I’ve no idea how Usain Bolt started his brilliant running career as a kid in Jamaica but I’d be pretty confident the world’s fastest man did a lot of his early charging around in bare feet. It doesn’t seem to have done him any harm. In fact, when it comes to running, it may be that bare is best.

Forget Reeboks, Nikes and New Balance, take a leaf out of the Maasai training book.

At least that’s what Craig Richards thinks, and he’s spent a lot of time studying the pros and cons of sports footwear. And here’s a warning – anyone who’s just forked out a few hundred bucks for a new pair of running shoes, stop reading now.

One the University of Newcastle researcher’s main findings was that there’s no evidence running shoes do you any good. In fact, they may lead to injuries. Bizarrely, one Swiss study found that runners with more expensive shoes actually got more injuries than those in cheaper pairs.

The crux of Richards’ argument is that the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe changes the gait of the runner in a way that creates new stresses. It might even slow you down.

Richard’s isn’t the only one making the claim. A new book by Christopher McDougall, Born to Run, also argues that Nike’s invention of the modern running shoe in the early 1970s has done more harm than good.

In Richard’s case, his interest began as a combination of his studies in medicine, and love of competitive running. “I was always getting injured,” he says. “It was inexplicable. I wasn’t doing high mileage, I was fairly careful, I am bio-mechanically normal, I had top of the line shoes. I was doing all the right stuff but I was getting injured all the time.”

So the young bloke theorised his injuries could be coming from striking his heel first. He flicked the shoes and started running in bare feet. And his gait changed dramatically.

“Nobody lands on their heels in bare feet,” he explains. “In fact nobody lands on their heel unless there’s cushioning in the shoes or there’s elevation in the heel. Our current generation thinks it’s normal to land on your heel when you run but bio-mechanically speaking striking heel first defines you as walking not running.

“There’s a whole system of springs in your foot and through your Achilles tendon and calf which are designed for running. By landing on your heel you’ve replaced the body’s natural suspension system with an artificial system in the shoe.”

That stops you landing in the middle of your foot. Which is best? So far, he says, there hasn’t been a proper study comparing people running bare foot and someone landing on their heel. “But anecdotally for me…the modern running shoe for some people tipped them into a zone where they’re injured all the time.”

Yet if there’s no evidence that running shoes will make you run faster, or with less injury, the alternative sounds impractical. Some great African distance runners may have grown up running vast distances in bare feet, but most of us would wince at the smallest stone.

Richards says he’s started a private consultancy, working with an unnamed shoe company, to develop an alternative shoe that doesn’t affect the gait but protects from sharp surfaces. Hard surfaces are fine.

Already there are alternatives, such as the Italian company Vibram’s FiveFingers, a shoe that looks more like a combination of glove and sock.

“The typical human foot is really a miracle of evolution with 26 bones, 33 joints, and more than 100 muscles, tendons and ligaments,” says Vibram’s website. “Like the rest of the body, to keep our feet healthy, they need to be stimulated and exercised. Many experts believe the shoes we wear not only cast the foot in a protective form, but also weaken our foot and leg muscles, leaving them underdeveloped and more prone to injury.”

“I went to the local cross country club at the weekend and there were three other runners wearing Vibram FiveFingers,” Richards says. “So it’s approaching the mainstream.”

In his case, it’s been ten years since he ran in the typical running shoe, and says he hasn’t had injuries since.

“Typical runners get a lot of minor recurrent or chronic overstress injuries of the shin the knee the ankle the foot and maybe the hamstrings,” he says. “It’s mainly the knee and the foot. All the figures are rubbery because nobody has done proper research. But the sense is that injury rates haven’t changed in the last 30 years but the pattern has. We’ve protected the foot at the expense of the knee.

For the big shoe companies, Richards thinks there is opportunity to differentiate their products. “The only problem is what it does for their credibility. They’ve been very careful. No major shoe company has ever said these shoes will decrease your risk of injury. It’s all based on perception…”

And the other issue is performance. Football players, he says, are prevented from running properly by their boots. “Most of these guys sprinting, they run terribly - they run on their heels, not like a sprinter runs.”

His new research will comparing classic heel-strike running shoes with a new design for runners landing on the ball of their feet. “We’re looking at performance…. whether you run faster,” Richards says. “We’ll monitor injury rates but to get a clear picture need a bigger study.”

12 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Rozy says:

      10:10am | 19/08/09

      It will be very interesting to see the study when it is done.
      And it does make alot of sense. A shoe is essentialy a cast and would allow certain muscles and tendons to weaken, whilst the sole changing striking and weight bearing area’s.
      I know when the weather warms up and i go barefoot or thongs more, i get alot of cramps in my feet and toe’s for a few weeks. The foot waking up after being stuck in a shoe for a few months??

