to run or not to run

[rlholtz]

Here's an update for anyone that might be interested. Just as soon as I started running regularly in my Vivo "barefoot" shoes due to cold weather, I started getting a dull ache in my knee. Something I hadn't experienced at all through almost 3 months of actual barefoot running. This could just be a coincidence but I think not.

I noticed that running faster and running on an incline would reduce or eliminate the ache when I was wearing these shoes. So being a stubborn cus, I'm going to join a fitness club and see if I can't run with these shoes on, on a treadmill with a bit of an upward angle on the belt. Or maybe running intervals with walking breaks. Plus I can goof around on elipticals and stuff like that. I'm assuming I won't be allowed to run barefoot on their equipment.

So the big question is, will I be able to continue to run without wrecking myself, or am I fated not to because of stupid old man winter?

Opinions and advice welcome.

[kensa64]

I am a runner for 21 years. Although I dont run as much as I used too, I still run in some form. I have adopted the (Jeff) Galloway method of running. It is probably the same thing as (HIIT) , High Intensity Interval Training. Running used to be my only form of exercise. Being a 46 year old male, I have crosstrained the last few years (Rowing, cycling,ski erg, elliptical, spinning, golf. Stay in shape!! Be smart!!

[rlholtz]

So, I gave treadmill running a try with my vivo "barefoot" shoes starting last December. Guess what? From the get-go, with these almost-not-there shoes on, my knee ached. That meant no running at all for 3 months or so. With the early spring I resumed barefoot running outside. Have done 8 runs so far, up to 40 minutes in length. Absolutely no pain! There is definitely something to this, at least for me. While I build up my mileage I am going to experiment making my own barefoot running shoes to see if maybe next winter I won't have to shut down again (assuming I make it that far).

[johnlvs2run]

I have always run barefoot on the treadmill, no problem at all.

I can run for hours barefoot on the grass, and used to run for 2 hours every day on an all weather track, due to there being no other suitable surface at the time. Now the track is trashed and the only suitable surfaces are a couple stretches of grass, that I aim to run on a couple of times each week. Otherwise, I do all my slower steady running in shoes, which I get from the W for 10 to $20 for a pair.

[rlholtz]

I've found pavement to be perfectly suitable for barefoot running.

[johnlvs2run]

to abandon cushioning, protection, speed and comfort?

Cushioning makes the muscles tired and causes injuries. There is no reason to have any cushioning at all in running shoes. Quite a few years ago I kept getting cramps in my calves, and so I kept experimenting with my shoes. One of the things that I did was to replace the heels with pieces of wood. I had been not even able to run a mile without my calves cramping badly, and this went on day after day. After replacing the heels with wood, I went on a 12 mile run with some friends, expecting to have to jog a half mile and walk back to my car, as had been usual. Surprisingly, I clicked along with the wood heeled shoes the entire 12 miles with NO problems at all. I kept wearing them and the cramps did not reappear.

Protection is the only reason for shoes.

Shoes are considerably slower for two reasons, the most obvious being they are that much heavier than bare feet. The other reason is that ALL shoes interfere with the stride, so the stride is less efficient, less powerful, and the cadence is lower.

There is are no shoes anywhere that are close to being as comfortable as bare feet.

[Tinus]

Protection is the only reason for shoes.

This is not true for running on the road is it? Or are you suggesting that the human feet are made to run (fast) on hard surfaces?

[johnlvs2run]

Protection is the only reason for shoes.

This is not true for running on the road is it?

Yes, it is especially true for the roads.

Cushioning does not offer protection, except at the expense of bulk, weight, sore legs and injuries.
What we need is something to protect us from the so called protection!

Or are you suggesting that the human feet are made to run (fast) on hard surfaces?

Not at all. I'm saying that hard rubber (or wood) is much better protection than soft spongy EVA.
The EVA is only used because it is cheap, and the injuries pad the pockets of orthopedic shoe designers.

[Tinus]

What running speeds are we talking about?

Is running barefoot or with wood (I don't see how wood can do any good) at a speed >15km/hr, on paved roads, a good idea? I can only imagine the ankles and heels becoming wrecked by the abnormal shocks if no reasonable cushioning is used in these circumstances.

I would agree walking noncushioned on paved roads or jogging noncushioned on soft roads can be a good thing. However, when applying higher forces which are abnormal to the human body (e.g. running fast,or even slow, on paved roads) cushioning must be used to decrease shocks experienced by the vulnerable feet and legs.

Sidenote: Could the running uphill and running barefoot be examples of a more fundamental change... forefoot strike? This reduces shocks in the knees (although increasing risk of injury in achilles tendon).

[johnlvs2run]

What running speeds are we talking about?

Any and all running speeds.

Is running barefoot or with wood (I don't see how wood can do any good) at a speed >15km/hr, on paved roads, a good idea?

