Fast Running Blog

A research article on barefoot running by Dan Lieberman at Harvard just made the cover of the top scientific journal, Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/edsumm/e100128-08.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/edsumm/e100128-08.html)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/ (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483401.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8483401.stm)

Seems to confirm what everyone has been discussing since Born to Run came out, but getting the work published in Nature is very high profile. I suspect running shoe manufacturers are going to be scrambling to catch up with vibrams five fingers as this gets more general exposure.

There was also an NPR segment on it this evening.

So who on this blog runs in them? Have you raced in them? Does anyone have anything bad to say about them?ANyone done a marathon in them? 100+ miles a week in them? Everything I read online is about recreational runners using them for everything from weightlifting, to jogging, to walking their dog. But do serious runners use them? People with pronation issues?

Here's the transcript of the NPR story I mentioned yesterday:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123031997

also

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123035045

I think it's important to note that while it may be "better" biomechanically to run barefoot, we can't forget that our running environment is virtually all pavement and asphalt. That is certainly not "natural". I'm not sure it's wise to combine something "natural" with something "unnatural". My personal opinion is that there is a time and a place for barefoot running during training, but I don't think it should be a 100% thing, unless you do 100% of your running on dirt or grass.

More, including posts by one of the paper authors:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3394529

I run in them. just two days a week though, but the rest mainly in minimal shoes.
I started on grass, then went to dirt,and am finally doing some miles on pavement (12-14 a week) with no problems. I have no doubt they improve biomechanics and strengthen the feet. But I wouldn't run one hundred miles a week in them. As Lieberman points out, they load the calves and achilles. When training for a fall marathon I switched back to cushioned shoes (last few weeks of training) when I started having calf problems from running in five fingers and flats. No problems until I did a 22 miler in a pair of asics hyperspeed flats. oops.
I love doing speedwork on the track in the five fingers- up to one mile intervals at a 5:40 pace, which is VO2 max for me. But your calves really feel it afterwards. I can run as fast or faster on the track in five fingers as I can in lightweight racing flats.
So my experience is- they are great for improving biomechanics and for strengthening feet and tendons. I am convinced they cured my shin splint/tibial tendon injury I got running in the heavy cushioned shoes the "experts" told me to run in last spring trying to train for a marathon. I made it to a fall marathon and PRed due to changing my shoes, landing pattern, and foot turnover rate. And they are really fun to run in. I don't trust ANYTHING sports medicine "experts" or orthotics manufacturers say. The only thing I trust is my personal experience. I guess that's because I am a scientist, and I do experiments.
I plan to increase my weekly mileage in them, maybe to 20 miles a week and see what happens. No way I would run 100 miles a week in them. But I don't really understand why anyone would want to run 100 miles a week in anything anyway. Too hardcore for me :-) I am just a recreational runner, though not too slow for a 48 year old. I'll do a 5K in them this spring and see what happens.
Read Aaron Kennard's blog- running barefoot changed his running life completely.

Here's another similar article, maybe already referenced, in National geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100127-barefoot-running-better-impact/

I liked the discussion with the New Balance product engineer at the end.  I do love how it feels to run barefoot, and I feel like harder, smoother surfaces like roads and sidewalks are actually easier and more comfortable to run on than rough dirt surfaces.  But I don't think all of this hoopla leads to barefoot running for the masses.  I think it leads to a next generation of running shoes that let the foot behave in the way it was made to work.

Here's a link to my blog which I have recorded every run I have done barefoot and in FiveFingers. 
http://www.aaronkennard.com (http://www.aaronkennard.com)
It has changed everything for me.  But that doesn't mean that I think that only running barefoot or in FiveFingers is what its all about, I'm interested to find shoes to walk and run in that don't interfere with the natural movement of my feet.  FiveFingers are the best I have tried, but the only others I've tried are some New Balance 790's.  They would be great if they were a little wider for me.

If you are interested in foot landing patterns:
look at the second picture in this article, of the Tarahumura runner alongside Scott Jurek:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1170253/The-painful-truth-trainers-Are-expensive-running-shoes-waste-money.html)

Note how Arnulfo lands on his forefoot in his sandals while Jurek appears to heel strike in his cushioned trainers.

