Useless Training Science

Great news for runners – arm swinging is important, so do run like normal and don’t strap your arms to your sides! Some researchers have really done some research to find out why people swing their arms when walking, and they conclude that “arm swinging is an integral part of the energy economy of human gait” (http://www.physorg.com/news168027773.html, or http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/science-walking-secrets-swing ). Normal arm swinging when walking is metabolically more efficient than not swinging them or moving same side arms and legs together. So now you know that when you don’t walk or run like a dork you are also being most efficient.

I’ve had another early morning run now. I am feeling really strong now so I decided to boldly barefoot further – twice as far as yesterday. I ran the route that I took when I blistered my entire mid-foot and heal and took the skin off my big toes, so I was quite nervous about the state of my feet after 7 or 8 miles off road. As a testament to how much my feet have toughened since, over about 3 months of being much more careful, they are fine, not a blister in sight. I do think that I went maybe a couple of miles too far though and my feet are sensitive. I’m still trying to decide whether my soles are singing of the joys of freedom, or whether they are protesting about being shot-blasted with ball bearings.

My ability to understand what my soles are telling me has definitely improved. In the early days, especially when I shredded my feet, everything felt like pain. I couldn’t tell the difference between sensitivity to stones and my soles blistering. Now I can tell the difference between surfaces, and stony paths are not the worst! Rough tarmac is the worst as the stones they use to give grip seem to be bonded to the road sharp points up! I walked those stretches to avoid any further injuries.

I think in the interests of increasing my mileage I might start to mix shoes back into my training as my soles feel bruised after two days of mid-distance (5 to 10 mile) runs barefoot. VFF do solve the stone and root sensitivity issue, but when it’s been wet they really do get unpleasant quite quickly when they are soaked and muddy. I’ve looked at the inov-8 X-talon 212s now and they look great – very light and not much heal to them. The only downside is that they are £75 and the studs are of a grippy rubber so probably won’t like road running much. Inov-8 do seem to do smoother sole trail “flats”, the f-lite 230 and 230pk (parkour) but I haven’t seen these to try out yet. Maybe I’ll try out Anton Krupicka’s trainer heal chopping technique before spending even more money on shoes.

Knees

A friend asked me "what about knees?" in response to a previous post, so I said that knee's are cool in barefoot running because the style you adopt has lower force loading than shoe-wearing runners. I've read a few articles, but can't do lots better than the explanation in "Barefoot Running: A Natural Step For The Endurance Athlete? by Dennis G. Driscoll, Head XC Coach, Natick (MA) High School". Discussing biomechanical analysis Driscoll says "One study noted a compensation in the form of higher knee flexion velocity immediately after contact which reduced impact loading by lowering the effective mass of the barefoot runner's support leg". In another article on the angular stiffness of knees and ankles in barefoot and "shod" running by Coyles, Lake and Lees (2001) they say that in barefoot running the knee flexes more and is less stiff than the ankle, the reverse of the effect when wearing shoes. Amongst other biomechanical things this will mean that the shock loading on the knee is less when barefoot.

In the "Additional Implications" section of Driscoll's article he says "The barefoot runner can expect reduced knee injury frequency" . Before we all get too excited, however, there is evidence that while there is little/no evidence for the performance or injury protection value of shoes, the barefoot case is not so clear-cut either. I've just found the barefoot forum on Runners World (.com) and its a great resource. The "Comment on Barefoot Running" by Caroline Burge is a warning to caution. She points out that while some of the barefoot claims do actually have real evidence (yay!), most of the studies that they are reported in are not especially high quality in scientific research methodology terms (boo - more research required as they say).

I'll let Barefoot Ken Bob have the last say on the matter in this random treatise, because I like his style and because he talks sense. In his post on knees, calves and gentle running he says pretty much all you need to know without commissioning a randomised controlled trial study - you need to feel the balance and run smoothly and softly, letting your heals touch down and keeping cadence (foot rate) high. Once you've read his advise check out the following vids for graphic examples:

• The right way
• The wrong way
• Shoe Effects

So, whatever Carole Burge says, I reckon the evidence is stacked in favour of the shoeless, even if it does not come with premium science research. I've seen the comment elsewhere, but who will fund a randomised controlled research trial costing hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not into the millions, when you can guarantee no revenue to be gained from your investment? Hum.
Just to round of with proper anecdote I can tell you that I had a two hour VFF and barefoot run with a friend last night - alright Rob? - and my knees were totally fine. It was the gravel trail on my soles that got me back into the VFFs. Achillies tendons are sensitive today, but the rest of me has never felt better (except when I was fifteen possibly, but relatively never better).
Keep running and keep smiling.

