Talk:Barefoot running/Archive 1

shoes?

The transitional shoes and almost barefoot running type shoes such as Vibram and Skora needed to be removed from this page as they dilute from the main topic ... running barefoot. They are commercial in aspect and really don't meet the objective criteria. It is suggested that if the contributors wish to create a page on Barefoot Running Shoes than it would be appropriate to link such page to the Barefoot Running page. However, the page as it is titled deals with barefoot running and so should it remain. Yarkoski1012 (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the products in question intend to mimic barefoot running, mentioning them on this page seems valid. That's not to say that maybe the way in which they are brought up might not benefit from a rewrite.Brakoholic (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a separate page. It could be referenced as a see also.

Dangers

Should the potential dangers of barefoot running be added? I know there is possiblity of cutting or otherwise causing harm to the surface of your foot from the terrain. Right now the article seems to heavily support barefoot running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningguy (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not really much of a runner myself, but I am certainly a barefooter and in favor of the idea. However, i'd like to get a clearer picture, and this article...*sniff sniff* smells NPOVy. malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. You gotta present both sides of the story What about?... lists all the dangers of going around barefoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.232.191 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I came here because I am curious about these shoes. My personal experience was a severe case of plantar fasciitis. I go barefoot alot and was advised by a chiropractor and physicianto stop going barefoot, and wear shoes with good arch supports. I did this and my heel/arch pain went away. I wish this article gave more information.

This article is very pro barefoot when there is no real evidence to support it an what evidence that is claimed to support it, does not really support it. I came across this view: http://www.clinicalbootcamp.net/barefoot-running.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomant007 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a study around 1990 (IIRC, can't remember ref), about shod vs barefoot. As one might expect: the shod runners got indirect force injuries and the barefoot got localised injuries. The barefooters got cuts and bruises. The shod runners mostly got sprains and damaged cartilages.

However IIRC the cohort was not differentiated by shoe type. I would expect that there would be a continuum from the ultra-padded shoes all the way through shoes of increasing minimalism towards barefoot.

Note from "Born to Run" the Tarahumara chose their shoes according the route they want to do: if it is benign then they may go barefoot. But if they think it will have sharp rocks or thorns then they wear sandals. Common sense really.

What these Mexican Indians do is really just good health and safety practice. When working without supervision one is supposed to make a dynamic risk assessment (eg. http://www.hse.gov.uk) and use PPE according the evaluated risks/hazards. Failure to do adequate DRAs can result in death or injury.

Resolving the forces from Liebermann's study shows that the forces in the legs are likely to be lower, especially in the weaker parts. Unfortunately I can't find a study that makes use of this info.

Merely putting a pad on the heel doesn't really mitigate the large loads imposed on the leg because that solution can only work in a very narrow frequency/time domain. As seen on rifle stocks, a rubber buttpad only works to a limited degree (e.g. Boys antitank). Even there it only mitigates the localised forces around the area of contact, and makes neglible difference further on into the body. From this one would expect to see joint injuries, and this is what the above study, more or less, found. Frontmech (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, while people say injuries from stress is reduced by running barefoot, what about all the other injuries that could be caused be it? for example, a cut could lead to an infection which in theory, if left untreated could lead to the loss of your foot. Along the same lines, theres several types of worms which can penetrate intact human skin (hookworms), but wearing a shoe would prevent a person from getting that. Finally, if a runner can train themselves to run and land on the fore-foot/mid-foot, instead of the heel, with the common running shoe, wouldn't that be the best of both worlds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.165.87 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much any site or person promoting being barefoot, does deal with those questions. Hookworm isn't that common, and doesn't really occur in the western world. Unless you are in a country where they occur, they're not a problem. As to cuts... Well there are several reasons why that isn't a problem:

• Unless you're in a third world country, there is no need to fear untreated infections.
• Objects that may cause cuts, like sharp stones, and especially broken glass, isn't really that common.
• The sole of someone that regularly goes barefoot, is thicker and tougher than the foot of someone who wears shoes all the time. Thus their feet are better protected which, especially combined with the fact that the lack of a shoe provides a greater and quicker feel from the sole, resulting in a quicker sensing of the sharp object, and thus adjusting the foot to avoid it cutting and/or penetrating the foot... (this is admittedly not true during a transition from shod to barefoot, when one needs to be extra careful)
• Shoes don't allow you to be able to pick things up with your toes. Well okay, this isn't really related to injuries ;)
• The problems of wearing shoes, are more than you realise. In most shoes, it is impossible to walk, run or even stand, in a healthy way. They ruin your posture and balance, promote heel-striking, promote bacteria/fungi (making your feet stink, and increasing the risk of infection, in the case of a cut ...and promoting athletes foot and the like), don't allow your arch to do its job, weaken the arch, shorten the achilles tendon, make the toes unable to move or splay, they don't let your sole (one of the areas most densely packed with nerves) sense the ground... and of course, the various problems that those issues cause, such as greater risk of many various injuries, dislike of running, slower reaction to things you step on (including nails, which shoes won't protect you from), not letting the body sense how it should move (causing bad gait) etc. Do the dangers of going barefoot really outweigh the dangers of shoes?

