POSTED BY

Steven Leckart

AT 10:45 AM
Tuesday April 28, 2009

Health and Vice • Sports and Survival • Theme Post

Maybe Shoeless Joe was onto something?

barefootshoes.jpg

Could running barefoot be better for your feet? Are high-end running shoes just phooey? The Daily Mail thinks so: "Despite all their marketing suggestions to the contrary, no manufacturer has ever invented a shoe that is any help at all in injury prevention."

Interviews with Olympic physical therapists and Harvard anthropology professors suggest that's the case:

"A lot of foot and knee injuries currently plaguing us are caused by people running with shoes that actually make our feet weak, cause us to over-pronate (ankle rotation) and give us knee problems... Until 1972, when the modern athletic shoe was invented, people ran in very thin-soled shoes, had strong feet and had a much lower incidence of knee injuries."

..."When it comes to sensing the softest caress or tiniest grain of sand, your toes are as finely wired as your lips and fingertips. It's these nerve endings that tell your foot how to react to the changing ground beneath, not a strip of rubber.

To help prove this point, Dr Steven Robbins and Dr Edward Waked of McGill University, Montreal, performed a series of lengthy tests on gymnasts. They found that the thicker the landing mat, the harder the gymnasts landed. Instinctively, the gymnasts were searching for stability. When they sensed a soft surface underfoot, they slapped down hard to ensure balance. Runners do the same thing. When you run in cushioned shoes, your feet are pushing through the soles in search of a hard, stable platform."

..."'Putting your feet in shoes is similar to putting them in a plaster cast,' says Dr [Gerard] Hartmann. 'If I put your leg in plaster, we'll find 40 to 60 per cent atrophy of the musculature within six weeks. Something similar happens to your feet when they're encased in shoes.'

When shoes are doing the work, tendons stiffen and muscles shrivel. Work them out and they'll arc up. 'I've worked with the best Kenyan runners,' says Hartmann, 'and they all have marvellous elasticity in their feet. That comes from never running in shoes until you're 17.'"

[image via Dvice]

2

28 Comments

DianneS

#1 – 10:53 AM April 28, 2009

I tried on a pair of the Vibram five-finger shoes ( http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/ )but was annoyed by the closeness around my toes. I need to move somewhere with more grass before I run barefoot.

Dean Putney

#2 – 10:58 AM April 28, 2009

Can't go around barefoot, and those shoes are too creepy. I saw someone wearing them, and frankly I was a little grossed out.

I'd like a thin, but unobtrusive shoe please.

Anonymous Anonymous

#3 – 11:20 AM April 28, 2009

I have to agree with the article. Up until just over a year ago I wore shoes with rather thick soles. I also had bad foot pain for most of my life.
I read an article with a similar subject matter, and it suggested a few shoe brands to try out. There are many companies who make shoes with especially thin, flexible soles.
There is a nice shoe made in Finland called FeelMax - http://www.feelmax.com/. I wear some shoes by a British company called Terra Plana - http://www.terraplana.com/. Both of these brands are rather normal looking, not like the ridiculous monstrosity Vibram makes - which might be good for the outdoors, but no way am I going to wear those around every day.

And every day is important - after wearing these thin shoes for over a year, I can't really wear anything else. My feet are much stronger and sensitive, but that also means that when I do wear a normal shoe - say a steel-toe work boot - I get bad knee and back pain after only about thirty minutes.

But the thin shoes have done wonders for my posture and back strength. I can also walk for much longer periods of time without getting sore feet. And running is much less painful. The whole motion of your stride is different compared to wearing a thick-soled shoe. Also the thin-soled shoes don't cramp your foot into a narrow toe box, so those like me with wide feet will feel relieved. Would be nice for children with wide feet to have shoes like this, as my pinky toes are permanently pressed inwards from a childhood of narrow, confined shoes.

So there are ups and downs to doing this - improved health, but also a kind of dependence on only a few shoe-makers. They are also not very protective, if you're in any kind of work environment you obviously need a proper safety shoe.

Oh, I should also write about the sensory experience, which is certainly interesting. I realize even the Terra Plana's 3mm sole takes away a lot of sensory information, but there's still a whole world of feeling. You'll want to walk on grass more, and pebbles if you want a bit of a foot massage. You will find pavement boring and monotonous, rather than easy. You develop a strange kind of emotional response to surfaces that you didn't have before.

karrock

#4 – 11:32 AM April 28, 2009

Those shoes are way creepy.

@DIANNES: Did you wear toe socks with them as well, or just slipped your tootsies in bare? I caught the Daily Mail article through LifeHacker a week or so ago and someone mentioned Vibram TenFingers there too and it got me curious. Do you think you're just very particular about enrobing your toes, or might it be a general issue for anyone not use to them?

