anyone with any experience with barefoot running (with or without shoes) ?


I picked up some Merrell Bare Access 3 shoes the other day.
I had been reading a bit here and there about 'barefoot' running, figured I'd give it a go... wouldn't hurt any worse than what I got going on now right?  besides, the shoes match my wingsuit


I've also watched a few videos, to get the low down on the mechanics of this 'barefoot' running style.  

I was pretty excited to give it a try, so I gave it a go today at the gym.
I'm probably not doing it 100% "right", but I gotta say that I felt better after today's run (5k/3.2 miles) than I have a lot of other times,
the only "issue" I had, was a sore calf muscle on my left side, which was predicted in a few videos.  nothing else hurts. I probably
could have kept going.  (I have been typically running 3-4 miles/day, 3x a week, schedule allowing, which was tapered back from 6-7 miles I was running, but
sprained my ankle (or some other ankle related pain)  I didn't get any hip pain I've had in the past either (I did have hip surgery 1.5 years ago).  Running
was one of those challenges I gave myself to motivate my recovery.  I've kept skydiving and climbed a 14'er (Colorado Mountain higher than 14,000 ft) and participated in a few 5k runs and the 2014 BolderBoulder 10k.

TL;DR / Anyway, just looking for some feedback on what others may have experienced in their 'barefoot' running...

*DISCLAIMER: I'm no running expert*

Now with that out of the way, I must say that for me personally, running in "barefoot" type shoes (NB Minimus) has helped me out tremendously.  I used to get horrible shin splints whenever I would run.  Switching to minimalist shoes has helped me to learn a better form and thus virtually eliminate shin splints, which has allowed me to run farther distances without pain.

Give them a try and see if they work for you.

Slowly increase your miles.  Give your body time to go through the adaptations.  Dont expect it to be a cure all, you may run into other issues down the road.

Barefoot running fucked up my feet. It's not for everyone

please elaborate a bit......

Not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for.  The form a person uses when running barefoot(proper form) will be most efficient and less prone to injury.  That said, for most people who grew up with heavy padded shoes, it will be an adjustment.  The average person has atrocious running form.  You can injure yourself if you're making too much of a change.  I wouldn't fret too much about it.  Give it time, form changes don't come easy.

just looking for others experience  with 'barefoot' running.  not saying everyone needs to convert right away...


and not to get too excited, I'm liking my results so far, admittedly only having done an actual run 1x ....


it might be something for someone with issues from "regular" running, and if it's not talked about, they'll never know.


information, and the exchange of ideas!

Can you back that statement up with data?

ETA:  And why do people continually call it barefoot running when youre wearing shoes?!~

This Dr. seems to support it. And he runs barefoot pretty effortlessly.

One persons personal experience does not make a study.  

Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to poo poo minimal running.  Done correctly in moderation, it can help quite a bit.  I just cant stand the blanket statements used with this particular modality.  In no way shape or form (no pun intended) is forefoot striking more efficient or less prone to injury.  The data just isnt there yet.

ETA:

I dont know that Id call it effortlessly either.  I wonder how long it took him to get to the point hes at now?

"Proper running form is more efficient and safer."  It's like saying squatting with proper form is more efficient and safer.  The problem here?

Maybe a decade of competitive running has made me naive, is this not common knowledge?  I don't care either way about this barefoot fad and some recreational runners hurting themselves, but to argue the merits of proper form is like arguing whether the world is flat. This sport and its coaches have been teaching what works for decades.  It's not a coincidence that every professional runner runs with similar form and mechanics.

The fact is that barefoot running will force a person into more proper form (don't believe me, video tape yourself doing both and compare), whether or not their body can handle that after years of being trained otherwise is a completely different argument, however.

I imagine it took him a while to master his technique but it looks pretty effortless now that he has.

I wore VFF's daily in the gym and around the house/neighborhood, etc. for about a year before I ever tried to run in them. Over a period of weeks, I slowly began with moderate effort intervals of 400-800m that my feet tolerated okay. I upped it to mile repeats. Once I hit 5k, I experienced significant pain on the TOP of my foot  as well as some plantar fasciitis. I have high arches and just came to the conclusion that I don't need a minimal shoe to run fast or efficiently. I currently road run with two shoes that are very lightweight with a 7mm and 10mm drop but still provide the support I need. I run without heel striking or pronation just fine. I think the craze is dying out a little but the bottom line is it works for some and not for others. I have ran ultra marathons with guys in VFFs and Luna sandals while my trail shoes are some beefy Brooks cascadias. So for me a zero drop did not work but I was able to lower from a traditional drop to 7-10 and have been running farther and faster than ever.