Well, a good minimalist shoe, does minimize the issues of shoes (except the bacteria/fungi issue, and feeling the ground). Any footwear will lessen the sensation of the ground by the foot, though minimalist footwear does so as little as possible, whereas most shoes cut it off, more or less, completely. ...and there aren't a lot of people that can safely go barefoot in snow, or a workplace that requires steel-toed footwear, so even the most passionate barefooter will have to admit that some situations call for shoes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Zarlan, I respect your opinions that being barefoot is better, although I do disagree. I still feel that the best option really is to wear shoes and to try to train yourself to land more on the forefoot. And proper care of your shoes and feet would prevent the problems of athletes foot. You're much more likely to get it by walking barefoot in an area such as a locker room than from inside of your own shoes. Also, if you trail run, then the likely hood of encountering stones, thorns, and various other things which could injury your feet dramatically increases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.165.87 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also respect your opinions. They are understandable, and what most people believe, so it's natural to hold them. My opinions are supported by evidence, though and there is not a single shred of evidence, however, to support the idea that shoes are beneficial (which has a burden of proof), aside from certain situation, as I mentioned (and, of course, going barefoot is the default position). As to the idea that you're more likely to get athlete's foot from walking barefoot in a locker room... There is not a shred of evidence of that, and evidence that it has no significant effect. You may come in contact with the fungi, if it's still able to survive on the floor, but it won't actually survive to become athlete's foot, if you stay barefoot. In a shoe, on the other hand, it's dark, warm, moist and lacking in oxygen and light, which makes it the perfect breeding ground for bacteria and fungi. If you're really that bothered by athlete's foot, your best bet would more likely be to wear sandals in locker rooms and public showers (which, generally, not even shoe wearing people do and is probably unnecessary), and go completely barefoot afterwards. As to thorns, stones and the like, they aren't too hard to see, and thus avoid, and thorns aren't usually that low anyway ...and a barefooters feet react, and thus moves to avoid injury, more quickly, as well as being more though. Despite that, many barefooters will actually wear some minimalist footwear for trail runs, because of the added hazards. They will not wear it for regular runs, or walking on trails, or going out for a hike or the like.

What a barefooter will generally never do, however, is to wear regular, non-minimalist, shoes. We'll wear minimalist shoes when necessary, yes, but regular shoes make it impossible to use proper footwork/gait/running form/body mechanics, as well as making you unable to feel the ground and making you unbalanced, giving you an unnatural and awkward posture and deforming your feet. Minimalist shoes will allow you to use proper form, even though it won't quite teach and/or encourage it as being barefoot would, and they will generally allow you to overdo things, where your bare feet would tell you to stop (which is especially bad whilst transitioning, which can cause injury if done badly).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I still believe that the dangers need to be included, otherwise this article is biased. Both the dangers, and positives to it should be included, irregardless if someone feels one out-weighs the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.165.87 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What dangers would that be? That trail runs can be a bit too rough and sharp? Well that may be good to include, as well as the dangers of transitioning to barefoot and/or minimalist footwear without proper care. As too hookworms and the such... Well it is dealt with in the barefoot article, where it certainly should be included, but here it'd be a bit trivial, I think. I see no real need to include it. Those issues aside, I can think of no dangers at all. Certainly none that you've mentioned, or that have been brought up anywhere else on this talk page, and no others either. ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Vibram FiveFingers

Hi barefooters, Please take a look at the new sections at the FiveFingers article. Much of the content I have added there may be more appropriate here. Please edit away. --thesoxlost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.66.41 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OTOH the clever money is on genuine minimal shoes. Creating the "barefoot experience" is nothing as to having a real one. High level coaches teach true barefoot: shoes off for track and grass. Outside a controlled environment shoes are needed for protection: PPE. Plimsolls fit this criterion: protect from puncture/pathogens but are flexible enough to let ones feet feel the ground. The truly minimal shoe allows ones feet/calves strengthen and develop proprioception. After training in these one can don some racing flats and win ones agegroup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontmech (talk • contribs) 06:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article focus

I made a big edit to the lead to fix the perspective of the article. Much of it seems to be arguing some kind of "barefoot running is great but more study needed" idea. That is fine and all, but a good balanced historical overview would be of benefit – when did humans start moving away from running barefoot? Also, this shouldn't just be about barefoot running for sport, but barefoot running in all its applications. Specifically, more information should be added about the differences in gait etc which result from shoe-wearing and shoe-less running types. I'll try to get some more citations and info... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

check out: http://www.barefootrunning.fas.harvard.edu/4BiomechanicsofFootStrike.html for requested gait related info

--208.125.237.242 (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I made some more changes along the lines of adding in scientific studies to fill out the article. Added two citations to illustrate that the research on this topic is FAR from clear-cut. It is important to note that there are NO studies that directly deal with barefoot running and injury. It's all speculative at this point.

--75.73.171.70 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"...when did humans start moving away from running barefoot?" Forty years ago in the industrialized world, and humans never did move away from it anywhere else in the world. It's still largely practiced today. This site: http://jasonrobillard.com/barefootchronicles/barefootresearch.html has numerous links to articles and research related to the use or lack thereof of shoes. Perhaps some of those would be useful here.