Then check these pictures of Jurek vs. Arnulfo:
http://www.allwedoisrun.com/scott_jurek.htm (http://www.allwedoisrun.com/scott_jurek.htm)

Interesting he has an IT band wrap on his left leg where he is clearly heel striking indicating an IT or hip injury.

After over a year of experimentation my conclusion is that the best shoes for running on pavement are clogs. At least for me. Five Fingers/barefoot was too thin. Racing flats too thick and awkward. Clogs just right. They can go as far as 700 miles, and you can find deals on them under $10. You need to find the right size, a little tight, so they will not fall off when you go fast, but not too tight. I was concerned about blisters, but with socks on I have not gotten any.

the wooden type?  :)

Do you mean Crocks, Sasha?

SO after my workout today I stopped by REI and tried on the pair of the Vibram Classics. They definitely feel different. I ran up and dow the aisles and they felt pretty good. I'm probably going to buy a pair but I'm not sure which pair to buy. Any recos?

Sean, Aaron Kennard and I have the five finger sprints. The KSO has a little more coverage for adverse conditions.
The good thing about the sprint and KSO is the strap over the top of your foot. I have heard that the classic can get yanked off if you hit mud or something since nothing holds it on. So I would probably go with the sprint if i were you.
I probably would have gone a size up from what I got in retrospect (I got a 43, probably should have gotten a 44). But they are still confortable, and compatible with injinji toe socks for the cold days.
Good luck, I look forward to seeing how they work out for you. I am happy with mine, running two days a week. and they are really fun on the track in particular.

What I don't get about the whole "Barefoot Running" controversy is why is barefoot (I consider the Vibrim five fingers barefoot) the answer?  It sounds like the study and "Born to Run" itself advocate for a change in biomechanics.  Sounds like you would try to change your biomechanics and move towards more minimalist shoes that allow for easier forefoot striking.  But why go all the way barefoot?  Seems like the shoe is a pretty good idea.  Even the Tarahumara think so.  Shoes protect your feet from sharp edges and all sorts of other nastiness on the road.  I can see how some shoes try to do too much for you and that is counterproductive but shoes themselves have value.  I just don't get the whole barefoot or even the Five Fingers allure.  In the meantime I will try to improve my biomechanics and keep my feet shod.

Jose, very good question. And I have no good answer. Except they are kind of fun to run in, especially on dirt, the track, and grass. I only run two days a week in the five fingers, with the intent to strengthen my foot muscles. I have no plans to run full time in them for the very reason that I don't think they have enough cushioning for high mileage, especially on pavement. I have a couple pairs of minimal shoes I like that I am doing most of my running in.
If I start training for another marathon I will stop wearing the five fingers completely again when I get up to the 60 mile a week range. or do a couple days a week of doubles where I only run 2-3 miles in the five fingers. they are a recipe for calf destruction if you're not careful.
Here in Logan Utah we have very few good areas for running in five fingers. When I was in San Marcos they had great packed dirt paths that were perfect for them. if we had those here I would run in the fives more.
Hey- too bad we didn't meet in Mesquite. that was quite a race, huh?  :)

Scott, Mesquite was a doozy.  What a tough marathon, definitely the hardest I have done.  However, it was actually a lot of fun.  I probably won't do it again for a couple of years but I will definitely be back sometime for some more pain and agony.  What's your next race?  I'm sure our paths will cross again.  Next on the docket for me is Riverton Half and then the Ogden Marathon (hoping for a BQ).

I guess what you are saying about using the Five Fingers for training makes a lot of sense.  At our home we encourage the kids to exercise by giving them a vacation reward if they run at least 7 miles each week.  Yesterday I heard my youngest (9 ys old) on the treadmill putting in her miles.  When I went in to check on her she was running barefoot!  She said "Dad I love running barefoot!  It feels so good."  So I guess you all have a new young believer in your midst.  Maybe there is something to it...

Jose, I am signed up for the Riverton half so will see you there! I have lost a lot of my training since Mesquite, hopefully I can get some back by end of March. Looking forward to meeting you!

After some experimentation I settled on clogs (aka, crocs).

For an adult, to fix biomechanics you need to understand why you run the way you do and address the root cause of inefficiency. This is easier said than done. It is easier to just run the miles and become an aerobic animal.

