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.