One such research article (Samuel B. Shulman. "Survey in China and India of Feet That Have Never Worn Shoes," The Journal of the National Association of Chiropodists, 49, 1949, pp. 26-30.) found that "the low incidence of dermatomycotic infection here noted might be attributed to the fact that most foot fungi require dark, warm and damp interdigital spaces for growth such as that provided by shoes and stockings on a foot that has no free outlet for its perspiration. In addition, these bare feet get the beneficial fungicidal effects of the sun's ultra-violet rays."

I agree both benefits and risks should be covered, but as far as a "balanced historical overview", I don't know that one is possible. Historically, humans have been running without footwear for a hundred million years. The suggestion that the comparably irrelevant 40 year history of modern running shoes can be balanced against an evolutionary history spanning eons seems biased in and of itself.Brakoholic (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits to this article since I last visited in January have had a fantastic impact on the perspective, reliability, and resourcefulness of the article. Good work to all those contributing.Brakoholic (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit by 208.95.51.144

The user mentioned above made this outrageous edit which was described as "Fix sentence structure", but he replaced "evolved" with "was designed" in a sentence. A quick look at the talk page for this user has revealed a history of vandalism, and numerous obviously futile warnings. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but perhaps an admin might take a look.Quasihuman (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly see your perspective on this. Should we strive for more neutral wording to satisfy both parties (NPOV)? It appears that someone did that with the specific section you are addressing but there are other areas of similar wording that could lead to similar issues. Thoughts? --208.125.237.242 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Prominent barefooters?

Shouldn't the section be titled prominent barefoot runners? Not that I am against a list of prominent barefooters. That list would have to include such people as Professor Daniel E. Lieberman, Dr. Daniel Howell, Johnny Appleseed and doubtlessly many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.50.189 (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A "laundry list" of prominent barefooters isn't really necessary for the article, and is really only likely to both (a) attract vandalism and (b) never be truly complete. What I have done is to remove this list and use the links provided there to add details to the 'history' section, strengthening its prose. WTF? (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Warburton block quote

There is something wrong with the Warburton block quote toward the bottom of the article. I'm not going to look at the source to figure it out myself, the editor of the page can do that, but if the intro to the block quote is going to state "Warburton blah blah blah states the following:" (paraphrasing), then it doesn't make sense that the block quote would contain the line about "Warburton's study was criticized...". I would hope Warburton doesn't refer to himself in the third person in his journal articles. So someone who has an interest in editing this page, please have a look at that. Thanks!Brakoholic (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of the "History" section as it presumes a worldview

Assuming that evolution is how the human foot developed is definitely not "NPOV". Admittedly, assuming creation is not either, I changed it to that to make a point. I think the outcry to follow will make this point for me. Thanks in advance! 208.125.237.242 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive to just make it NPOV. I changed the wording to reflect a more encyclopedic perspective on the topic. Feel free to disagree if you want, but at least edit it to be neutral. 74.71.73.29 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove reference #5 due to dead link?

I edited out some content that refers to it as it is a dead link but seem unable to remove said link from reflist. Help? --208.125.237.242 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Health and Medical Implications

There needs to be a better segue into the quote from Lieberman that follows the discussion of the work done by Robbins, Waked, and McCaw. As it is, the information comes off as just dumped in there. The information is useful, but the flow of the section could be improved. Also, would the section on the L-Shaped Double Pendulum not be more appropriately included as a subsection of Health and Medical Implications? It seems to fall within the scope of this section.Brakoholic (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should start writing about one of the first (if not the first) articles that show less injuries in BFRunners: "Foot Strike and Injury Rates in Endurance Runners: a retrospective study" by Lieberman. Erik Neves (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While it's true that barefoot runners tend to use a forefoot strike, and this study postulates that forefoot strikes are less frequent than rearfoot strikes, it doesn't study barefoot running. In other words, it is studying shod runners and their strike. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Effect on race performance

Is there information about how barefoot running compares with running in traditional running shoes for race performance? If so, we should add it. Sancho 20:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also be interested in seeing that. What specifically are you looking for though? Win/loss ratio? Injury rates? Finish times? All of the above? I know that I have heard (just heard mind you) that generally... shod runners run faster. I have plenty of reasons other than competition though that make me want to run barefoot (no blisters being just the tip of the iceberg). 208.125.237.242 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zEruVUwr4. "Pose method" is a formulation of what the elites do anyway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyWhVbohhEw).

• In informal survey shows that the guys who run in flats get fewer injuries: whether localised or general. Because a flat is so flexible it doesn't impose any noticeable forces upon the runner: just a sole and just enough upper that the sole stays in place. No "support" or "correction" to rub the foot, so no blisters, even when running sockless. And the wears of flats go faster than the rest (but this is partially explained by better training). Peer-review needed here.

Until the 1980s everybody (at least in UK) ran in minimal shoes. Trainers weren't allowed for school sports, not that the faster runners would have wanted them anyway. All children used plimsolls; only the very keen got spikes. So if you watch runners WRT age: those born before 1970 naturally run forefoot, those who never ran in plimsolls mostly run on their heels.

But within modern children there is a gender divide: boys tend to wear clompy trainers, so run on their heels. The girls tend to wear ballet pumps (very minimal) so run forefoot. Peer-review needed.

• From engineering theory the lighter the shoe the faster/economic one can run. The cost is square of the mass/radius (IRRC). Also the gait is more efficient: heelrunners impose a big negative horizontal force upon themselves which they then have to negate with a big pushoff. A good forefoot runner can outpace them on ice (done it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontmech (talk • contribs) 08:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The POSE method isn't something that the elite universally do. Some do it, a lot of them don't and may not ever have heard of it (even among those who land with the forefoot). As to you informal survey... that doesn't really count for much. The evidence for less injuries is a bit weak and/or lacking at the moment, though that seems to be changing somewhat. I should go find the best studies on it, to show them to you, as you don't seem to be familiar with them. As to the gender divide... Sure some girls wear ballet flats, but mostly only when/if doing ballet. Mostly they wear something with an elevated heel, just like the rest. I don't buy that claim.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• POSE is just a formulation of what Romanov observed in the field; so the forefoot running predated him. His method is a commercial coaching method. And as you say, therefore, many elites haven't heard of POSE cos they didn't need to because they ran perfectly well anyway.
• "Ballet pumps" (as at least they are called in the UK) are generally worn by girls, very few of whom do ballet. Depends on where you live, but round here they outnumber the high shoes by quite a way, especially by children who play in the street.

Frontmech (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Shod Running as a topic?

I think this article demonstrates an interesting study regarding cultural assumptions. Since most humans living in developed countries typically wear shoes, is is assumed that not wearing shoes is deviant and therefore in need of some sort of justification. Since the dawn of man, humans have been traversing the earth either in bare feet or "minimalist" footwear (moccasins, sandals, etc.). While, based on this article, there appears to have been a considerable amount of effort devoted to studying the potential benefits of barefoot running, perhaps we should ask the question "What are the benefits of shod running or walking."

Without a doubt shoes have saved many a life by protecting our feet from industrial hazards, freezing cold, crush hazards, etc., but what is the result of having our feet encased and constrained by restrictive footwear most of the time. What are the long term consequences of the diminished proprioception we experience due to wearing rigid footwear.

There should be an article entitled "Shod Running" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.168.253 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There kinda is: Locomotor effects of shoes--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• As 71.238.... says: shoes are really just PPE: "gloves for feet". With gloves you wear appropriate to the activity: latex/nitrile for a light biochemical barrier, rubber grit for rougher work, riggers for tougher still and armoured for cricket. Footwear similar: steelies for heavy work, ..., flats to win races.

• Benefits: less injury and go faster/efficiently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zEruVUwr4. Note here "Pose" is a formulation of what the elites do anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyWhVbohhEw.

• In the introduction some mention should be made of the distinction between barefoot/minimal running and the "traditional" running shoes. Most readers will be unaware of the distinction.

Note that the major market is in heelrunning shoes (www passim). Any salesman in a shop will try to sell you heelrunning shoes, so most readers will only be aware of this method of running.

The biomechanics are quite different: A barefoot/minimal runner lands very gently (see Liebermann et al) on his forefoot, allows his heel to drop, then gently pushes off with the ball of the foot.

A wearer of heelrunning shoes is supposed to land on their heel with quite a straight leg, roll forward on their forefoot and then pushoff. In heelrunning shops big play is made of this and is integral to fitting the "correct" shoe for you: lots of "gait analysis".

This apparently only applies to roadrunning shoes, offroad you buy something like a flat. What the salesmen can't answer is why the binding material for the running surface makes such a difference. If tar is used to bind the macadam then you need a heelrunning shoe. If it is bound with clay or lime then you can run in flats/semi-flats.

• "Barefoot shoes": again a distinction should be made between truly minimal shoes and those "offering the barefoot experience". In a barefootExperience shoe, like the NikeFree, the feel is very soft squishy mud/grass, irrespective of the real surface (shape or material).

In a genuinely minimal shoe the ground can be felt properly. This allows ones foot to respond correctly to different angles and loads upon the foot. This in turn allows runners to go quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontmech (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As Zarlan says? I didn't say anything along those lines, here. Maybe elsewhere, as I do have that opinion, but not here. As to POSE, it's not universally accepted by neither elite athletes, nor scientists ...and it's more science-ish, than science (to say it went half way, when it comes to the scientific method, would be being generous). It has a lot better support than heel-striking, which only has tradition and armchair hypotheses, but please do not overstate the case. Please note, also, that I despise the term "barefoot shoe". If it's a shoe, you're foot is clearly not bare, and thus not barefoot. ...and while Nike Free claims to be close to barefoot, the barefoot/minimalist community doesn't tend to count it as a minimalist shoe. It's far to thick, has an elevated heel, isn't as flexible as it should be... It's often put in a, separate, "pseudo-minimalist" category.

