cover long distances once we are properly trained.

 

[zomgwtf]

No, horses are obviously excellent sprinters and quite good over moderate distances. But when it comes to endurance running (distances over say 100K) we are better than horses. Our closest competitors are -as far as I remember- wolves and similar animals.



Marathon runners are NOT "proper" endurance athletes. Even a "serious amateur" can run a marathon in under 3 hours meaning they are not really running for very long. Hence, marathon runner are -relatively speaking- focused on speed and not endurance.

"Proper" endurance running (usually referred to as ultra running in magazines etc) is done over distances from about 50 miles; the most common distance being 100K (the world record is just over 6 hours, 100K will be an exhibition event during the next Olympics). Another popular competition is 24h timed event where the goal is to cover as much distance in 24h, the world record on a treadmill is something like 240km.

And then there are of course multi-day events where the competitors actually have to sleep for a couple of hours, often done in the form of trail running (down a mountain etc).

Anyway, the point is that we humans are capable of running for a very long time and can cover long distances once we are properly trained.

It's important to note that just because we TRAIN to do these things that it isn't to say it's not natural for humans to do it. Training doesn't mean learning something unnatural...

I don't feel like continuing to post in this thread since too many people here seem to have very little understanding of running or the history of humans and our ancestors.

 

[Pythagorean]

Most of us have spent a large portion of our whole life wearing shoes so I think our intuition may be faulty here. One way we might resolve the toe-to-heel vs. heel-to-toe debate is by looking at how a toddler walks when they first start (since they haven't been trained in shoes). Though, lots of parents put their toddlers in adorable little baby shoes right away...

Maybe I'll chime in once my daughter takes her first steps.

My anecdote:

When I walk barefoot on harsh terrain, I actually walk on the balls of my feet to avoid rocks and twigs digging into my arch (and because walking on my heels would be awkward, try it). Maybe if I were to keep walking barefoot for years like this, to the point where my feet were tough enough to lay down the whole foot, I would actually develop a toe-to-heel stride (since, when barefoot, I walk on the balls of my feet). So I can see where zomgwtf is coming from.

 

[minger]

I'll chime on this as I've been waffling about this very thing for a bit now. For those who think it's "natural" to run with a heel strike, anyone who mentioned taking your shoes off is right.

Your stride becomes shorter, your feet stretch in front of you to protect themselves from objects, and you land on your midsole. Doing so let's your arch take the load. If you land on your heel, then the load is transferred immediately through the rigid connection of your ankle, up your leg and through your knee. At that point, your foot is cantilevered out and you end up straining your shins trying to keep it from slapping down on the ground. This is why I had shin splints for almost two years. It's really not good for you.

Adding 2 inches of foam padding on the bottom of your shoe is just a band-aid. Try it, take off your shoes and run, you'll find that heel-striking really hurts. I've switched to a more concentrated midfoot strike and my feet/shin problems almost immediately disappeared. I was having issues running for more than 2 miles at a time; I ran a total of 8 miles yesterday.

Are running shoes harmful? Well, I've never had injuries from using shoes, but I do believe they keep the body and feet especially from being as strong and efficient as they can.

 

[Hurkyl]

Try it, take off your shoes and run, you'll find that heel-striking really hurts.

So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the following claims:

• Our instincts are to run toe-to-heel
• Running toe-to-heel is better when wearing shoes

and it counts as evidence against

• Running without shoes is better than running with shoes

 

[minger]

So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with any of the following claims:

• Our instincts are to run toe-to-heel
• Running toe-to-heel is better when wearing shoes

and it counts as evidence against

• Running without shoes is better than running with shoes

You're obviously not a golfer (ok, end Big Lebowski unnecessary quote).

You would say that 100 years of running in shoes has "overwritten" thousands of years of running barefoot? You can't argue the fact that as athletes perform at higher levels, the shoes become less of a crutch. Track spikes are minimalistic at best. Sure many people use highly cushioned shoes for distance, but the highest performing ones use very small lightweight shoes...and do not heel strike. That is fact and not opinion.

Running toe-to-heel is not contradictory to wearing shoes; they are completely separate issues. One can toe-heel run in shoes, and likewise one can heel strike barefoot. The fact is that barefoot lends itself towards midsole/toe striking.

I merely said that for me, midsole striking has cured many problems I've had running. I let logic deduce the rest.

 

[Newai]

I'd like to know where these people are running barefoot. I tried that for a while years ago and a few times landed a foot on debris (glass, sharp rock...). Which is why I wear running shoes. I also get better traction.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'd like to know where these people are running barefoot. I tried that for a while years ago and a few times landed a foot on debris (glass, sharp rock...). Which is why I wear running shoes. I also get better traction.

ethiopia. east africans are dominating the long-distance events, and they often train barefoot.

what most of the discussion here fails to account for is that we westerners do not have an instinctual gait. our gait is shaped by footwear, most of it heeled, btw. the only way to talk about what is natural gait for humans is to go analyze how people run that have never worn shoes.

 

[Hurkyl]

the only way to talk about what is natural gait for humans is to go analyze how people run that have never worn shoes.

Adapting to padded heels is just as "unnatural" as adapting to sharp rocks. It's obvious how you plan on getting rid of the first effect -- how do you plan on getting rid of the second one? After all, I suspect you'll reject the obvious way...

(Also, if we were really serious, we would need to find some way to deal with the possibility that people would learn a certain gait by watching others)

(Why do we care what's "natural"? )