When i say barefoot I mean minimialist shoes like five fingers which sole purpose is to protect against cutting your foot wide open. I doubt you can "fix" your bio mechanics by simply thinking harder about it, especially as an adult. Zola Budd was a successful barefoot runner in part because that's hw she ran during her childhood years. Thats why it didn't thrash her calves...because she didn't spend 20 years running on pillows. For the rest of us, the most viable option appears to be an integration of "barefoot" running as a portion of the overall mileage one is doing. My last two days of runnning I have run 1 mile barefoot...literally barefoot...on the turf. It was wonderful. When I get my five fingers, I will probably take them out once or twice a week for five or so miles at a time in the middle of a run.

After Zola Budd hit the big time, she started wearing spikes. Not sure what she wore/wears in training though. I wonder what she thinks about the barefoot movement.

Just joined the discussion. Sorry I'm late. I run up to three days a week in my VFF KSOs on the road. I do up to 7 mile sessions in them without any problems now. I used to get really sore calves, but now that I've completely changed my running form to coincide with how I run barefoot I don't get the soreness any more. I also don't get ITB pain, and my runners knee has decreased.
The key to running in VFFs or barefoot is getting into it as slow as possible. If you are running 50 miles a week you should still only be doing 1 - 2 mile sessions once or twice a week barefoot until you build strength in your foot, calves, and achilles. If not you run the risk of shin splints and really sore calves.
This summer I'll start doing more trail runs in them. I can't wait.

Sean - regarding your question about how fast you can go. I ran 2:35:45 in Utah Valley in Five Fingers, as well as 32:30 in DesNews 10 K. I felt that in those races I could have gone a bit faster in shoes but not much. Maybe 2:33 and a little under 32:00 respectively. I would say on a flat surface up to 10 K there is hardly any difference. If you go longer, or if it is downhill the pounding and the friction gets to you. At least in my experience.

I also ran 27:16 in a 5 mile workout that was not optimally paced on purpose - 5:15 pace to failure (happened around 2 miles), then regroup and hang on to the finish at the best possible pace. My PR on that course is 26:48 optimally paced in shoes. I do not think in that workout the Five Fingers slowed me down any.

I understand the attraction and reasoning for using Five Fingers and the like, but part of the OP's question was around the pronation issues.  Does running in VFFs "fix" that type of problem?  Does the strengthening of the muscles in the foot, achilles, calf, etc. "fix" an overpronator or underpronator?

My left foot/strike is almost "perfect," while my right has some pronation to it.  I got custom made orthotics which have been incredible since they allow me to run in neutral shoes and enjoy the benefits of the high flexibility, etc. of them instead of having to run in stabilizing shoes.  If there's some way to fix my right foot, I could start my new modeling career!

Any thoughts on if they fix these types of problems and/or if they should even be worn by people with mild to severe pronation problems?

Please excuse my question if the articles answer it...haven't gotten to them yet.  I've just been enjoying the discussion so far.

Scott, is it possible for you to post a PDF of those articles you note?  I don't have an account...

Thanks!

Jon:

No I mean clogs. If you search for Crocs, you will find the Crocs brand name which is the same piece of foam rubber in the form a foot, except three times the price of a generic piece of foam rubber in the form of a foot. I discovered that that best search term is clogs. I really do not like to promote overpriced patent-hungry trade-mark-infringement-sue-happy brand names, so I decided to refer to this type of shoe as "clogs" in all of my posts.

Baldndspicy - I suspect that most of the time pronation problems do not come from the foot. The foot is at the end of a long leg, which attaches via pelvis to the long spine. So a small deviation either in the spine or in the pelvis will show as a big deviation in the foot movement thanks to the amplification of the long leg lever. A small deviation in the foot will still be small.

So, what is a good "minimalist" shoe that is still a "shoe?"  I'm not sure if I want to go the FF route, because, as much as I hate it, I do most of my training on asphalt.  When I'm not running on asphalt I often run on rough trails.  I am going to be getting new shoes here soon and I want to get something lighter that is more like running "barefoot" but without sacrificing protection from hard surfaces and sharp rocks.  One thing I particularly want to avoid is the big fat heel that I have on my current Mizunos.  I hate when I'm coming down for a beautiful fast strike on my forefoot and then all of a sudden my heel gets jammed into the ground, slowing me down, jarring my knees, and ruining my fun. 