...and could I advise you to take a look at A section below which is pretty much addressed towards you?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

":::As Zarlan says?" corrected: see above.

• POSE is just a named formulation that can be taught commercially. What Romanov has done is to approximate to what the natural elites do anyway. Watch the front of the pack and they run in a way that Romanov's method is trying to get people to emulate. Many coaches are aware of his work and use his ideas in their own training schedules.

• "Barefoot shoe" is a horrid term, possibly dreamt up by marketing men.

• The Nike Free is cited on the page as a barefoot shoe. It has a horrid squirmy sole with little blocks like party jelly so you get no feel of the ground. But to some people it may feel like "barefoot".

• Should not the "Barefoot inspired" section be divided/clarified to show the difference between real and pseudo shoes? Something like the Inov8 f-lite 195 or Asics Piranna is more of a real minimal shoe than any Nike Free could ever claim.

Frontmech (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that POSE tries to be what the elites do anyway, it is nevertheless a separate thing. To equate the two is intellectual laziness, and doesn't befit Wikipedia IMO. As to dividing shoes that claim to be minimalist, or more commonly, "barefoot" (and yes, I'd say that's a term from marketing)... By what criteria? Yours? Mine? That's no good. You need a, at least somewhat, authoritative source, that can provide a list or set of requirements, and I can't really think of any, at the moment. If you can, I would be delighted to hear about it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See also section

I removed an entry, fivefingers, that is covered in the article, per WP:SEEALSO. --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed article importance to high

Hi all, if you could check my logic on raising the importance level to high I would appreciate it. The WikiProject Running site lists barefoot running specifically as an example of high importance level articles. Furthermore, the Google test resulted in the following: About 3,880,000 results (0.21 seconds). Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.237.242 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The explanation of the mechanics.

Having done an action, even being trained to do it, is completely separate to whether or not one is good at explaining the concept, or even having understood it. It certainly doesn't imply that your good at understanding or explaining the things that are only related to it, either. I can see that you (Frontmech) seem to be a barefoot proponent and a barefooter, but so am I.

The loaded words "hard" and "gently" were not really appropriate there, and rather subjective (thus POV). The fact that heel-striking is more forceful, can be shown be studies, such as Liebermann's, but that is properly pointed out elsewhere in the article.

That aside, a lot of things in your edits (and I include you two previous ones) were confusing the issue and/or inaccurate, and sometimes even POV against being barefoot:

• Starting out by talking about heel-striking as the standard, and then deal with barefoot/minimalist running. Sure heel-striking is predominant, but the default is still barefoot. We shouldn't describe how barefoot is different from shod, but how shoes affect the natural state.
• Not all people who run with padded shoes, heel-strike, and not all who run barefoot/minimalist land with the forefoot or mid-foot. Most do, but it's not that black and white.
• To say that running minimalist or barefoot requires training is very misleading. It implies that it's something that is unintuitive and unnatural to human beings. It only requires training, if your feet have been trained to wear padded shoes, which will have made your body and mind adapted to it, and unfamiliar with the barefoot/minimalist state. This is true of most people, in the developed world, but that doesn't mean it's what comes more easily, for humans.

...and, of course, your needlessly lengthening the paragraph into several. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "barefoot proponent" as such, but I do run in minimal shoes. Not for any treehugging reason, just that it allows me to train without injury and beat most other runners.

Padded shoes are designed for heelrunning: all the marketing and salesman training is geared towards this method. Most stores insist on "gait analysis" before selling you some shoes. What they don't check for is whether you run forefoot or not, just whether when your heel touches down which way it rotates.

Even ignoring the salesmen it is about the only way you can sensibly use this sort of shoe. If you try to forefoot run then you find that their high heel fouls the action of your own (Euclid).

• As shown in Liebermann's study there is a huge impact when the heel touches the ground. This spike is absent when a forefoot runner lands his foot. So the words "hard" and "gently" are appropriate here.

• What is absent in Liebermann's study is the horizontal forces. So when you add the two components the forces for bare/minimal are much less. One demonstration is to measure the deformation of the mud or ice when different runners move down a track. A heelrunning women will tend to leave much deeper holes than the forefoot men, despite men being heavier. Also heelrunners fall over when running on icy roads, a forefoot runner barely alters his stride.

• Bill Sellers (@ Manchester Uni UK) has a computer model of a human leg. It is essentially a constrained hinged pendulum with a springy Achilles. The stiffness of the Achilles is crucial to efficient running. Also the mass needs to be kept inboard otherwise the lower leg can't move properly. This is why humans have their calf muscles concentrated at the top, rather than distributed as with other primates. The requirement to keep mass inboard is relevant to what to put on your feet.

• For children to learn to run forefoot is really easy because they just access their instinct and they should have enough strength to do it without specific training. I have watched them do it. Girls can do it the most easily because the ones I have observed wear less obstructive shoes (typically ballet pumps).

• For adults to start to land forefoot does take training because they are likely to have inadequate strength or flexibility in their lower legs. This is because these muscles/tendons don't really get used much in normal life. Even the most evangelical of coaches only recommend doing 100m sets initially.

