We Evolved to Run But We're Doing It Wrong (opens in new tab)

Maybe I can chime in here, I've been running competitively through HS, College, and some marathons after. Barefoot running is only revolutionary to some people because it correctly aligns the incentives to have proper form. If you're barefoot/vibram running with proper form, you'll pretty much instantly feel all this discomfort of the impacts in your heel, knee, and back. This discomfort doesn't exist when you're in a very cushy pair of trainers. This is why it's become such a big thing, people all of a sudden understand why running can be fun, because they're doing it correctly for the first time in their lives.

I don't think barefoot running is inherently bad for you long term or anything, I've had friends do 80+ mpw, including trail/gravel running in vibrams with no problem. Those guys/gals are < 140 lbs with impeccable form though.

I think barefoot running can be an amazing way to "teach" people the correct way to run, but for most people, they should take that form and move it over to a shoe that does have a bit of impulse reduction. There are many steps between vibrams and super cushy shoes.

Look for something with a low heel toe drop/offset (I'm at 4mm right now) so that your heel isn't forced to land before your midfoot. Racing flats are gonna be just a step up from vibrams, then you get into shoes like the Saucony Kinvara, which remove some durability from the heel (which doesn't really matter as you're landing on your forefoot) to reduce weight but still have padding.

Running shouldn't hurt anything other than your pride. If you're feeling pain, don't run. Don't be scared about going to your local shoe store and having them show you what's up. Happy trails.

As a lifelong athlete the on-your-toes style of barefoot running is the best way to run. If you cannot run on your toes you are not built to run. There are rare heel-running sportspeople but running is not their competitive strength. Over long distances it is easy to fall back on heel-running out of laziness, because the impact is absorbed more by joints and less by tired muscles, but that is a failure of fitness and a sub-optimal style.

Barefoot vs shoes is more of a personal choice. A cushioned heel can permit bad style by reducing pain, whereas barefoot forces proper technique or else breaks your feet. However proper technique once you have it doesn't depend on footwear.

I agree with you that there is no proof that barefoot running is better for you, but the problem is there is no proof that cushioned shoes are better for you either...

I have been a minimalist/barefoot runner for 4 years and have run a 50 mile ultramarathon and am currently training for 100 mile ultramarathon. I am constantly asked how/why I do it and the best answer that I can come up with is because I like the way it feels. I feel light on my feet and strong. That being said I would only recommend someone to use minimalist shoes if they truely believes it will be better for them over the long run. When I transitioned it took me 4 years of have sore arches, achillies, and calf musles. Because of this inital pain most people use this as proof that it is bad for you. I spent a lot of time with rollers working out pain in my legs. My muscle and tendons have now become strong enough that I don't get pain. In the last three years I haven't once had a running injury and I average around 50 to 60 miles a week.

I view minimalist running as a long term benifit to me. I want to be able to run into my 60s and 70s. I have consciously made the gamble that minimalist running will allow me to do that. Time will tell if the gamble pays off or not.

I agree.

Evidence out there seems to suggest that trainers are bad by overcushioning the feet or placing the body in a bad position, but...

For example, I'm sure our neolithic ancestors ran long distances because they had to. There's nothing implicit in this about whether it's good for us, and we don't know how many of them got eaten or died because they had bum knees!

Are you me?!?

I too went all in on the numbers, heart rate monitor, detailed running plans, 5k competitive park runs every weekend. I thought I should run at least x times a week or I'm doing it wrong.

Holy cow, did it suck the enjoyment out of it. Having MapMyRun shout in my ear every kilometer meant I couldn't just zone out and enjoy the run.

Then I fell down some stairs at a tube station in London and popped my patella. Fortunately it popped straight back in, and it healed on its own but it took months and it was over winter so I stopped running.

When I got back in to it I decided it was time to go "au naturel". No head phones, no shouty applications, just me and the road. I've kept it up, and don't ever plan to go back to my former approach. I've also found that if I switch up cycling and running there's less strain on my healed knee whilst still allowing me to exercise 2 - 3 times a week. I always recommend to people now that if they can they should cycle and run.

I think we as humans really need to learn a line between medical treatments and help-your-self. Medicine is dolled out far too easily, when as you mentioned, activity that our body is meant to do is so much more effective.

The simply things in life like exercise are so amazing for us. At work I have back problems, yet they completely go away as long as I keep my core in check. I did this by simply buying a pull up bar for easy upper body workouts and almost like magic, the pain is gone. As an aside, physical activity (mild lifting weights, and pull-ups) also seems to stay off repetitive elbow pain I was having from computers too.

We're simply machines being used wrong and seeking incorrect fixes. Medicine is obviously needed in many cases - running won't fix everything.. but I wish doctors would be harder on people. We know what helps, we know what fixes things. Doctors seem almost to be enablers, more than anything. Almost to a harmful degree..

