Barefoot running has taken off in popularity recently, aided in part by the research of Daniel Lieberman out of Harvard University, and the sales of Born to Run, written by Christopher McDougall. Unfortunately, I think there has been a tendency to blindly adopt and recommend barefoot running without considering all the available facts, or without even considering that some facts are simply not available at present. As stated on Lieberman’s home page:
“Please note that we present no data on how people should run, whether shoes cause some injuries, or whether barefoot running causes other kinds of injuries. We believe there is a strong need for controlled, prospective studies on these issues.”
That’s about as honest as you can get. Personally, I interpret that as a caution against jumping headfirst into barefoot running before considering any potential drawbacks, or any possible contradictions with simple observation. My bias is not against barefoot running, per se, but rather against the implication that everyone can and should run barefoot as much as possible. Specifically, I have a problem with a couple of the claims that are often made: that barefoot running will reduce the risk of injury, and that it is the best way to achieve optimal performance. In line with the quote from Lieberman’s website above, I don’t presume to be able to prove or disprove anything, but I do intend to highlight some thinking points that I believe are worth discussing.
Claim #1: Running barefoot is safer and will prevent injuries
First of all, let me state that I like the idea of barefoot training, at least some of the time, especially when it’s on a forgiving surface. Unfortunately, any evidence of reduced rate of injury attributable to barefoot running is purely anecdotal. Some people make claim to the benefits, while others report their injuries. Regardless of personal experience or opinion, there simply hasn’t been any long-term study that supports the conclusion that running sans footwear will reduce the risk of injury. Furthermore, there is no evidence that running shoes will either increase, or decrease, the risk of injury. We’ve seen dramatic changes and innovations in running shoe design since the 1970’s and injury rates are the same today as they were then. Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas, authors on The Science of Sport website, offer an interesting viewpoint regarding this consistency in running injuries:
“More people are running these days, and so it’s a different population compared to the 1970′s, where only the genetically blessed runners were taking part in marathons. … perhaps in the future, it would be good to look at just how effective shoes have been in combating and reducing injury risk.”
Again, this doesn’t prove or disprove anything, but wouldn’t you expect injuries to be on the rise if over-engineered shoes were the root of all evil, especially given the amount of relatively untrained individuals who have taken up the sport? On the other hand, a connection between barefoot running and increased injuries has been observed, as reported in an article by Matt Fitzgerald:
“Physical therapists and sports medicine doctors across the country are seeing the same sudden rise in barefoot running injuries.”
Granted, this may be due to the error of jumping into barefoot running too quickly, without making a gradual transition, and not the fault of barefoot running alone.
Worth considering, though, is the experience of two elite runners who regularly trained and competed barefoot: Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila. While both set world records without shoes, they also suffered bone fractures while running barefoot. This doesn’t prove that running barefoot was the cause of their injuries, but it should cast serious doubt on any assertions that barefoot running will prevent injury, shouldn’t it? The two shining examples of barefoot performance, with two broken bones. Incidentally, Zola Budd still runs today, in shoes, which she claims provide her with better protection. (If you have some time, click here for an incredibly well-written article about Zola Budd’s life and running career.)
Running barefoot usually means running slow, as indicated here by the low position of the swing foot during the support phase
I’m fully aware of studies that have revealed lower impact forces when running barefoot. However, those forces are largely transferred to the ankle joint, which may not be equipped to handle that load, especially in untrained runners. The greater forces on the knee in shod runners may well be within the normal capacity of the knee joint. In either case, I don’t think anyone would disagree that training must be sensible and within a runner’s abilities if the intent is to avoid injuries. This raises the question: are injuries the result of running with or without shoes, or simply the result of improper training?
Claim #2: Barefoot running will force you to adopt a forefoot strike, which is more natural and is how all elite athletes run.
It’s true that running barefoot will force you to land on your forefoot. Try landing on your heels without shoes one time and you probably won’t do it again. Is this how the top runners really run, though? Or could foot-strike possibly be the product of other factors, like running speed? To illustrate: Haile Gebrselassie has competed in events of varying distance, and his foot-strike changed accordingly. When running in the marathon, he is a heel striker, but for the 10k, he is a mid-foot striker. Would anyone suggest that Gebrselassie doesn’t know how to run? Would recommending one foot strike for every runner, regardless of how they run, really correlate with what can be observed in competition?