Considering such form is exclusively used at the collegiate level and beyond and written in every book on running since at least the '60s, I'd say the data is more than there. Just look at the anatomy of a human leg and foot.  The only way to naturally absorb the shock of a foot striking the ground is to strike with your fore foot.  The human body can not naturally absorb the impact of striking the ground with your heel, that is simple science.  We can do an experiment right now:  Make a fist and hit your bare foot square on the heel.  It will not feel pleasant.  Now do the same on the pad of your forefoot.  The blow will be absorbed and spread through the foot with little discomfort.  Simple logic says which part of your foot your should land on.

Show me the peer reviewed books/studies on shod vs barefoot since the 60's.  I may have misconstrued your statement about "proper form" in general and proper form for minimalist footwear, but now youve opened up a whole new can of worms with your statements about barefoot running "forcing" people into correct form, and that all professional runners run this way.  What makes you think you can just pull these statements out of thin air and use them as fact?

The fact is, there have been studies that have proven you incorrect on all those statements.  When arguing extremes in regards to kinesiology and biomechanics, of course a forward foot strike will be the correct answer.  But when you add everything in between, the lines are blurred quite substantially.

You also dodged my original question about injuries.  Care to elaborate on how that form is injury free?

First, no form is injury free.  A more efficient form will put less unnecessary stress on an athlete, but in all honesty a form change won't do much to stop future injuries it's just not that big of a factor in injuries, maybe marginally but that's it.  I don't run barefoot and I wouldn't advocate that people run barefoot.  I have no dog in that fight.  

What I did have was running form drilled into by coaches who have studied this sport for years.  Running barefoot is a good way to demonstrate good form.  I'd have to flip through my running books in my library to find some of the chapters on form, which I don't want to do at this hour.  My only point on that is that you are making statements that the way an entire sport is coaching athletes is wrong or rather not backed by data.  Perhaps, someone finds a better way to run in the future, I don't know.  My statement about the professionals was only to make the point that these runners were all coached to run a certain way, much like a golfer is coached on his swing.  At that level of professionalism, efficiency is key and for maximum efficiency coaches are teaching the mid/fore-foot strike under the runner's center of gravity.  There's more to form that that but since that's the topic here.  So to argue whether that's the most efficient way to run is silly since that's what coaches have been teaching for a long time and nothing better has been developed.    

Lastly my point with barefoot running forcing people into better form is again back to the fore foot  and heel strike argument.  Without a shoe, nobody will strike with their heel (over-stride) running barefoot, it wouldn't be comfortable.  I've seen it happen too many times to think otherwise, and would bet money that a heel striker would change form without shoes.  I don't have data, stats, or figures for you, I'm just offering what I've seen in my time in this sport.  I don't think we're too far off here, just more of a misunderstanding with this being a barefoot running thread.  I really think this is just a fad among recreational runners and is causing a lot of injuries due to an abrupt change in how people are running. OTOH I also know what is taught by coaches all over the country to competitive runners at all stages and can say that the fundamentals of the barefoot running craze are not really misguided either.  That's my $.02.

It's probably the case that barefoot proper form trumps shod improper form, but it still seems that proper form in shod feet trumps proper barefoot form.

I haven't noticed many high level runners going barefoot.

Just looked up some 5k races and everyone ran like that. So good point.

More correctly, you trade one type of injury risk for another.

some good info on running technique and drills.
http://www.crossfitendurance.com/run

Im not sure I understand that first paragraph.  In your first response, you say:

Now youre saying:

So which is it?  Form is a key factor to preventing injury, or its only marginal at best?

As to your second paragraph.  I made no statements about coaching.  I made statements about generalizations you made and continue to make.  I think the main issue were running into is your background and responses are grounded in athletic and elite runners and mine is general population and overall biomechanics.  I would argue that form is more an indicator of training and running adaptations than it is a factor by itself.  As in your form becomes more efficient the more your body adapts to the distance and pace youre running, especially for beginner runners.  Trying to preach form to a brand new runner whos only running a mile at most a few times a week doesnt make a ton of sense considering their base of training and endurance isnt even there yet. And if you look at some of the elite athletes running right now, there a few who have a pronounced heel strike.  One of them just won the Boston.  So that debunks your comment right there.  

