| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« How the Great Howard Zinn Made All Our Lives Better | Main | Thursday Poem »

January 28, 2010

The Shocking Truth About Running Shoes

From Science:

Shoes Haile Gebrselassie, the world's fastest marathoner, once said of his early career, "When I wore shoes, it was difficult." A new study reveals why: Humans run differently in bare feet. Researchers have discovered that sneakers and other sports shoes alter our natural gait, which normally protects us from the impact of running. The finding offers new insight on how early humans ran and raises concerns that sports shoes may promote more injuries than they prevent. About 2 million years ago, the ancestors of modern humans evolved the physiological "equipment" for running--long legs, large buttocks, and springy structures in the feet, among other features. Athletic shoes weren't invented until the early 1900s, and it wasn't until the 1970s that they found widespread popularity. So how did humans manage to run comfortably before the invention of purpose-built footwear?

Daniel Lieberman, a human evolutionary biologist at Harvard University--and an avid runner--decided to find out. He and colleagues looked at more than 200 shod and unshod runners in the United States and the Rift Valley Province of Kenya, which is known for its great endurance runners. The volunteers represented a spectrum of shoe experience, including adults who had grown up wearing shoes, those who had grown up running shoeless but who now wore shoes, and those who had never worn shoes at all. Lieberman's team arranged a trial in which each group ran shod (either in ASICS GEL-Cumulus 10s or in their own shoes) and bare and measured their running gait and the impact on their bodies. The researchers noticed a difference right away. Whereas shod runners tended to land on the heel of the foot, barefoot runners landed on the ball of the foot or with a flat foot. The unshod runners' style causes more flex in the foot's springlike arch, ankle, and knee and engages more foot and calf muscles, blunting the impact on the body and making for a more comfortable "ride." As their feet collide with the ground--in this case, a running track--barefoot runners experience a shock of only 0.5 to 0.7 times their body weight, whereas shod heel strikers experience 1.5 to two times their body weight--a threefold to fourfold difference.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 06:06 AM | Permalink

Comments

Margit read the book (Born to Run) mentioned in this article and has become convinced there is something to this.

I wonder if it would be better (than running-shoes) to run in very thin soled shoes, like the tennis shoes of the 60s...

That way, you don't have to risk being cut by bits of glass, or freezing your feet by running winter, etc., but maybe your gait would be more natural, i.e., you'd use the whole foot to absorb impact instead of landing on just your heel.

In any case, the evidence for the benefits of barefoot running seems to be accumulating.

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jan 28, 2010 7:33:27 AM

What is not mentioned here: hitting the ground toe first rather than heel first is fine for very light weight runners; for heavier runners, the toes are too fragile for that pounding. Many elite runners are very lightweight, ie, Kenyons. Bill Rogers, a great American runner, hit toe first in his running, but he was very light.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 28, 2010 7:43:24 AM

There are huaraches and Vibram "Five Fingers" for protection against glass and grit.

Posted by: Richard Sweeton | Jan 28, 2010 7:46:10 AM

My son's a big fan of Five Fingers. I will say this for them, they look ridiculous! I grew up as barefoot as possible, and never really got the "you'll ruin your feet thing." I did, however, develop shinsplints even barefoot by running on sand. Go figure.

Posted by: Carlos | Jan 28, 2010 9:02:22 AM

Abbasi, I was fascinated by this article because of the story Harvey told me about his one and only (but highly memorable) encounter with the greatest squash player of his time, Hashim Khan. The Grand Khan was in Toronto for some exhibition matches and the Buffalo University club managed to invite him over. Harvey played a game with him where according to Harvey, The Khan converted the squash court into what felt like a telephone booth since he was all over the place with lightening speed. It was the greatest game and Harvey was completely mesmerized by the Khan's fabulously graceful moves. And of course the Khan always played barefoot.
Tell Margit that I agree with her and will also get the book!
Love, Aps.

Posted by: Azra Raza | Jan 28, 2010 9:03:52 AM

Aps, I didn't know that about Hashim Khan. That means, maybe I can use thin-soled shoes for Tennis.