Confusing Passion with Procedures

This post is about what I don't like about ChiRunning. I really want to like it, I understand the tai chi philosophy of energy use, even if I don't buy chi as a mysterious energy force. Much of what Danny Dreyer does is clearly motivated by the best of intentions, and his system clearly does work for some people. Despite all of that I'm still not sure about it. Reading the website you cannot really get an idea of what its all about, so I spent £9 on the book. It must be said I was underwhelmed and felt that I'd been fleeced.

Dryer starts out with some fine observations, that kids runs naturally and effortlessly, and that we often appear to lose that ability as we age. My first irritation is his rationalisation for why. All the arguments seem fundamentally right at their core, but are compressed and simplified just too far to be compelling any more. Adults have lots of stresses and responsibilities that mean they lose touch with their childish freedom - true, but there are also societal pressures (certainly in the West) that emphasise not running and all sorts of other equally valid reasons why people don't progress directly from child-like activity through into adulthood.

Dryer has clearly worked with and coached many people - he says he has and I have no reason to doubt him at all, so I'll grant he has much more direct experience of helping others than me. However, he concludes from his experience that - he emphasises this point - running does not hurt your body, its the way you do it. Well, OK, another gross simplification. I've run most of my life and lost the childishness through coaching and the club focus on winning over enjoyment (fun was for the rubbish runners at the back of the pack, serious runners don't mess about). I've never found that running hurt, but it does make you very tired and you do pick up niggles and pulls, especially if you run a lot - discomfort is not pain. A system that guarantees running without injury just seems unrealistic to me.

He also treats the current running "paradigm" too simplistically in order to make his point and emphasise his difference. I totally agree with him that "power" this and "power" that is overemphasised in all sorts of Western sport, even in yoga now, but I reject his assertion that "power running" is solely about leg strength and that his system uniquely adds balance to this distorted approach. Dreyers approach has much merit, but the difference is not that black and white.

At heart, Dreyer's method conjours with the mystery of "chi" and the awesome power of his tai chi master, but the techniques are all captured at Running Barefoot or in McDougall's "Born to Run" without the chi stuff. They come down to relax, slow down your haste to progress, work out what feels best, go easy, run smooth, speed will come as ability and efficiency develop.

Throughout his book, Dreyer illustrates his 'techniques' with anecdotal comments from people who have told him how great the ideas are. This makes it all look sound, but is actually selective use of evidence. He doesn't comment on how many people told him his training is fun but made no difference - self-selection of evidence in action. His technique, that I paid money to discover, is basically land midfoot, lean in so your foot strikes under you rather than in front, keep your back straight and breath deep.

I cannot fault anything that he advises people to do, and I'm certain that people have improved under his assistance. What pains me is that he has taken a free human human activity, reduced it to a set of rules and techniques, over claimed to make it sound cooler, thrown in some trendy mysticism to make it sound different, and then charged to tell you what you already know. It's the running equivalent of a self-help book - you can't knock the advice but you feel somehow cheated because you've heard it all before and you've just been suckered into paying again.

I'm going to go out for a run tonight, and I'll do many of the things that he advises. But not because he advises it. I don't reckon my chi will be improved from centring and flowing and eating my greens, and I don't reckon that I'll always run without effort or without injury. But I will enjoy it, and I will smile, and I promise not to write a book about my self-invented training technique that you can all benefit from if you pay me cash.

I've picked on ChiRunning here because I bought the book and felt cheated. I think exactly the same about POSE too, but having read the website I thought "keep that, I'm not paying". I would point out that I spent the same amount on "Born to Run" and enjoyed it and extracted much more helpful information that even had research behind it to show why it was useful.

Running Shoes - the might of marketing

I know that I've bought the whole running barefoot thing, so I'm not impartial, but even so monthly periodicals keep the orthodox faith while the counter-movement builds its evidence base. Reading this month's Running Fitness (a UK running magazine aimed at the same market as Runner's World) you would not know that there is a barefoot revolution. To be fair they do mention barefooting here and there and have done so over a number of issues, but the larger weight is in favour of the non-evidence based need for shoes to protect us. According to Running Fitness and World we need protecting not only from our own lack of perfect gait (thus we run ourselves to a destruction that only £90 shoes can save us from) but we also need to be protected from the unbelieveably hard surfaces that we have covered the world in.

