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?
Great write up! The revolution is real, one step at a time we will raise awareness. I have started by passing a copy of Born to run around my office. After running barefoot for some time know, I find it hard to look at any running shoe advert.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I did notice just after I'd posted that Running Fitness are advertising an article on barefoot running in the September issue - published on 31 July. It'll be interesting to see how long and informed an article it is.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that lots more people are talking about barefoot running, so I hope that the revolution will gain momentum and ground. A scan on the internet will also show people with the reverse opinion that shoes are now essential, that barefooting is too dangerous. There still seems to be a real social stigma about going around barefoot - though even that is variable. I find women much more tolerant or accepting, perhaps they are more used to kicking off insanely uncomfortable shoes?
What does the evidence say about knees..?
ReplyDeleteThe immediate answer is that knee injury seems to be associated with shock-loads on the joint transferred up the leg following heal striking running. Brand new cushioned shoes protect knees by absorbing the impact, but as the shoe cushion material deteriorates with age and use so the protection reduces and you need to buy new shoes to gain protection again.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, if you run barefoot you land on your midfoot and two things happen to reduce shock loads - one is that muscles of the feet and legs dynamically store more of the energy, and the second is that running style adapts to keep impact lower.
That's just my immediate understanding. I'll do a bit of research and follow up with another post on that issue.
Cheers.