I've been reading a lot of good stuff lately from a variety of sources on the continuing debate about both running in barefoot or minimalist shoes, as well as whether or not changes in running form can have beneficial effects and reduce injuries. Articles in Runner's World and blog posts such as those written over on Runblogger (probably the most complete takedown of comments against barefoot running I've read) have continued fueling the debate on this series of issues, resulting in a fairly straightforward divide between those for and those against examining form and what kind of footwear we should be wearing. Reading a recent article (and accompanying comments) on the NY Times blog solidified the arguments of the different camps for me.
Those who are for barefoot running make an argument that is something along the lines of this:
1) Humans evolved to run, but not to run in shoes
2) I made change x (x = switched to minimalist/barefoot running, changed to forefoot strike) and had effect y (y = reduced injury, increased joy in running, etc.)
While those who are against barefoot running often make arguments that contain these points:
1) Humans may have evolved to run, but not to run on hard surfaces like concrete
1a) Evolving humans also had problem x (x = died at the age of 40 or younger, etc... which, by the way, is pretty much completely irrelevant... people still die young now)
2) If barefoot running is so good why aren't we all doing it already
3) I tried to switch to barefoot/minimalist running and I hurt myself, either temporarily (discomfort) or extensively (muscle tears)
The basic gist of the argument is that true believers are completely and 100% behind the cause, while skeptics of this trend are quick to point out possible flaws and rationalize reasons not to make a change (be it running surfaces, lack of necessary time/effort to make changes, the argument that changes in form can be made in traditional shoes, etc.).
*Before I go on, don't get me wrong here - I'm perfectly happy with everyone who is a runner. And who is not a runner. And everyone in between. In the rest of the post, what I'm frustrated with is the arguments made and the unwillingness to let go of certain beliefs that are not allowing people to see potential benefits of change. Just FYI.*
There are several things about this debate that I find particularly interesting, especially with regard to those who are in the camp of "this is a fad so we should just ignore it".
- Those who present the points of the argument from both sides but are not believers in it are very quick to point out that "this is not for everyone" and "you should exercise extreme caution" and "you probably won't need to make a change". They bias their presentation of the evidence (highly anecdotal but containing an increasing amount of rigorous scientific investigation) by putting in an asterisk at the end. I really think it's something to present the evidence, but then almost immediate rescind on the evidence by saying you probably shouldn't try it. It's a similar thing to the shoes - these shoes are interesting and may be useful tools, but you probably shouldn't use them. (It's been a common theme in Runner's World as this debate has gone on... perhaps they're appealing to the masses?).
- In a similar vein to the debate on vaccines (linking to Science-Based Medicine here if you are interested in reading about it), there's a small sub-population people who demand evidence that form and running shoes matter, but when they are presented with evidence (see the Runblogger post for direct citation and addressing of this issue) they aren't willing to accept it. Based on the literature I'm willing to accept that a) shoes with big heels promote heel striking, b) physiologically speaking it makes more sense to land on the forefoot where it is more likely to absorb impact, and c) landing on the forefoot produces a smaller amount of impact force. Some people seem unwilling to even accept that.
- On the other hand, those who are at least accepting of the evidence are quick to point out that making changes will not produce immediate results. In this fast-paced, quick reward, instant society that we live in, there's an expectation of instant rewards upon implementation of changes. If barefoot or forefoot running styles lead to injury free running, all I've got to do is lose the shoes and I'm set, right? No one on the side of the barefoot or minimalist running agrees with that (that I've seen, anyway), and all of the anecdotal evidence seems to favor taking time and putting forward a big effort in order to reap the rewards. If you look at the comments of the NY Times article, nearly everyone who has a barefoot story talks about the slow build-up that was necessary to be successful, a fact to which no one on the other side of the fence seems to acknowledge. Once again, if the evidence doesn't support my viewpoint, it must be wrong.
In considering the pros and cons of changing gait and form and possibly running shoes, I've thought about what it would mean to make those changes. First of all, there's never going to be an "ideal time" to think about and implement changes, so those arguing that they don't have time to do it are inherently wrong (and I am among the folks in this camp - I actually made the argument earlier last year that I didn't have time to someone, who argued back that it's a worthwhile venture). Second of all, any changes being made are going to take time and concentration to achieve. One would think that being runners would inherently bias all of us towards this side of the argument based solely on the fact that we're the ones most likely to stick with it and achieve our goals, but a surprising number of folks seem unwilling to work at it for lack of immediate benefits. How can a marathon runner not being willing to put in some work? Maybe they should have been grad students too... that would certainly show what it's like to have to work a long time toward a goal... :-/
In the end, my takeaway from this whole process is that, while it's not been scientifically proven without a shadow of a doubt that barefoot running or forefoot striking is better (and when, in the history of the universe, has anything been proven in such a way by anyone??), there is compelling evidence, both anecdotal and scientific (again, see Runblogger for citations) that running more without shoes and with less of a heel strike can be beneficial for both performance and injury prevention. Physiologically speaking, we are designed to be runners, and - no matter what you argue about our society today - it's possible for everyone to do it at some level. Making a switch in form or running style requires a handful of things - time, patience, dedication, and an understanding that you are not downloading a video on internet, you are training, and training doesn't produce instant rewards. Like anything good in life, you need to spend time working toward the goal rather than expecting to be instantly rewarded.
Finally, if you are interested in making changes, do it scientifically and spend time critically thinking about why and how you are achieving the goal. Are you trying to avoid injury or trying to get faster? Do you have a plan? Can you log your runs - how you felt, how long you went, what worked, what didn't? Having a plan and making observations along the way is key to being successful. I myself wouldn't just go setting up experiments willy-nilly unless I had a goal in mind, and I need to record my observations to know what works and what doesn't so I can be more successful in future experiments. In the same way, noting how changes feel and what effects they're having is important in ensuring success in changing running style.
So, stop making excuses, review the evidence, conduct some experiments, and be patient. You never know what good may come of it until you try!
Good post!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, some runners have already made-up their mind that their running form is too ingrained to be consciously altered, and that any attempts to do so puts them at an increased risk of an injury. Most runners that I've spoken with have become more open minded, and are curious to try out some of the new products, including true minimalist shoes (such as the Vibrams) with absolutely no protection to the heel. I think that runners who haven't taken the time to think through the importance of changing their running form - along with their footware - are indeed at increased risk, such as a friend who appears to have aggravated his Achilles Tendinosis problem by too quickly shifting exclusively towards a minimalist shoe with a close to zero heel-to-toe drop.
Personally, I've become a champion of the benefits of minimalist shoes, provided the require form changes are incorporated sufficiently slowly so-as to strengthen the body where required. In the year I've completed this transition and essentially all of my miles are now run in shoes with 6 mm. or less heel-to-toe drop. I find this, along with my greater consciousness in landing on my mid-foot has paid off both in speed and in my enjoyment while running.
Note that it's quite difficult to gauge whether you are heel striking when landing. Consequently, I periodically make use of video recording equipment to capture and play back my own running gait to verify progress. This is helpful, as is learning to *hear* the difference that a heel strike makes vs. mid-foot landing upon a hard surface (a much more instantaneous feedback). Towards this end employing your fellow running friends is fantastic, since once they understand your sincerity in wanting to affect change they'll provide you quick feedback when your old running habits recur (for me, this happens late in a run when I grow physically and mentally fatigued, or when I'm distracted such as in an engrossing conversation).