So, this month we get told "proper fitting and functioning footwear is the key ingredient to ensure enjoyable, injury free running" (August 2009, Running Fitness, p58). Apparently not only are shoes essential, but they are insufficient on their own - orthotics are needed to tailor shoes to our own specific needs. The only question is whether to buy £30 off the peg ones or £250 specially designed ones. They do make a good sounding claim - "Running footwear can have a positive effect on leg alignment. However, to improve the function or posture of the foot you may need to include an ortotic device". Is this evidence based? No, it's a quote from an orthotic prescribing individual podiatrist with a business to keep afloat in the recession.

This tack carries on to page 72, reviewing racing shoes - "lighter shoes may seem 'faster' but ... if they lack enough protection that will inevitably slow you down". They do not need to cite evidence for this, it is a universal truth. This month's magazine is not unusual, and if I could be bothered I'd dig out lots of similar mainstream quotes. Quite simply, runners might die without well designed shoes and additional cost inserts that evil manufacturers don't put in themselves despite all the other design nonsence that they do.

So, the shoe industry needs no evidence. My wife recently told a work colleague who also runs that I ran barefoot and he genuinely couldn't believe the insane risk I was taking. Now compare this with real science - for instance in the British Journal of Sports Medicine a meta-analysis of studies has shown that there is no evidence of any benefit of wedge healed training shoes for either injury protection or performance gains. The study concludes that the recommendation of cushioned heals and pronation control is not evidence based. Science. Not not what the industry wants you to think.

There are increasing numbers of coaches and even podiatrists speaking out about the deadening effects of shoes - the gait change (heal striking) and loss of proprioception (lack of feel) that shoes cause. Yet despite the conclusive evidence of nonsense and a growing undercurrent against it, the industry is still in denial. Nike Frees, designed to mimic "natural" running, are just more flexible wedge heals. Even Newton do a spiel on barefooting to sell - a shoe.

Is the revolution real, or will shoe manufacturers and their marketing outlets remain in control the mass conciousness?

What is training?

I've been thinking about what training is, which sounds really silly, but it is perplexing me. I've been a runner since I was a little kid - by 10 I was running with an athletics club, and with the odd period of semi-retirement I've run for the competition or the pleasure ever since. I have a short attention span and a love of shiny new toys so I've climbed, cycled, scuba-dived and all sorts of other stuff too. If its active then I probably like it. Except racquet sports.

Now, I reckon that I've missed a trick with running efficiency, as I've said previously. With a VO2 Max over 70 in my hayday I had the aerobic capacity to be really good, but I never made it past strong mediocre. I wish someone had put me through a gait analysis because I reckon running heel first in big fat shoes will not have helped. The few times I've really excelled and felt like I was flying was in track spikes or once when I tried Nike Mayflies in one of their event trials .

I recognise that there will be other factors, like not putting in enough miles, or not having the right attitude to make it happen. But I know that I've lacked that personal guidance that points things out. When I fenced we watched films of top swordsmen, but I never did the same for running - ultimately my bad, but it set me thinking. How do you learn the basics when you are not quite getting it? In my defence, apart from being thick, I didn't know what I was doing wrong to know how or what to ask for help with.

Now I've got into barefoot running, I read BFT and BF Ken Bob's sites, about running easy and smooth and so on. I've also wondered how this relates to Tim Noakes bible of knowledge, the "Lore of Running" now in Volume 4. Then there is the veritable Gordon Pirie, who basically said 'get out and run'. So basically it is clear that distance runners are the most efficient runners and they do it by adding so many miles that their bodies learn to move efficiently. So that seems clear - relax, get out in your own time, run far, run relaxed and the benefits will come. I like that ethos.

BUT - then I come across a variety of learn efficiency fast and never get injured again sites - also with strong followings, these include POSE for the technological believer, CHI for the spiritual runner and even MovNat for the animal runner (in a good way). Now I REALLY like the MovNat philosophy, and I know that BFT is a friend of Erwan, the head guy, so he must be cool too, but there is no way that I can afford the time and expense required to be taught how to move in an idyllic setting. I'd take my family, but the bank manager says no.

So what to do in cold Britain? I like what I've seen on the MovNat website, of breaking down apparently complex skills into simple components and drilling them like you do in martial arts training, so that they are second nature. This seems like good sense, and natural. I'm less convinced by Pose and Chi - I'm sure that they work, I've not tried either so I'm not running them down, but I don't like the concept underpinning Pose, and Chi seems to be lots of puff around basically running barefoot style with some energy flow talk on top. I don't have an answer, I'll just keep having to following these guys who are pushing at the forefront of change and thinking what it means for my own development.