CraziestGadgetsdotcom

#5 – 11:40 AM April 28, 2009

JJ CASUALS!!!!! Jack Johnson approved!

"Singer Jack Johnson likes to keep it super casual, which is why he goes barefoot. But there are some places you can't go without shoes, which is why he's invented shoes for the laid-back lifestyle- shoes that look like feet."

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/segments/6651.shtml

karrock

#6 – 11:42 AM April 28, 2009

#3 -- FeelMax and TerraPlana's shoes look very interesting to me as well and might solve #1's issues with the toe wrapping. I have to ask though. Why should simpler constructed shoes cost so much money? $110-$150 is ridiculous and is solidly in the range of high performance running shoes, name brand or niche. They may claim their products to have puncture resistant soles, but I'd wager that they won't last as long as comparably priced shoes given the same punishment hitting the road.

Anonymous Anonymous

#7 – 12:10 PM April 28, 2009

I own a couple pair of FFs and they are really comfortable, but I agree with #6, they won't last, sole wise, nearly as long as a conventional shoe. I've seen the terraplana line and the same issue will befall them, thin soles that won't last long. And yes, I know that's the point, thin soles that let you feel the ground, but I don't want to drop $120 every half year on replacements as they aren't going to be resolable. How about we go back to ergonomic designs like Clarks or some of the Born line instead? Thicker sole, but they seem to be a happy medium aside from the outrageous price point they ask for comfort. Better yet, bring back well made moccasins, thin, light, stretchy, basically everything you should have in a shoe and nothing more.

squidmark

#8 – 12:35 PM April 28, 2009

I have 3 pairs of Vibrams, and I can tell you that each pair required a day or two break-in period. After that I think they feel great. I have long standing knee problems when I run. I had tried a variety of shoes but none of them really helped. I tried the Vibrams as a last resort. Now I run in them exclusively and my knees have never felt better. That said you need to work up to running in them full time as you will be relying on you feet and calf muscles like you never have before.

scaught

#9 – 12:48 PM April 28, 2009

There are some Puma shoes with thin soles that come pretty recommended for running (saloh and h-street are the models IIRC). Also, for more info about this whole running without giant airbags under your feet thing search 'POSE running'

DEEPEYES

#10 – 1:07 PM April 28, 2009

Um, does anybody know why basic very cheap slip-on tennies wouldn't work as well as the pricy brands being mentioned? If you ever put on a pair of Payless basic canvas tennis shoes, you know that there's not much between you and the ground.

Apreche

#11 – 1:12 PM April 28, 2009

You absolutely need something on the bottom of your foot. Most surfaces you run on are going to be scratchy, pointy, stabby, slippery, hot, cold, etc. A little bit of rubber sole can protect from all of those, and also increase traction.

The rest of the shoe is merely a means to keep the sole attached to the foot, and sometimes to protect from elements above the ground. For example, if you were to run on grass, you would get grass stains all over your feet without a whole shoe.

Brandon West

#12 – 1:13 PM April 28, 2009

The timing with all these fitness articles is great for me. I got my Garmin Forerunner 205 GPS watch on Friday with the intent of using data to motivate me. I am slow and out of shape but at least I'm putting in the time now. I'm going to go down to the store and see if I can find some Vibrams to try on.

DianneS

#13 – 1:25 PM April 28, 2009

@Karrock: No socks, just bare toes. I don't feel like I have heightened sensory reactions, but how would I know what's unusual? That said, I'm pretty tolerant of most tactile stimuli and I think these shoes would continue to annoy me even outside the store. There was just too much material between the toes for my liking. Maybe I have close-set toes, who knows. The Feelmax shoes mentioned by anon#3 have my attention, though.

Anonymous Anonymous

#14 – 1:31 PM April 28, 2009

Those retro Onitsuka Tigers have been pretty good to me. These WERE running shoes at one point, after all.

bardfinn

#15 – 2:03 PM April 28, 2009

I prefer not to have my feet sliced / stabbed / burned / frozen / ground / infected. Thus, shoes. I also tend to wear down the sole under the balls of my feet because I don't pronate nor do I "stand" in my shoes - I don't let my heels take the shock of the next step / leap / bound. It really is possible to stand well and correctly and wear shoes while doing so.

Anonymous Anonymous

#16 – 3:58 PM April 28, 2009

I run in Vibram five fingers regularly and barefoot sometimes. You can't expect to make the switch instantly without a little discomfort. I have run over 15 miles in the five fingers shoes without any problems. I'm not a hardcore runner or a genetic freak.

teeman

#17 – 4:52 PM April 28, 2009

How about Chuck Taylor's?
Or Wrestling shoes - they have a very thin sole.
I ran 2 mile in high school and we were very poor, so I always wore thin, cheap jack shoes - and I always envied the guys with the fancy high tech shoes (1970's style) - who wouldda thunk it.
Terry

Snig

#18 – 6:32 PM April 28, 2009

I agree that high end shoes are likely overpriced, but would caution against unqualified barefootedness.