I just looked at the Vibram FiveFingers site and am not sure if they would be good for Tennis. Anyone have any information on that?

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jan 28, 2010 9:20:48 AM

Aps,

Did you know Hashim Khan is still alive at age 96? He was playing squash until at least the age of 94 (the last I saw)! And might still be playing! He did start out playing barefoot but wore shoes later on. Tomorrow I'll post something about him for you. Also, did you know that he won the American Open at age 49? He was crazy. In his prime, many a sports writer called him the greatest athlete in history!!!

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jan 28, 2010 9:45:15 AM

I was excited to see a real scientific study of barefoot running, but this one is total bullshit. Nature should be ashamed of themselves, and so should you if you take this at face value because it reinforces your preconceived biases. The authors are funded by Vibram! This is like an Exxon-Mobil study finding that carbon dioxide is great for the environment.

Go to the original paper and read it. It's awful. If you can't find three or four uncontrolled confounding variables, you aren't paying attention. Subjects tested in completely different environments (indoors and outdoors) are aggregated. The sample sizes are shockingly low.

The authors find that the amount of shock absorbed by the foot (in body-weights per second) is the same between toe-striking barefoot and heel-striking in a shoe. The only conclusion you can draw from this whole study is that shoes protect you from hurting your feet if you heel-strike. If heel-striking hurts your calves or whatever else, don't do it! It has nothing to do with shoes.

The most egregious example is Figure 3c (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/fig_tab/nature08723_F3.html), where the plot shows toe-strike barefoot (filled circles) versus heel-strike barefoot (open circles). But they put a picture of a foot with a shoe next to the barefoot heel-strike data! Why??? Because it makes it look like shod runners suffer extreme conditions even though the data do not support that view.

Posted by: Xerxes | Jan 28, 2010 11:35:40 AM

I don't know how you guys played school sports in Pakistan, Abbas and Azra. But during my days, we used just one kind of shoes for all sports - track, basketball, handall, tennis, badminton etc. And they were the ubiquitous thin soled Keds with canvas tops. Only soccer required special cleats.

Posted by: Ruchira | Jan 28, 2010 12:01:39 PM

Xerxes,

In the figure you have provided a link to, the filled circles refer to barefeet, while the unfilled ones refer to "shod" feet, as explained in the caption. Where are you getting the toe-strike vs. heel-strike stuff? (I do not have access to the whole Nature article.)

Also, how do you know that the authors are funded by Vibram?

Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jan 28, 2010 12:07:11 PM

Actually, reading it again, the figure caption indicates that it averages over all heel-strike data. So it includes both shod and unshod. However, it is clear from Figure 2b (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/fig_tab/nature08723_F2.html) that it is only the unshod heel-strike data that show loading rates in the upper ranges (near the little shoe picture) indicated by the open circles in Fig 3c.

The funding is revealed in a declaration of competing financial interests (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/box/nature08723_audecl.html).

Posted by: Xerxes | Jan 28, 2010 3:59:44 PM

maybe this explains why I like running in old worn-out shoes with less cushioning.

Posted by: eli | Jan 28, 2010 5:49:08 PM

hey this is haleena and would like to intorudce some thing that is really special as this article says that the different games required different sport shoes so here you can get the best collection for the tennis. just check this out...
http://www.treds.co.uk/manufacturer/k-swiss/58/1
this article really provide the ability to think about in all aspects of the same thing,,,,

Posted by: K Swiss trainers | May 4, 2010 7:46:52 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Klausi on the defeated

Anjuli on Perceptions

gautam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

VirtualMachine on What goes into making beautiful celestial images?

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Namit on The search for a two-thousand-year-old city

Anjali Kelling on Adagio in Blues

Phil S. on KILL THE CAPS LOCK, And four other modest proposals for improving the contemporary computer keyboard

Adam on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

whatev on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Sara on Superbowl Spleen

Liam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

Anand Manikutty on Adagio in Blues

Sagredo on How To Implode A Myth

Michael Harbour on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Kai Matthews on Superbowl Spleen

Albertan Atheist on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

Kai Matthews on Adagio in Blues

Nick Smyth on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed