Barefoot running -- healthier faster easier than running in shoes?

I don't really see direct research of barefoot running vs. using running shoes.

He factors in social, diet and other factors and doesn't really focus on running shoes vs. barefoot running.

I remember reading a few articles a while ago stating that there's vast anecdotal evidence suggesting that barefoot running helps to ease/prevent chronic injuries due to the human anatomy being more suited to barefoot running than usage of footwear. This is due to the fact that the heel strikes the ground while using footwear whereas the lateral (outer) part of the foot does with barefoot running. I started running last summer and stopped in the fall doing so barefoot and noticed a lot less 'stress' on my body compared to running with different types of shoes - the first few times my feet hurt due to them being accustomed to cushion pads and carpets but they were quickly conditioned to run outdoors.

 

The video is certainly compelling. I cannot disagree that milennia of evolution have evolved our feet as nearly the best suitable things to walk on. The main reasons we wear shoes are social reasons and that shoes give protection from the elements. However, running barefoot for a few months should toughen your feet up enough, invalidating the second case.

However, I'm with Insidious in that I've never seen any actual evidence other than anecdotal evidence. The logic seems sound, but logic is often sound only until it is tested experimentally. Indeed, the human body isn't perfect, and a quality shoe can correct individual flaws. As an avid runner, I can wholeheartedly attest that there is only one pair of running shoes in the entire back room of a shoe store that will work for each person. Any other shoe will cause discomfort of some kind. Maybe bare feet are better than crappy Wal Mart running shoes, but finding the right complement is even better than barefoot running?

 

Well I doubt there will be research surfacing in support of barefoot running as it won't be financially conducive to companies that could actually afford to do so.

With vast anecdotal evidence coupled with logic, I'd say that barefoot running is almost certainly better than running with footwear aside from special cases (existing injuries etc).

 

I've seen a lot of anecdotal advocates as well. Some of our track workouts were conducted barefoot, and if any of you guys watch "Dual Survivor", you'll see a survivor expert who swears by it. Also, Nike invested itself in a line of shoes "Nike Free" and they seem to support similar ideas.

In the end, as has been pointed out, even if conclusive research shows this to be a certainty, I don't think any major societal changes will be happening any time soon.

 

Im fairly sure that I'm faster with my shoes on.

 

@ sythe:

from the link you posted:

If impact transient forces contribute to some forms of injury, then this style of running (shod or barefoot) might have some benefits, but that hypothesis remains to be tested.

 

I'm WAY faster without my shoes.

 

I'll see if I can find someone willing to stopwatch me

 

I didn't look for evidence this time, but I did few years ago and got very few results I really didn't understand at the time.

And yes I am suggesting that researchers likely won't spend much time and money investigating ways of being healthier that won't help them financially in any way. Not to shift the topic but how are you supposed to make money/benefit from telling people to run barefoot?

 

Never tried really, could be like that.

 

I've also heard a lot about the "barefoot shoes" that are like condoms for you feet, just protect you from getting cut and whatnot. They have always interested me but I've never taken the time to do any research on them.

 

Point taken, but with a grain of salt I can say that:

• Some dentists have incentives to recommend certain brands
  
• Some doctors will offer a patch, gum or other aid that they gain some incentive to recommend
  
• Some nutritionists will offer supplements/vitamins or other brands of food etc. because they receive an incentive to do so

 

Makes sense. I'll try this sometime.

 

Except to prove it is incredibly difficult to do so and it may not necessarily damage your body. However there may much more efficient and cheap ways that they won't tell you about.

As for the doctor scenario, I can't formulate my rebuttal into a sensible format right now thanks to my lack of sleep. :embar:

Either way point taken, my view still stands that there won't be extensive research (or research results published) on alternatives that don't offer a way to create some sort of profit for the researchers.