I just feel a tension between the advice to run naturally, unfettered and free, and the need to teach people methods for how to do it. How did that come about?

Run into the hills, and don't stop till you have to.

Relearning to Run - Barefooting

Despite having run in minimalist shoes, or occasionally without shoes, for nearly a year, but I have only just started to really run differently. Almost straight away I stopped landing on my heel, that happens automatically when you don't have big rubber cushions strapped on. I was surprised otherwise at how incredibly resilient my learned patterns of movement are. Despite reading the Running Barefoot guidance I still felt as if I ran in much the same way, only landing mid-foot rather than heel first. I still pushed really hard, and with stiff shoulders, and had a tendency to overstride as I picked up pace, or got tired. Strangely, I relearned most when I decided not to run hard but just to go for a relaxed hour out.


The best way to run, at least my current favourite, is towards dusk and into the dark. Off road. With a head torch. Everyone I've mentioned this to - and it is not many - think that this is insane. However, I have found that it gives several benefits that have helped me to relearn the feeling of running where daylight runs have not. Firstly, as the light fades you have to pay attention to where you are going much more carefully - I have the broken toe that hammered that lesson home hard. Secondly, you have to run slower because you are looking out and its dark, and thirdly, when it starts to get really dark all you see is a circle of world from the head-torch that you are running into, you can't see yourself so you start to notice and rely on your sense of body position.

Its quite addictive running in the dark in the hills on a warm summer's evening. I'm sure that there are many ultra-runners and late night runners who know what I mean. It's not the same on the roads though, as street lights mean you lose the sense of body movement and concentration. The flatter surfaces of roads lighten the mental attention load as you can generally assume flat featureless ground (plus or minus the odd kerb and pothole). This might sound great, but I find the full concentration lets me unhook from thinking about daily life for a bit. I love my job, but sometimes it is good to stop contingency planning and resource allocation!

Running, retraining and reading

There is surprisingly little published material on barefoot running, and what there is seems to fall into one of two camps - either evolutionary accounts of ability or health/ medical accounts comparing physiological measures of efficiency when in shoes or without. Although these literatures do not appear to come together all that frequently, they do make a compelling case in favour of running without shoes.

To give a couple of examples, in 1999 Dr William A. Rossi published a paper in Podiatry Management entitled "Why shoes make "normal" gait impossible: how flaws in footwear affect this complex human function". In this paper he makes a thorough assessment of exactly how modern heeled shoes (yes, men's shoes too) act to distort the natural posture of the body. A seemingly small difference at the heel actually serves to change not only the foot mechanics but the entire muscular loading on the body trying to keep upright. Not only do you lose sensation and spring at the foot, but you add distortion to your back and/or upper legs trying to keep your balance. Rossi concludes that the only way to retain a natural gait is to return to barefoot walking. The evidence in Rossi's paper also indicates why so many people say that back pains go when they move to barefoot walking or running.

At the anthropological end of the evidence spectrum the most persuasive and prolific writer I have come across is Daniel Lieberman, at Harvard. He has written several papers with Dennis Bramble and others, such as "The Evolution of Marathon Running" (Sports Med 2007: 37(4-5) 288-290) and "The evolution of endurance running and the tyranny of ethnography: a reply to Pickering and Bunn" (Journal of Human Evolution 53 (2007) 434-437). These papers, and many more cited in them, cover the sort of ground that Christopher McDougal sets out in "Born to Run", but in much more detail and mentioning even more evidence.

It is very clear that key parts of the industry are responding to this growing evidence base - the Nike Free is a trainer, still with a built-up heal, but with more flex in the forefoot, and there are lots of other shoes, like the Vibram FiveFinger or Feelmax shoes that have no heal or internal support so that the sole has some protection but the natural foot movement is not otherwise altered. However, these appear to be little more than nods of recognition rather than a full scale shift in the trend of trainer design. Most of the mainstream running magazines are carrying on with featured stablisation and cushioning shoes as if nothing has happened. Looking at the skeptical responses of some online posts about the "dangers of urban running" with razors, glass, needles and ninja dog poo round every corner its a wonder we even go out.