Sure it is. I ran 12 miles on the roads the very first time I had glued wood heels on my shoes, with no problem at all. In fact I was running faster than usual and more easily. I had been getting cramps in my calves in regular shoes the previous couple of weeks. My legs were suddenly FINE with the wood heels on my shoes, and they gave me much better protection from the roads.

I can only imagine the ankles and heels becoming wrecked by the abnormal shocks if no reasonable cushioning is used in these circumstances.

Think of shock as being a nail. This would pass through an EVA sole quite easily. In fact you could push nails quite easily through EVA with your hands. However you would need a hammer with wood, and there is some rubber you would have a hard time getting a nail through even with a hammer.

Let's turn it around, and say you are going to pound a nail with a small head through one sole with another, one shoe being EVA and the other sole being wood. You could easily pound nails through EVA soles with soles made of wood! The reverse would not be true though, and consider if your hand (or foot) was inside of the shoes. You would have the most protection with a firm sole like wood or hard rubber!

I would agree walking noncushioned on paved roads or jogging noncushioned on soft roads can be a good thing. However, when applying higher forces which are abnormal to the human body (e.g. running fast,or even slow, on paved roads) cushioning must be used to decrease shocks experienced by the vulnerable feet and legs.

It fact it is the soft EVA rubber that causes the shocks to the feet, legs, hips and body.

Sidenote: Could the running uphill and running barefoot be examples of a more fundamental change... forefoot strike? This reduces shocks in the knees (although increasing risk of injury in achilles tendon).

I usually land with my whole foot when running barefoot, similar to stamping on a coin on the ground, as was pointed out by Percy Cerutty. Yes this is much better than when shoes with heel lifts cause a jarring landing on the heels. By the way, the heels of the foot are solid and firm, not soft like EVA sponges. When running barefoot, the heels do not give, whereas I can push my thumb into the heels of most new running shoes. This is where the jarring is created.

[Tinus]

I can only imagine the ankles and heels becoming wrecked by the abnormal shocks if no reasonable cushioning is used in these circumstances.

Think of shock as being a nail. This would pass through an EVA sole quite easily. In fact you could push nails quite easily through EVA with your hands. However you would need a hammer with wood, and there is some rubber you would have a hard time getting a nail through even with a hammer.

I have troubles with your nail analogy. I can't think of shock as being a nail. Think of shocks on a car during a collision. Would you argue that solid steel is a better crumple zone because it is more difficult to puncture it?

The idea of reducing shocks is to reduce peak forces by increasing the elasticity of the collision causing the shock. This requires an elastic material of a certain thickness which applies a force while being compressed thereby changing the energy transfer of a high force over a short distance into a low force over a larger distance. The resistance of the material against fracture (e.g. by a nail) is irrelevant.

Wood is not directly better against shocks (it probably may work because it alters running technique). Your nail example seems to turn things around. Wood seems to be only good for protection (against nails).

[rlholtz]

http://www.boston.com/news/health/artic ... pare_feet/


My own experience backs up everything this article has to say.

[johnlvs2run]

I have troubles with your nail analogy. I can't think of shock as being a nail. Think of shocks on a car during a collision. Would you argue that solid steel is a better crumple zone because it is more difficult to puncture it?

Solid steel would be good because it provides PROTECTION, without deformity/absorption. The problem with eva is that it ABSORBS the shock and transmits it to the body (same that it would do with a nail), while providing no protection.

The idea of reducing shocks is to reduce peak forces by increasing the elasticity of the collision causing the shock. This requires an elastic material of a certain thickness which applies a force while being compressed thereby changing the energy transfer of a high force over a short distance into a low force over a larger distance. The resistance of the material against fracture (e.g. by a nail) is irrelevant.

You could shoot a bullet through eva easily, but it would be stopped by solid steel, because steel stops the peak force and eva does not stop it at all. Hard rubber (or wood) stops peak force much better than soft eva foam. Another major problem with the soft foam is deformity. It can easily deform a 1/2 inch or more with each strike of the HEEL (rather than entire foot). Of necessity it is built up way too high and causes undesirable changes in running dynamics.

Wood is not directly better against shocks

Oh yes it is much much better than foam. Try it and you'll see.

it probably may work because it alters running technique

The running style with wood heels is very similar to barefoot running. The heels were only 1/4 or so, not 3/4 inch plus as is usual with eva foam.

[johnlvs2run]

Think protection, not shock.

As long as your feet are protected then you don't have to worry about shock.

[Tinus]

Ok I try again.

Which would you rather be hit by, a piece of wood or a piece of rubber or eva?

Or another analogy.

Why are rubber bullets less lethal... because they transmit the shock to the body?

Another one:

Why does soft elastic material protect breakable things (e.g glassware but it could also be your feet)?

My final one:

Why are mattresses used in the gym made of foam and not of wood?

Feet really need protection against shocks when they are doing hard work. Well, maybe not all feet. Your feet might be able to sustain the shocks but it is not due to the physics which you propose which is really erroneous.