Yes, I don't run for time, either, nor do I run with earphones on. I just jog, and my mind drifts off to work on some problem or other.

Having been to a run clinic, I can absolutely call bull on the claim "Footwear is irrelevant, here.". At least the run clinic I went to assured me multiple times that my impression that wearing "trainers" specifically and greatly increases the difficulty of running "correctly" by striking with the middle of your foot with slightly bent knee. The large heel of virtually all training shoes makes landing in the middle of your foot extremely difficult - especially if you're unfamiar with that way of landing your foot.

Footwear does matter, at least until you know intuitively how to do the motions. I never did master a mid foot strike, the closest I was ever able to get was not landing on my heel quite as hard, essentially rolling off it quickly.

I liked the pair of vibrams I wore until I wore through the rubber sole, but they are a bit expensive, and my foot shape means me pinky toe doesn't really fit up into the to things, I rather thought it unnecessary overall to separate the toes. I've been on the lookout for good places to run entirely barefoot as well, but I'm not as daring as some. :)

Agreed. The notion (expressed in the article) that most people don't require training to run correctly is patently false.

Most people aren't even breathing correctly, the idea that you can pick up after decades in schools and sedentary jobs and start running miles with no input in a way that won't get you hurt is rather dangerous.

Most people don't go to running clinics, because there's no obvious reason to assume that you need to be taught how to do something that you've been doing just fine since you were three. It's extremely counterintuitive, and I don't think you can really blame most people for getting it wrong.

> Any reputable running clinic will teach you to make contact with the ground at the middle of your foot with a slightly bent knee.

Honestly, I'm shocked anyone lands heel first anyway. I was never a runner.. but even as a youth, I didn't do this. It was obvious what felt good, and what felt good was engaging the knee and ankle, using them as springs, etc etc.

I don't understand why people need to be taught how to run. Very strange to me.

Most runners I see around here have never been to a clinic.

How is it even possible to not run in this fashion? I mean, the way you described it, is what running is right? I can't even picture someone running and landing on the heel or back of their foot. That would resemble some kind of bizarre speed-marching technique. I've never seen anyone in my life run like that.

I've been running recreationally since high school, I average about 20 miles/week, an even mix of road/trail. I'm also a bit heavier than a typical avid recreational runner, putting more stress on my legs and feet.

Having gone through a variety of shoes, I'd like to caution people about the minimalistic shoe trend, especially if you run mostly on pavement. It's true that overly cushioned shoes can cause heel strike and poor form. But switching to ultralight shoes can cause much worse problems. Ultralights provide little/no lateral/pronation support, increase exposure to rolling and road hazards due to the more flexible sole, more easily pinch nerves and ligaments on the top of the foot, and make it harder to relax your leg muscles (increasing the likelihood of irritated ligaments and cramped muscles).

If ultralight shoes work for you, that's great. But if you're a casual runner, I would urge you to visit a good running store that analyzes your gait, and try on a variety of models. Many shoe makers assume a particular shape of foot. You need to try a number of shoes to see which ones fit you best. Don't try to pick the most or least cushioned shoe based on some mantra you've heard.

Also, "pushing off with your heel" is not a thing. It's impossible to finish the liftoff from the heel while running. You can talk about the angle at which most of the liftoff force is delivered, or whether the heel descends to contact the ground at all (vs. running on your toes), but you don't push off with your heel while running.

P.S. The biggest improvements to my running (aside from switching from ultralight back to stability shoes) came from joining a running club, and from buying a Garmin GPS watch and tracking my workouts against my friends from the club on Strava. So the only premise in the article that I agree with is that treadmills are silly :)

You're right. Thanks.

Pushing off with the heel is actually specifically (if indirectly) part of what I'm working on with the bodyworker I mentioned, even. I really should have completed the thought.

Thanks for catching and clarifying that.

Or, don't push off with your heel, if that's more natural to you and is what your body is conditioned for.

Do you have some more information on this? Are you talking about running on paved road, or in (rough) terrain? I admit I have some difficulty visualizing how you combine landing on the ball of your foot with pushing off with the heel (so I at least agree that it doesn't feel natural :-).

I use that technique without Vibrams. I remember years ago when I learnt proper running, same feeling about the calves. So I think it has to do with the technique rather than the shoes.

I'd like to add: if things aren't going well for you running more may not be the answer.

Source: I learned all about my terrible running form that kept sending me back to physical therapy by a doctor who actually bothered to look at me running and cared enough about the biomechanics to tell me what I was doing wrong.

