Tweet
Apparently not. In fact, shoes are probably doing more harm than good. There has been a lot of talk of this in the scientific and fitness communities for a few years now, but here's more evidence:
Yesterday's report from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128626037
a study from a few months ago:
Other studies have found that the incidence of running injuries has increased exponentially since the invention of modern running shoes in the 1970's.
Even the company most to blame, Nike, apparently knows this and has since 2006 sold the Nike Free line of shoes; very minimalist shoes with virtually no support that mimic barefoot running while obviously protecting you from heroine needles.
Yesterday's report from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128626037
a study from a few months ago:
"Most runners, when they land and they heel-strike — they land on their heel — they generate this sudden impulse, this sharp spike of force. So it's like someone hitting you on the heel with a hammer, about 1 1/2 to 3 times your body weight," he says.
Most shod runners land on their heels, which generates a sudden, sharp spike of force. Barefoot runners land farther forward, closer to the ball of their foot, which exerts much less force in comparison.
But Lieberman was surprised by the extremely low force readings made by the barefoot runner.
"He ran across the force plate, and he didn't have [a high spike], and I thought, gee, that's really amazing, and it kind of makes sense because that spike of force hurts, and I wonder if other barefoot runners do that."
So Lieberman tested several groups of runners: Kenyans who'd been walking and running barefoot all their lives; Americans who grew up walking and running in shoes; and some who had switched from shoes to running barefoot.
Lieberman found that runners in shoes usually landed heel-first. Barefoot runners landed farther forward, either on the ball of their foot or somewhere in the middle of the foot, and then the heel came down — much less collisional force.
And people who switched from shoes to barefoot running eventually, without prompting, adopted the barefoot style. Lieberman, who runs marathons himself, says the reason is simple.
"It's pain avoidance. It's very easy to do. I mean, your body naturally tells you what to do," he says.
Running shoes dampen the shock of a heel-first landing, so that's probably why shod people run that way, Lieberman says.
But is that the most efficient way to run? Lieberman thinks not.
"Turns out that the way in which barefoot runners run seems to store up more energy," he says.
To understand how that works, I talked to anthropologist Brian Richmond at George Washington University. He points out that the human foot has an arch with ligaments inside that stretch and contract with every footfall.
"It allows the arch of the foot and the calf muscles to act as a better spring and to store up energy, and then give it back in the beginning of the next step," Richmond says.
Think of a compressed mattress spring pushed down and then released. Richmond agrees with Lieberman that the front-first landing of barefoot running probably capitalizes on that spring mechanism more than heel-first landing — it gets more spring out of the spring.
Most shod runners land on their heels, which generates a sudden, sharp spike of force. Barefoot runners land farther forward, closer to the ball of their foot, which exerts much less force in comparison.
But Lieberman was surprised by the extremely low force readings made by the barefoot runner.
"He ran across the force plate, and he didn't have [a high spike], and I thought, gee, that's really amazing, and it kind of makes sense because that spike of force hurts, and I wonder if other barefoot runners do that."
So Lieberman tested several groups of runners: Kenyans who'd been walking and running barefoot all their lives; Americans who grew up walking and running in shoes; and some who had switched from shoes to running barefoot.
Lieberman found that runners in shoes usually landed heel-first. Barefoot runners landed farther forward, either on the ball of their foot or somewhere in the middle of the foot, and then the heel came down — much less collisional force.
And people who switched from shoes to barefoot running eventually, without prompting, adopted the barefoot style. Lieberman, who runs marathons himself, says the reason is simple.
"It's pain avoidance. It's very easy to do. I mean, your body naturally tells you what to do," he says.
Running shoes dampen the shock of a heel-first landing, so that's probably why shod people run that way, Lieberman says.
But is that the most efficient way to run? Lieberman thinks not.
"Turns out that the way in which barefoot runners run seems to store up more energy," he says.
To understand how that works, I talked to anthropologist Brian Richmond at George Washington University. He points out that the human foot has an arch with ligaments inside that stretch and contract with every footfall.
"It allows the arch of the foot and the calf muscles to act as a better spring and to store up energy, and then give it back in the beginning of the next step," Richmond says.
Think of a compressed mattress spring pushed down and then released. Richmond agrees with Lieberman that the front-first landing of barefoot running probably capitalizes on that spring mechanism more than heel-first landing — it gets more spring out of the spring.
Even the company most to blame, Nike, apparently knows this and has since 2006 sold the Nike Free line of shoes; very minimalist shoes with virtually no support that mimic barefoot running while obviously protecting you from heroine needles.
Comment