It seems ironic that it is the hardest outdoors running pursuits, in the hardest conditions - fell running and orienteering in the UK, and mountain/trail running in the US and elsewhere, where dedicated shoes (Inov-8, Walsh etc) have narrower and lower heals to avoid the ankle turning that wide heals can lead to. I've even seen reference to Anton Krupicka cutting the heal down on standard trainers for use in trail ultraruns. Full respect - I've set myself a goal of running an ultra this year, but haven't gone much over ten miles in training so far.

Read the arguments - where is it all going?

I quickly found that lots of other people had taken the barefoot journey years ahead of me, and that there are loads of cool groups and resources all over the internet, and paper publications too. The more I look into it and think about it the more I'm convinced that this is not a new movement - it is an old movement getting emboldened by the increasing evidence that much of the established "truth" circulated by the footwear, podiatry and linked training industries is just plain wrong.

Christopher McDougall seems to have very neatly tied up all the key themes in his book "Born to Run". This books sets the general tone for current thinking on barefoot running, giving people the information to enable them to reject the marketing junk from the shoe companies. Even RW (UK) recently ran a small advertorial that ostensibly espoused barefooting before returning to the more normal position of 'but most people need to have their toes strapped to a solid plate to avoid sucumming to their biomechanical imperfections'.

Biomechanical imperfection seems to be one of the podiary businesses rallying cries in the face of increasingly direct questioning on the need for fat shoes and acute ankle injury. I've read current posts (can't find citations now, so I'll have to stick with hearsay for the minute) by podiatrists suggesting that only people with 'perfect' gait can run barefoot. This seems to go unchallenged - possibly as it is too ridiculous to really argue back against - but what can this 'perfect' gait look like - and does it only work on 'perfect ground'?

I suppose the greatest disappointment for me is not that such arguments fall into general currency, there is clearly an invested interest in keeping people certain that their delicate feet need serious protection from the harsh ground. The real disappointment is that the majority buy it without question - and I include myself here. When I was a student - a good 15 years back now - I was a regular on a running forum that talked about running style. I ran in the 'classic' Nike Pegasus and my interpretation of Noakes advice to improve speed by increasing stride length (and turn-over) was to significantly increase my leg swing. This only permitted me to land on my heal, and so convinced was I by my marginal gains in speed that I ignored people who said things like "man is a forefoot striker" as dribbling idiots.

I then spent a large chunk of my competitive running career getting so far, but never realising the potential I thought I had. I saw people who I knew had weaker legs and less cardiovascular fitness beat me in races, but I just didn't get the whole running efficiency thing at all. I had a coach who said things like "keep your shoulders relaxed" but I never saw how much influence my running leg style had on my overall movement style.


Having quit competitive running in a great big unfulfilled-potential sulk, I seem to have inadvertently completely retrained myself to run. I've not run in trainers for over 6 months now, and use VFF Sprints as my running shoes of choice in all conditions, on and off road. They are a revelation - but not for the faint-hearted or bad-tempered in slippery mud conditions. I read all sorts of sports science articles about "unshod" performance gains, and Danny Dreyer's Chi Running (which made me cross, but that's another story), and went out slow, focusing on smoothness - taking advice from Barefoot Ken Bob and McDougal.

I can only say that running has got easier. I can't tell if I've got faster yet, as I've not put myself to a serious test. I did run a 10K in 42mins with a broken toe - you have to be careful when the light is fading on them hill runs I can tell you - but that's a few minutes off my track PB, so I'll have to go for a retest when I've got full strength back again.

Barefoot Running Project in Progress

I have joined the swelling numbers of people who are going barefoot - or at least minimalist shoes (VFF), mostly. It makes running feel so much better than in great big lumps of plastic.

The story started for me last year, in the summer of 2008, when I read a walking magazine (Trail or TGO, I can't remember which) that had reviews of minimalist shoes for hill walking. I cannot even remember the other two shoes, but that was when I decided I had to have a pair of Vibram FiveFingers. Barefoot Ted's reviews tipped me over the point of no return and got my money spent on Amazon. When my wife first saw them I was ordered to walk at ten paces behind, and on no account to go into town when people might see me.

I was so excited I walked when I would otherwise have driven, and took a series of exciting shots of my own feet. Almost a year later I have made every basic mistake in barefooting. Very early on I got too excited and went for a 9 mile run shoeless one morning. I thought that my feet felt a little sensitive after half an hour or so, but as I was running on mixed surfaces I thought no more about it - the damp grass was fantastic. It was only as I trailed foot prints of blood across the hall carpet that I realised I might have been a little silly.

I learned a lot about surgical dressings and walking really slowly on my heals after that. Two months lost. But no regrets - when the screaming pain died down anyway.