I dont think were too far off either, I just dont agree with your generalizations about form and biomechanics.  I feel like its a chicken and egg argument here.  You say form first, I say it comes with running.  Elite level athletes can handle the stresses form change may cause, everyone else OTOH who knows.  Thats my issue with your statements, you have no idea who this person is, yet you still make those statements.  There have been a few studies out there that have proven that form can be inherent to training level.  A few have proven that midfoot striking can be less efficient and that training doesnt always stick.  I'll try and find the website that has links to these studies and post them later. Just something to think about when giving advice.

What do you mean when you say "most efficient"?  That term has a specific meaning in sports science - energy cost to do work vs work performed.  "Proper form" as described by the POSE method was shown to be less efficient in a study described here



In other words, following 12 weeks of personal instruction in "proper form" the treatment group exhibited the external tendencies associate with "proper form", less bounce and shorter stride.  Making those changes made them less efficient - they consumed more O2 to do the same amount of work.  That result shouldn't  be unexpected if you work through the mechanics and barefoot running would probably be even less efficient because instead of allowing a shoe to absorb impact, the runner is absorbing impact with the lower leg muscles and that has an energy cost associated with it.

That's one of the ones I was looking for, thank you sir.

ETA:  Your question is essentially what I was trying to get at.  His wording may semantics to some extent, but running economy is different for everyone.

There's probably a reason that top runners race in shoes and it goes beyond sponsorship...

Exactly.  Economy or efficiency was shown to be reduced in this study when comparing shod and unshod.

they have somewhat competitive prices, but I was able to get better deals elsewhere at everything I looked up.

I have a pair of vff kso evos and merrell vapor gloves I keep in rotation for barefoot running. If I am running I wear socks with them to keep the sweat down, otherwise I will go without them. I used the ksos for a Spartan Sprint with the socks and they did their job great.

I'm kinda short and heavy.

I've run marathons in properly fitted traditional running shoes (from Smith's store no less!) and I've run in VFF with a forefoot strike and I've run with no-heel rise moderately padded shoes with a midfoot strike.

I don't care for heavily padded shoes anymore as they just seem too clunky and heavy. I was never injured by them- any running injury was due to just plain over use. I did like forefoot strike, but running over maybe a mile or so was kind of uncomfortable.
For ME, I find that the midfoot strike with shoes with no heel rise and very lightly padded is the best fit. I don't ever run over 3 miles, and I wear either new balance trail shoes (I forget the model, but they are minimalist) or the Reebok CF shoes which have a little padding, but not a whole lot. This works best for me.

I guess the point is that it may take some experimentation to find what works the best for you, and my personal opinion is that body geometry, height/weight etc.. will play a role in type of shoes and running style that works best for you. Also IMO anyone that says "This (fill in the blank) style of running will fix EVERYTHING" probably doesn't know what they are talking about. IMO it's like telling someone that low bar or high bar squats are always better for everyone, when it's really determined by body geometry and goals.

I've been running in my zero drop running shoes from NB and Merrell.

The Merrells were fine till I ran barefoot in them, they were okay during the run,
but during my cool-down walk out, one chaffed my heel above the ankle on one foot.
it's since healed and only run with them wearing socks for now (Injinji toe socks, which I like a lot)

The NB 730 fit well, I can run barefoot and I tend to spend more time in them.


advice on-line is to start slow.. this is very important for a couple reasons; 1. it's "new" work for your muscles; and
2. if you don't do things correctly.. you could injure yourself.

I pushed things a bit and got achilles tendonitis on one side.
With the assistance of my TCM practitioner, I was back on my feet pretty quick.

other than that little episode, I've been able to run better and without the issues the jarring has on my hips (I had hip surgery in '12), and knees.

I'm up to 5k now (3.2 miles) and have been doing inside track and running outside. I've done 4 miles a few times, and I've backed off a bit to ease my way to 10k
(I'm signed up for the 2015 BolderBoulder 10k already)