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

My friend is really into this (but doesn't want to get tetanus). He wears these

 

I don't think he can run faster barefoot shoes without practice. The muscle structure reflects him having shoes--likely one with a high heel sole and lower toe sole. His muscles are based on this; particularly, I've found that the calf muscles are overly stressed with running shoes. However, that means that the muscles that need to be stressed while bare foot are weaker, at least for now. Furthermore, his feet are much more tender than any proto-human or early human ever had -- the constant pressure on the foot will probably be too painful for him to sustain a strong sprint for long.

 

I wouldn't worry to much about tetanus at least if you get some injections for it.. We get those here in the Netherlands just to make sure you won't have to worry about getting it. Not sure if you're getting those too? Else I'd worry more about infections entering your foot when you have a wound.

That´s most likely, if you watch the movie that Sythe posted, because you land on your calcaneus (heel if I'm right) first. Your calf muscles (M. Gastrocnemius & M. soleus) have their insertion, through the achilles tendon at the calcaneus. Therefore those muscles are being stressed everytime you land on your feet. They're building up in tension and eventually you feel the all known muscle pain at the end of the day. At least this is my analysis.

I am not sure about this part: "However, that means that the muscles that need to be stressed while bare foot are weaker, at least for now.". I've been observing both movies Sythe posted for a while now. There is a difference between landing on shoes (Where you're landing for on the heel, then on the rest of your feet) and barefoot (landing on the forefoot first, then the rest). I am doubting though on your opinion that the other muscles are weaker. I think the energy of coming down will be better divided on the muscles.

What kind of sprint are you thinking about? What kind of underground do you mean? I can run easily on sand and the roads here. The only thing I should worry about is not stepping in a piece of glass or something like that. It's easy to run with barefoot on a smooth surface. It becomes a different story when the underground is like one of a mountain. You'll need to train enough to gain more callus on your feet.

 

I wouldn't understand the healthier part for you - which in a case I do. Wouldn't you think it'd depend on where you're actually running?

Testing that I actually went outside, and ran barefoot. I took my results, as I did it on a paved road. (yes, it was pretty cold) but when I was running, I found that I was actually using my toes to have a "jumping start" for each foot-step I took.

Shoes, don't they just weigh you down? I understand how it'd be healthier because when your foot is trapped inside of a shoe all day, it gets sweaty, and could in a sense, lose oxygen.

It's also faster, when you're running because it's a less weight for you to carry, but I'd have to debate with the easier. The different kind of surface/turf you're on would have to be an easy source of flat ground. If it's all sandy, (exampling you're on a beach) it's harder to run both ways, but it's easier to run barefooted, as it's easier to adapt.

 

That´s most likely what I tried to tell in an earlier post of mine, but then on muscle and connective tissue level. The reason they run this way is to minimize the energy they have to use from the own body, there for running more economically.

 

How much energy are you really minimizing?

 

That can't really be answered definitively due to all the variables, but from reading Sythe's abbreviation of the Harvard research (which I still haven't skimmed through fully) classical mechanics dictates that you're expending much less energy to run barefoot due to the way you're running as your feet act like springs essentially giving you momentum into the next step which would otherwise have been absorbed by your footwear.

 

I will say when I tried this a few years ago, that barefoot I can churn my legs faster then I can with shoes on and it was beyond a reasonable doubt I could also accelerate faster.

Note I dont run around barefoot except in my backyard.

 

With training I thought it could go up to 30%. I'll re-check it tomorrow.

 

I'm going to try this, I used to be a cross country runner and I have won a few medals for my speed in the past, not surprisingly I have never ran/sprinted in barefoot before (except around the garden or something).
I'll try it out and tell you what I think

 

I can't try it out for a while other than someplace indoors, stupid Canada and their ridiculous winters.

 

The guy on Dual Survivor you mentioned is exactly who I thought when I read the topic title.

It sounds good on paper, but you run the danger of having your feet less protected against sharp objects. Is it worth the risk?

 

Australia's strongest man (the councilor at my school) wears these. Makes me lol every time.

 

30% was indeed the right number. Kangaroo´s can get up to 60%-70%.

Risks of running 42 km's on light shoes with hard sole's increase the risk of injury's. So It's hard to answer that question precisely. You could, in theory, get an injury to all parts in your feet.

 

The counciler is a boss pair of shoes.

 

"Swallow your eagle" lol.

He was very interesting to listen to.

I agree there is a sense of freedom you feel when you run around bare foot. I enjoy walking around without socks or shoes because it feels comfortable and natural. I can see how someone would be a faster runner shoeless; every groove in your foot is being used to dig into the ground for that extra push. With shoes on you don't get that extra dig in the ground because the flat soles eliminate the benefits that the grooves in your feet have. I guess this is why sprinters (and most runners in general) have spikes in their shoes; to dig into the ground for that extra push. Would you say that running bare foot has the advantage over running with actual sprinting shoes in a 100m dash though? To me the spikes seem better.

I'd probably laugh at someone wearing these.. they would look like an ape aha. Imagine them in those + black jeans + a black hoody.

 

When I run barefoot, I don't know if I necessarily AM faster, but I definitely FEEL faster.

 

Accepting what you've said (which I'm not sure is true) that is more likely for the average semi-sedentary person, not the person training barefoot and eventually reaching that level of fitness, endurance and 'hardening' of their feet. I used to train lifting weights but always wore gloves and wrapped my hands because I hated how they felt on my hands with the grooves leaving marks in my hands - I was with a girl at my local gym once and trying to be the show off that I thought I was tried lifting an even smaller amount than I usually crank out easily but barely edged it out because my hands couldn't take it. This probably isn't in direct congruence with this topic, but I hope to get my point across.

I think he meant "ego" not "eagle".

 

This is my source: J.J. de Morree (2008). Dynamiek van het menselijk bindweefsel. Functie, beschadiging en herstel. (vijfde herziene druk).Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghem.

EDIT: Picture

Chapter 7, paragraph 7.2: Bijdrage bindweefsel aan spiercontractie. Pages: 174 till 180.

All written in dutch though, so if you could find the pages on the net I'd suggest using google translate.

 

Being a hobby runner myself, the first thing that comes to mind is cold. Shoes keep you relatively warm during these months. My instincts tell me that barefoot running is more pleasant on a smooth surface (eg. grass), but somehow I can't see myself jogging without shoes.