Just like math and science (or arts or music) doesn't come naturally to everyone, the same is being connected with and in control of the muscles in your body. If you've spent the bulk of your adolescent and adult life in a chair (like I did), chances are your core muscles and stabilizers are weak and you won't be utilizing them correctly just by running more.

I've almost always been towards the lower end of the healthy BMI range for my height (to the extent BMI is even a meaningful metric), so that wasn't a consideration for me.

That said, absolutely: if you're at all overweight, you specifically need to account for that in your regimen, and train up to running with that load. If you don't, you won't be running for long — one way or another.

I was also never running for pace. I found a comfortable pace and incrementally increased my distance. YMMV.

> People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.

Zola Budd was pretty fast with no shoes. http://www.garycohenrunning.com/images/ZolaBarefoot.jpg

>People set world records without ever using a strange shoe.

People set world records without using shoes even. The Vibram is less strange and more a compromise between foot protection and flexibility. In other words: gloves aren't strange, mittens are.

I'll own having missed that as well, or at least overlooking it in my having read the "wrong" as being about the how, and not the why.

I think the gadgets and accessories can be helpful, but absolutely: they're not the point. They, and the speed-sport or health-chore nature he decries aren't relevant to why I run (ran), so I paid them less mind.

Thanks for the perspective!

>I only run in Vibrams, it's plainly much better

Let me know the next time you see Asbel Kiprop, Eliud Kipchoge or Evan Jager wearing a pair of those.

The Newton running shoes are made for forefoot running, and more or less force that running style. Worth a try.

It's really commercial products that have to demonstrate they're providing a benefit compared to what's been the norm for millions of years. And they've never done so to my knowledge.

That said, if you've been particularly sedentary or aren't used to walking barefoot, you should definitely be careful in the transition. Individual physical histories, mobility, etc. have to be taken into account when recommending advice.

I do think kids should be encouraged to run barefoot as often as possible, though. Activity in general will set them up to avoid many of the mistakes of their sedentary elders.

Here is the theory. Lean forward until you start to fall. Put one foot out to catch yourself. Note where your foot lands. This is where your foot needs to land to stop a fall. You will feel a significant jolt. You have successfully sucked up all the energy of your fall and stopped yourself. You put on the brakes. Now try this again, but place your foot short of where you did the first time. You shouldn't fall, but you will keep moving forward and will need to take another step to stop the fall. Now you have stopped yourself from falling over two steps which is less jolting. Now try again and place the second step short of where you would need to place it to stop, then the third, then fourth. Now you are running. If you want to go faster, shorten your stride and focus on turning your feet over as quickly as you can. If you want to slow down or stop, lengthen your stride and absorb your forward energy. You could overcome the braking action of a long stride by pushing off hard with your back foot but this is not as efficient and harder on the joints. That's the theory. The way to find out if it works for you is to experiment. For me, as soon as I understood this, running became a lot easier. If it works for you, be sure not to overdo it at first.

Yes, many more and shorter stride is the way to go. A good way to get into it naturally is joining a trailrunning group. (I'd recommend buying a pair of inov8 for the trails, but that's another topic.)

Edit: Anecdotally, I know a bunch of really great runners and they all have a strike where they land on the ball of the foot.

Not a kinesiologist, but I think running landing on the ball of the foot will be more energy efficient, recycling momentum more effectively than heel-first landing. Eventually, you'll get faster and better at running using the ball of foot landing, at least that's what happened anecdotally for me. At first it was a difficult transition, but long term more efficient and effective.

Yes, the stride will be shorter, but you get used to it. You can still produce a longer stride by "kicking" out as you lift off and trying to raise your knees up as high as possible

That makes the reference to evolutionary origins even more confusing, as I doubt our ancestors were ‘meditating’ while running prey to ground. If it is truly a survival thing, then running under stress inducing circumstances (hunger, competition, forced exercise etc) would be more in line with what Gorg the cave man was doing...

> Is it healthy to run long distances at a constant heartrate vs interval training?

It depends what you consider long distance. Marathons definitely are not healthy. 10ks probably are.

Intervals are great for actually increasing your VO2max without blowing out your cardiovascular system.

Funnily, when you run a raceday marathon, your heartrate (or at least mine) spends most of its time in the 160+ bmp cardio/anaerobic range. You won't be able to do that if your training doesn't involve at limit intervals that increase your cardio capacity.

From the abstract: However, this concept is still hypothetical and there is some inconsistency in the reported findings. Furthermore, lifelong vigorous exercisers generally have low mortality rates and excellent functional capacity.

I'll take low mortality and excellent functional capacity.

If it's hot (say, above 70 degree F), a well-trained man can out run a horse over a long distance. If it's cold, the horse will win. The horse's cooling is largely dependent its breathing which is constrained by its pace.