• I agree that the natural state is to run forefoot. Older people ran that way anyway (any Brit born before 1970). You try to heelrun in plimsolls. However because of decades of marketing an uninitiated person would think that heelrunning was the "natural way".

Frontmech (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you're not so much a barefoot proponent, as a minimalist proponent. Salesmen and marketers, many of them, do take heel vs forefoot-striking into account, with certain kinds of padding for one, and certain kinds for others. Some might not, and some/all "gait analysis" machines may not, but still...

As to there being more force in heel-striking... Yes. I know. More neutral language would be advisable, however, such as "higher impact" (which Liebermann notes, hasn't been firmly shown to result in more injuries, though it has later been linked to some, at least) Please not how it's dealt with, where Liebermann's study is mentioned in the article.

"A heelrunning women will tend to leave much deeper holes than the forefoot men"? That sounds a bit dubious. One should compare similar sets to each other, not two different sets.

"Also heelrunners fall over when running on icy roads, a forefoot runner barely alters his stride." That sounds like speculation. Speculation I would tend to agree with, and for which one could make arguments based on biomechanics, but speculation, none the less.

"However because of decades of marketing an uninitiated person would think that heelrunning was the "natural way"" ...which is exactly why you shouldn't reinforce such a view (whilst never the less being aware that people will tend to have it).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You (Zarlan) are about right but missing some points:

All the gait analysis machines I have seen in a commercial setting (i.e. not in a lab) only view the runner from behind. They are a webcam and a treadmill with some software on a laptop. How is it supposed to analyse sagittal plane movements? What it can see is lateral movements. So anybody who fails to land hard on their heels will probably show up as "neutral" or "mild pronator". Not suprising really because that's how the geometry of the foot/ankle works.

On heel impact there is a much bigger force where the foot strikes the ground than when a forefoot landing is used. What Liebemann's data frustratingly can't show is the even larger impact forces that one experiences, and would expect, when running on uneven ground: for example a real tarmac road.

On injuries: local club members report different set of "injuries" dependant on running style. The forefoot runners initially report sore calves quite a lot, but these diminish with time. The heelrunners seem to mostly get progressive cartilage injures, and so have to stop running. But I agree more peer-review to cite is needed.

The reason for showing heelrunning women only is finding a large enough cohort locally that can do it properly. But eiher way men, being heavier, should make bigger holes in the mud, but the forefoot ones don't.

Sliding on ice: I have watched it. Roads round here get very icy during the winter. Because of the horizontal forces that a heelrunner imposes (draw a vector diagram from Liebermann's videos), they frequently exceed their limiting friction. In order to stay upright they have to use ultra-short strides. However a forefoot runner doesn't slide much, and this is because he doesn't exceed limiting friction.

Because heelrunners think this is "the natual way", the intro needs to include some umabigous text. This is what I did add, but got removed.

On further thought maybe a branch between "barefoot" and "minimal" running. Then the "barefoot" page would be less cluttered with biomechanics issues. The "true-minimal" page can then deal with the proper biomechanics. But the "barefoot" page should include discussion of real barefoot and differentiate between the true & pseudo barefoot shoes.Frontmech (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the gait analysis, maybe all the machines are like that (actually I think I've seen something different, but I didn't really look that closely), but that doesn't mean that all marketing and salesmen only look at heel-striking. Some do, I am sure, but certainly not all. ...or maybe they do now, but didn't, a short while ago ...or something else.

As to the injuries... Well anecdotal evidence isn't really worth much, and can't be mentioned on wikipedia, without a proper source (not, e.g., a blog).

When it comes to sliding on ice... Well anecdotal evidence is worthless in science, and wikipedia doesn't approve of original research, so it's still not really any better than speculation.

As to branching, I don't really see the point ...and I've already pointed out that we can't, on Wikipedia, categorize what is a proper minimalist shoe and what isn't.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The shoe manufacturers seem to think that people run on their heels: http://www.asics.co.uk/running/knowledge/how-we-run-the-gait-cycle/, http://www.asics.co.uk/running/knowledge/understanding-pronation/

Asics store, has a typical "gait analysis" machine: see righthand pic (looking over woman's shoulder) http://www.asics.co.uk/about/asics-london-store/services/.

Nowhere do they mention that the majority of runners over history were forefoot runners (i.e. all born before 1970 and many current in developing countries).

Original research as such is not needed WRT sliding on ice, it is an obvious outcome of school level physics.

Frontmech (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As to gait analysis: Whatever, it doesn't really matter to the discussion, anyway.

As to sliding on ice... an obvious outcome of school level physics? I'm sorry but that is speculation. No better than the speculation that lead to thinking that padding shoes, would lead to less impact forces, or that heel-striking would be better, as it should let you cover more ground per stride. Find a reliable source, that verifies that heel-striking makes you more prone to slide, and it can go into the article (even if it hasn't gone through proper tests. Wikipedia's standards are not the same as those of science). If not, it can't and will be counted as original research, simply your subjective opinion and/or anecdotal evidence.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Gait analysis was only mentioned as a demonstration that the majority of the running shoe industry says that people should run on their heels. Look anywhere on the internet and see if you can find a manufacturer that says any different. So this demonstrates that the marketing, and hence "advice" that runners get, is that heelrunning is the "natural way".