Not impressed with "before 1972, there were fewer running injuries". Duh. In the 1950's, there were also fewer computer overuse syndromes, so everyone switch back to the well designed UNIVAC.

From "To Kill a Mockingbird".
"Walter Cunningham's face told everybody in the first grade he had
hookworms. His absence of shoes told us how he got them. People caught
hookworms going barefooted in barnyards and hog wallows. If Walter had
owned any shoes he would have worn them the first day of school and
then discarded them until mid-winter. He did have on a clean shirt and
neatly mended overalls."

Not that we all frequent pig wallows, but it is a way of getting a few different parasites.

SuperMarina

#19 – 7:08 PM April 28, 2009

I'm sure there have been other changes than shoe design since 1972. For one, I think there are many more people running after they have left school now. Therefor more people who run over a greater portion of their lives, and therefore until they are much older than the typical athlete in the 60's.

So while I'm sure there's some merit to thin-soled shoes (just try look at the feet of young women who have worn nothing but high heels and platforms since age 13), it might just be that us older runners actually need more cushioning.

Anonymous Anonymous

#20 – 10:45 PM April 28, 2009

@Pork Musket:
2 years ago I was obese and out of shape. My solution (a couple times) was to dive into running as a means to remedy that. I tried the Couch to 5k method a couple times. The first time I burned myself out. The second time I ended up injuring my plantar tendon, which required about 3 months of reduced activity to recover.

I cannot recommend going from zero to running as an exercise regimen. I would start more gradually, building all of the muscles in the body to support yourself while running. After actively working to become fit for almost 2 years, including 1 year of doing CrossFit, I can now directly get off my couch and go run 5k...in my Vibram FiveFingers.

On the subject at hand, I too am quite frustrated by the lack of reasonable options for people eschewing conventional shoes (including Terra Plana and FeelMax). I've looked quite seriously into purchasing a pair of handmade leather moccasins (some with a pliable rubber bottom). They're not cheap (~USD$350-400/pair), but they don't look entirely ridiculous, and have millennia of R&D behind them.

Anonymous Anonymous

#21 – 12:26 AM April 29, 2009

I am a barefoot runner. I run barefoot on all surfaces in all seasons. Nobody can just get up and start running barefoot after wearing shoes their entire lives. It takes time. I started by taking my shoes off after my regular runs and walking barefoot for a while. I slowly built up until I was taking my shoes off halfway through a run and carrying them the rest of the way. It wasn't long after that that I just stopped wearing them at all.

In my experience it is the people who have never tried it that are the most vocal against it. I don't get stabbed/burned/cut/infected/hook wormed/whatever else you can think of by running barefoot. I just pay attention to where I'm running. Shouldn't you be doing that anyway?

dr

#22 – 1:40 AM April 29, 2009

I used to run in Keds in the early 70s, and had plenty of injuries. No way I'm giving up modern running shoes.

error404

#23 – 3:42 AM April 29, 2009

Argh conflicted!

On the one hand running shoes are knackering peoples bodies, but on the other... DAILY MAIL!!!

Nothing the DM says is ever true.

Skwid

#24 – 8:10 AM April 29, 2009

I've worn (and run in) Five Fingers for over a year now, and I find my soles have been holding up remarkably well. I expect them to last another year, and $85 every two years is not a bad price to pay for the comfort and pleasure of these shoes, not to mention how they make the knee and hip pain that plagued me with regular shoes when running disappear. I highly recommend them!

Anonymous Anonymous

#25 – 10:05 AM April 29, 2009

Has anyone tried the Nikes that are called FREE?
It looks like this addresses the need for flexability- not the best looking (ok for a trainer) - anybody??

mlennox

#26 – 5:38 PM April 29, 2009

why aren't these shoes, and others of their ilk, made for larger feet?!!??

Anonymous Anonymous

#27 – 1:52 PM April 30, 2009

@ERROR404 - Is New York Magazine any more reliable?
http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/

Anonymous Anonymous

#28 – 9:59 AM May 10, 2009

The problem with Vibrams is the toe chambers don't exactly fit my toes. Also, I find it absurd to pay so much money for minimalist shoes. There is absolutely no way I'm paying $140 bucks for Vivos.

Basically what we need is someone to make a protective sock, like an 'Ove Glove for the foot. Make it out of Coolmax and Kevlar, double pad the soles, and add a strip or two of velcro to keep it tight in the right places. This would be the next best thing to barefoot, while still keeping the feet protected and clean. Make them machine washable and price them for about $40, then watch the running shoe companies sink like the Titanic.

Leave a comment