Eva Clogs. $7 at Walmart. Have put 395 miles on them so far. Only one minor hole that developed recently. No blisters, never fall fall even at 4:00 pace. Smooth feel, like barefoot on thin grass. Make sure you pick the right size. Needs to be a slightly tight fit because they stretch. The best running shoe I've ever had. The only draw back is that you really do have to change them every 500 miles or so, but at $7 a pair it is affordable.

I took Sasha's advice and became a foam clog runner.  I have about 244 miles in my Crocs.  Why Crocs?  I came across a pair for free so I threw them on and have never looked back.  At first, I ran in them two or three times a week, now I do almost all of my running in them.  I've logged 60+ mile weeks in them, almost all of it on asphalt. 

As far as a minimalist shoe, it seems like racing flats are about the only other option, or of course five fingers.  Either way, you're going to burn a hundred bucks.  Give foam clogs a try, you've got nothing to lose.  I've never had any issues with mine.  Hopefully, I will never put another training shoe on my foot.  Flats and foam clogs for me.

Now for a question, if you've made the transition from a heal striker to a forefoot striker, is there any point to running barefoot?  It seems to me, the point of running barefoot is to force yourself to land on your forefoot and eventually your foot strike changes permanently.

Hm...I guess I'll just have to experiment around and see.  I have an old pair of Nike XC waffles from high school that still probably have a lot of life in them.  Maybe I'll try running in those and see how it is.  I can get those for about 40 bucks or so off the internet.  Something tells me the foam clogs wouldn't stand up very well to some of the trails I like to run on when they're not snowed under.  Heck, maybe I'll pull a Bill Bowerman and just start making my own shoes and start a multi-billion dollar company--only specifically for runners.  haha.  As for my reasoning: I like the lighter, faster feel and if it might help avoid injury or improve my efficiency a little, then why not?

Joe, I really like the new balance 790, it is called a lightweight trail shoe, looks like a racing flat but has a harder plate on the bottom for trails. almost no heel, weighs maybe 7 ounces. This is my favorite shoe and I got several pairs on clearance for under 50 dollars with free shipping at new balance outlet online. works well on river trail and single tracks for me as well as on the road. Unfortunately, new balance discontinued it i think, like they do every good shoe they design. don't know what the replacement is.  Paul likes this shoe as well and wrote a review of it here http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2008/01/tfs-shoe-review-new-balance-mr790-trail-running-shoes/ (http://www.thefinalsprint.com/2008/01/tfs-shoe-review-new-balance-mr790-trail-running-shoes/).

Lets go running up river trail one day this week and I will show them to you. Scott

The closest thing to a replacement for the 790 is the MT100. The 100 has a rock plate and more tread than the 790, but the uppers are much lighter so the shoe weighs about the same.

For me, foam clogs is the answer. Cheaper than Five Fingers as well.

Sasha, just curious. Do those have adequate traction to use in a race? Or do you just use them in training?

Thanks guys.  Scott, I think those 790s are exactly what I'm looking for.  The MT100s look really good too, and may be an improvement on the 790s, but if I can still find a pair of 790s cheap I'll go that route.   How have yours held up to mileage?  The one thing I have really enjoyed about the Mizunos is that I've put well over 800 miles on my current pair, and they still have some life left in them, but that might have more to do with my stride and the fact that I'm only 135 pounds than the shoe.  I don't know.

I'm a little late to this conversation, but thought that I would add my $0.02 about minimalist shoes.  Near as I can tell, New Balance brought back the 790s.  I got 950 miles out of them (I weigh around 135 lbs.) before I had to stop running in them.  I now alternate between 790s for road runs and MT-100 for trails.  Last year I did quite a bit of VFF training and running - even raced a half in them.  15-18 miles in them and (as Scott said) your calves will be shot, as will the rest of your legs from about mid-quad down.  Shorter runs are quite refreshing in them.  I'm ready to try Sasha's clog suggestion, but agree that they may not do so well on mountain trails...  Allie is planning on running TOU full marathon in them!

Give them a try, you can't go wrong for 30 bucks.  I was drawn to them because I don't need much in a shoe and it's too expensive to run 60-70-80-90 miles a week in flats, which would be my preference.