Where forefoot striking is mentioned then it is in the context that only specially weird elites could possibly do it, which is far from the truth (Liebermann et al).

So what other interpretation is possible?

At the risk of showing a commercial interest, Inov-8 seem to be the only manufacturer that bucks this trend. They mostly sell trail shoes, but recently have branched into roadrunning. They may play of their shoes being light and flexible, the opposite of the majority.

Again sliding on ice, this is not the central point I was making, it is a demonstration that heelrunners impose large horizontal forces upon themselves. The more switched on running coaches point this out and get us to run more efficiently. Given that school level physics is true (Newtonian mechanics and force vectors), then it follows that the heelrunners would be more likely to fall over when running on ice. And again, drawing the force vectors from Liebermann's video frames we can see the horizontal forces are minimal for forefoot. Frontmech (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that heel-striking is assumed to be natural, better and/or common (well it is common, but as to the rest...). What you say about sliding on ice is still subject to the problems I mentioned (and actually, you should be well aware that Newtonian physics isn't true. It's simple and mostly accurate, which is why it's still used, but it's just simply wrong). As to Inov-8... They are kinda minimalist, but not entirely, from what I've heard. If you want commercial footwear that are most true to minimalism, there is Vibram Fivefingers (well their earlier models. I don't think much of their later models, such as the Trek, Speed and Bikila, which have a significant cushioned mid-sole), Terra Plana's VivoBarefoot brand, Feelmax... Those are, BTW, pretty much the three, who's minimalism everyone agrees on.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that heelrunning is assumed by the greater public to be the "natural" and "correct" way to run then the barefoot page should a) show that there is another way to run b) disabuse them of their misconception. This was why I edited to make it clear, unlike your paragraph.

Then problem with "barefoot"/"minimalist" running is that it is perceived as a "weird hippy thing". The barefoot page is long and rambling, without a clear definition at the top. As I have pointed out before the cleverer running coaches teach this kind of running, not for treehugging reasons, but to get their students to win races and reduce injury rates/profile. Sadly they don't publish so can't be cited.

Newtonian mechanics is true enough for things moving at small portions of the speed of light, so for this discussion it accurately applies even to Usain Bolt. This is why most physicists/engineers use it, but being aware of the caveat. Were we to find a runner going over 10^8m/s, then we would have to reconsider.

Inov-8 are much more minimalist than most other manufacturers. Their walking boots are about the weight of other manfuacturer's running shoes (e.g. Saucony ProGrid Triumph 8 vs. most of the Inov-8 catalog). Reading their product descriptions they mostly show off the merits of being thin/light/flexible. But the comptetion crow about how much padding and rigity you will be getting. This would be fine if they were designing some steelies, but not for something in which you would wish to run.

Defining "minimalism" objectively is quite hard. You could do it by weight, cos that can be measured. But then that would include many shoes that aren't marketed as "minimalist". Defining by "intent" is highly subjective and dependant on the manufacturer's blurb. If we go by weight and flexibility then it would include racing flats, and these aren't marketed as "minimalist".

Do dime-store plimsolls count as "minimalist"? They aren't marketed as such, but they are lighter, more flexible and thinner than most branded minimalist shoes. And have the benefit of being much cheaper than any of the competition.

Again an objective definition of "pseudo-minimalist" is needed, but hard to find/derive. The least bad definition I can come up with at the moment is along the lines of "how much marketing b***sh*t is there in relation to measurable minimalism". Frontmech (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"This was why I edited to make it clear, unlike your paragraph" How was your edit more clear, and how was "my" edit not so?

"Were we to find a runner going over 10^8m/s, then we would have to reconsider" lol. Good point. Still, the other issues do still apply.

"Inov-8 are much more minimalist than most other manufacturers" That's not much of an achievement. Are they more minimalist than most brands that claim to be minimalist? Maybe so. ...but are they actually minimalist?

As to what should count as minimalist, and what not... As I said, there are not proper definitions we can cite. When it comes to more personal and subjective definitions, however... According to me you'd have to have:

• As thin a sole as you can manage. (if it's over 6mm, it best be for a good reason. If it's over 7mm, there best be a really good reason)
• As little cushioning as you can manage ...with no foam or the such.
• As much flexibility as you can manage. In the sole, but also in the upper, so it won't restrict the sole. If you can't, at least, roll the whole shoe up in a cylinder, its minimalism status is dubious.
• Enough space for the toes to splay, at least.
• Zero heel elevation.
• Zero toe spring. (actually, most minimalist shoes do have some toe spring, though with the flex, you don't tend to notice...)
• Zero arch support, or any other support.

Note that none of those requirements involve weight (and I have yet to encounter a definition that does) ...and plimsolls, much like converses, are too thick-soled and too tight in the toe-box, to really count as minimalist.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WRT clarity: my version uses one short paragraph to show describe heelrunning, then another linked one to describe forefoot, yours mushes the two together, and is therefore less clear. At school we were told that a paragraph should contain a single idea and then possibly finish with a link to the next paragraph where relevant.

