The Barefoot Running Book - Jason Robillard [4]
• Don’t enjoy running—looking for something to make it fun
• Strengthen their feet
• Reduce injuries
• Inspired by books such as Born to Run by Christopher McDougall
• Reminiscent of childhood
• Don’t like the feeling of sweaty, smelly socks and shoes
• Long-time runners looking for a new challenge
• Want to run in a more natural way
• Simplifying their lives
• Rebel against society
Remember—you should be in good health before beginning barefoot running or any physical activity.
Interested in Barefoot Running?
Here are encouraging words from others who have switched.
Research Into the Relationship Between Athletic Shoes and Foot Injuries
Barefoot running has experienced resurgence in popularity over the last few years. Part of this resurgence is the result of interesting research about the nature of running injuries. Much of which is based on assumptions by runners in thinking the running shoes they use are designed to prevent injuries.
As researchers explore the relationship between injuries and footwear, some interesting relationships appear. In 1989 Dr. B. Marti published one of the first studies that seemed to link shoe properties with injuries. In his research, Marti tested over 5,000 runners that had finished a race. He found that runners that ran in expensive shoes (costing more than $95) were more than twice as likely to have been injured in the last year than runners that ran in cheaper shoes (costing less than $40). Who would ever think the plastic trainers from Walmart would be better than the latest $200 shoes on display in the window of their local running store?
Around the same time, in 1988, Hamill and Bates published a study that seemed to show that shoes improved as they wore out. Oddly, like a fine wine, they improved with age. This was because as the cushioning and motion-control aspects broke down, the foot was allowed to function more naturally. These two studies seemed to indicate the best shoes are old, worn-out, cheap shoes. It is no coincidence that the rate of running injuries was significantly lower prior to the advent of the modern running shoe (Froncioni, 2006). Imagine, running in thin-soled Converse All-Stars being healthier than today’s most technically advanced shoes!
Of particular interest to me is the Hamill and Bates study. This is because most shoe manufacturers recommend replacing shoes every 250–300 miles because the materials degrade with use. Perhaps a case of planned obsolescence? After all, products that are designed to wear out in a certain time require the consumer to buy a new version of the product.
Though some may be suspicious of the idea planned obsolescence, there exists significant research that supports the notion that running shoes can significantly increase the occurrence of injuries.
In 1949 Samuel Shulman, a pioneer in investigating the potential perils of shoes, found a dramatic decrease in foot deformities in children who did not wear shoes as small children. Then in 1972 Steele Stewart reiterated this claim by comparing shod and unshod populations. In addition, Steven Robbins and colleagues, in several studies conducted between 1987 and 1995, conducted a series of experiments to empirically measure various characteristics of running in shoes versus barefoot. Among their many findings is the discovery that wearing shoes decreases a runner’s ability to judge impact. As such, shod runners produce far greater impact forces when running. This is believed to be a major factor in the development of running injuries. If you doubt this concept, speak to runners using treadmills at your local gym.
Recently in 2008, Craig, Parker, and Callister conducted a thorough search of the existing literature to find any research supporting the prescribing of shoes with elevated, cushioned heels, and pronation control systems to runners. To their surprise there was no research supporting that claim. Let that