In an interesting study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning in 2007, Hasegawa et al. reported that 75% of elite runners in a half-marathon event were heel-strikers. Only four runners out of 283 were forefoot-strikers, and they did not finish in any of the top four positions. So, what does that prove? At the very least, it should serve to dispel the notion that every top runner is a forefoot striker.
Haile Gebrselassie knows a thing or two about running, but he's not a forefoot striker
East African runners are often referred to as examples in support of barefoot running, since they have traditionally grown up running barefoot and go on to dominate the sport of long-distance running. Conveniently left out of that story are a few important facts that contribute to their success. For one thing, they grow up doing everything barefoot, not just running, which undoubtedly prepares them physically for the task of running barefoot. They also weigh next to nothing, drastically reducing their impact forces and allowing them to endure a grueling training regimen. And, they run barefoot on soft dirt instead of concrete or asphalt. Lyle McDonald recently highlighted some contributing factors to Kenyan dominance in long-distance running events, and barefoot running doesn’t even enter the conversation. That might be because all those elite Kenyan runners wear shoes once they’ve reached the competitive level. Don’t you think they’d want to maintain any advantage they had by remaining barefoot? But, they don’t. And it’s a gross oversimplification to attribute their success to the single factor of growing up barefoot, while ignoring their training, genetics, culture, environment, etc.
The more important consideration for how your foot strikes is in relation to your center of gravity. There is basically unanimous agreement that the foot should strike as close to the center of gravity as possible. Which part of your foot actually strikes the ground will follow, and may even change depending upon your running speed. For example, if you examine the running style of competitive sprinters, you would find that they all land with a forefoot strike. If this change in foot strike can happen naturally depending upon running speed, and if the vast majority of elite endurance runners land with a heel or mid-foot strike, then is it really necessary to run barefoot, just so you can force yourself to adopt a forefoot strike? As mentioned at the beginning of this article, research has not determined this to be the case.
Decide for yourself
If barefoot running works for you, then great. Again, I do like the idea of using our feet more, and training them to be more mobile and stable, even if not necessarily by running long distances on rock-hard surfaces. I just don’t believe there’s any evidence indicating that everyone should put his or her running shoes on the curb in time for tomorrow morning’s garbage pickup. If running barefoot doesn’t work for you, or isn’t even that appealing, it’s not because you stand in opposition to some irrefutable logic for doing so, because that hasn’t been presented.
In general, I’d be wary of any source that makes blanket recommendations for all population groups, unless they can present compelling evidence. I’m confident that shoes will maintain their status as a beneficial invention, providing practicality and protection. Do barefoot runners go barefoot all the time, or even most of the time? If not, then why not? I think the answer is obvious. Doing so is simply not practical, nor desirable. The modern 200 pound runner will probably want, and need, at least some cushioning between their feet and the ground, especially when they’re running! Even East African athletes who grew up barefoot choose to wear shoes when they make it to the competitive level. Why refuse to wear shoes while engaging in what is already a punishing activity for your feet? Personally, I think this is a matter of common sense. Just like it makes sense to wear gloves if you’re going to dig some holes on the weekend after working at a desk all week.
Sprinters do strike with their forefoot, but they also run really fast
Having said all this, the arguments for running barefoot apparently make sense to some people. Strong opinions aside, I simply can’t deny the fact that some runners have had success going barefoot, as long as success is defined as staying uninjured. You won’t be sharing the company of any elite runners by ditching your shoes. If you’re still convinced that you should give barefoot running a try, despite that fact, my advice is to make the transition conservatively. Walk barefoot around the house and in the yard, then run for short distances on grass or dirt and gradually build up your foot and calf strength. The point is to train smart, and don’t base your decisions on any, as of yet, unsubstantiated claims. Hopefully, this article gave you some points to consider without getting caught up in all the hype and hysteria about forefoot striking and injury prevention.
Anyone interested in more information on barefoot running should read this article on The Science of Sport, as well as the extensive comments that follow. The barefoot debate is far from over, and Ross and Jonathan, as well as their readers, have presented the most balanced and comprehensive view of barefoot running I have seen to date.