The man might still win even if the horse is allowed to pick the distance...

Seriously though, marathon runners since ancient times have worn flat, unpadded sandals/footwear. Slight protection from stones, otherwise allowing the body to run naturally.

I HATE wearing shoes, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to run barefoot in New York. I don't know what it is about barefoot running that is so stimulating -- maybe it's the simple exercise of avoiding constant danger? -- but wearing shoes certainly dampens the thrill.

I didn't see your comment for some reason.

Brooks Adrenaline GTS :)

Very much agree with the parent comment here.

My dad was in his mid 40's. Was doing multiple marathons and triathlons per year, including Iron Man. Two-a-day's training. Getting up at 4 or 5 AM, training, then training after work.

Same shoes the entire time. Asic Gel Lyte III. He even made sure to get the same color every time. He did try some Air Max 1, Air Max 180 when they first came out, but always complained about them not fitting right.

He seems alright still. He is 70.

Where's your evidence? I assume you have a multi-decade longitudinal study to back up your claim?

  > Chat with people. Say hello. Make eye contact.
  > Exercise the social skills that help you make
  > unplanned interactions mutually enjoyable.

But please, do not do it with me. I love walking and long walks (just this month I've done three ~40km walks). I fully agree with a few of your points (like keeping phone and earbuds away), but why does not concept of consent apply to chat? When I am walking it is kind of meditation for me and the last thing I want it for some random guy to start small talk. If one wants to improve social skills, why not to start by learning where small talk is appropriate and expected and where one should not do it?

"Unplanned interactions" is very annoying thing, and I guess that is true not only for me but for other introverts too.

This was a really beautiful comment and I've favorited it to come back to. I wish I could run through the woods barefoot! If only I didn't live in city. But being able to move one's own body freely, unselfconsciously, and ensconced in nature.... one of life's greatest pleasure.

Can't say I disagree with him on that

Sounds a tad extremist.

Indeed. See Simspons's paradox, sub-grouping, and so on. There are deep problems in: the lessons we can learn from a population, vs how a specific individual will respond to a specific intervention; plus the filthy complexity of real life outside the lab.

Basically it boils down to this: we don't know where you as an individual lie on any of a huge number of bell-curves. Statistically, you're likely to be in the middle of all of them -- and yet it would be impossible to find an individual who actually is. So the more complex an intervention (and running is a very complex situation) the more trial and error you'll probably have to go through.

This is not a popular thing to say.

I think he meant to bootstrap balancing learning period. Not as an effort.

Barefoot running is a lame fad for people who think there's secret value in the obscurity of old things. Modern societies have been running with various foot coverings (usually sandals) for thousands of years. So there's nothing wrong with running with shoes.

If barefoot running is all about moving differently, you don't need to be barefoot to do that.

Do Thai boxing conditioning for a few months. Learn to jump in all directions for two minutes with 60lbs on your back, and jump rope for 10 minutes straight, and crawl on all fours in various directions and positions. You will definitely be able to move differently, more efficiently, without injury.

Does this have anything to do with running? No! Running is running. Moving differently is moving differently. If barefoot running pretends that the latter is what the former is all about, it's wrong.

If you want to run, and you can run, and you do run, just keep doing what you're doing. Anything more and it turns from exercise (or a way to get somewhere) into a hobby.

They do, to some small extent. I'm not claiming that indoor gyms should not exist at all or that on should never ever drive to one, nor that there is never a case for a skyway or parking at a transit station (though parking should never ever be gratis). Only that the costs exist and should be considered.

I have seen these in some Indian cities as well, and it's definitely appreciated. However, much of the US has a winter weather problem, perhaps partly only in perception. No one where I live seems to be excited by outdoor infrastructure because of the lack of use during winter months.

Yes, but it is all just speculation. And when you compare it to how poorly our bodies handles running now I would say it is a weak argument.

Also the "we can run the prey tired" argument clashes with the observations of hunter gatherers where large animals plays a very small role in day to day diet.

Also there is a very large opportunity cost for running after large pray.

Imagine 5-10 hunters running after a big pray, and not catching it. Now they have been running a half marathon. They might be far from water. They have expended a lot of energy and will be hungry and tired and will have to walk home to camp. With nothing to eat.

I think there is a good reason that hunting aminal usually just sprints for short durations. The other approach is simply too risky.

Nope. Walking it is.

But nature is hardly better for running than pavement. Stones, grass, roots, mud etc. There are a lot more ways to get injuries in nature than on a gravel path.

Not convinced. I highly doubt there is any evidence of our ancestors running barefoot for long distances over rocky areas. From what I know the primary reason our running abilities evolved was to allow chasing grazing animals over long distances on grasslands. Be interested to see any evidence otherwise though!