    • Michael says:

      11:50am | 19/08/09

      Or are a lot of injuries caused because people do too much tread-mill training where you never train your body to build any down hill or braking muscles which leads to muscular inbalances in the calf. Too much road running on even surfaces that don’t allow the ankle to develop enough sideways strength. And not enough sand and soft surface training to develop micro fine muscle twitch in the foot and train you not to heal strike hard (you just sink in sand). Most people just don’t vary their training enough which is why they end up injured.

    • Wundebar says:

      12:11pm | 19/08/09

      This story comes from Runner’s World who have been discussing it for some time.  My question is, what is the foot doing inside the shoe?  It may be flexing and extending the same way it does without shoes, but we don’t see it do we?

    • Gripe says:

      12:41pm | 19/08/09

      After adopting more of a paleo diet and lifestyle, I have looked into the benefits of footwear a little. As far as I could tell, apart from protecting our feet against filth and sharp objects (plus the social aspects), there really isn’t anything else footwear provides that our feet can’t already do on their own. Yet another example of 1970’s narrow science slowly-but-surely being overturned by mounting evidence and wider knowledge. It would not surprise me one bit if down the track it was concluded that foot problems are as a result of footwear overuse among other modern lifestyle factors. We already know that when it comes to the complex, we can’t beat millions of years of evolution; so why are we always trying to outdo mother nature?

    • Cataly says:

      12:45pm | 19/08/09

      Very interesting concepts - I would have to agree - since changing my running style (to be more on the ball of my foot) I have noticed I like running a lot more than I used to and that I am able to run a lot faster than I used too.
      I also like the look of those Five Fingers shoe alternatives - may just have to invest in a pair!

    • Mark says:

      01:37pm | 19/08/09

      Derek Clayton in the 60’s was the first marathon runner to break 2.10 and he had a toe, heel action.

    • Steven says:

      02:29pm | 19/08/09

      What about the humble dunlop volley? Surely that is basically just a bit of protection for an otherwise bare foot?

    • Jen says:

      03:36pm | 19/08/09

      The minimilist approach to footwear is fashionable at the moment. 10 years ago support shoes were all the rage, again in the future they will make a comeback after people start complaining their five-fingers and Nike Frees give them problems. Just like hipsters have gone and high-waists are back.
      You are not wasting your money if your shoes work for you. Some people need fancy shoes (over-pronators), others don’t. $200 for a pair of shoes is not a waste if you like them, you use them and they don’t give you problems. Better that than sitting around getting fat because you are too scared to invest money on your health.

    • Smokey says:

      04:24pm | 19/08/09

      I just checked the AUD price against buying them USD and having them sent over via a friend in the post.  They’re US$75 for the classic, AU$189!!  With the dollar at approx. 84c, that’s quite mark up…  $50 per pair for distribution?

      Think I’ll be waiting for the price to drop before I buy them…

    • Gary says:

      07:24pm | 19/08/09

      It amazes me that people can freely accept ‘the miracle of evolution’ & see that something as basic as a human foot can display such complexity, beyond anything the human mind can improve on, yet in reality evolution is completely incapable of working such miracles.  There can be only 1 reason for this amazing design & that is a master designer - God.

      And this is only one part of the human body,  other parts are far more complex.  For example, take the human eye, which even Darwin admitted makes evolution ‘seem absurd in the highest degree.’

    • Dave says:

      12:37pm | 20/08/09

      Oh Jeez, God Botherer Alert!

      Of course evolution doesn’t work for you imbeciles, given that you lot only think the world has been around for 6 000 years.

      Go back to your hole and keep feeling guilty abotu crap that happened thousands of years ago.

      Morons.

      Back OT, I saw this bloke on the Daily Show yesterday, interesting interview. He says he picked the barefoot idea up from a tribe of Mexicans, of all things, that still live an ancient secluded lifestyle that included ultra marathon running.

    • Felix says:

      12:05am | 21/08/09

      Amazing design?  Was he having an off day when he designed the female pelvis for childbirth? What was he thinking when he created the human appendix? What about animals like the elephant or rhino that can barely see? If he can take credit for the human eye he can take credit for all the examples of dud design as well.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

Paul Colgan

@GrogsGamut We need a government quackdown

Paul Colgan

Good story by @ashermoses on the mass gaming of a website poll about alternative medicine http://t.co/3XNE2BF5

Anthony Sharwood

OK, so am I the last person in Australia to see this Herald front page mockup thru the Rinehart lens? http://t.co/LSNBPkVl

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter