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.