A while ago I posted a couple of articles on barefoot running. This was at the height of the minimalist craze, when runners of all types looked to minimalist shoes as a miracle cure for their running issues. At the time, there was no empirical evidence that barefoot running reduced injury rates.

Well, it looks like the science is finally here. A study published in January’s Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise gives substance to the long-unsubstantiated claim. It ends with the conclusion that runners landing on their forefeet (as is encouraged by minimalist footwear) are less injury prone. More precisely, they suffer half (!) the amount of stress injuries. A quick, fair synopsis of the article can be found here.

So should you go out and buy a pair of FiveFingers? Not necessarily. It still takes patience and commitment to safely adjust to barefoot-style running. But this study provides, for the first time ever, real evidence that your efforts will be rewarded.

In the clamour raised by the barefoot running community– and its opponents– hard facts are few and far between. That’s why I found this article, written by a local running shoe specialist, so refreshing.

Bull manages a running shoe store– we can’t overlook that. He has a financial stake in the debate over minimalism. Perhaps that’s why the tone of his polemic is, well, so polemical. If one can read with a critical eye, however, he offers several well-reasoned refutations for minimalist arguments.

For example, Abebe Bikila, posterboy of the barefoot running movement, is world famous for running the Olympic marathon barefoot; what most people don’t know is that running barefoot was an accident, and he later performed better while wearing shoes.

Another oft-cited argument is that when running fever hit America in the 70′s, most runners ran just fine in shoes without built-up heels and medial posts. But this fails to take into account that the typical runner today is less biomechanically efficient (i.e. fatter) than back then. This argument is not, as Bull says, “comparing apples to apples.”

Ever heard of Rolfing? I sure hadn’t.

Out on a run, I crossed paths with an old friend. He was almost finished a speedy fartlek in his Fivefingers, and blew past me before we recognized each other. I probably wouldn’t have noticed him if not for his bright green KSOs. There aren’t a lot of “barefoot” runners in my area, and almost no fast ones.

I caught up with him (both literally and figuratively), and learned that he was now running 60-mile weeks. This impressed me; I’ve never known someone who ran decent distance in Fivefingers. But it turns out barefoot running was only one of the alternative training methods he used.

He told me that he had Rolfed for 4 hours. Hearing the word “Frolf,” I made a joke about Seinfeld.

It's the white stuff on this peaceful, but still kinda scary, fellow here.

Once the awkwardness of the misunderstanding had passed, he explained that Rolf is a message for your fascia (for those not in the know, fascia is like a stocking for your muscles– it goes around and through them, giving them structure).

The goal of Rolfing is to redirect your fascia and thus change your body’s alignment to a more natural form. This way, your movement becomes more energy efficient and you less injury-prone. You can see why Rolfing would appeal to a barefoot runner– the two are based on the same reasoning.

A lot of Rolfing institutes take this a few steps farther into the homeopathy realm, saying that Rolfing increases “emotional flexibility” and creates “a sense of integration and well being.” This is where I get off the bus. It’s not that I don’t believe in energy I can’t see; it’s just that these hazy new-age terms mark the edge of a certain territory. We’ve crossed over into Homeopathy, a pretty bad part of town. I might buy a designer watch for cheap, but there’s a reason why most people don’t shop here.

That is not to say that there is no science behind Rolfing. There was one study done at the UCLA Department of Kinesiology in which the sample group showed:

Movements were smoother, larger and less constrained.
There were less extraneous movements.
Body movements were more dynamic and energetic.
Carriage was more erect and there was less obvious strain to maintain held positions.
–journal of the American Physical Therapy Association, March 1999 issue.

Most of the people who want to be Rolfed (sounds lewd, no?) don’t cite this study, however. They cite anecdotes instead– if they know someone who enjoyed the results, wouldn’t everyone?

That’s why I chose to write about Rolfing. It reminded me of the barefoot runners who come into my store (“it worked for Christopher McDougall; why wouldn’t it work for me?”). At least they get away only spending $85-100 on minimalist shoes; my friend shelled out $1200 to be Rolfed!

As for myself, I don’t think that there are any alternative routes to success. When I’m training, I prefer to stick to the tried and true methods: stretching, eating right, cross-training, and running hard. And I recommend that you do the same.

Barefoot running is such a hot subject right now that I decided it warranted further discussion. I would love to hear what you all have to say, but first I want to take this opportunity to further clarify my position on the issue (and dispel one major myth about barefoot running).