I would roughly agree with your definition(s):

• Some plimsolls do fit the description. The converses to which you refer are quite heavy, but really cheap plimsolls (about GBP 5/pair) have a thin sole (once the insole has compressed and meaure to the inboard part of the tread is about 3mm. And they match the roll test. But then my steelies (S1P) match that better than most running shoes especially MBTs.
• Toebox tightness isn't a useful test, because that is a property of your footshape relative to what last the manufacturer chose. From the Inov-8s I have seen they do seem to have a narrow toebox. If you want zero constraint then you have to dispense with a toebox entirely, such as with a Tarahumara huarache. Toes don't need to splay, just not be constrained.
• Apart from the small (i.e. no-zero) heellift in racing flats then they too comply. Most of the Inov-8 catalog, Asics Piranha, NB RC130, ... .
• Another criteria related to minimalism is that of cradle to grave resources in the shoe. This touched on by some marketing, but again most manufacturers miss the point.

So it would seem that "minimalism" is a matter of degree. But the "pseudo-minimalists" do need to be exposed. Frontmech (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your ideas of one-idea-one-paragraph, is one that isn't adhered to. Not on wikipedia, nor in newspapers, websites (professional or otherwise), books etc. Or even by you. Well that is to say, not in the strict way you seem to look at it. Besides, since when is the number of paragraphs, the single measure of clarity for a text? ...and you dealt with heel-striking first, implying that it is the standard.

As to the idea that toe-box tightness isn't important... Not only do tight toe-boxes cause deformation of ones toes, but it restricts the movement of the toes. Not just because they are squeezed together and basically cannot move, but if the toes cannot also splay, that is a constraint. Toes regularly splay, when they move barefooted. It's a part of how your feet move and balance, when in their natural state.

Weight is irrelevant, as I've said, but due to the other concerns (thin sole and flexible upper, mainly), minimal shoes tend to be light, so it kinda gets affected indirectly, though it's minimalist ideal that make it lighter rather than the lightness making it more minimalist. Cradle to grave resources in the shoe (which Terra Plana does take into account, BTW), however, is something that has to do with how environmental the shoe is. It has nothing to do with, nor any impact on, how much, or how little, the foot can move and/or feel, as if it were barefoot. I.e. it has absolutely nothing to do with how minimalist the shoe is. Neither directly, not indirectly, in any way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Toebox tightness is not relevant criterion for "minimalism", no running shoe should ever be tight on ones feet. It is the tight and badly fitting shoes that many people wear that cause many of the foot deformities that one sees. How deformed your feet are is partially a function of your shoe-wearing history. However it is quite possible to wear properly fitted shoes that don't negatively impact upon ones feet.

As I said above: which shoes you will need is dependant upon what your own foot shape happens to be. Manufacturers use quite a variety of lasts and finding the right shoe shape can be quite a long hunt. Some people can be lucky and find the right last first time.

Again: some racing flats are more minimalist than many so called "minimalist" shoes. E.g. a Terra Plana Evo is a heavy galosh relative to a Mizuno Universe: it weighs more, has a less breathable upper, the sole wraps up the side, so reducing drainage. Frontmech (talk) 08:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A tight toe-box will, as I have pointed out, make ones toes completely unable splay and generally incapable of moving them at all. Both those things are constraint and restrictions upon how one is able to move and stand. Our toes are not there, just for decoration. They splay, grasp and move in many ways, when barefoot. They can barely do anything in a regular shoe, however, due to the tight toe-box (and a stiff sole doesn't help, but even with flex, that only gives some, limited, up and/or down movement). How can that possibly be regarded as irrelevant? Please elaborate.

As to deformation, and I certainly mean deformation, I will admit that it's mainly tight toe-boxes worn during childhood, and might not have a huge impact on adult footwear use, but still... I've barely seen anyone, in a developed country, whose toes aren't, more or less, deformed. Many slightly, many very much so ...and the toes (the bis toe most visibly, with the little toe second) aren't the only bit of a developed country foot, that is pretty much always deformed, to conform to the footwear.

The Evo is heavier than the Mizuno Universe? More breathable? How is that relevant? How does the weight and/or breathability affect ones posture, relative to being barefoot? How does it change and/or restrict ones movements and/or gait, compared to being barefoot?

Answer: In no way what so ever.

Conclusion: Those criteria are in no way relevant to minimalism ...and I have explained why.

Please enlighten me, as to your reasons and arguments. You have, as yet, not even tried to explain, why the tightness of the toe-box shouldn't be regarded as relevant (you said a bunch of stuff that wasn't, in any way, relevant to the discussion, but no attempt at an explanation of why it's not relevant), nor why weight or breathability should be. If you just make claims, without any explanation or argument, that doesn't really tell me anything, and isn't particularly convincing. I would appreciate it if you attempt to remedy this, unless you've changed your mind.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The intro states that barefoot runners push off with their forefeet. From what I understood, a barefoot runner is supposed to lift their feet from the ground with their upper leg, not push off with their feet because pushing off puts more stress on the foot arch and ankle. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)