I do agree that running barefoot is a more efficient way to move. In fact, it’s been proven that running in shoes is 5% less energy-efficient than running barefoot. This seems to have been accepted by the larger running community as well. Throughout college, I was urged to get up on the balls of my feet for the last 3-400 meters of a race. And when I could muster the willpower to do so, I found that it perceptibly raised my turnover rate.

And running barefoot has felt GREAT the few times that I experienced it. Your feet are naturally so bouncy that it’s easy to lift your knees and really open up your stride. And besides, feet want to bend around the uneven ground and stones of the trail (though I wouldn’t run unshod on the streets around here). The only bad experience I’ve had running barefoot was my own fault; I didn’t think the track was hot enough to eat through my callused soles (I was wrong).

What I’m disputing is not the efficiency or fun of running barefoot, however. I’m disputing the idea that switching to barefoot running will solve all of your injury woes. Injuries, according to many minimalist runners, come from running in shoe technology that works against our natural biomechanics. Which is to say, the way humans evolved to move. Less popular are the studies proving that biomechanics actually change over our lifespan to accomodate our big, heavy running shoes. To excerpt from Pete Larson’s excellent article:

“…years of wearing lifted shoes in most modern societies has adapted our legs and feet to the presence of a heel, and the vast majority of runners are now heel strikers (see Hasegawa et al. 2007). As a result of musculoskeletal acclimation to thick-heeled running shoes (particularly in places like the Achilles tendon and calf muscles), some degree of heel lift may be a necessity for many runners in order to avoid injury, at least as they transition to more minimal footwear.”

So, while shoes may not be adapted to your body, your body has sure adapted to shoes. If you had been walking barefoot (or at least with minimal foot protection) since birth, your body would be ready to run barefoot. But as it is, most of our feet rely on clunky, cushioned, supportive shoes. Our natural structure is moot.

So is it too late for us? Should we give up on minimalism and re-lace those Brooks Beasts? Perhaps not; running barefoot, at least a little every week, is believed to strengthen muscles in the foot associated with efficient movement. But the proof that doing so reduces injury just isn’t there. As William Roberts, M.D., says, “there is no evidence to show that either the shod or unshod foot reduces injury rates, mostly because the issue has not been studied scientifically” (Ask the Sports Doc).

Dr. Roberts is backing up my past assertion that barefoot running is not based on science. It is based on sound theories and highly unsound studies. So while it bears potential, and there are many success stories, don’t let anyone tell you that this is a proven science.

Well, they finally broke me. I bought a pair of Five Fingers. Bikilas, more specifically:

On my feet.

With all the talk about barefoot running, I wanted to experience these monkey feet for myself. I never intended to run in them, for reasons that I’ll explain shortly. I wanted to wear them for walking, especially at work; they do, after all, nicely distill the comfort of being barefoot (and who, given the choice, wouldn’t go to work barefoot?).

As for running in them… don’t believe the hype. Moon-eyed runners come into our store all the time looking for Five Fingers and Nike Frees, aggrandizing them as a panacea for every kind of injury and physical shortcoming. Five Fingers represent a fundamental shift in the running paradigm, and people mistake this alternative running style for an inherently better one.

If we peel back the layers of optimism, however, we see two major arguments that are put forth by the barefoot community. They are that

1. Humans evolved to walk on the balls of their feet and
2. Shoe technology is actually injuring people

The first argument has some merit. If you ever sprint barefoot, you’ll probably find yourself lifting up onto the balls of your feet. Running “on your toes” like this means a faster turnover and, well, feels natural. So if humans evolved to do this, shouldn’t our technology accommodate it? Perhaps, but this a flawed argument. This implies that evolution is meaningful and therefore “right” when, from a scientific point of view, evolution is largely random and the human body is imperfect. Technology is meant to pick up where nature left off. While the human foot may indeed be a magnificent feat (haha) of engineering, it won’t offer the shock absorption, rebound, or balance of modern running shoe technology.

The second argument is an excellent example of why you can’t trust statistical studies from people who are trying to sell you something. As a precursor to their Nike Free line, Nike released studies done on running injuries. The idea was to prove that high-tech running shoes actually caused injuries. The evidence, however, was highly anecdotal and the experiment lacked controls. One study confirmed that runners in the most expensive shoes were more likely to be injured; but then, aren’t people with poor biomechanics more likely to buy expensive shoes? Are the more expensive technologies the unreliable ones? The bottom line is that none of these experiments established a causal relationship between running tech and injuries.

I don’t mean to disparage minimalist running shoes. After all, you can see them on my feet above. I just want to help others understand what these things are and are not. They are extremely comfortable, and a viable alternative. They are not a miracle cure.